Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[Orkneyfox]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/534577_378919075524184_1214748396_n.jpg

[MooseBreath]

I never said, nor did anyone else say that the transport (for example) was efficient prior to the privatisation of it. What about the utilities? How much do you pay for your gas/electric? Is it a fair price do you think to supplement the pockets of shareholders? What about the monumental waste that the water companies, say they are spending to fix leaky pipes etc, but force us to pay for a commodity for which we are not short of, to any degree?

Thatcher lowered taxes for everyone? Yes this is a fact, however the percentage lowered of the the top rate, made the rich that much more rich. The Tories always play the 'for the people' card, but it's as threadbare and transparent as it always was.

Were utilities free when they were nationalised then?

[sphericalfox]

Were utilities free when they were nationalised then?

are you pretending to be stupid too? Of course they weren't free, but we'd have much more control over the prices had we not given it up to a market place that connives to keep our rates high and deliver maximum profit to their shareholders rather than giving the service at price that is reasonable, and not fluffed up to their benefit nor ours.

[Zingari]

No,of course they weren't free or even cheap and there were indeed many problems but I’m fairly sure the services provided by the privatised utilities are no better or cheaper than when they were publicly owned.

I’d say with gas and electric any difference is marginal at best and just seems to be a charade involving changing suppliers every few months chasing a couple of quid off your bill .

Transportation such as buses and trains seem far more expensive and still need subsidising and public investment

Telecom is probably better, but mostly due to technology.

Royal Mail has always been a terrific service and should remain in public ownership in my view.

The main difference is any profits go to (mostly rich multinational) shareholders, not back into public purse.

As McMillan said at the time, “we’ve flogged off the family silver for a pittanceâ€

I really think political ideology clouds better judgement of reality.

I fell for all the privately owned bullshit espoused back then, but it was just that. Bullshit of the Major league variety .

edit

i think this topic needs a dedicated thread

Edited 11 November 2012 by Zingari

[MooseBreath]

are you pretending to be stupid too? Of course they weren't free, but we'd have much more control over the prices had we not given it up to a market place that connives to keep our rates high and deliver maximum profit to their shareholders rather than giving the service at price that is reasonable, and not fluffed up to their benefit nor ours.

Take it up with the regulator then. It's their job to keep prices in check. Besides, I don't think you can really blame a shareholder profit motive, when not all water companies have shareholders and some are not for profit, and yet their prices are no cheaper than the others

Edited 11 November 2012 by MooseBreath

[ADK]

Given the choice between a monopoly and public ownership i'd take public ownership every day of the week. I presume you think the nhs should be entirely privatised along with the police, the armed forces and education system?

[Webbo]

Given the choice between a monopoly and public ownership i'd take public ownership every day of the week. I presume you think the nhs should be entirely privatised along with the police, the armed forces and education system?

Public ownership is a monopoly.

[ADK]

Usually the term monopoly is used to refer to a private monopoly.

[Webbo]

Usually the term monopoly is used to refer to a private monopoly.

No it isn't.

Edited 11 November 2012 by Webbo

[flowwolf]

are you pretending to be stupid too? Of course they weren't free, but we'd have much more control over the prices had we not given it up to a market place that connives to keep our rates high and deliver maximum profit to their shareholders rather than giving the service at price that is reasonable, and not fluffed up to their benefit nor ours.

So to sum up your arguments thus far. 1 everyone is stupid except you. 2 or they are pretending to be stupid. Go back on to your photo shop and amuse yourself you know that makes sense.

[sphericalfox]

So to sum up your arguments thus far. 1 everyone is stupid except you. 2 or they are pretending to be stupid. Go back on to your photo shop and amuse yourself you know that makes sense.

So your argument is making stupid contentious remarks to try initiate further argument. No, everyone is not stupid. But you particularly are.

Edited 11 November 2012 by sphericalfox

[flowwolf]

So your argument is making stupid contentious remarks to try initiate further argument. No, everyone is not stupid. But you particularly are.

You replied didn't you ? how stupid was that .

