The Unions you've got to love them,

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

The Unions you've got to love them,

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Kermit8 Hevon 01 Dec 14 7.51pm
Quote matt_himself at 01 Dec 2014 7.01pm Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 6.31pm Quote Stuk at 01 Dec 2014 5.35pm Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 1.17am Anyone who disagrees with unions' rights to fight for their members (as is their role) should immediately give up the working rights they enjoy as a result of union action (paid holidays, sick pay, maternity pay etc). Maybe then they might realise the unions are a force for good and it's only the ruling elite and their spin doctors in the press who seek to turn working people against each other. Done. Can I say what a fecking want about them now, without having the "look what good they do" line thrown back at me? Last time I checked I was not in; the ruling elite, spin doctoring, nor the press. You can say what you fecking like about them and I can respond with what I fecking like about them too, within the rules of the site of course. I wasn't suggesting you were one of those things, as I'm sure you're aware. I would put you in the category of "working people being turned against other working people to further the interests of the ruling elite, otherwise known as divide and rule". So, using the same logic, are you going to give up all the productts manufactured by those engaged in consumer capaitalism? I think not. But you are not. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 01 Dec 14 7.51pm

Quote matt_himself at 01 Dec 2014 7.01pm

Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 6.31pm

Quote Stuk at 01 Dec 2014 5.35pm

Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 1.17am

Anyone who disagrees with unions' rights to fight for their members (as is their role) should immediately give up the working rights they enjoy as a result of union action (paid holidays, sick pay, maternity pay etc).

Maybe then they might realise the unions are a force for good and it's only the ruling elite and their spin doctors in the press who seek to turn working people against each other.

Done. Can I say what a fecking want about them now, without having the "look what good they do" line thrown back at me?

Last time I checked I was not in; the ruling elite, spin doctoring, nor the press.

You can say what you fecking like about them and I can respond with what I fecking like about them too, within the rules of the site of course.

I wasn't suggesting you were one of those things, as I'm sure you're aware. I would put you in the category of "working people being turned against other working people to further the interests of the ruling elite, otherwise known as divide and rule".

So, using the same logic, are you going to give up all the productts manufactured by those engaged in consumer capaitalism?

I think not.

But you are not.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 02 Dec 14 5.22am
Quote Kermit8 at 01 Dec 2014 7.51pm Quote matt_himself at 01 Dec 2014 7.01pm Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 6.31pm Quote Stuk at 01 Dec 2014 5.35pm Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 1.17am Anyone who disagrees with unions' rights to fight for their members (as is their role) should immediately give up the working rights they enjoy as a result of union action (paid holidays, sick pay, maternity pay etc). Maybe then they might realise the unions are a force for good and it's only the ruling elite and their spin doctors in the press who seek to turn working people against each other. Done. Can I say what a fecking want about them now, without having the "look what good they do" line thrown back at me? Last time I checked I was not in; the ruling elite, spin doctoring, nor the press. You can say what you fecking like about them and I can respond with what I fecking like about them too, within the rules of the site of course. I wasn't suggesting you were one of those things, as I'm sure you're aware. I would put you in the category of "working people being turned against other working people to further the interests of the ruling elite, otherwise known as divide and rule". So, using the same logic, are you going to give up all the productts manufactured by those engaged in consumer capaitalism? I think not. But you are not. Yes I am. The difference is that the 'sane left' do not wish to be questionned on their beliefs or on the hypocrisy of their comments. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 02 Dec 14 5.22am

Quote Kermit8 at 01 Dec 2014 7.51pm

Quote matt_himself at 01 Dec 2014 7.01pm

Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 6.31pm

Quote Stuk at 01 Dec 2014 5.35pm

Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 1.17am

Maybe then they might realise the unions are a force for good and it's only the ruling elite and their spin doctors in the press who seek to turn working people against each other.

Done. Can I say what a fecking want about them now, without having the "look what good they do" line thrown back at me?

Last time I checked I was not in; the ruling elite, spin doctoring, nor the press.

You can say what you fecking like about them and I can respond with what I fecking like about them too, within the rules of the site of course.

So, using the same logic, are you going to give up all the productts manufactured by those engaged in consumer capaitalism?

I think not.

But you are not.

