|
Post by localloser on Dec 20, 2014 21:39:03 GMT
Bit of a self-publicist, no?
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Dec 20, 2014 22:20:21 GMT
Incredible isn't it. The bankers get 81 billion in bonuses yet it still boils down to a "it's all Labours fault" argument. Very convenient smokescreen that. And then there's the...."Oh hang on we should be grateful yeah..........if these bonuses weren't awarded then the tax on these bonuses wouldn't have been paid...........the logic. I'm only dipping my toes back into this discussion to make a very narrow point. Without going into details, I have more reason to hate bankers more than the vast majority of people on here, as my business was taken down by them without genuine cause, and unless I can successfully sue them in the future, my retirement has been completely fucked by them. So having said that, I don't blame the bankers, because bankers are bankers and always will be, that's why we need regulations to keep them in check. Labour let them loose, and we are all paying for it, me far more than most. What Labour did was akin to putting rapists in open prisons. To finish the analogy, if the government put dangerous criminals in open prisons and they escaped and caused mayhem, I would be blaming the government first, because it's their job to stop criminals (and bankers) from doing us all harm.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 21, 2014 0:10:41 GMT
You seem a very angry and humourless man, you also seem to have incredible trouble reading or comprehending what has actually written. Feel free to point out where i've said it's all Labour's fault, i've pointed out where I believe they mishandled the bailout, i've pointed out they were responsible for regulating the banks (FACT), I pointed out when they bailed the banks out they failed to attach any terms or conditions to prevent the payment of bonuses (FACT), I also pointed out if they had done it would have made little difference as bankers would have taken the money via salaries anyway. Your response stamp your feet and cry about people criticising Labour add in some ridiculous miscomprehension and throw in a few insults. Where have I said we should be grateful that bonuses were awarded, i've said it's ironic paying bonuses currently generates more tax than not paying them. Seeing as how Russel is complaining about austerity it's a bit odd he'd want to do something that would lesson tax receipts and hence increase austerity. In case you missed it, the Labour party through Gordon's dividend tax raid fucked millions of people's pensions, ultimately resulting in the scrapping of final pension schemes for many many people. You also seem to have missed the country being skint, everyone is having to work longer and pay more. No one is particular happy about it, but in general people are living longer, one of many points you seem unable to understand is that pensions are unaffordable in the current format and have been for a very long time. Brand has tried to claim his mates pension is being affected due to the banks and austerity that's rubbish. I guess in another post where I put a grossly simplified cause of the financial crisis, was banks lending money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to pay it back to buy things from companies that in many cases weren't very well run was in your mind some sort of praise.... If we're going to guess what someone does or did, i'll put you down for a retired nuclear scientist or brain surgeon, just my guess based on reading a few of your posts and your well reasoned arguments, oh yeah no offence like. PS it's best not to suggest someone is a complete fucking idiot if you're going to get their username wrong, makes you look a tad silly old bean. No, i see it clearly thanks. "You seem"......... all assumption, all wrong. You divert attention away from the bankers by blaming the previous administrations inability to reign them in through regulation......... still the bankers doing it though wasn't it (FACT). P.s. As per, you conveniently fail to condemn the bankers bonuses but yet again but use the opportunity to stress how the country is skint, like "i seemed" to have missed. All in it together are we mate? Sorry for getting you name wrong, but thanks for pulling me up on it.......like it makes your argument somehow more worthy, Old Bean, or should i say FollowyouCLOWN. Humorous enough for you? (see what i did there). All assumption, no mate there's a thread from sometime in the last week or couple of weeks where MCF makes some throwaway comment and you get stroppy, that's without mentioning all the various insults that feature in your elequent and informative replies (moron, fucking stupid etc etc). Who said anything about making my argument more valid, you just make yourself look a bit of a tool if you're going to call someone a complete fucking idiot and then get the username wrong. Sticks and stones and all that but at least try and be humorous if you feel the need to try and insult people. No need to call them the previous administration (although given 5 more years that's probably what they'd have taken the country into!), call them what they were the Labour government. Whose diverting attention away from the bankers, I've just pointed out plenty of people were asleep at the wheel, how silly of me to want to criticise the people my taxes helped to pay for that were meant to insure things like this didn't happen. Shall I let you into a secret some people who work in banking only do it for the obscene amounts of money they are paid, my condemnation or not isn't really going to worry them but i'm glad you're on the ball and are able to take me to task for this whilst completely fucking ignoring the fact that when the banking industry went begging to the Labour government, they just gave them the national debit card and told them the pin number but forgot to say don't take the piss and pay yourself massive bonuses. Anytime you want feel free to join in the argument with some proper grown up points.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 21, 2014 0:29:11 GMT
We actually agree on quite a few things, without the bank bailout it's very likely they would have been no cuts as just like pension reforms and other long term reforms it would have been left to the next lot to sort out but eventually we would have reached the same point. Your point is the £123 billion bank bailout caused the tipping point, my point is even during the last few economic boom years the graph I saw had deficits of approx £50 billion in total over a number of years, back ended PFI's and an increasing structural deficit meant we'd have got to the same point without the bailout some time fairly soon. Again I've never said we should be grateful for the tax on bankers bonuses, I've said currently it will produce more tax than not paying it, i've not claimed it covers any losses from the crisis. The crisis has happened but unless you're going to propose stronger regulation or some sort of full nationalisation it's time to move on and concentrate on getting as much of our money back as quickly as possible otherwise we're just shooting ourselves in the foot. Yes it's unfair that bankers have taken bonuses but life is unfair and it's also wrong and a grossly simplified populist soundbite to suggest the bonuses would cover the austerity costs for a number of reasons including the fact tax has been paid on the bonuses otherwise the £80 billion austerity cuts would be higher, again this is no way saying we should be grateful but a simple fact. We also don't own 100% of the banks so it is not all our money being paid out, it really does show a childlike grasp of economics \ business for Brand to suggest this. I think you're taking what Russell Brand has been saying a bit too literally. I'll try and make my point in the simplest way I can. On one hand we've got the bankers, they've been on a gravy train, they're getting rewarded well for the work they're doing but because they've been doing it wrong we end up in the financial crisis of 2008 and the banks get bailed out by the government. Despite this the gravy train doesn't stop, the bankers don't feel the effects of the damage they've caused and they continue to be rewarded handsomely with £81billion paid in bonuses. The banking industry doesn't seem like its had to face any consequences for its actions, not with bonuses like that being handed out. On the other hand we've got the rest of society and in particular the public sector for which drastic cuts are being made all over the place, people are losing their jobs and services that are vital to our society such as firefighters, the NHS etc are facing the consequences. We've identified that some cuts needed to be made and that the governments should have done more about this, but really the main problem is that our society is suffering through economic austerity as a result of a financial crisis (the banking bail-outs of £123billion) that the public sector didn't cause. This is why myself and many others as well as Russell Brand are being so vociferous in our blaming of the banks. Anyone can see that what I've just described above isn't fair. To quote yourself; "Yes it's unfair that bankers have taken bonuses but life is unfair" If life is unfair you don't just shrug your shoulders and think oh well there's nothing we can do about it because its already happened. We have to try and address the unfairness and make things more equal and balanced and we have to start this by looking at those who are riding the gravy train. No consequences for people in the banking industry? I suggest you look at the number of people employed in banking pre 2008 and now. People work in banking for the obscene amounts of money they can get paid - how do you or Russel suggest making it a vocation then? Again you muddy the waters with the NHS this time, one of the few parts of the public sector to have it's budget protected - that's a budget that incidentally finds the money for tit and nose jobs but turns away kids dying of cancer, i'm pretty sure this isn't what Bevan intended. But it's austerity and banks that are the main cause of pressure on the NHS - so not the growing population living longer, the compensation culture or PFI but the banks come on..... What is yours or Russel's alternative to the banks then? How do you propose to make things more equal and balanced? From what I can see all Brand does is point out the unfairness and throw stones whilst offering no solution. But hey viva the revolution then everyone not just multi millionaires can have someone to straighten their chest hairs.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 21, 2014 2:46:14 GMT
