Katy Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 How much longer can this thread go on before Foxestalk cries "enough"? Sorry but that's just tickled me.
Flynny Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 The very fact that you are happy to excuse and accept government nannying or monitoring only means you open yourself up to more and more both now and in the future. And with this government it really has become an obsession and for reasons that they have caused in many ways. Some things are beyond the line and some aren't. Collecting taxes, having a police force - someone's got to enforce the law. 'Don't drive when pissed' is just as sensible a law as 'Don't drive on the pavement'. Why should one be policed and one not?
Thracian Posted 3 January 2009 Author Posted 3 January 2009 How much longer can this thread go on before Foxestalk cries "enough"? You don't have to read it. Here's another to get you going a bit more... http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=56062
Thracian Posted 3 January 2009 Author Posted 3 January 2009 Some things are beyond the line and some aren't. Collecting taxes, having a police force - someone's got to enforce the law. 'Don't drive when pissed' is just as sensible a law as 'Don't drive on the pavement'. Why should one be policed and one not? I'd say it was sensible not to have people on the road who can't drive. Who've not just fallen out with their Mrs. Who have just been made redundant Who have got flu. Who are tired out. Who've forgotten their glasses. Who are on the telephone. Who don't know where the hell they are going. Who cannot drive BMW's... But no. We've got all that lot and more. We've had endless bullshit about speed cameras saving lives but after spending millions they look likely to be ditched. Now the breathalyser which was to be sparingly used is now being used all the time and for nothing that even relates to bad driving. And finally we're having more millions spent on highly knowingly unpopular measures to watch cars all the time and charge for road usage, another stealth tax that will penalise the already hammered working population. This government is moulded in the control freak image that is Gordon Brown. It won't be long before they'll want cameras in the bedroom...
Flynny Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 I'd say it was sensible not to have people on the road who can't drive.Who've not just fallen out with their Mrs. Who have just been made redundant Who have got flu. Who are tired out. Who've forgotten their glasses. Who are on the telephone. Who don't know where the hell they are going. Who cannot drive BMW's... But no. We've got all that lot and more. We've had endless bullshit about speed cameras saving lives but after spending millions they look likely to be ditched. Now the breathalyser which was to be sparingly used is now being used all the time and for nothing that even relates to bad driving. And finally we're having more millions spent on highly knowingly unpopular measures to watch cars all the time and charge for road usage, another stealth tax that will penalise the already hammred working population. This government is moulded in the control freak image that is Gordon Brown. It won't be long before they'll want cameras in the bedroom... Partially sighted and telephone users are, the rest can't be checked with a simple test. Stop being silly.
Guest Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 how many women can inspire really expressive art, live and understand music, drive properly, analyse football, spin a cricket ball, map read, survive unaided in the outback.....? Now I know you're only writing to wind people up.
samuel Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Having read this thread with great interest this morning, one thing really struck a chord with me, some peoples complete ignorance to the situation we find ourselves in and to who caused it single-handedly. Ultra- For once I am completely speechless, utterly dumbfounded, there really are no words to describe the way I am feeling after reading your diatribe above. After reading some very articulate, factual and sensible reasonings, I was then engulfed by some 70's Socialist rant. Misguided, slack-brained flim-flam at best. Utterly reprehensible bile at worst. If I had anyone power bestowed upon me, it would be to have you and your fellow brain deads, incarcerated and re-educated, such ignorance of Recent Times and Politics is unforgiveable, particularly when participating in a debate about such a thing. Absolutely staggered by your naivety, I really am.
Thracian Posted 3 January 2009 Author Posted 3 January 2009 Now I know you're only writing to wind people up.
Thracian Posted 3 January 2009 Author Posted 3 January 2009 Partially sighted and telephone users are, the rest can't be checked with a simple test. Stop being silly. Must be some test!
Webbo Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 have no idea what it is like to work in the real world, skipping straight from public education (or Middle-class catchment area comp) to university to politics. None of them appreciate real life because the few that did forgot about it once they immersed themselves in their gravy train. That's what I hate most about politicians. It's no secret that I support the Tories, but I'd put Cameron and Osbourne in the group that you've described. In the past decade, with house prices shooting up quicker than smackheads on an Afghan tour, two incomes were often a necessity for many households in order to pay the mortgage. The point Thrac was trying to make was that if there was less money in the economy (ie only 1 worker per household) then prices would be less, meaning you wouldn't need to have 2 incomes.
Thracian Posted 3 January 2009 Author Posted 3 January 2009 That's what I hate most about politicians. It's no secret that I support the Tories, but I'd put Cameron and Osbourne in the group that you've described.The point Thrac was trying to make was that if there was less money in the economy (ie only 1 worker per household) then prices would be less, meaning you wouldn't need to have 2 incomes. Absolutely. We now have to work twice as many hours to earn the same standard of living. And it makes the gap between the two-job families and the no-job families even wider. PS: As for Cameron and Osbourne I'd doubt that either would struggle financially, politics or not.
Webbo Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 PS: As for Cameron and Osbourne I'd doubt that either would struggle financially, politics or not. I don't doubt it, I've put quite a bit of money George Osbourne's way myself, hanging 'Osbourne and Little' wallpaper for my customers (expensive but very nice). It's the professional politicians I hate. As Daggers said; good school, university, a few years doing paperwork at party HQ and then a safe seat and a job for life. They live in their own ideaological world, convinced that they are doing good but with no concept of how their 'improvements' effect real people/businesses.
Hullfox Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 wishful thinking and a blanket generalisation which just doesn't stand up. In which case shouldn't you stop posting?
Alexikokopops Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 You don't have to read it. Here's another to get you going a bit more...http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=56062
Jon the Hat Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 I don't doubt it, I've put quite a bit of money George Osbourne's way myself, hanging 'Osbourne and Little' wallpaper for my customers (expensive but very nice).It's the professional politicians I hate. As Daggers said; good school, university, a few years doing paperwork at party HQ and then a safe seat and a job for life. They live in their own ideaological world, convinced that they are doing good but with no concept of how their 'improvements' effect real people/businesses. I strongly believe you need a mix of people. The very idea of government being made up of only people who did not come from a priveledged background just puts me in mind of 600 John Prescotts. A good government needs ideas from all quarters. If our best educated, best supported youngsters make the best of the opportunities they got then good for them, and probably good for us too. A prime minister cannot have lived everyone's life experiences, and doesn't need to to be a good one.
Jon the Hat Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 Labour have proved they are a bunch of incompetent twats. The Tories has also proved they are a bunch of incompetent twats when they were in power. The Lib-Dems continue to amaze me by the way they are a shambolic collection of incompetent twats. That's it, the rest are idiots. Now, if someone can point out to me the reason why I should give a flying fuck about any of them from now on I'd be delighted to hear it. Being better than one of the other parties simply isn't an option - each one of them appears to be a self-serving collection of bellends who have no idea what it is like to work in the real world, skipping straight from public education (or Middle-class catchment area comp) to university to politics. None of them appreciate real life because the few that did forgot about it once they immersed themselves in their gravy train. Ideologically, in the round, I am left of centre - and yet I am left amazed at the largess of our current benefits system, the state of our legal system and the half-sharp way in which business is supported. I'll not be voting in the next election unless someone has a really funny name. Given that Cameron and Osbourne were not elected to Parliament until 2001 it is a little harsh to tar them with the brush of John Major's government.
Webbo Posted 3 January 2009 Posted 3 January 2009 I strongly believe you need a mix of people. The very idea of government being made up of only people who did not come from a priveledged background just puts me in mind of 600 John Prescotts. A good government needs ideas from all quarters. If our best educated, best supported youngsters make the best of the opportunities they got then good for them, and probably good for us too. A prime minister cannot have lived everyone's life experiences, and doesn't need to to be a good one. I have nothing against privilege, I just think that people should have experience of the real world, ie away from politics, before they stand for election. Nobody should stand for parliament until they are at least 30.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.