[The Doctor]

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/12/249092.html

What a cunt - demanding the destruction of cultural heritage, one of the wonders of the world and a phenomenal architectural achievement for the sake of it not fitting his world view.

[acooling08]

http://english.alara.../12/249092.html

What a **** - demanding the destruction of cultural heritage, one of the wonders of the world and a phenomenal architectural achievement for the sake of it not fitting his world view.

He can join the long, long line of Muslim cvnts.

There's another Abu who isn't going to be deported due to the belief that he wouldn't get a fair trial in Jordan. My question: Who cares?

Someone who plans terrorist bombings has none of my concern.. I'm all for torturing evidence out of the scumbag.

[purpleronnie]

He can join the long, long line of Muslim cvnts.

There's another Abu who isn't going to be deported due to the belief that he wouldn't get a fair trial in Jordan. My question: Who cares?

Someone who plans terrorist bombings has none of my concern.. I'm all for torturing evidence out of the scumbag.

You really are a moron.

Edited 13 November 2012 by purpleronnie

[MooseBreath]

He's right though. Islam is a particularly cvnty religion.

[purpleronnie]

He's right though. Islam is a particularly cvnty religion.

But where the vast vast majority (just like all) relgious people are peace loving.....maybe I'll list someone too and start it by saying he can join the long long line of catholic christian jewish, cvnts....but what would be the point in bringing a specific relgion up unless your a racist scumbag.

[MooseBreath]

But where the vast vast majority (just like all) relgious people are peace loving.....maybe I'll list someone too and start it by saying he can join the long long line of catholic christian jewish, cvnts....but what would be the point in bringing a specific relgion up unless your a racist scumbag.

I think Islam is a particularly cvnty religion which produces far more than its fair share of cvnts

[purpleronnie]

no you don't.

[FoxyPV]

He can join the long, long line of Muslim cvnts.

There's another Abu who isn't going to be deported due to the belief that he wouldn't get a fair trial in Jordan. My question: Who cares?

Someone who plans terrorist bombings has none of my concern.. I'm all for torturing evidence out of the scumbag.

Are you really going to go do this again?

[Captain...]

no you don't.

Yes he does, and many other people do, unfortunately, like a lot of people used to believe that Russians were a very cvnty nation with more than it's fair share of cvnts, or Zimbabweans or the Germans, or the French, or more recently the Serbians, or going back further Gypsies, or communists, or Jews.

Whichever group of people the press/ruling elite decide to highlight as enemy de jour, basically maintaining the divide and conquer rule by fear philosophy of the current, and many previous ruling parties of many western countries.

[MooseBreath]

Almost every major ongoing conflict in the world and the majority of minor conflicts have a strong islamic element. Maybe the ruling elite and the media have created these conflicts as a way of persuading me that muslims are my enemy, or maybe, just maybe, it's because islam a particularly cvnty religion which proudces more than its fair share of cvnts.

[Rincewind]

What would they be if you removed the word Islam and replaced it with another word?

Edited 13 November 2012 by Nightguard

[Tielemans63]

Almost every major ongoing conflict in the world and the majority of minor conflicts have a strong islamic element. Maybe the ruling elite and the media have created these conflicts as a way of persuading me that muslims are my enemy, or maybe, just maybe, it's because islam a particularly cvnty religion which proudces more than its fair share of cvnts.

I'm sure there are many, many Muslims who feel that way about Christians. Whilst I agree that it is often a brutal religion you'd be kidding yourself if you can't see how Christians are often just as bad.

Let's not forget either that a number of these conflicts have very little to do with Muslims or Christians - religion is simply the vehicle, the headline. Many conflicts are about power / territory / money and the struggle for supremacy between the East and West.

Edited 13 November 2012 by Paddy Akinbiyi

[MooseBreath]

What would they be if you removed the word Islam and replaced it with another word?

They would still be cvnts, of course.

You lefties confuse me. You're all for peace and shit but when you're confronted with a religion which is at the root of most major conflicts you defend them.