I think you're taking what Russell Brand has been saying a bit too literally. I'll try and make my point in the simplest way I can. On one hand we've got the bankers, they've been on a gravy train, they're getting rewarded well for the work they're doing but because they've been doing it wrong we end up in the financial crisis of 2008 and the banks get bailed out by the government. Despite this the gravy train doesn't stop, the bankers don't feel the effects of the damage they've caused and they continue to be rewarded handsomely with £81billion paid in bonuses. The banking industry doesn't seem like its had to face any consequences for its actions, not with bonuses like that being handed out. On the other hand we've got the rest of society and in particular the public sector for which drastic cuts are being made all over the place, people are losing their jobs and services that are vital to our society such as firefighters, the NHS etc are facing the consequences. We've identified that some cuts needed to be made and that the governments should have done more about this, but really the main problem is that our society is suffering through economic austerity as a result of a financial crisis (the banking bail-outs of £123billion) that the public sector didn't cause. This is why myself and many others as well as Russell Brand are being so vociferous in our blaming of the banks. Anyone can see that what I've just described above isn't fair. To quote yourself; "Yes it's unfair that bankers have taken bonuses but life is unfair" If life is unfair you don't just shrug your shoulders and think oh well there's nothing we can do about it because its already happened. We have to try and address the unfairness and make things more equal and balanced and we have to start this by looking at those who are riding the gravy train. No consequences for people in the banking industry? I suggest you look at the number of people employed in banking pre 2008 and now. People work in banking for the obscene amounts of money they can get paid - how do you or Russel suggest making it a vocation then? Again you muddy the waters with the NHS this time, one of the few parts of the public sector to have it's budget protected - that's a budget that incidentally finds the money for tit and nose jobs but turns away kids dying of cancer, i'm pretty sure this isn't what Bevan intended. But it's austerity and banks that are the main cause of pressure on the NHS - so not the growing population living longer, the compensation culture or PFI but the banks come on..... What is yours or Russel's alternative to the banks then? How do you propose to make things more equal and balanced? From what I can see all Brand does is point out the unfairness and throw stones whilst offering no solution. But hey viva the revolution then everyone not just multi millionaires can have someone to straighten their chest hairs. Again you're misunderstanding the point I'm making. I'm not saying there aren't other influences that have been contributing to our economic austerity. But the banks are one of the major contributors to our austerity and they seem to be gaining from it and the rest of our society is suffering. I don't see £81billion in bonuses being handed out to the public sector, instead I see £80billion worth of cuts. If you're looking at things from a reasonable point of view then surely the people that keep us alive and healthy are worth more in our society than those who seek to gain purely in a financial manner as the bankers do. They aren't doing things for the benefit of our society they are doing it for the benefit of themselves. Regarding the NHS they have faced cuts, they have got staff working on 0 hour contracts, the firefighters have also faced large cuts as has the rest of our public sector. My alternative is to make sure the banks are regulated properly. Brand can't solve such issues and he doesn't claim he can, but other people can certainly, if things are unfair then they undoubtedly have to change. Things can easily change all it will take is the younger generation to stop being so apathetic. Have you seen Michael Moore's documentary, Capitalism: A love story? That shows the influence lobbyists and bankers can have (admittedly on the U.S society) on our society. If there is unfairness in our society we can't ignore it, we have to do something about it, and the more people that are aware of the inequality the better the chance there is of change and that is why I'm happy to see Russell Brand campaigning for what he believes in.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Dec 21, 2014 4:46:12 GMT
