Aus Fox Posted 7 June 2017 Posted 7 June 2017 6 hours ago, Foxxed said: Who would make the best PM? It's toss up between Fuchs and Morgan for me. Lineker would be a good diplomat. I'd go for Pearson for the comedy PM. I'd go for Vardy for a war-time Prime Minister but probably Was. Rudkin for me, not only would Brexit be all sorted by now, the Americans would have paid the $3 billion release clause.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 7 June 2017 Posted 7 June 2017 Nick Platnauer will be voting Monster Raving Looney.
Lovejoy Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 19 hours ago, hackneyfox said: In which world are socialists not allowed to drink champagne? Err, who said they're not allowed? Or am I being thick and missing a joke?
HighPeakFox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 21 minutes ago, Lovejoy said: Err, who said they're not allowed? Or am I being thick and missing a joke? I expect it was the contemptuous epithet that was causing comment.
Lovejoy Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 24 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said: I expect it was the contemptuous epithet that was causing comment. Touched a nerve?
hackneyfox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 30 minutes ago, Lovejoy said: Touched a nerve? Perhaps, I'm a leftie and drink champagne. What do you mean when you use it?
Lovejoy Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 14 minutes ago, hackneyfox said: Perhaps, I'm a leftie and drink champagne. What do you mean when you use it? Exactly what it say's on the tin, believe it or not, without negative connotation. What did you think I meant?
hackneyfox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 4 minutes ago, Lovejoy said: Exactly what it say's on the tin, believe it or not, without negative connotation. What did you think I meant? It's a derogatory term implying that only the poor can have an opinion on social inequality. Or that anybody that is rich with socialist opinions is a hypocrite.
HighPeakFox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 1 hour ago, Lovejoy said: Touched a nerve? Not in the slightest bit. I just recognised the tone of your unnecessary jibe. If you intended no negative connotation, you'd not have even commented.
fazzyfox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 Jeff Schlupp won't be able to vote as it involves putting a cross into a box with a degree of accuracy.
Lovejoy Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 29 minutes ago, hackneyfox said: It's a derogatory term implying that only the poor can have an opinion on social inequality. Or that anybody that is rich with socialist opinions is a hypocrite. Or it just implies someone wealthy has socialist views...
hackneyfox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 13 minutes ago, Lovejoy said: Or it just implies someone wealthy has socialist views... It doesn't as it's always used in a derogatory manner and has only ever been used in that way.
Finnegan Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 1 hour ago, hackneyfox said: It doesn't as it's always used in a derogatory manner and has only ever been used in that way. It's pretty obviously not supposed to be taken literally ffs.
hackneyfox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 16 minutes ago, Finnegan said: It's pretty obviously not supposed to be taken literally ffs. So why use the term then? Sorry but it's a term that always grates with me, a bit like 110%.
HighPeakFox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 24 minutes ago, Finnegan said: It's pretty obviously not supposed to be taken literally ffs. Indeed. But the inference is sneering, always.
dynamark Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 Love the Jeff post .Mahrez would be right wing but with a tendency to move towards the centre ground..Simpson a reluctant right wing but holding back a little and Chilwell a forward thinking left winger with a tendency to forget his overall aims.Wes is solid centre ground.
Finnegan Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 Just now, hackneyfox said: So why use the term then? Sorry but it's a term that always grates with me, a bit like 110%. Because champagne is typically considered an item of luxury. It's like let them eat cake. Obviously cake is no longer unobtainable to the proletariat, neither is champagne. The meaning is understood regardless. Stop being so prissy.
Finnegan Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 1 minute ago, HighPeakFox said: Indeed. But the inference is sneering, always. Of course but often rightly so. A lot of upper middle class liberals preach about what's best for the working classes whilst having either absolutely no idea what it's like to be poor or having long forgotten. The likes of Billy Bragg and Jeremy Corbyn can be reasonably fairly described as champagne socialists and it makes them far less appealing to their target demographic than the like of Farage and Trump who are unashamedly, unflinchingly wealthy and are making no effort to pretend otherwise but know exactly what the poorest in society want to hear*. (*what they actually deliver is another matter, we'll fork out for a ****ing massive wall but oh btw, you can no longer afford health care oops)
hackneyfox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 18 minutes ago, Finnegan said: Of course but often rightly so. A lot of upper middle class liberals preach about what's best for the working classes whilst having either absolutely no idea what it's like to be poor or having long forgotten. The likes of Billy Bragg and Jeremy Corbyn can be reasonably fairly described as champagne socialists and it makes them far less appealing to their target demographic than the like of Farage and Trump who are unashamedly, unflinchingly wealthy and are making no effort to pretend otherwise but know exactly what the poorest in society want to hear*. (*what they actually deliver is another matter, we'll fork out for a ****ing massive wall but oh btw, you can no longer afford health care oops) Twaddle I hadnt realised that Bragg, Corbyn or Lineker had ever pretended to be anything but well off nowadays. You're coming over as prissy.
Finnegan Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 43 minutes ago, hackneyfox said: Twaddle I hadnt realised that Bragg, Corbyn or Lineker had ever pretended to be anything but well off nowadays. You're coming over as prissy. "I know you are but what am I" Yikes, really? Wow, he really did strike a nerve.
HighPeakFox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 The left is brandished with any number of insulting epithets, somehow the right isn't. That should disturb any true democrat, regardless of political persuasion.
murphy Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 On 2017-6-7 at 15:44, hackneyfox said: In which world are socialists not allowed to drink champagne? A non-hypocritical one?
murphy Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 1 hour ago, hackneyfox said: So why use the term then? Sorry but it's a term that always grates with me, a bit like 110%. Beg your pardon. What about beaujolais bolshevik then? By the way, there are continental equivalents - caviar gauche, Salonkommunist. Basically people living a lifestyle at odds with their apparent views and not practising what they preach. They like the idea of vitue signalling redistributuion of wealth as long as it is not their wealth. You're welcome. Come on the blues! (In every sense)
hackneyfox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 How xo you know they disagree with the redistribution of their wealth. Im happy to pay more tax and clearly Corbyn is. Im not going to give it away though.
hackneyfox Posted 8 June 2017 Posted 8 June 2017 37 minutes ago, murphy said: A non-hypocritical one? Explain why socialists should be poor? Its communists who wanted everyone on the same salary.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.