Yes I am. The difference is that the 'sane left' do not wish to be questionned on their beliefs or on the hypocrisy of their comments.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Dec 14 9.43am
Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 5.22am Quote Kermit8 at 01 Dec 2014 7.51pm Quote matt_himself at 01 Dec 2014 7.01pm Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 6.31pm Quote Stuk at 01 Dec 2014 5.35pm Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 1.17am Anyone who disagrees with unions' rights to fight for their members (as is their role) should immediately give up the working rights they enjoy as a result of union action (paid holidays, sick pay, maternity pay etc). Maybe then they might realise the unions are a force for good and it's only the ruling elite and their spin doctors in the press who seek to turn working people against each other. Done. Can I say what a fecking want about them now, without having the "look what good they do" line thrown back at me? Last time I checked I was not in; the ruling elite, spin doctoring, nor the press. You can say what you fecking like about them and I can respond with what I fecking like about them too, within the rules of the site of course. I wasn't suggesting you were one of those things, as I'm sure you're aware. I would put you in the category of "working people being turned against other working people to further the interests of the ruling elite, otherwise known as divide and rule". So, using the same logic, are you going to give up all the productts manufactured by those engaged in consumer capaitalism? I think not. But you are not. Yes I am. The difference is that the 'sane left' do not wish to be questionned on their beliefs or on the hypocrisy of their comments. No you are not. The original point made is in relation to the fact that some don't believe in unions/union rights at all yet don't reject the benefits that have come their way on the coat tails of union success stories. You would have to know that the recipient to your reply is in favour of rejecting all forms of products made by consumer capitalism first for your statement to be a fair comparison and, thus, for it to have the "the same logic". And you don't, do you? Edited by Kermit8 (02 Dec 2014 9.46am) Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Dec 14 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 5.22am

Quote Kermit8 at 01 Dec 2014 7.51pm

Quote matt_himself at 01 Dec 2014 7.01pm

Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 6.31pm

Quote Stuk at 01 Dec 2014 5.35pm

Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 1.17am

Maybe then they might realise the unions are a force for good and it's only the ruling elite and their spin doctors in the press who seek to turn working people against each other.

Done. Can I say what a fecking want about them now, without having the "look what good they do" line thrown back at me?

Last time I checked I was not in; the ruling elite, spin doctoring, nor the press.

You can say what you fecking like about them and I can respond with what I fecking like about them too, within the rules of the site of course.

So, using the same logic, are you going to give up all the productts manufactured by those engaged in consumer capaitalism?

I think not.

But you are not.

Yes I am. The difference is that the 'sane left' do not wish to be questionned on their beliefs or on the hypocrisy of their comments.

No you are not. The original point made is in relation to the fact that some don't believe in unions/union rights at all yet don't reject the benefits that have come their way on the coat tails of union success stories.

You would have to know that the recipient to your reply is in favour of rejecting all forms of products made by consumer capitalism first for your statement to be a fair comparison and, thus, for it to have the "the same logic".

And you don't, do you?

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Dec 2014 9.46am)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 02 Dec 14 10.21am
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 5.22am Quote Kermit8 at 01 Dec 2014 7.51pm Quote matt_himself at 01 Dec 2014 7.01pm Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 6.31pm Quote Stuk at 01 Dec 2014 5.35pm Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 1.17am Anyone who disagrees with unions' rights to fight for their members (as is their role) should immediately give up the working rights they enjoy as a result of union action (paid holidays, sick pay, maternity pay etc). Maybe then they might realise the unions are a force for good and it's only the ruling elite and their spin doctors in the press who seek to turn working people against each other. Done. Can I say what a fecking want about them now, without having the "look what good they do" line thrown back at me? Last time I checked I was not in; the ruling elite, spin doctoring, nor the press. You can say what you fecking like about them and I can respond with what I fecking like about them too, within the rules of the site of course. I wasn't suggesting you were one of those things, as I'm sure you're aware. I would put you in the category of "working people being turned against other working people to further the interests of the ruling elite, otherwise known as divide and rule". So, using the same logic, are you going to give up all the productts manufactured by those engaged in consumer capaitalism? I think not. But you are not. Yes I am. The difference is that the 'sane left' do not wish to be questionned on their beliefs or on the hypocrisy of their comments. No you are not. The original point made is in relation to the fact that some don't believe in unions/union rights at all yet don't reject the benefits that have come their way on the coat tails of union success stories. You would have to know that the recipient to your reply is in favour of rejecting all forms of products made by consumer capitalism first for your statement to be a fair comparison and, thus, for it to have the "the same logic". And you don't, do you? Edited by Kermit8 (02 Dec 2014 9.46am) Seth says that anyone disagreeing with unions should give up the rights he says they have brought the working man. Therefore as Seth is so set against corporate capitalism, using the same logic, he should give up all products that are developed and sold by such entities. Granted this will leave him living toothless and riddled in diseases in a ditch but as he wouldn't want to be accused of hypocrisy, I am sure it is a step he will be willing to make. I know you see this but are arguing because it is me. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 02 Dec 14 10.21am