Noone is absolving the banks of blame, but to think its only, or even primarily the banks fault is a fairly simplistic view. The banking industry contributed 250 billion a year there or thereabouts. It cost the taxpayer a one off 80 billion. Thats not really a very big chunk for a fiscally responsible government. However, when the government has cosied up to them for so many years, forgiven their misdoings and, very important this one, neglected to develop any other parts of the economy, its a problem. The country had put all its eggs in one basket and was in a downward spiral. Brown had frittered away every penny they had contributed, encouraged them to do whatever they could to grow the economy (because Brown had screwed up everything else that might generate money and saddled the country with huge liabilities) and then when it all went pop, conveniently convinced everyone who didnt know any better that it was all the banks doing. When i think about it, maybe he wasnt so stupid after all. How do the banks contribute £250 million a year. ? Direct - tax is somewhere just short of 100. It dropped significantly after 2008 but has been climbing back up. Indirect - the people employed in the industry, companies that exist off the back of it, etc provide the rest. The ONS publishes a national accounts booklet that documents it all. Financial services is the biggest contributor to the UK economy, and it was made that way at the expense of other industry. Brown saw he was on to a good thing with it and let them do what they wanted, so long as the treasury benefited. I can only assume he was hoping it would blow up after he had left office. The other real issue with understanding the causes/solutions is the stupid amongst us who refer to 'the bankers' as some faceless single entity. Without the banking industry the UK is done, and the bad actions of a few should not be used to tarnish an entire industry, especially when the country relies so heavily on it.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 21, 2014 9:52:51 GMT
No consequences for people in the banking industry? I suggest you look at the number of people employed in banking pre 2008 and now. People work in banking for the obscene amounts of money they can get paid - how do you or Russel suggest making it a vocation then? Again you muddy the waters with the NHS this time, one of the few parts of the public sector to have it's budget protected - that's a budget that incidentally finds the money for tit and nose jobs but turns away kids dying of cancer, i'm pretty sure this isn't what Bevan intended. But it's austerity and banks that are the main cause of pressure on the NHS - so not the growing population living longer, the compensation culture or PFI but the banks come on..... What is yours or Russel's alternative to the banks then? How do you propose to make things more equal and balanced? From what I can see all Brand does is point out the unfairness and throw stones whilst offering no solution. But hey viva the revolution then everyone not just multi millionaires can have someone to straighten their chest hairs. Again you're misunderstanding the point I'm making. I'm not saying there aren't other influences that have been contributing to our economic austerity. But the banks are one of the major contributors to our austerity and they seem to be gaining from it and the rest of our society is suffering. I don't see £81billion in bonuses being handed out to the public sector, instead I see £80billion worth of cuts. If you're looking at things from a reasonable point of view then surely the people that keep us alive and healthy are worth more in our society than those who seek to gain purely in a financial manner as the bankers do. They aren't doing things for the benefit of our society they are doing it for the benefit of themselves. Regarding the NHS they have faced cuts, they have got staff working on 0 hour contracts, the firefighters have also faced large cuts as has the rest of our public sector. My alternative is to make sure the banks are regulated properly. Brand can't solve such issues and he doesn't claim he can, but other people can certainly, if things are unfair then they undoubtedly have to change. Things can easily change all it will take is the younger generation to stop being so apathetic. Have you seen Michael Moore's documentary, Capitalism: A love story? That shows the influence lobbyists and bankers can have (admittedly on the U.S society) on our society. If there is unfairness in our society we can't ignore it, we have to do something about it, and the more people that are aware of the inequality the better the chance there is of change and that is why I'm happy to see Russell Brand campaigning for what he believes in. I think we will just go round in circles forever, I understand you point fully but I come back to if the banks were behind austerity they were also behind prosperity so all the dodgy things they did funded public services. Yes in some sort of utopian world doctors and nurses would earn what footballers and bankers do and it would be them on the minimum wage but the reality is the basic economics of supply and demand impact wage levels. Cuts to firefighters are also due largely to the reduction in fires, callouts and deaths in fires - smoking being banned, less factories etc. As for the public sector not getting bonuses, depends how you define bonuses because as well as actual bonuses, automatic payrises and the pension promotions the civil service in particular were notorious for you get the greatest bonus of all pensions far in excess of what people actually contributed. So my point remains the same the financial crisis bought us to the tipping point we would have reached anyway due to successive governments inability to control public spending. I've read all Michael Moore's books, if you want the real influence on the UK read Beyond Contempt by Peter Jukes or Hack attack by Nick Davies. Ultimately as you've just said for all Brand's noise he offers no solutions and your own is for better regulation but that in itself won't stop the payment of bankers bonuses so as I said before it's easy to say things are unfair but much harder to offer an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 21, 2014 10:40:01 GMT
Given that most people on here seem to share my view that Russell is simply shallow and vain, I'm putting up this lady as the model of how to use celebrity status to do something really positive. Actions speak louder than words Russll. She has won my respect. Skip the acting and read the humanitarian work section. jolie
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 12:11:49 GMT
Overrated unfunny bellend.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 13:16:05 GMT
Your point is the £123 billion bank bailout caused the tipping point, my point is even during the last few economic boom years the graph I saw had deficits of approx £50 billion in total over a number of years, back ended PFI's and an increasing structural deficit meant we'd have got to the same point without the bailout some time fairly soon. Funny how you'll refer to graphs when it suits you But to get to the point above - No, we wouldn't. That's the great fallacy perpetuated by the right, that this was all somehow going to reach this point anyway. It's nonsense. We are where we are not because of the bankers' bailouts per se (which didn't help obviously) but because of the effect of the global financial crisis and recession caused by the failure of the financial industry, of which the bankers bailouts were a sadly necessary part to prevent complete financial meltdown. Both Labour and Tories had signed up to a reduction in spending before the financial crisis hit, which would have meant a much smaller reduction in spending than we've had over the last five years, and a reduction in the deficit (not that this was ever more than 3% of GDP and within European targets anyway) as a result. In 2007 spending for the next four years was planned to rise 2% year on year, something both parties were in agreement with and which would still have reduced the deficit. Unfortunately no-one foresaw what was on the horizon because they were all happily buying into the Alan Greenspan inspired neoliberal belief that after 13 or so years of prosperity the free market couldn't possibly fail and should be left well alone to find its own route to re-balanced stability. Think again, Alan! I'm only dipping my toes back into this discussion to make a very narrow point. Without going into details, I have more reason to hate bankers more than the vast majority of people on here, as my business was taken down by them without genuine cause, and unless I can successfully sue them in the future, my retirement has been completely fucked by them. So having said that, I don't blame the bankers, because bankers are bankers and always will be, that's why we need regulations to keep them in check. Labour let them loose, and we are all paying for it, me far more than most. What Labour did was akin to putting rapists in open prisons. To finish the analogy, if the government put dangerous criminals in open prisons and they escaped and caused mayhem, I would be blaming the government first, because it's their job to stop criminals (and bankers) from doing us all harm. You're right, Labour did fail on banking regulation. But let's not ignore those boys in blue sniggering at the back while we make a political point. Throughout much of Gordon Brown's chancellorship they were complaining that he was being way too draconian in terms of regulating the financial sector and wanted even less! Imagine where we might be now if they'd got their way! But both parties were in thrall to the neoliberal free market economics at the time, to a greater or lesser degree, with not much to choose between them. Who said anything about making my argument more valid, you just make yourself look a bit of a tool if you're going to call someone a complete fucking idiot and then get the username wrong. Sticks and stones and all that but at least try and be humorous if you feel the need to try and insult people. Anytime you want feel free to join in the argument with some proper grown up points. Fuck me, Followyoudown, you don't do irony, do you! If there's anyone on here who's got a full and lengthy history of being quick to resort to abuse and name-calling it's your good self! You could start a falling out in an empty room ???
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 21, 2014 17:27:44 GMT
To join in the general theme of followmeyouclown & britsabroad of chucking casual assumptions around as a means to promote a point.........Lets have a stab.
Lets imagine for instance somebody doing very well indeed from modern capitalism and the current banking system. And, as a result being rewarded by a very nice little tickle regarding their present and future prospects of being rather comfortable indeed. Very nice, no criticism.
Then imagine that same individual becoming so lacking in grace that they become a self-righteous prick when it comes to the plight of the less fortunate victims of such a system, throwing blame around like it's their ultimate right without a trace of sympathy or empathy, and at the same time ripping into anything that goes against the grain of their viewpoint.
This is what happens, you get some narrow minded thicko thinking they're the oracle because they have made a comfortable life for themselves. Anybody who hasn't done as well fucking well deserves it because they are simply not as good as you.
Adult day care centre's closed, youth clubs closed, disabled targeted. All because we are all in it together (except the bankers with their bonuses of course).
But of course, by the obvious logic...... we should appreciate that it was the bankers that created these services in the first place, if it wasn't for them then there would be nothing to take away.
Ungrateful Plebs, Thats, us.
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Dec 23, 2014 9:43:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 9:59:57 GMT
To join in the general theme of followmeyouclown & britsabroad of chucking casual assumptions around as a means to promote a point.........Lets have a stab. Lets imagine for instance somebody doing very well indeed from modern capitalism and the current banking system. And, as a result being rewarded by a very nice little tickle regarding their present and future prospects of being rather comfortable indeed. Very nice, no criticism. Then imagine that same individual becoming so lacking in grace that they become a self-righteous prick when it comes to the plight of the less fortunate victims of such a system, throwing blame around like it's their ultimate right without a trace of sympathy or empathy, and at the same time ripping into anything that goes against the grain of their viewpoint. This is what happens, you get some narrow minded thicko thinking they're the oracle because they have made a comfortable life for themselves. Anybody who hasn't done as well fucking well deserves it because they are simply not as good as you. Adult day care centre's closed, youth clubs closed, disabled targeted. All because we are all in it together (except the bankers with their bonuses of course). But of course, by the obvious logic...... we should appreciate that it was the bankers that created these services in the first place, if it wasn't for them then there would be nothing to take away. Ungrateful Plebs, Thats, us. Followyoudown's logic when trying to protect the financial sector from criticism appears to be that because they caused the recession which did most damage to the public finances, therefore they must have been paying for all the good things beforehand! Well, first, the financial sector was just one part of our economy, just like manufacturing and the service sector neither of which brought the country to its knees as a result of their irresponsible and greed driven activities, and second doing what you should be doing beforehand doesn't give you any leeway if you suddenly change tack and fuck everything up. It's like letting someone off or saying we should just move on because, after 20 years of apparently blameless behaviour, they've decided to slice their family up.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 23, 2014 15:32:30 GMT
I'm glad you've posted this Trousers its a good read.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 23, 2014 16:01:26 GMT
To join in the general theme of followmeyouclown & britsabroad of chucking casual assumptions around as a means to promote a point.........Lets have a stab. Lets imagine for instance somebody doing very well indeed from modern capitalism and the current banking system. And, as a result being rewarded by a very nice little tickle regarding their present and future prospects of being rather comfortable indeed. Very nice, no criticism. Then imagine that same individual becoming so lacking in grace that they become a self-righteous prick when it comes to the plight of the less fortunate victims of such a system, throwing blame around like it's their ultimate right without a trace of sympathy or empathy, and at the same time ripping into anything that goes against the grain of their viewpoint. This is what happens, you get some narrow minded thicko thinking they're the oracle because they have made a comfortable life for themselves. Anybody who hasn't done as well fucking well deserves it because they are simply not as good as you. Adult day care centre's closed, youth clubs closed, disabled targeted. All because we are all in it together (except the bankers with their bonuses of course). But of course, by the obvious logic...... we should appreciate that it was the bankers that created these services in the first place, if it wasn't for them then there would be nothing to take away. Ungrateful Plebs, Thats, us. Followyoudown's logic when trying to protect the financial sector from criticism appears to be that because they caused the recession which did most damage to the public finances, therefore they must have been paying for all the good things beforehand! Well, first, the financial sector was just one part of our economy, just like manufacturing and the service sector neither of which brought the country to its knees as a result of their irresponsible and greed driven activities, and second doing what you should be doing beforehand doesn't give you any leeway if you suddenly change tack and fuck everything up. It's like letting someone off or saying we should just move on because, after 20 years of apparently blameless behaviour, they've decided to slice their family up. Yeah I think you're right sifuluke, it's not just the financial crisis either when you see things like the Libor scandal www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425 "Translation: When prices are set by companies that can profit by manipulating them, we're fucked.
