It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
arseofacrow wrote:
A stake in society
One person says tomato....
Created dependants on the welfare state? Well, Thatcher never did th...oh
You have your angle Frank, I see that, and your arguments come that that angle. As you wrote earlier, it's a question of viewpoint and I'm not so keen to argue about a system that I see as rotten to the core, and that infuriates me so much.
That's why I said at the outset that when it comes to Politics it's best to agree to disagree. Even the tone of your post above is condescending and arrogant as you believe that you're right and I'm wrong.
What's the point of even debating these points? Politics is not about ideology. Politics is about power. Simple as that.
Which post is condascending and arrogant? These things are the further things from my mind, and who I am.
I do not believe that I have the complete truth...no-one does. I simply responded to a statement of your's Frank, and how I see the situation.
If you really see the posts that way then sorry. But I then generally think you need to reassess how you evaluate what people are saying, as you have completely misconstrued something.
That bit ^
Is that it? Really?
I refer you to my last paragraph above then. It's a form of disagreement, as you wll know Frank.
If you find that condascending and arrogant Frank - then you yourself are off the charts in this respect.
frankbutcher wrote:
That's why I said at the outset that when it comes to Politics it's best to agree to disagree. Even the tone of your post above is condescending and arrogant as you believe that you're right and I'm wrong.
What's the point of even debating these points? Politics is not about ideology. Politics is about power. Simple as that.
Which post is condascending and arrogant? These things are the further things from my mind, and who I am.
I do not believe that I have the complete truth...no-one does. I simply responded to a statement of your's Frank, and how I see the situation.
If you really see the posts that way then sorry. But I then generally think you need to reassess how you evaluate what people are saying, as you have completely misconstrued something.
That bit ^
Is that it? Really?
I refer you to my last paragraph above then. It's a form of disagreement, as you wll know Frank.
If you find that condascending and arrogant Frank - then you yourself are off the charts in this respect.
You're a clown.
I'll let the voters be the judge of who's the clown Frank
arseofacrow wrote:
Which post is condascending and arrogant? These things are the further things from my mind, and who I am.
I do not believe that I have the complete truth...no-one does. I simply responded to a statement of your's Frank, and how I see the situation.
If you really see the posts that way then sorry. But I then generally think you need to reassess how you evaluate what people are saying, as you have completely misconstrued something.
That bit ^
Is that it? Really?
I refer you to my last paragraph above then. It's a form of disagreement, as you wll know Frank.
If you find that condascending and arrogant Frank - then you yourself are off the charts in this respect.
You're a clown.
I'll let the voters be the judge of who's the clown Frank
You are though. You're being disingenuous. You write a load of sarcastic clap-trap then argue that you're not being condescending. Get real!
frankbutcher wrote:
Which post is condascending and arrogant? These things are the further things from my mind, and who I am.
I do not believe that I have the complete truth...no-one does. I simply responded to a statement of your's Frank, and how I see the situation.
If you really see the posts that way then sorry. But I then generally think you need to reassess how you evaluate what people are saying, as you have completely misconstrued something.
That bit ^
Is that it? Really?
I refer you to my last paragraph above then. It's a form of disagreement, as you wll know Frank.
If you find that condascending and arrogant Frank - then you yourself are off the charts in this respect.
You're a clown.
I'll let the voters be the judge of who's the clown Frank
You are though. You're being disingenuous. You write a load of sarcastic clap-trap then argue that you're not being condescending. Get real![/quote]
And I thought Wenger was deluded. You're taking it to a new, as yet undiscovered level
arseofacrow wrote:
Which post is condascending and arrogant? These things are the further things from my mind, and who I am.
I do not believe that I have the complete truth...no-one does. I simply responded to a statement of your's Frank, and how I see the situation.
If you really see the posts that way then sorry. But I then generally think you need to reassess how you evaluate what people are saying, as you have completely misconstrued something.
That bit ^
Is that it? Really?
I refer you to my last paragraph above then. It's a form of disagreement, as you wll know Frank.
If you find that condascending and arrogant Frank - then you yourself are off the charts in this respect.
You're a clown.
I'll let the voters be the judge of who's the clown Frank
You are though. You're being disingenuous. You write a load of sarcastic clap-trap then argue that you're not being condescending. Get real![/quote]
And I thought Wenger was deluded. You're taking it to a new, as yet undiscovered level
frankbutcher wrote: So in a way, you are paying for them to keep going....They are bad businesses, run by bad business people.
Who's this? The small businesses or the banks?
The Bank I work for was never bailed out. Nice try. Outgunned again!
Except of course, most credible economic opinion recognises that if those who were bailed out were left to fail the whole industry would have collapsed.
frankbutcher wrote: So in a way, you are paying for them to keep going....They are bad businesses, run by bad business people.
Who's this? The small businesses or the banks?
The Bank I work for was never bailed out. Nice try. Outgunned again!
Except of course, most credible economic opinion recognises that if those who were bailed out were left to fail the whole industry would have collapsed.
Looks like your 'butchered' again Frank
And what's that got to do with my Bank or me. If Greece fails, the Euro fails. Does that mean Germany and France are to blame?
Butchered? Your argument is like a sausage... full of shit.
I wouldn't vote Labour if my life depended on it, bunch of *word censored* who have fucked the country over many times, and the Unions are even bigger *word censored* . I don't particularly think any of them are great but Imhave always voted Tory and can't see that changing.
Most economic thinking doesn't believe there was enough of these mortgages sold to have been attributable to this current crisis.
You dont think the american mortgage market had any role in the 2008 crash? I must not have been paying attention to "most" economic thinking then.
And nothing to do with spending money on unwinnable wars which just so coincidently started in 2001.
Nothing to do with overdue investment in public infrastructure.
As for hell breaking loose, our public debts were quite low for a first world country - the hell broke loose in 2008.
You're in for a nice surprise when the PFI bubble bursts
Though no Keynesian economics were put into action by the UK government during the 30s and when we reverted to it in 1945 we had a level of debt far more than what we have now
Without writing an essay (as i have to leave for work in a minute) all i will say is that the global economy was very different. The economic recovery in the UK was down far more to our ability to hitch ourselves to America which in 1945/46 enjoyed 50% of global output. Fuck all to do with keynes really, although im not denying it was a necessary step to restore the basic infrastructures of civilisation and stability after the war.