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 5.22am

Quote Kermit8 at 01 Dec 2014 7.51pm

Quote matt_himself at 01 Dec 2014 7.01pm

Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 6.31pm

Quote Stuk at 01 Dec 2014 5.35pm

Quote Seth at 01 Dec 2014 1.17am

Maybe then they might realise the unions are a force for good and it's only the ruling elite and their spin doctors in the press who seek to turn working people against each other.

Done. Can I say what a fecking want about them now, without having the "look what good they do" line thrown back at me?

Last time I checked I was not in; the ruling elite, spin doctoring, nor the press.

You can say what you fecking like about them and I can respond with what I fecking like about them too, within the rules of the site of course.

So, using the same logic, are you going to give up all the productts manufactured by those engaged in consumer capaitalism?

I think not.

But you are not.

Yes I am. The difference is that the 'sane left' do not wish to be questionned on their beliefs or on the hypocrisy of their comments.

And you don't, do you?

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Dec 2014 9.46am)

Seth says that anyone disagreeing with unions should give up the rights he says they have brought the working man.

Therefore as Seth is so set against corporate capitalism, using the same logic, he should give up all products that are developed and sold by such entities. Granted this will leave him living toothless and riddled in diseases in a ditch but as he wouldn't want to be accused of hypocrisy, I am sure it is a step he will be willing to make.

I know you see this but are arguing because it is me.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Dec 14 11.51am
Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post. You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Dec 14 11.51am

Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post.

You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 02 Dec 14 3.12pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 11.51am Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post. You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'. You are desperate, aren't you? Apologies. I meant 'consumer capitalism' in my last post. I meant to be consistent. Tell me, who runs the companies providing consumer goods? Are they corporates or anarcho syndicalists? "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 02 Dec 14 3.12pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 11.51am

Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post.

You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'.

You are desperate, aren't you?

Apologies. I meant 'consumer capitalism' in my last post. I meant to be consistent.

Tell me, who runs the companies providing consumer goods? Are they corporates or anarcho syndicalists?

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Dec 14 5.01pm
Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 3.12pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 11.51am Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post. You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'. You are desperate, aren't you? Apologies. I meant 'consumer capitalism' in my last post. I meant to be consistent. Tell me, who runs the companies providing consumer goods? Are they corporates or anarcho syndicalists? Does it have to be just one or the other? For example, many shops down our way are independently owned and are supplied by local traders not corporate behemoths. That is where your original logic was flawed and somewhat illogical. By not taking into account the various strands of consumer capitalism and implying that the poster had to reject all for him not to be a hypocrite. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Dec 14 5.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 3.12pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 11.51am

Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post.

You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'.

You are desperate, aren't you?

Apologies. I meant 'consumer capitalism' in my last post. I meant to be consistent.

Tell me, who runs the companies providing consumer goods? Are they corporates or anarcho syndicalists?

Does it have to be just one or the other? For example, many shops down our way are independently owned and are supplied by local traders not corporate behemoths.

That is where your original logic was flawed and somewhat illogical. By not taking into account the various strands of consumer capitalism and implying that the poster had to reject all for him not to be a hypocrite.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 02 Dec 14 5.17pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 5.01pm Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 3.12pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 11.51am Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post. You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'. You are desperate, aren't you? Apologies. I meant 'consumer capitalism' in my last post. I meant to be consistent. Tell me, who runs the companies providing consumer goods? Are they corporates or anarcho syndicalists? Does it have to be just one or the other? For example, many shops down our way are independently owned and are supplied by local traders not corporate behemoths. That is where your original logic was flawed and somewhat illogical. By not taking into account the various strands of consumer capitalism and implying that the poster had to reject all for him not to be a hypocrite. You are clutching at straws, Michael. How much produce that you buy, you consume or in house is solely sourced, manufactured and sold by independent retailers? For example, I was told that one in three bananas you consume come from the big two of banana producers. Therefore, you might purchase three bananas from your local organic store, feel smug about it, but two are provided by big business with the other one likely to be provided by big business. You know this is true and you arguing for argument sake. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 02 Dec 14 5.17pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 5.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 3.12pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 11.51am

Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post.

