|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 23, 2024 21:31:23 GMT
It depends on what they are informed by as to what they understand.
I think it is a system of false division in a divide and rule monopoly government system where they are actually all on the same side. It's like in school where children played cowboys and Indians. The kids get together and decide who will play cowboy and who Indian.
Clearly the Germans don't agree with you when it comes to the AfG. And the Germans are probably in a better position than most when it comes to commenting on far-right activity. Do you mean Marx? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 23, 2024 21:36:39 GMT
I'd say this was fairly accurate, apart from, I would have thought Sky news was a bit further to the left...  The Daily Mail and the Daily Express seem to be the two papers most referred to on this forum, that says a lot about the posters on this forum. The Guardian is the paper that most rebuttals of right wing insinuations come from. One of my favourite broadcasters for financial news at the moment is Sean Foo from Singapore. I'd love to know where you place him on your spectrum. I just think he is intelligent and educated. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 23, 2024 21:42:11 GMT
Left and right labels are actually meaningless, except for the few people that base their identity on them, because in reality people just don't fit into those pigeon holes neatly. Communist, Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Nationalist are probably more accurate labels than left / right. Also their definitions move with what is in fashion at the time. The classic example being "Freedom", which is currently claimed by the right, but was most definitely a left wing notion when Thatcher was breaking the skulls of miners. You seem to think that the media lead (or mislead) the people, actually the truth is that they provide content that the public want to consume. The media reflects the people, not the other way around. How do I know this... just think of a conspiracy nut... they will believe multiple conspiracies because they want to believe... not because the evidence is compelling. I always thought of the Daily Mail, which I used to read on a fairly regular basis, was a good newspaper, until it came to politics where it seemed to be intent on misleading people. I stopped reading it, except for the odd occasion back in the late 1970s, it doesn't appear to have changed much since then. I'm certain the Mail (or the Express) don't pay good money or waste paper space politically misleading people while thinking they were wasting their time money and paper space to no ends. A classic example for me, which I have posted before, occurred on the Jimmy Young show in 2000. A woman phoned in very irate over the Millennium Dome, she gave it down the banks in no uncertain manner. As she was ending Jimmy asked her if she had been to the dome, she said "no, but I have read all about it in my Newspaper." Newspapers know that such people exist and that misleading them pretty much ensured which way they voted. Left and right labels are good indicators of political positions, people show this in their voting habits regardless of the political system they vote in. Thatcher was Hard-Right, a callous individual who did serious social and financial damage to the country. She was described as a 'Stocking Footed Fascist' at one stage. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 23, 2024 21:43:13 GMT
Clearly the Germans don't agree with you when it comes to the AfG. And the Germans are probably in a better position than most when it comes to commenting on far-right activity. Do you mean Marx? Don't be silly. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 23, 2024 21:47:25 GMT
The Daily Mail and the Daily Express seem to be the two papers most referred to on this forum, that says a lot about the posters on this forum. The Guardian is the paper that most rebuttals of right wing insinuations come from. One of my favourite broadcasters for financial news at the moment is Sean Foo from Singapore. I'd love to know where you place him on your spectrum. I just think he is intelligent and educated. Which station does he broadcast from? |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Sept 23, 2024 22:43:33 GMT
Left and right labels are actually meaningless, except for the few people that base their identity on them, because in reality people just don't fit into those pigeon holes neatly. Communist, Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Nationalist are probably more accurate labels than left / right. Also their definitions move with what is in fashion at the time. The classic example being "Freedom", which is currently claimed by the right, but was most definitely a left wing notion when Thatcher was breaking the skulls of miners. You seem to think that the media lead (or mislead) the people, actually the truth is that they provide content that the public want to consume. The media reflects the people, not the other way around. How do I know this... just think of a conspiracy nut... they will believe multiple conspiracies because they want to believe... not because the evidence is compelling. I always thought of the Daily Mail, which I used to read on a fairly regular basis, was a good newspaper, until it came to politics where it seemed to be intent on misleading people. I stopped reading it, except for the odd occasion back in the late 1970s, it doesn't appear to have changed much since then. I'm certain the Mail (or the Express) don't pay good money or waste paper space politically misleading people while thinking they were wasting their time money and paper space to no ends. A classic example for me, which I have posted before, occurred on the Jimmy Young show in 2000. A woman phoned in very irate over the Millennium Dome, she gave it down the banks in no uncertain manner. As she was ending Jimmy asked her if she had been to the dome, she said "no, but I have read all about it in my Newspaper." Newspapers know that such people exist and that misleading them pretty much ensured which way they voted. Left and right labels are good indicators of political positions, people show this in their voting habits regardless of the political system they vote in. Thatcher was Hard-Right, a callous individual who did serious social and financial damage to the country. She was described as a 'Stocking Footed Fascist' at one stage. I don't think you quite grasped my point. The mail didn't convince her the dome was a waste of money, they convinced somebody who thinks the government is wasteful that the dome was a waste of money. They did this to make money, not because they care that the dome is a waste of money. Say two websites with equal traffic ran the same story about a celebrity falling over in high heels and breaking her ankle: Headline one reads: Taylor Swift breaks ankle. Headline two reads: Taylor Swift suffers wardrobe malfunction. The story is about the same person, so in your theory they should get equal clicks. However we both know the wardrobe malfunction headline would get more clicks because (1) her fans would click on it (2) every male would click on it because it suggests some kind of nudity. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 23, 2024 23:12:54 GMT
I always thought of the Daily Mail, which I used to read on a fairly regular basis, was a good newspaper, until it came to politics where it seemed to be intent on misleading people. I stopped reading it, except for the odd occasion back in the late 1970s, it doesn't appear to have changed much since then. I'm certain the Mail (or the Express) don't pay good money or waste paper space politically misleading people while thinking they were wasting their time money and paper space to no ends. A classic example for me, which I have posted before, occurred on the Jimmy Young show in 2000. A woman phoned in very irate over the Millennium Dome, she gave it down the banks in no uncertain manner. As she was ending Jimmy asked her if she had been to the dome, she said "no, but I have read all about it in my Newspaper." Newspapers know that such people exist and that misleading them pretty much ensured which way they voted. Left and right labels are good indicators of political positions, people show this in their voting habits regardless of the political system they vote in. Thatcher was Hard-Right, a callous individual who did serious social and financial damage to the country. She was described as a 'Stocking Footed Fascist' at one stage. This may come as a surprise, but I'm not a DM reader, yes it must be difficult for you to even imagine that a far right extremist Nazi like me does not read the DM, but all is not lost. It is Mrs R's paper of choice, ahh redemption I hear you cry, lol. Anyone who thinks Thatcher was hard right should go back to school. We have never had a hard right government in this country, and I was going to say we probably never will, but with the current trend of successive governments ignoring the majority, who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 24, 2024 6:35:00 GMT
I always thought of the Daily Mail, which I used to read on a fairly regular basis, was a good newspaper, until it came to politics where it seemed to be intent on misleading people. I stopped reading it, except for the odd occasion back in the late 1970s, it doesn't appear to have changed much since then. I'm certain the Mail (or the Express) don't pay good money or waste paper space politically misleading people while thinking they were wasting their time money and paper space to no ends. A classic example for me, which I have posted before, occurred on the Jimmy Young show in 2000. A woman phoned in very irate over the Millennium Dome, she gave it down the banks in no uncertain manner. As she was ending Jimmy asked her if she had been to the dome, she said "no, but I have read all about it in my Newspaper." Newspapers know that such people exist and that misleading them pretty much ensured which way they voted. Left and right labels are good indicators of political positions, people show this in their voting habits regardless of the political system they vote in. Thatcher was Hard-Right, a callous individual who did serious social and financial damage to the country. She was described as a 'Stocking Footed Fascist' at one stage. I don't think you quite grasped my point. The mail didn't convince her the dome was a waste of money, they convinced somebody who thinks the government is wasteful that the dome was a waste of money. They did this to make money, not because they care that the dome is a waste of money. Say two websites with equal traffic ran the same story about a celebrity falling over in high heels and breaking her ankle: Headline one reads: Taylor Swift breaks ankle. Headline two reads: Taylor Swift suffers wardrobe malfunction. The story is about the same person, so in your theory they should get equal clicks. However we both know the wardrobe malfunction headline would get more clicks because (1) her fans would click on it (2) every male would click on it because it suggests some kind of nudity. I didn't mention the Mail, nor did she, nor did she mention anything about the costs. Attempting to defending the indefensible by making things up in your mind, seems to be your forte. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 24, 2024 6:44:03 GMT
I always thought of the Daily Mail, which I used to read on a fairly regular basis, was a good newspaper, until it came to politics where it seemed to be intent on misleading people. I stopped reading it, except for the odd occasion back in the late 1970s, it doesn't appear to have changed much since then. I'm certain the Mail (or the Express) don't pay good money or waste paper space politically misleading people while thinking they were wasting their time money and paper space to no ends. A classic example for me, which I have posted before, occurred on the Jimmy Young show in 2000. A woman phoned in very irate over the Millennium Dome, she gave it down the banks in no uncertain manner. As she was ending Jimmy asked her if she had been to the dome, she said "no, but I have read all about it in my Newspaper." Newspapers know that such people exist and that misleading them pretty much ensured which way they voted. Left and right labels are good indicators of political positions, people show this in their voting habits regardless of the political system they vote in. Thatcher was Hard-Right, a callous individual who did serious social and financial damage to the country. She was described as a 'Stocking Footed Fascist' at one stage. This may come as a surprise, but I'm not a DM reader, yes it must be difficult for you to even imagine that a far right extremist Nazi like me does not read the DM, but all is not lost. It is Mrs R's paper of choice, ahh redemption I hear you cry, lol. Anyone who thinks Thatcher was hard right should go back to school. We have never had a hard right government in this country, and I was going to say we probably never will, but with the current trend of successive governments ignoring the majority, who knows. I never accused you of reading the Mail, I was just commenting on my experience with, and opinion of, the Mail. IIRC, you have admitted that you are unaware of the serious social and financial damage Thatcher did to this country. It follows that you are not in a position to judge her political position. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 24, 2024 6:49:51 GMT
What 'hard right' policies did Thatcher introduce?
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Sept 24, 2024 8:19:30 GMT
No matter what the problem is, the central idea is to apply common sense, when common gets overtaken by right or left wing ideology then trouble starts. When common sense does not correspond with theory, then we get even more trouble, like this.
On the left, that business money making is bad. Not so, only a child would think that.
And on the right, eeerrr, let me think, ill get back to you.....nope, cant think of owt. Being centre Bentley, is that common sense?, no, not if it doesnt solve a problem, that look at the Cameron disaster, THAT is being centrist.
COmmonsense is RIGHT WING.
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Sept 24, 2024 8:22:23 GMT
Got caught on commenting on page two, the auto thing is a bit funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 24, 2024 8:44:29 GMT
What 'hard right' policies did Thatcher introduce? I can give you the outcomes, like thousands of businesses folding, people out of work approaching 4 Million, 3 million children living in relative poverty, the huge cut in funding most state schools caused by her introduction of 'Grant Maintained' schools, the serious damage done to the NHS, the selling off of Natural Gas and North Sea Oil which has meant an ongoing loss to the UK economy of billions of pounds. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 24, 2024 8:49:21 GMT
No matter what the problem is, the central idea is to apply common sense, when common gets overtaken by right or left wing ideology then trouble starts. When common sense does not correspond with theory, then we get even more trouble, like this. On the left, that business money making is bad. Not so, only a child would think that. And on the right, eeerrr, let me think, ill get back to you.....nope, cant think of owt. Being centre Bentley, is that common sense?, no, not if it doesnt solve a problem, that look at the Cameron disaster, THAT is being centrist. COmmonsense is RIGHT WING. Only to right-wingers. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Sept 24, 2024 8:58:15 GMT
Change is inevitable see, that change means pain in regards to your comments above. For instance, the miners, i have to assume that even now it would be ok for them to be digging it out. Back then we couldnt sell it, do you see the nonsense? That the country must pay for collieries to continue, maintenace, etc pay, support structures whatever, pensions.....when you look at the balance sheet, in the column that states profit.....it says ZERO.
Now your going to give me a run down of how communities were destroyed etc, thats true.
Its not a disaster, its change. With your thinking we would still be living in caves, and thinking its good, not wanting something better.
|
|
