Tory conference

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Tory conference

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 16 of 60 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

hedgehog50 Croydon 02 Oct 17 6.51pm
Originally posted by nickgusset I think he gets a pass. He pulled out before he came into it too far. Double standards then, Catholic Rees-Mogg bad, Catholic McDonnell good. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 02 Oct 17 6.51pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

I think he gets a pass. He pulled out before he came into it too far.

Double standards then, Catholic Rees-Mogg bad, Catholic McDonnell good.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 17 6.53pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Well, I disagree with those three people in various areas. Where do you disagree with Labour? As for your silly waffle about the debt....that, as everyone and their dog knows, is all about the 2008 crises that Labour held the fort over....forgotten the, 'we have no more money' note left from the outgoing Labour minister have you? Unlike you and your silly point scoring, I don't blame them for the actual crises....just for the over spending before it. Sigh, the note thing again. One of the most oft repeated "economic" arguments posited by Tory party supporters is the "didn't Labour leave a note admitting there was no money left?" question, which is often used in conjunction with the absurdly counter-factual "Labour bankrupted Britain" narrative. The first thing to note about this question is that the note that was left by Liam Byrne saying that "there's no money" was intended as a joke, not as a serious statement of fact. The joke being a reiteration of the 1965 note left by the Tory Chancellor Reginald Maudling for his successor Jim Callaghan that said "good luck old cock, sorry to leave it in a mess". If the crux of your economic argument is a joke note written over years ago by a fool like Liam Byrne, then it's absolutely clear that you don't have the faintest regard for genuine economic analysis, and prefer to rote learn absurd economic fairy stories from the employees of right wing press barons like Rupert Murdoch (S*n, Times, Sky TV), Jonathan Harmsworth (Daily Mail, Metro), the Barclay brothers (Telegraph, Spectator) and RIchard Desmond (Express, Star). It's hard to believe that anyone could be credulous enough to believe that the proposition that "there's no money" was a serious and accurate one rather than a joke, but apparently lots of Tory supporters do, and even use it as the keystone of their argument in favour of reelecting the Conservatives! It's hard to not feel like I'm being patronising in explaining what is to come in the next paragraph, but there are apparently a heck of a lot of Tories out there who honestly don't seem to understand this stuff. The idea that there ever was "no money left" is a childlike fantasy. The United Kingdom has a central bank called the Bank of England that can just create new money out of nothing via a process known as Quantitative Easing. Since the global financial sector meltdown of 2007-08 the Bank of England has created hundreds of billions in this way. When a country has a sovereign central bank that can create new money, the idea that there is "no money left" is economic baby talk. One of the things that this anti left reliance upon the "no money left" arguments illustrates is the incredible selectivity of the Tory mind. It seems that the Tory has perfect recall of events in 2010 when it comes to stupid joke notes left in the treasury by an embodiment of uselessness like Liam Byrne, but when it comes to all of the promises and predictions made by Tory politicians back in 2010, they've managed to completely forget them all.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 17 6.53pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Well, I disagree with those three people in various areas. Where do you disagree with Labour?

As for your silly waffle about the debt....that, as everyone and their dog knows, is all about the 2008 crises that Labour held the fort over....forgotten the, 'we have no more money' note left from the outgoing Labour minister have you?

Unlike you and your silly point scoring, I don't blame them for the actual crises....just for the over spending before it.

Sigh, the note thing again.

One of the most oft repeated "economic" arguments posited by Tory party supporters is the "didn't Labour leave a note admitting there was no money left?" question, which is often used in conjunction with the absurdly counter-factual "Labour bankrupted Britain" narrative.

The first thing to note about this question is that the note that was left by Liam Byrne saying that "there's no money" was intended as a joke, not as a serious statement of fact. The joke being a reiteration of the 1965 note left by the Tory Chancellor Reginald Maudling for his successor Jim Callaghan that said "good luck old cock, sorry to leave it in a mess".

If the crux of your economic argument is a joke note written over years ago by a fool like Liam Byrne, then it's absolutely clear that you don't have the faintest regard for genuine economic analysis, and prefer to rote learn absurd economic fairy stories from the employees of right wing press barons like Rupert Murdoch (S*n, Times, Sky TV), Jonathan Harmsworth (Daily Mail, Metro), the Barclay brothers (Telegraph, Spectator) and RIchard Desmond (Express, Star).

It's hard to believe that anyone could be credulous enough to believe that the proposition that "there's no money" was a serious and accurate one rather than a joke, but apparently lots of Tory supporters do, and even use it as the keystone of their argument in favour of reelecting the Conservatives!

It's hard to not feel like I'm being patronising in explaining what is to come in the next paragraph, but there are apparently a heck of a lot of Tories out there who honestly don't seem to understand this stuff.

The idea that there ever was "no money left" is a childlike fantasy. The United Kingdom has a central bank called the Bank of England that can just create new money out of nothing via a process known as Quantitative Easing. Since the global financial sector meltdown of 2007-08 the Bank of England has created hundreds of billions in this way. When a country has a sovereign central bank that can create new money, the idea that there is "no money left" is economic baby talk.

