|
|
Post by see2 on May 8, 2024 6:05:59 GMT
The Sun lied about the deaths of Liverpool FC football supporters at Sheffield Wednesdays football ground. I'm surprised that anyone buys the Sun in Liverpool. I lived in Liverpool for the first 60 odd years of my life, I never even looked at the Sun once it was bought by Murdoch and turned into a deceitful newspapers that backed the lying bitch Thatcher to the hilt. That's the money power at work. The Sun carried information being peddled at the time by the Police and emergency service personnel. Perhaps journalists should have been less ready to accuse and apportion blame. But even years later, another journal reporting opinions on reactions to the event, caused upset and recriminations and got Boris Johnson into hot water… -- "On 19 April 1989, four days after the incident, The Sun published a front-page story with the headline "The Truth" containing a number of falsehoods alleging that Liverpool supporters were responsible for the accident." -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverage_of_the_Hillsborough_disaster_by_The_Sun#:~:text=On%2019%20April%201989%2C%20four,were%20responsible%20for%20the%20accident. You can read the lies if you open the website posted. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 8, 2024 6:44:37 GMT
We are a representative democracy. What you appear to rage about is actually capitalism and the 'money power' to influence the running of our democracy. IMO that is the area that needs further improvement, not a switch to a more controlling form of Politics. Capitalism 'for the many, not the few' is IMO the way to go. No, we are not. I am not raging about anything, much less capitalism; but then I never really expect you to understand even the most basic premises of any argument - you just jump in with both feet only having read what you want to see, not what the other person actually wrote. Nowhere at all did I mention Capitalism, and if you think the Landed Gentry in this country are primarily a product of Capitalism you understand neither Capitalism nor the history of this Country. The People are not sovereign, Parliament is not sovereign. The entity with Sovereignty is the entity that has absolute authority over what becomes law and what does not become law - that is the Monarch. The entity with Sovereignty is the entity that can dissolve Parliament on a whim - that is the Monarch. The entity with Sovereignty is the entity whose approval must be sough to form a new Government, and without which Parliament can not sit - that is the Monarch. The entity with Sovereignty is the entity to whom our Emergency Services (especially the Police) and Armed Forces swear allegiance - that is the Monarch. None of that has anything at all to do with Capitalism and everything to do with Monarchy. But how typical of you to write a response and get literally everything wrong. PS: There is no such thing as "capitalism for the many" the purpose of Capitalism is to concentrate wealth, and so power, in as few hands as possible. Your boyfriend Tony "Tory Lite" Blair tried "capitalism for the many" and the Wealth Gap increased! All The Best YES WE ARE, that's why we have regular general elections. Open your eyes for once in your life. I know you didn't mention capitalism, I did in an attempt to penetrate your fixed opinions. The 'landed gentry' are the ones with influence and the money power, but they do not have the same control control they had before WW2, since when we have a much more bridled form of capitalism. Not bridled enough maybe. Don't be silly, the Monarch is just performing a duty to follow required practice rubber stamping the changes on what is laughingly called 'His Government'. "On a whim" in theory, but absolutely no chance in this country in reality. Regardless of your 16th century thinking. The Monarch is expected to rubber stamp that which parliament puts before him. "Royal consent was last denied in 1708". You need to do a lot of catching up rather than to waste your time posting silly insults at me. That is why the country NEEDS a "for the many not the few" approach. I know you fancy Blair, its why you keep getting your knickers in a twist when ever you post about him. It was the rescuing of the banks that unintentionally led to greater wealth for the rich.  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 8, 2024 7:01:45 GMT
There is capitalism for the many. The owner of facebook etc, started with nought, Macdonalds started with one small shop. I left home at 18 with just a job, a trainee, living in a bedsit. I have owned, sold quite a few houses, paid off four mortgages, if i thought id ever do that at 18, i would put my own arm around my shoulders, givee me a squeeze, and say " well done mate". You cannot block the path to wealth, its not how it works, your thinking is paranoid. The sovereign is in charge, in name only. The ladder for wealth is there for everybody, most people want wealth provided, without having to work for it. If i invent something everyone wants to buy, the government, multi nationals cant get in my way, and they wont want to, what they will do is replicate what ive got. Pro, youve got marxist beliefs, a capitalist society makes money, not stymies it, to control it is to handicap wealth, and everyone would see it. Indeed, what evidence do have? The wealth gap is the gap between those that get off their asses, and those that dont.That is not entirely true. For instance in the recent past Billionaires increased their wealth by £51 billion over less than a decade when most people were struggling to manage economically. Theresa May said the she would put in place a system where there would be some sort of relationship between the wealth taken by CEOs and a percentage wealth increase for the lower paid in the company. She recognised the greed at the top by those with their hands nearest the till. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 8, 2024 7:06:14 GMT