"You name it," says Frenk. "Any of these benchmarks is a possibility for corruption."
The only reason this problem has not received the attention it deserves is because the scale of it is so enormous that ordinary people simply cannot see it. It's not just stealing by reaching a hand into your pocket and taking out money, but stealing in which banks can hit a few keystrokes and magically make whatever's in your pocket worth less. This is corruption at the molecular level of the economy, Space Age stealing – and it's only just coming into view". How can people defend the banks integrity when things like this are going on. You can't defend the indefensible, I really can't get my head around the the "oh but look at what they contribute" argument put forward by some on here and even more ironically its put forward by some of the same people that think Brand is a hypocrite. "Yet despite so many instances of at least attempted manipulation, the banks mostly skated. Barclays got off with a relatively minor fine in the $450 million range, UBS was stuck with $1.5 billion in penalties, and RBS was forced to give up $615 million. Apart from a few low-level flunkies overseas, no individual involved in this scam that impacted nearly everyone in the industrialized world was even threatened with criminal prosecution."It's really messed up that people get locked up because they've stolen food or else they'd go hungry but here we have banks committing fraud on a vast scale yet not one of them faces any criminal sanctions. Its an absolute joke.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 18:21:09 GMT
I wouldn't worry about it, edge, I haven't bothered to read the whole thread so I could be wrong, but I'd wager that, with a few possible exceptions, it has the usual rightwingers on here hating Brand mainly for no stronger reason than he's not rightwing basically and is attacking the establishment. They'll probably have been seeking to cast him as a rich Socialist hypocrite wherever possible (as if being a Socialist means you're not allowed to be rich!) but the root cause is he's obviously not right wing. So they're inclined to dislike him from the word go. There was an interesting survey of 15,000 people not so long ago which found that rightwingers tend to be less intelligent than leftwingers. Among the conclusions: " Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo" and "In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order" and " people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe". If you bear that in mind when reading much of the stuff on here, with a view to who gets criticised and who doesn't and who posted it, it makes a lot of sense. Even when applied to Farage, who is obviously right wing and probably appeals to their instincts quite significantly, they generally don't like him because he's threatening the Tory/right wing status quo. Of course, you could always just say Brand is a cunt and Farage is a racist and be done with any kind of analysis!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 18:27:29 GMT
Well, as I've said before I like farage and brand
So I'm a leftwing right winger
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 23, 2014 18:43:26 GMT
I wouldn't worry about it, edge, I haven't bothered to read the whole thread so I could be wrong, but I'd wager that, with a few possible exceptions, it has the usual rightwingers on here hating Brand mainly for no stronger reason than he's not rightwing basically and is attacking the establishment. They'll probably have been seeking to cast him as a rich Socialist hypocrite wherever possible (as if being a Socialist means you're not allowed to be rich!) but the root cause is he's obviously not right wing. So they're inclined to dislike him from the word go. There was an interesting survey of 15,000 people not so long ago which found that rightwingers tend to be less intelligent than leftwingers. Among the conclusions: " Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo" and "In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order" and " people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe". If you bear that in mind when reading much of the stuff on here, with a view to who gets criticised and who doesn't and who posted it, it makes a lot of sense. Even when applied to Farage, who is obviously right wing and probably appeals to their instincts quite significantly, they generally don't like him because he's threatening the Tory/right wing status quo. Of course, you could always just say Brand is a cunt and Farage is a racist and be done with any kind of analysis! Still trotting out your usual condescending patter about right wingers I see. They must be thick of course, after all they have a different view from you. If you had bothered to read the thread you'd know that most people who dislike Brand cited his manner, his shallow, vain personality, his hypocrisy, etc. Hardly anyone mentions his politics and most people had no issue with what he was actually saying.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 23, 2014 20:06:10 GMT