One of the things that this anti left reliance upon the "no money left" arguments illustrates is the incredible selectivity of the Tory mind. It seems that the Tory has perfect recall of events in 2010 when it comes to stupid joke notes left in the treasury by an embodiment of uselessness like Liam Byrne, but when it comes to all of the promises and predictions made by Tory politicians back in 2010, they've managed to completely forget them all.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 17 6.55pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Double standards then, Catholic Rees-Mogg bad, Catholic McDonnell good. Not really. Rees Mogg profits from abortion pills despite being completely against abortion. He makes a big thing about his religion. Does McDonnell?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 17 6.55pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Double standards then, Catholic Rees-Mogg bad, Catholic McDonnell good.

Not really. Rees Mogg profits from abortion pills despite being completely against abortion. He makes a big thing about his religion. Does McDonnell?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Oct 17 6.57pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Sigh, the note thing again. There is reality and then there is your world Nick. As usual you didn't answer the question. Fine, just don't expect any answered yourself. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Oct 17 6.57pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Sigh, the note thing again.

There is reality and then there is your world Nick.

As usual you didn't answer the question. Fine, just don't expect any answered yourself.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 02 Oct 17 6.58pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Not really. Rees Mogg profits from abortion pills despite being completely against abortion. He makes a big thing about his religion. Does McDonnell? He trained to be a priest for f-sake - pretty big surely. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 02 Oct 17 6.58pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Not really. Rees Mogg profits from abortion pills despite being completely against abortion. He makes a big thing about his religion. Does McDonnell?

He trained to be a priest for f-sake - pretty big surely.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 02 Oct 17 6.58pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Rudolp Rommel explains it well: "Of all religions, secular and otherwise, Marxism is s by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labour, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extra-judicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide." He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as "a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, non-combatants would get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counter-revolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths. The obnoxious communist historian Eric Hobsbawm concurred with the idea that the ends justify the means. Once again, I'm not denying that there is a terrible, tragic death count to Communism's history... But to believe that any other system hasn't similarly purged great numbers of the 'wreckers' as you put it, is head in the sky. European settlers in the early Americas killed 9/10 of the population through the spreading of smallpox alone, not to mention the thousands of others killed in warfare. The East India Company utilised the great famine of Bengal to increase their hold on Southern India in the late 18th century, resulting in the deaths of 15 million. Today, the 'wreckers' of Capitalism are those at the very bottom of the economic pile, who can't even meet the material needs of food, decent medicine and water. In Yemen, millions are displaced and in desperate need of water from a largely man made famine, in Central Africa, famine is killing 10s of millions while we in the West waste over 50% of our food, and of course are wars for oil, resources and general global power continue to kill millions in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 02 Oct 17 6.58pm

Send a Private Message to serial thriller

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Rudolp Rommel explains it well:
"Of all religions, secular and otherwise, Marxism is s by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labour, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extra-judicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide." He writes that in practice the Marxists saw the construction of their utopia as "a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, non-combatants would get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, 'wreckers', intellectuals, counter-revolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths.
The obnoxious communist historian Eric Hobsbawm concurred with the idea that the ends justify the means.

Once again, I'm not denying that there is a terrible, tragic death count to Communism's history...

But to believe that any other system hasn't similarly purged great numbers of the 'wreckers' as you put it, is head in the sky. European settlers in the early Americas killed 9/10 of the population through the spreading of smallpox alone, not to mention the thousands of others killed in warfare. The East India Company utilised the great famine of Bengal to increase their hold on Southern India in the late 18th century, resulting in the deaths of 15 million.

Today, the 'wreckers' of Capitalism are those at the very bottom of the economic pile, who can't even meet the material needs of food, decent medicine and water. In Yemen, millions are displaced and in desperate need of water from a largely man made famine, in Central Africa, famine is killing 10s of millions while we in the West waste over 50% of our food, and of course are wars for oil, resources and general global power continue to kill millions in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 02 Oct 17 7.00pm
Originally posted by serial thriller Once again, I'm not denying that there is a terrible, tragic death count to Communism's history... But to believe that any other system hasn't similarly purged great numbers of the 'wreckers' as you put it, is head in the sky. European settlers in the early Americas killed 9/10 of the population through the spreading of smallpox alone, not to mention the thousands of others killed in warfare. The East India Company utilised the great famine of Bengal to increase their hold on Southern India in the late 18th century, resulting in the deaths of 15 million. Today, the 'wreckers' of Capitalism are those at the very bottom of the economic pile, who can't even meet the material needs of food, decent medicine and water. In Yemen, millions are displaced and in desperate need of water from a largely man made famine, in Central Africa, famine is killing 10s of millions while we in the West waste over 50% of our food, and of course are wars for oil, resources and general global power continue to kill millions in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Marx wrote: "there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism" We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 02 Oct 17 7.00pm

Originally posted by serial thriller

Once again, I'm not denying that there is a terrible, tragic death count to Communism's history...

Marx wrote: "there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism"

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Oct 17 7.07pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Double standards then, Catholic Rees-Mogg bad, Catholic McDonnell good. Is McDonnell even a practising Catholic now do you know? Or are you just castigating him for a path he started to follow, but chose to get off from before he was ordained? Do his religious beliefs, if he has any, dictate some of his voting patterns like Jacob's do? Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Oct 17 7.07pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Double standards then, Catholic Rees-Mogg bad, Catholic McDonnell good.

Is McDonnell even a practising Catholic now do you know? Or are you just castigating him for a path he started to follow, but chose to get off from before he was ordained? Do his religious beliefs, if he has any, dictate some of his voting patterns like Jacob's do?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 02 Oct 17 7.07pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Marx wrote: "there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism" Aristotle believed that slaves were an inherently inferior breed of people who should be used without conventional ethical standards. The great Liberal philosophers of the 18th and 19th century - Hume, Locke, Mill - all defended Britain's aggressive imperialism of their day. Milton Friedman actually went to Chile and assisted Pinochet in his radical dismantling of their welfare state, all while ignoring the labour camps he was setting up in the middle of the desert. All I'm trying to say is, your assertion that all that Marx wrote is valueless is facile. If we dismiss any philosopher because of their followers or some random quotes, we are condemning them all to the bin. Go and actually read his work, then form an opinion. He has influenced so many people, from economics, to sociology, to politics, to history, that to dismiss him is idiotic. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 02 Oct 17 7.07pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Aristotle believed that slaves were an inherently inferior breed of people who should be used without conventional ethical standards.

The great Liberal philosophers of the 18th and 19th century - Hume, Locke, Mill - all defended Britain's aggressive imperialism of their day.

Milton Friedman actually went to Chile and assisted Pinochet in his radical dismantling of their welfare state, all while ignoring the labour camps he was setting up in the middle of the desert.

All I'm trying to say is, your assertion that all that Marx wrote is valueless is facile. If we dismiss any philosopher because of their followers or some random quotes, we are condemning them all to the bin. Go and actually read his work, then form an opinion. He has influenced so many people, from economics, to sociology, to politics, to history, that to dismiss him is idiotic.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Oct 17 7.09pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Marx wrote: "there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism" Bit like The Stern gang then. Marx didn't advocate the deaths of millions much as you would like him to have done to confirm your irrational & intense dislike. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Oct 17 7.09pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Bit like The Stern gang then.

Marx didn't advocate the deaths of millions much as you would like him to have done to confirm your irrational & intense dislike.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 17 7.13pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays There is reality and then there is your world Nick. As usual you didn't answer the question. Fine, just don't expect any answered yourself. Stirling Stirling Stirling. Oh dear. I had to call you out on the note thing. It was a joke. A stupid one. As for labour policies im not happy with, I'll have to have another look through. Don't expect a reply to soon. I'd also appreciate if we could stick to Tories in the Tory conference thread. I haven't seen much today due to work. The news is full of that white Christian terrorist attack in Vegas and not much about the conference. From what I've heard many speakers have spent half the time denigrating Labour (shows how s*** scared they are). Didn't they learn anything from the Daily Mail - people see through that crap. Any policy announcements?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 17 7.13pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

There is reality and then there is your world Nick.

As usual you didn't answer the question. Fine, just don't expect any answered yourself.

Stirling Stirling Stirling.
Oh dear.

I had to call you out on the note thing. It was a joke. A stupid one.

As for labour policies im not happy with, I'll have to have another look through. Don't expect a reply to soon.

I'd also appreciate if we could stick to Tories in the Tory conference thread.

I haven't seen much today due to work. The news is full of that white Christian terrorist attack in Vegas and not much about the conference.

From what I've heard many speakers have spent half the time denigrating Labour (shows how s*** scared they are). Didn't they learn anything from the Daily Mail - people see through that crap.
Any policy announcements?

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 17 7.18pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Is McDonnell even a practising Catholic now do you know? Or are you just castigating him for a path he started to follow, but chose to get off from before he was ordained? Do his religious beliefs, if he has any, dictate some of his voting patterns like Jacob's do? Don't rise to it. One. They're clutching at straws. TWO. They're so discombobulated by the rise of anti austerity politics they can only obfuscate debates because there isn't much credible ammunition to use. Christ, some of them are going on about notes from a previous neoliberal Labour government. Nothing on Tory policy or the internal politics of the Tory party at the moment.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 17 7.18pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Don't rise to it. One. They're clutching at straws. TWO. They're so discombobulated by the rise of anti austerity politics they can only obfuscate debates because there isn't much credible ammunition to use. Christ, some of them are going on about notes from a previous neoliberal Labour government.

Nothing on Tory policy or the internal politics of the Tory party at the moment.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 16 of 60 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Tory conference

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors