Messages

They have been doing this since the council of Nicaea in 325. To a greater or lesser extent.

It really annoys the fundies when you argue that their "word of god" is a party political broadcast. Take those Jehovah's Witness nutters, the original text was along the lines of not CONSUMING blood.

Need to find the citation, but I remember reading that there was an uproar over the King James text when it first came out, the papists clicked that the text had been changed to a subtle support for king over church.

It's the inherent flaw of democracy. Doesn't matter if you vote right or left, the government only works on a 5 year time frame.

No point putting in place long-term reform or programs if you cold be voted out in 5 years. They just focus on lining their own pockets until the people figure it out and vote in the other side in the mistaken belief the will be somehow different.

That may be the cheaper option in the long run.

However, there probably isn't any money for that.  Too busy buying votes from the DUP, there's nothing left in the pot.

That is going to backfire badly in the long run.

I think we may as well scrap the tests at this point and replace all the cladding cross country.

Ok, that makes more sense. But how do we do that? There seem to be a lot of people off-message from that.

Been thinking about this myself, will put ideas to page afterwork. The short answer is education.

You have guys like Robert Spencer, who have studied islam and are able to put coherent and hard to argue views about how islam is evil and the greatest threat to us ever. Yet there are few counter-arguments supporting the vast majority of muslims living peaceful lives.

The argument that every muslim is a terrorist waiting to happen, best get rid of them now is getting more and more support. Needs to be stopped before the logical conclusion

Allot, sorry, a lot of food for thouggt here. Set down and did some homework on American politics, can understand some of the vitriol.

Like I said a few pages ago, the contrived outrage at "able-bodied" people being "dependent" on government handouts is poppycock. Nobody actually wants to live that way, especially when more than half of society spits and curses at them and calls them useless bums. But just saying "oh, those people ought to be working" when there is no labor they could be doing that would make a bit of difference as far as "society" as concerned, is empty pseudo-moralistic bloviating. If they don't have the skills necessary to be "productive" in a meaningful way, then pushing them into busywork just to make them "earn" their existence is stupid.

I don't know how the welfare state works in the UK, but in America, there are reasons why generations of people fall into state-assisted subsistence. We (generally) find ways to keep them from starving to death, but we are so psychotic about it that as soon as people on welfare make a move toward self-sustainability, we pull the welfare rug out from under them and ruin their chances.

For example, if a single mother who receives SSI and food stamps gets a part-time job in order to pay for school to learn a valuable skill and thereby earn her way off of welfare, the money she earns at that job immediately counts against her eligibility for SSI and food stamps, and she has to use it to survive rather than pay for an education. She's effectively forced by our welfare system to remain on welfare forever.

Any argument that makes a big deal over poor people "getting free money for nothing" is an exercise in abject ignorance of the way economies work. People who work for a pittance and barely survive are worse for an economy than people who receive supplemental income from the stat because their labor is entirely spent on survival. Their existence cancels out any contribution they make to GDP because they themselves are consuming every scrap of earnings coming from their labor. Welfare payments, on the other hand, allow such people to consume a more or less equal amount of excess GDP for survival but they can still direct their labor toward becoming a more valuable worker, or an entrepreneur, who can -- eventually -- generate more value in the market than they have consumed through welfare.

I'm seeing many examples of some fundamental differences in the US and UK. Some things are similar.

One of the women I work with is on part time. She WANTS to work, wants to set an example for her son but if she works more than 12 hours a week she loses her housing benefit but the extra hours she works do not meet the housing benefit she loses. Effectively she is trapped working part time.

I'm not oblivious, the welfare system needs substantial reform so that the right people get the right help.

Sorry, this is off topic, but it's driving me nuts. You mean "a lot", not "allot".

Carry on.

Could be worse, I'm a manc by birth and the missus is from London. She literaly slaps me for the way I pronounce words like bath and book. Drives her up the wall.

Might you be mistaking "an individual working" with "GDP productivity"? 

Or possibly mistaking "a dearth of available, well-paying jobs" with the tenets of basic capitalistic theory?

No, I'm not one of those narrow minded idiots you see reading the mail who think the unemployed get handed a 10 room mansion.

I was unemployed, spent a year on the dole trying to find work, taught me allot about myself. I could of found work allot sooner but held on for a job that matched my skills and preferences.

Spent a long time thinking about that. Was i selfish for not taking the first job I could get? Did i contribute to the problem or did I make the right choice holding out for a job that matched my skillset and thus securing long term employment?

I've seen both sides of the welfare state in action and have some personal bias. My partner's ex hasn't worked for three years because he prefers NOT to work, hasn't paid a penny to support his daughter and has openly admitted that one of the reasons he doesn't work is because he doesn't want the CSA to take his money.

My mother is on disability and got screwed over by the changes to that benefit, took a long time to appeal and get her the help she needs. I have a lingering anger for mr Hunt due to that.

The system needs to work both ways, an obligation to provide work. Which is why I favour a national service model.

I'm going to paint a target on myself here, helping people is a very grey statement.

There is helping people only to harm them. I'm not talking about the trite "better to give them a net than a fish".

I'll take my opposition to the welfare state, the left would say "you don't want to help people you evil capitalist pig!". I'd say, is it really helping someone by making them dependent on the state?

The state's job is to protect its people. That includes protecting them from poverty.

Are you really concerned with these people being dependent on the state, or do you simply consider them parasites?

Say what you will about Ayn Rand, but at least she was honest about how she viewed people she despised.

I AM concerned about them being dependent on the state.

It's not about the usual left-right crap "they are parasites spending my hard earned tax money."

The more people who work and put into the economy means the more money available to the state to INVEST into the nation and support the people. Loom at the NHS, it works best when the most people able to work do so and pay national insurance out of their wages into the NHS.

It's not rocket science, more able-bodied people being supported by the state means less money for the state to support the people who REALLY need that support.

Nope.

Check again.  The ideas behind left and right are attitudes and assumptions about how society and people should be treated.

The politicians may aim towards the goals of left and right, but are imperfect.

Also, the strategies suggested by the left and right may or may not achieve the goals.

The attitudes and assumptions that define the left and right, however, usually do not.

I think we have perhaps reached a fundamental difference of opinion.

Now, please correct me if I get the wrong impression, you appear to have a view that "left" and "right" are good-bad concepts.
You assign the left as a "good" thing and the "right" as a bad thing, therefore it can be concluded you believe the left should succeed over the right.

That is what I am understanding from your posts.

I'm not as familiar with UK politics, but when one side is actively trying to deny basic human rights to large chunks of the population its a little difficult to conceptualize one side not being "bad". Do you disagree that helping people is a good concept?

Ok, let's clarify this. What do you mean by denying basic human rights? Are you refering to the DUP? Or something else?

Health Care. LGBTQ rights. Right to a woman being able to get an abortion in places other than dark alleys. I could go on, but that's a good start.

Ok, the conservative government (right wing) legalised gay marriage in the UK in 2014 and the rights of married gay couples. For instance a gay couple in the armed forces have the same rights and have access to married quarters.
The UK is regarded as the most supportive European country of LGBT rights.

Women's abortion rights are protected in the UK up to 24 weeks and after 24 weeks in several circumstances.

Now, compare this with just 70 years ago when gay men where chemicly castrated.

Now allot of people are making hay about the Tories aligning with the DUP without understanding context.

Northern Ireland is an EXTREMELY religous society chained by judeo-christian ideology. There is no left-right politics there, it's catholic-protestant, republican-loyalist. It is extreme and polarised to an extent unseen in other parts of the UK.
It's taken the daft buggers years to stop shooting at each other (openly)

The Tories did a deal with the DUP to get the ten votes they need, however there was no deal to implement Northern Irish policies (other than not allowing Northern Irish women to have abortions in the rest of the UK on the NHS). To do so would end the Tory government as the back benchers would rebel and sink the whole deal.

I'm going to paint a target on myself here, helping people is a very grey statement.

There is helping people only to harm them. I'm not talking about the trite "better to give them a net than a fish".

I'll take my opposition to the welfare state, the left would say "you don't want to help people you evil capitalist pig!". I'd say, is it really helping someone by making them dependent on the state?

Nope.

Check again.  The ideas behind left and right are attitudes and assumptions about how society and people should be treated.

The politicians may aim towards the goals of left and right, but are imperfect.

Also, the strategies suggested by the left and right may or may not achieve the goals.

The attitudes and assumptions that define the left and right, however, usually do not.

I think we have perhaps reached a fundamental difference of opinion.

Now, please correct me if I get the wrong impression, you appear to have a view that "left" and "right" are good-bad concepts.
You assign the left as a "good" thing and the "right" as a bad thing, therefore it can be concluded you believe the left should succeed over the right.

That is what I am understanding from your posts.

I'm not as familiar with UK politics, but when one side is actively trying to deny basic human rights to large chunks of the population its a little difficult to conceptualize one side not being "bad". Do you disagree that helping people is a good concept?

Ok, let's clarify this. What do you mean by denying basic human rights? Are you refering to the DUP? Or something else?

Nope.

Check again.  The ideas behind left and right are attitudes and assumptions about how society and people should be treated.

The politicians may aim towards the goals of left and right, but are imperfect.

Also, the strategies suggested by the left and right may or may not achieve the goals.

The attitudes and assumptions that define the left and right, however, usually do not.

I think we have perhaps reached a fundamental difference of opinion.

Now, please correct me if I get the wrong impression, you appear to have a view that "left" and "right" are good-bad concepts.
You assign the left as a "good" thing and the "right" as a bad thing, therefore it can be concluded you believe the left should succeed over the right.

That is what I am understanding from your posts.

Anyway, anyone fancy going halves on starting a cladding removal company?

Cladding removal and installation.

It will be interesting to see who gets the contract for all the replacement cladding.

EDIT: Police saying there's unlikely to be an official death toll by the end of the year.

I doubt there will ever be an accurate death toll