Well, as I've said before I like farage and brand So I'm a leftwing right winger No. Your just full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 23, 2014 20:15:54 GMT
I wouldn't worry about it, edge, I haven't bothered to read the whole thread so I could be wrong, but I'd wager that, with a few possible exceptions, it has the usual rightwingers on here hating Brand mainly for no stronger reason than he's not rightwing basically and is attacking the establishment. They'll probably have been seeking to cast him as a rich Socialist hypocrite wherever possible (as if being a Socialist means you're not allowed to be rich!) but the root cause is he's obviously not right wing. So they're inclined to dislike him from the word go. There was an interesting survey of 15,000 people not so long ago which found that rightwingers tend to be less intelligent than leftwingers. Among the conclusions: " Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo" and "In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order" and " people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe". If you bear that in mind when reading much of the stuff on here, with a view to who gets criticised and who doesn't and who posted it, it makes a lot of sense. Even when applied to Farage, who is obviously right wing and probably appeals to their instincts quite significantly, they generally don't like him because he's threatening the Tory/right wing status quo. Of course, you could always just say Brand is a cunt and Farage is a racist and be done with any kind of analysis! Still trotting out your usual condescending patter about right wingers I see. They must be thick of course, after all they have a different view from you. If you had bothered to read the thread you'd know that most people who dislike Brand cited his manner, his shallow, vain personality, his hypocrisy, etc. Hardly anyone mentions his politics and most people had no issue with what he was actually saying. Don't forget his stupid hair, you forgot his hair?????????? How could you. Really though........That's the point being made isn't it? To distract from the message they talk about the man. I don't agree about the intelligence thing at all, but the point of that is clear, right-wingers tend to concentrate their views on stability through the politics of fear, left-wingers tend to concentrate their views on ideas and the politics of hope. You can use intelligence in a negative way, i mean, look at me venting my spleen on an internet fucking message board. I should have a word with myself really, especially after 6 pints.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 20:25:50 GMT
Well, as I've said before I like farage and brand So I'm a leftwing right winger No. Your just full of shit. What, more full of shit than anyone else on this thread? Merry Christmas kid
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Dec 23, 2014 20:41:48 GMT
Well, as I've said before I like farage and brand So I'm a leftwing right winger It's not the first time you've swung two ways...
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 23, 2014 20:48:29 GMT
No. Your just full of shit. What, more full of shit than anyone else on this thread? Merry Christmas kid Hahhahaha, likewise you small minded racist bigot. Only kidding, i'm sure you'll be out for a curry this Christmas dinner followed by a good old fashioned soapy tit wank down the local Romanian massage parlour. Tipping like it's the last day of civilisation.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 26, 2014 18:43:43 GMT
Goodwill to the majority of mamalia, most of crustacia and insects, and all forna.
A nice day with 3pts and a touch of snow tonight.
I wish Russell a merry xmas. I wonder if he re-inforced the whole capitalist orgy by buying his misses something she neither needed or wanted?
{* my younger anarcho-communist green brother bought me a book on Mnonics, and even wrapped the fecker. half an hour chopping logs for me fire would have been more valuable.}
!
I misheard my middle brother's letter to santa and bought him a tin of mince.
|
|