On Thu 21 Nov at 11:47pm Pat Mchunt wrote:
On Black People:
'flag-waving picannies' with 'watermelon smiles'. 'racism is as natural as sewage.' 'a bunch of black kids made me turn a hair.' Condoned an article saying 'Orientals have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole.'
On gay men: 'tank-topped bumboys'
On Women:
'Just pat her on the bottom and send her on her way' . Malaysian women only go to University because 'They've got to find men to marry'
On Muslims:
'letterboxes,' and 'bankrobbers.' 'Islam is the problem'
He is a racist, misogynist, and homophobe. If you vote Tory, you are too.
On Fri 22 Nov at 8:23am nancy wrote:
How sad do you have to be to dig up stuff like that? I guess you don't have a life.
On Fri 22 Nov at 10:06am Sleeveless wrote:
I see Labour won’t rule out secondary picketing.
On Fri 22 Nov at 10:41am Green Sleeves wrote:
You don't have to dig very deep to uncover Johnson's incompetence and total dishonesty.
The only response they have is "quick, look behind you....Corbyn hates Jews!"
On Fri 22 Nov at 10:45am Huey Lewes wrote:
You could dig this stuff up with a teaspoon without breaking a sweat Nancy, pretty sad you're obviously a Boris fan.
On Fri 22 Nov at 12:09pm Sleeveless wrote:
It’s fascinating stuff this election. My son who went to Uni is loving the idea of 4 day week and is hopeful of getting his tuition fees back at some time under a labour government who he will be voting for.
On the other hand, my daughter, who left school and did an apprenticeship before starting up her own business is horrified at the thought that a future labour will want a stake and interfere in her business. She will be voting conservative.
On Fri 22 Nov at 1:02pm nancy wrote:
I'm not a fan of any party, I'm just surprised that someone should bother to start a thread on one leader though when they all have so many faults.
On Fri 22 Nov at 1:51pm Nevillman wrote:
If you really feel that way about a thread Nancy I suggest you just ignore it. You have now posted twice on it. Maybe you need to consider who should be getting a life (in addition to myself of course).
On Fri 22 Nov at 9:31pm Blatant Liar wrote:
Labour will be ditching the 25% council tax discount for single occupancy homes. Someone has the pay for free broadband …
On Sat 23 Nov at 8:12am Sussex Jim wrote:
Labour also mooted a 20% annual increase in Council Tax a year or so ago (probably not in their manifesto). That would mean, with compound interest, residents would be paying nearly TWO AND A HALF times as much after five years. Think about it.
On Sat 23 Nov at 12:51pm Sensible wrote:
There never have been, nor will there be, any Labour voters in my family or properties. The Conservative Party is excellently led: it stands up for Britain, and is the natural party of government. Truly Conservative policies that encourage hard work, self-reliance, and proper recognition of the gentlemanly nature of inherited power and wealth, will at last make Britain normal again. No other party's leaders have any experience in government. I do not ask people to do jobs when they have no relevant background. The joy of this election is that we are enjoying the prospect of Labour's bankruptcy because its support has dwindled to virtually nothing.
On Sun 24 Nov at 11:47am Bert wrote:
Let's get BREXIT done ! And MOVE on !!
On Sun 24 Nov at 12:51pm A Person wrote:
What does "getting Brexit done" mean to you? What would it have meant on October 31st?
Are you just fed up about the arguments and debates? Because that isn't going to stop. I have a nasty feeling that the arguments and debates will go on well past my sell-by date. That's because once we leave the world's largest trading bloc we'll have to establish hundreds and perhaps thousands of new agreements. The economic effects will be severe for several years - that's something even the most Gungho Brexiteer acknowledges - and that's not counting all the billions we've already spent.
So what does "getting Brexit done" mean?
On Sun 24 Nov at 12:53pm A Person wrote:
"proper recognition of the gentlemanly nature of inherited power and wealth"
Brilliant. That is brilliant: I thought the art of satire was dead, but clearly not.
On Sun 24 Nov at 2:01pm Sensible wrote:
It is historically verifiable that the foremost instinct in all of us is to do best for our own families. Because of this, the principle of inheritance of wealth and power has been more pervasive and lasted longer than any misguided imposition of democracy. Although landowners by inheritance, to preserve the British Nation, must command a sustainable employed class of men, it is no particular concern to us how it exists, beyond that its members are willing to work, its limits are kept, and it will produce a further generation. Over the course of several centuries by providing housing, industry and war, we plan how employed men shall come and go as the wheat of the field, planted and cut down yearly. But the field must go on. If it does not survive, nothing survives. And we are the owners of the fields.
The noble who inherits land and workforces learns that he has come into that power as a result of safeguarding by his ancestors, and therefore respects it as a gentleman: and he gives commands over it as a gentleman. Those who 'rise to the top' do not have that background, and are the wrong people to give orders, as they have inherited no authority whatsoever.
On Sun 24 Nov at 2:45pm A Person wrote:
"Sensible", are you a member of this fabled class of people with "inherited authority"? Or is it anyone who owns land? Is that the qualifier?
I don't think even the Tories have envisaged a return to a feudal system. Clearly you have inside knowledge!
On Sun 24 Nov at 6:46pm Buzzard wrote:
Sensible is a parody account clearly. I rather admire his last post, which manages to emulate the tone of an 18th Century writer with (as far as Google can determine) actually being a quote from one.
On Sun 24 Nov at 6:47pm Buzzard wrote:
Errata: for "with", read "without".
On Sun 24 Nov at 6:49pm A Person wrote:
Erratum, unless you made several errors, I think Buzzard.
Sensible comes out with this guff on a regular basis, although none quite so antediluvian as this admittedly.
I do believe Sussex Jim is real though.
On Sun 24 Nov at 7:39pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Yes. A Person, I am real. I do not post on this Forum as a troll; but because I believe that any wealth or property accumulated as a result of a lifetime of honest work should be retained. And, to quote John Major, should be "cascaded down through the generations".
I really saddens me to think that a very large minority of the population these days think that everything should be shared out; that those who have improved their lot should prop up those that have not bothered to accrue much. Socialism was an experiment of the last century, and 100 years on from the Russian revolution it is time to put the final nail in the red coffin.
On Sun 24 Nov at 9:26pm A Person wrote:
I don't think "everything" should be shared out, and actually there's a considerable difference between socialism and communism.
How do you feel about the NHS? Do you think it's okay that a proportion of the taxes you pay go to financing a system where healthcare is free at the point of use? That's a perfect example of a socialist solution. (Before you answer, did you know that over half of all bankruptcies in the US are because of medical costs? If you had a grandchild with a serious heart problem would you want it to be treated at the Evelina Children's Hospital by the NHS, or for it to die or cost you and your family's future in America? )
Democratic socialism and autocratic socialism are quite different both in their expression and in their ambitions. I won't expand here, but it's really not hard to do some research to differentiate between them.
I'm glad you've quoted John Major: he's horrified by the current leadership and their plans. And I'm yet again struck by your certainty that just because you've had the opportunity to accumulate some wealth that those who haven't are somehow worthless. "Haven't bothered to accrue much". That could be the binmen you're talking about, or the porter at the hospital (or indeed the graduate teacher at your grandchildren's school, who cannot hope to buy somewhere to live on her salary). That really is quite "I'm all right jack". Well done: you bought some property when you were in your 20s and now you're in your later years you're worth millions. That's not you being clever (or me for that matter) that's because we live in a distorted housing market.
I won't change your mind, but I'd love to think that people look at this thread and think "am I prepared to pay a bit more tax to ensure that the NHS survives and people don't have to sleep on the streets? Am I ready to accept that our society is terribly divided and that division could be reduced without pain?" You probably aren't, but many are and actually everyone "normal" will be considerably happier for it...
On Sun 24 Nov at 9:27pm A Person wrote:
Errata: Democratic socialism and autocratic COMMUNISM...
(As you were...)
On Sun 24 Nov at 9:52pm Sensible wrote:
Considering the commanding lead the Conservative Party under the leadership of twice-elected mayor of London Mr. Johnson now enjoys, I shall be delighted when the forthcoming election victory not only shatters the failed, patriotism-hating Labour and Liberal Democrat parties into a thousand morally bankrupt pieces, but also the strong leadership of the Conservative Party returns power to those who, by birth and by the experience of wealth and property, most fully deserve it.
The supporters of evil socialism, a class unfit, who oppose good order and decency, shall be detected, judged and excluded, at all levels in every house, business and school. The people are demanding this. Everybody hates a Red.
On Sun 24 Nov at 10:12pm A Person wrote:
Yes, Mr Sensible, but that isn't really an answer to my questions is it now?
(As it happens I come from a long line of property owning high achieving Brits unlike the positive mongrel that is Mr Johnson. I am nevertheless not attracted by your prospectus, which sounds awful; not fun at all)
On Sun 24 Nov at 11:31pm Tom Pain wrote:
That's right right Mr Person, a lot of socialist politicians come from the aristocracy and the fabulously wealthy and they're happy with status quo. They have in common with the conservatives, support for a central bank,which keeps power where it belongs - in the hands of those born in special wombs. Me, I think that central banking is the problem and the left right paradigm is just a diversion.
On Tue 3 Dec at 8:30am DfL_in_Lewes wrote:
I am with Nancy on this*. It's real sad that people are stooping so low as to be producing evidence of the racist, lying nature of the man who wants to be Prime Minister.
*I'm not really. Just thought I would be clear as the likes of Nancy probably won't get the sarcasm.