There really is ONLY one way to get rich - exploitation. It can take many forms, the most pertinent to this discussion being: 1) underpaying workers for the actual value of their labour, 2) overcharging for goods and or services when their actual "cost to deliver" is calculated, oh and 3) the socialisation of liabilities and privatisation of profits that mass Shareholding has delivered. All The Best Bullshit. Like every other generic lefty, you have no understanding of economics and believe that a bogeyman nebulously called "The rich" is to blame for all of societys ills. In reality, the most common way to get rich is to supply a product or service that lots of people want. It's really that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 8, 2024 7:20:50 GMT
That's just one more of your lies about me, seems you think its funny. How sad You have the consistency of rice pudding. You literally just trashed The Sun, but made no mention of the biased reporting of left wing media. So come on then, if I am lying about you tell us when you last read an article from a right-wing media source? Normal unbiased people can take in information from all sides of the media and then decide what they think is bollocks. You on other hand live in an echo chamber and seek to cancel all voices from the right by calling them liars and questioning their motives. Pathetic really. You are an example of your approach to the media, and you are a good example of why your approach should be seriously avoided. I still do occasionally look at bigoted and biased right wing newspapers when I come across one bought by someone else, only to see that they have not changed over the years. I used to buy and read some for many years before being sickened by the immature 'look alike failed Grammar school numpties' that control them. Some of the papers are good right up to the point when their immature political nonsense takes over. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 8, 2024 7:43:28 GMT
There is capitalism for the many. The owner of facebook etc, started with nought, Macdonalds started with one small shop. I left home at 18 with just a job, a trainee, living in a bedsit. I have owned, sold quite a few houses, paid off four mortgages, if i thought id ever do that at 18, i would put my own arm around my shoulders, givee me a squeeze, and say " well done mate". You cannot block the path to wealth, its not how it works, your thinking is paranoid. The sovereign is in charge, in name only. The ladder for wealth is there for everybody, most people want wealth provided, without having to work for it. If i invent something everyone wants to buy, the government, multi nationals cant get in my way, and they wont want to, what they will do is replicate what ive got. Pro, youve got marxist beliefs, a capitalist society makes money, not stymies it, to control it is to handicap wealth, and everyone would see it. Indeed, what evidence do have? The wealth gap is the gap between those that get off their asses, and those that dont.That is not entirely true. For instance in the recent past Billionaires increased their wealth by £51 billion over less than a decade when most people were struggling to manage economically. Theresa May said the she would put in place a system where there would be some sort of relationship between the wealth taken by CEOs and a percentage wealth increase for the lower paid in the company. She recognised the greed at the top by those with their hands nearest the till. Theresa May was talking bollocks - that was not within her power. The world is simply too interconnected nowdays. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on May 8, 2024 8:36:01 GMT
Pro, trickle down does work, and your accusation of exploitation is wrong. I am tempted to ask you to research the reasons why this is so, but i am wasting my time, you wont because your views are plowed in. As for your father, again he did not make changes did he? I did, from a bike mechanic to giving lectures, owning property.
Whats the difference between your father and me,? absorb that if you can.
Trickle down works, my family, friends etc benefit. Charities benefit. The banker you describe, if he makes a huge amount of money, even if it is by punching a computer, where does the majority go? You wont reply because it demolishes your argument, it goes to the government to be frittered away by fools, but it includes the NHS, social care etc.
So making money is good, isnt it?
Indeed, its the thing that drives all of society an example is the Dragons den, money drives invention, steam trains came into being to get produce around the country, train companies made fortunes, tax revenues sky rocketed. People could eat fresh fish, veg. Good isnt it?
The sadness is that none of this will register, that i have demolished a lifetime of wrong thinking, and heres the kicker, yes i play poker....in business and in poker, he who dares wins.
In business nothing is guaranteed, socialism wants certainty, when true money making capitalism is risk and hard work.
You, and socialists are driven by one thing, envy. Poor kid made good, me.....envy. Envy is destructive, angry, evil. Another thing, business is HARD WORK, long hours, socialists are not cut out for that. Risk, to make money, you have to spend it first. Many have fallen that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 8, 2024 8:40:39 GMT
A good question, im not sure that it is, democracy is a talking shop that gets nowhere, and muddies the waters on everything, nothing gets done. Doing is better, that mistakes are quickly rectified, or would be by honest people. Democracy in britain does not exist anyway, Sunak lies openly, defies his mandate, back stabs, does not care anyway. If this is democracy then you can shove it. Its a con job, you vote for whoever, then they betray all. He who shouts the loudest wins, as above, the BBC only listens to pressure groups. The silent majority are ignored. Government is too big, the wage bill must halve the national output. Nature has its ways of dismantling systems that dont work, it will go eventually. There must be a precursor in history, that when society gets like this, what happens next....from the past? Anyone know? My guess is revolution, what would that look like? Was the Trump riot a start? You cannot ignore core values for long before hell breaks loose, like no law and order, invasion.....bankrupcy. To rebel then impose the same but not the previous? I suspect parliament has evolved to soak up tax money, drag out all things, for christ sake the house of lords exists. The machinery used to run society needs replacing. All is corrupted. This sensible fact that comes with democracy does not exist in dictatorships. This sounds (at first) like a certain statement that is patently true with no wriggle room. However, i feel it needs to be challenged to some degree because it misses important realities about power. A dictator who has no consent in his population has no power. His commands are ignored and he is eventually carted off to a funny farm. How much consent does a dictator need? Probably more than a 'democratically elected' leader. The democratic leader can, without hypocrisy, insist that a rival go through the same official process he did to gain power. A dictator has no such defence - by taking power without process, he has implicitly given any rival 'moral permission' to do the same to him. We (most of the west) have had a very good run with our 'official democratic process' - that is, the official process has gained a high level of consent for a long time. However, i feel our good run is coming to an end and i will share why i feel this is the case The wide consent for our democratic process was not actually caused by the process' 'fairness', it was caused by the process returning competent leaders. However, the reasons for this leadership competence were not isolated to the democratic process itself. Our societies had strong competence-status signals that have now been scrambled. Our democratic process is allowing us to choose between candidates who all seem to have mental problems - can't tell the difference between a man and a woman or are so dishonest they are prepared to pretend they can't in order to gain power. This incompetence is in our education systems and institutions and so it can't easily be avoided by swapping out leaders - we just get to choose another candidate with the same mental problems. Our status system has been broken and without that status system, democracy is useless |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on May 8, 2024 9:08:05 GMT
Well put, so where do we go from here. Ordinary common sense has fled. Can a dictator survive on common sense doing the right thing, after all, thats what we all want.
The answer is no, society wants common sense, but those that want power will tear down a dictator, purely and successfully on the premise of being a dictator.
And that of democracy, democracy is about tearing down and exposing your opponent. We cant win.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 8, 2024 9:32:11 GMT
That is not entirely true. For instance in the recent past Billionaires increased their wealth by £51 billion over less than a decade when most people were struggling to manage economically. Theresa May said the she would put in place a system where there would be some sort of relationship between the wealth taken by CEOs and a percentage wealth increase for the lower paid in the company. She recognised the greed at the top by those with their hands nearest the till. Theresa May was talking bollocks - that was not within her power. The world is simply too interconnected nowdays. There are ways and means of sorting out the very rich. But I noticed that an attack on GREED by the rich brings you up on your white charger defending the excessively rich once again. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 8, 2024 9:35:02 GMT
Well put, so where do we go from here. Ordinary common sense has fled. Can a dictator survive on common sense doing the right thing, after all, thats what we all want. The answer is no, society wants common sense, but those that want power will tear down a dictator, purely and successfully on the premise of being a dictator. And that of democracy, democracy is about tearing down and exposing your opponent. We cant win. Serious question. Do you support Putin as a dictator? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 8, 2024 9:56:29 GMT
This sensible fact that comes with democracy does not exist in dictatorships. This sounds (at first) like a certain statement that is patently true with no wriggle room. However, i feel it needs to be challenged to some degree because it misses important realities about power. A dictator who has no consent in his population has no power. His commands are ignored and he is eventually carted off to a funny farm. How much consent does a dictator need? Probably more than a 'democratically elected' leader. The democratic leader can, without hypocrisy, insist that a rival go through the same official process he did to gain power. A dictator has no such defence - by taking power without process, he has implicitly given any rival 'moral permission' to do the same to him. We (most of the west) have had a very good run with our 'official democratic process' - that is, the official process has gained a high level of consent for a long time. However, i feel our good run is coming to an end and i will share why i feel this is the case The wide consent for our democratic process was not actually caused by the process' 'fairness', it was caused by the process returning competent leaders. However, the reasons for this leadership competence were not isolated to the democratic process itself. Our societies had strong competence-status signals that have now been scrambled. Our democratic process is allowing us to choose between candidates who all seem to have mental problems - can't tell the difference between a man and a woman or are so dishonest they are prepared to pretend they can't in order to gain power. This incompetence is in our education systems and institutions and so it can't easily be avoided by swapping out leaders - we just get to choose another candidate with the same mental problems. Our status system has been broken and without that status system, democracy is useless A dictator owns and censures all of the media, refuses to acknowledge any political opposition to the point of seeing opponents dead, imprisoned or driven out of the country by threats. Dictators control the political thoughts of the people through the ownership of the media, aka Nazi Germany. IMO dictators are extremists who seek and gain control, a sure sign of egotistical psychological problems. Democracy takes a wider view of the world and of life's freedoms. What I have noticed during my lifetime is that most dictators are usually right wing extremists, and that each time economics run into difficulties, as in Western economies through the International financial meltdown followed by fighting Covid 19, right-wingers come charging out from the shadows. My answer to the thoughts of dictatorship is that they will slide back into the shadows quite soon after the economy picks up. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 8, 2024 10:02:45 GMT
Well put, so where do we go from here. Ordinary common sense has fled. Can a dictator survive on common sense doing the right thing, after all, thats what we all want. The answer is no, society wants common sense, but those that want power will tear down a dictator, purely and successfully on the premise of being a dictator. And that of democracy, democracy is about tearing down and exposing your opponent. We cant win. Ordinary commonsense has not fled, economic weakness rules at the moment, so people look for an alternative way. But things WILL RETURN TO NORMAL just as soon as Western economies get back on a level footing. Dictatorships sometimes end in the dictator being butchered by the incoming dictator. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 8, 2024 10:13:40 GMT
That's just one more of your lies about me, seems you think its funny. How sad You have the consistency of rice pudding. You literally just trashed The Sun, but made no mention of the biased reporting of left wing media. So come on then, if I am lying about you tell us when you last read an article from a right-wing media source? Normal unbiased people can take in information from all sides of the media and then decide what they think is bollocks. You on other hand live in an echo chamber and seek to cancel all voices from the right by calling them liars and questioning their motives. Pathetic really. His modus operandi has ever been thus. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 8, 2024 10:19:48 GMT
You have the consistency of rice pudding. You literally just trashed The Sun, but made no mention of the biased reporting of left wing media. So come on then, if I am lying about you tell us when you last read an article from a right-wing media source? Normal unbiased people can take in information from all sides of the media and then decide what they think is bollocks. You on other hand live in an echo chamber and seek to cancel all voices from the right by calling them liars and questioning their motives. Pathetic really. His modus operandi has ever been thus. All The Best When posters resort to denigration in preference to debate they indicate just how defeated they are. |
|