You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'.

You are desperate, aren't you?

Apologies. I meant 'consumer capitalism' in my last post. I meant to be consistent.

Tell me, who runs the companies providing consumer goods? Are they corporates or anarcho syndicalists?

Does it have to be just one or the other? For example, many shops down our way are independently owned and are supplied by local traders not corporate behemoths.

You are clutching at straws, Michael.

How much produce that you buy, you consume or in house is solely sourced, manufactured and sold by independent retailers?

For example, I was told that one in three bananas you consume come from the big two of banana producers. Therefore, you might purchase three bananas from your local organic store, feel smug about it, but two are provided by big business with the other one likely to be provided by big business.

You know this is true and you arguing for argument sake.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Dec 14 5.23pm
Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 5.17pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 5.01pm Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 3.12pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 11.51am Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post. You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'. You are desperate, aren't you? Apologies. I meant 'consumer capitalism' in my last post. I meant to be consistent. Tell me, who runs the companies providing consumer goods? Are they corporates or anarcho syndicalists? Does it have to be just one or the other? For example, many shops down our way are independently owned and are supplied by local traders not corporate behemoths. That is where your original logic was flawed and somewhat illogical. By not taking into account the various strands of consumer capitalism and implying that the poster had to reject all for him not to be a hypocrite. You are clutching at straws, Michael. How much produce that you buy, you consume or in house is solely sourced, manufactured and sold by independent retailers? For example, I was told that one in three bananas you consume come from the big two of banana producers. Therefore, you might purchase three bananas from your local organic store, feel smug about it, but two are provided by big business with the other one likely to be provided by big business. You know this is true and you arguing for argument sake. Interesting. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Dec 14 5.23pm

Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 5.17pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 5.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 02 Dec 2014 3.12pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Dec 2014 11.51am

Not arguing, Matthew, just pointing out the flaw in your post.

You said 'consumer capitalism' originally. That is different to the subsequent re-wording 'corporate capitalism'.

You are desperate, aren't you?

Apologies. I meant 'consumer capitalism' in my last post. I meant to be consistent.

Tell me, who runs the companies providing consumer goods? Are they corporates or anarcho syndicalists?

Does it have to be just one or the other? For example, many shops down our way are independently owned and are supplied by local traders not corporate behemoths.

You are clutching at straws, Michael.

How much produce that you buy, you consume or in house is solely sourced, manufactured and sold by independent retailers?

You know this is true and you arguing for argument sake.

Interesting.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Dec 14 5.25pm
I'd imagine that people are arguing against the capitalism that is driving down wages to not only keep costs lower, but more importantly keeping the dividends for shareholders up.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Dec 14 5.25pm

I'd imagine that people are arguing against the capitalism that is driving down wages to not only keep costs lower, but more importantly keeping the dividends for shareholders up.

Alert a moderator to this post

Monty the Eagle Lima 02 Dec 14 5.32pm
Quote nickgusset at 02 Dec 2014 5.25pm I'd imagine that people are arguing against the capitalism that is driving down wages to not only keep costs lower, but more importantly keeping the dividends for shareholders up. In fairness, a fair whack of these dividends will go to institutions such as pension providers etc.
Alert a moderator to this post

Monty the Eagle

Lima 02 Dec 14 5.32pm

Send a Private Message to Monty the Eagle

Quote nickgusset at 02 Dec 2014 5.25pm

I'd imagine that people are arguing against the capitalism that is driving down wages to not only keep costs lower, but more importantly keeping the dividends for shareholders up.

In fairness, a fair whack of these dividends will go to institutions such as pension providers etc.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Dec 14 5.34pm
Quote Monty the Eagle at 02 Dec 2014 5.32pm Quote nickgusset at 02 Dec 2014 5.25pm I'd imagine that people are arguing against the capitalism that is driving down wages to not only keep costs lower, but more importantly keeping the dividends for shareholders up. In fairness, a fair whack of these dividends will go to institutions such as pension providers etc. State pension?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Dec 14 5.34pm

Quote Monty the Eagle at 02 Dec 2014 5.32pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Dec 2014 5.25pm

I'd imagine that people are arguing against the capitalism that is driving down wages to not only keep costs lower, but more importantly keeping the dividends for shareholders up.

In fairness, a fair whack of these dividends will go to institutions such as pension providers etc.

State pension?

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Unions you've got to love them,

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors