Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
I'm sorry
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 18 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 11:24
Well "we" can do no more than speculate, unkindly, that they did it that way because they knew they'd accrue vast personal profits by so doing.

But what we don't need to speculate about is that they now know it's wrong but still intend to keep the loot. We have clear evidence of that: they are paying back bits that the system allowed them to claim but which they now accept they shouldn't have in moral terms. If they accept that principle in the minor matters why has not one of them, from the leaders down, pointed out it also applies to the major one? We still have a parliament stuffed with crooks who have taken what is not their entitlement.

Oh to be a member of the Question Time audience and have a Belgrano moment...
geoffrey_prime
geoffrey_prime
758 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 11:46
No problem, you are entitled to your views as an "outsider". Thankfully, the majority of folks in this country support the monarchy..70% + depending on which poll you take....so you do have a minority view.
geoffrey_prime
geoffrey_prime
758 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 11:48
haha..you are so easy to wind up. No, I live in a mansion, with a butler and a Roller on the drive, you loser!
sanshee
sanshee
1080 posts

Edited May 19, 2009, 13:33
Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 13:31
geoffrey_prime wrote:

No problem, you are entitled to your views as an "outsider". Thankfully, the majority of folks in this country support the monarchy..70% + depending on which poll you take....so you do have a minority view.


I read the results of this poll once where over 92% of participating voters opted to have the whole feckin lot consigned to history, so yes, all depends on which poll you take. Hardly makes Dave's comments a 'minority view' though, does it?
Oh and BTW, I do find your posts amusing and all that but to refer to another HH member who decides to comment on ANY topic as an 'outsider' is bordering on the 'unfriendly'.
Haven't heard any of that charged when any non-Americans decide to comment on Obama, or even 'other parts of the world' etc.
Peace.
x
handofdave
handofdave
3515 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 14:00
Thanks, Shanshee, I didn't take offense to that term in the context of how he used it. It is true that the monarchy really doesn't have much effect one way or the other outside the UK, while conversely our politics do have global consequences.
sanshee
sanshee
1080 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 14:05
Yeah well it's all about pervasive societal attitudes as far as I'm can see.
The Pope and The Queen are supposed to be 'opposites' in the minds of some but look at the living quarters and the trappings and protocols and all that.
Same with yer politicians, wherever whatever. Hierarchy is hierarchy, whichever way it's presented to 'us'.
Something like that.
x
geoffrey_prime
geoffrey_prime
758 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 15:39
Ok, I take back the "outsider" comment...wasn't meant to be unfriendly! Just a geographic point..
geoffrey_prime
geoffrey_prime
758 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 15:42
I would also say look at the lack of privacy, commitment required etc... I am not sure I would like to be part of the Royal Family, even with all the trappings...
handofdave
handofdave
3515 posts

Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 15:53
geoffrey_prime wrote:
I would also say look at the lack of privacy, commitment required etc... I am not sure I would like to be part of the Royal Family, even with all the trappings...


I know I wouldn't.
Still, I don't see that any sympathy based on these points changes anything.
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Edited May 19, 2009, 16:12
Re: I'm sorry
May 19, 2009, 16:09
geoffrey_prime wrote:
getting really tired of the one-dimensional, idealistic, fantasy political posting on this board. It's a great excercise in time-wasting, with no chance of changing anything political in real terms.


Whereas choosing which colour of suicidal consumer-capitalism is really the responsible way forward. This board is here for idealistic thinking. Coming on and decrying that is rather like coming on to a Catholic board and disliking the way people there tend to appreciate the pope and worship Jesus.

There's a lot of talk here that's politically radically different from what currently rules the world. We have no idea how likely it is to change anything. All the present orthodoxies were once outsider visions (as were a far greater number of ideas that never gained ground and we've never heard of).

Votes for women was dismissed by Cabinet ministers like Churchill in the most casual way, calling it 'silly', but within a generation it was fact. There were six people in the Nazi party when Hitler joined.

It's one of the strange facts of political life that we can never tell how likely fringe ideas are to come to the mainstream.

What is clear is that the consumer-capitalist model is built on a wildly unsustainable basis. When even the supplies of renewable resources start crashing, it's time to think in terms of an imminent crisis.

Anyone who wants to keep charging towards the abyss because, well, we haven't crashed yet have we, is not someone to endorse. So yes, we need radical thought.

And we need to sift through those ideas and sound them out with intelligent people. Ones who can explain why they think something is right or wrong. Those like yourself who merely write 'laughable' as their entire response to a point contribute nothing, except to make themselves look foolish.

geoffrey_prime wrote:
Is it unreasonable to be frustrated when for example...
# after a number of political comments being exchanged, the "opposing" poster declares that he/she is not a democrat...and probably wont vote in future elections!
# a poster puts forward a couple of Militant Tendency MP's, from almost 30 years ago, as examples of honorable politicians. Clearly this is a view...but honestly, cant we work in the present day?


I think it is unreasonable, yes. I don't see how those things really detract from the worth of what those commenters said.

But if, like you, I did find it unreasonable I would say why. For example, I would cite some present day honourable politicians and ask if the other person agrees with me, and if not why not.

What is surely unreasonable by any objective standard is to blow a raspberry and not explain why.

Try not to take it so much as a personal attack or a gladiator contest. Imagine that there are reasonable people reading what's posted, and what you write in response. There will always be cheast-beating tossers who won't listen, but we discuss things in public forums not to change those people's minds but to change the minds of the reasonable third party reading it.

We're here to unpick our ideas and to disabuse each other of the opinions we hold that don't stand up so we can all move forward. If there are flaws, explain them, if there are contradictions, flag them up.

Talking of which, i wonder how you square your despair at someone not being a democrat - thus implying you are one - with

geoffrey_prime wrote:
I am a Royalist.


The royals have their right to drain the public purse and their position of power, wealth and influence by virtue of their being vaguely descended from thieves and murderers. The hereditary peers - so stoutly defended by the Tories that you support - are the same. This is as undemocratic as it comes.

I also wonder how you square your belief in the integrity of David Cameron (who refuses to refund the public money that's given him a second home) with your belief that MPs should refund the profits made on second homes we've bought them.
Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 18 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index