"Charles Lindbergh" <spirit@stlouis.invalid> wrote in message
news:h2j53ahfgo3809imgec2mped2shruscj2e@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 17:36:25 +0100, "Ian Field"
> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Charles Lindbergh" <spirit@stlouis.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:s8a33ah9ta5b2fqqf0bmfjar7fb4foj03c@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:14:09 +0100, "Ian Field"
>>> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Charles Lindbergh" <spirit@stlouis.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:56733adel7cii0race2gqfgp9786in34k5@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 14:51:57 GMT, Moi <moi@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why in tech e-book? Easy, they're taking the first falering steps
>>>>>>>>towards knowledge. If they search this forum in the past and
>>>>>>>>themselves'll find plenty of information to educate theirself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Anybody who uses phrases like 'socialist vultures' "spending other
>>>>>>>>peoples' money" are just advertising their complete ignorance of
>>>>>>>>basic
>>>>>>>>socio-economic political philosophy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Or to put into language that they can understand, they're dumb fucks
>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>know nothing about politics - so why should anybody listen when they
>>>>>>>>rabbit on about politics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good argument, you disagree with my position so I don't know
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> about politics. Really, is that the very best you can do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Saul Alinsky would be proud of you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can't disagree with your position because you haven't presented one,
>>>>>>merely a sentence deenigrating a position thqat you are ignorant of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you ever seen the IT Crowd? The one where the woman who is
>>>>>>totally
>>>>>>ignorany of IT repeats what her staff have told her, in a managers
>>>>>>meeting, that if you type 'google' into google you will 'break the
>>>>>>internet'. She was just displaying her ignorance of what she was
>>>>>>talking
>>>>>>about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you knew anything about basic socio-economic political theory (I
>>>>>>include capitalism in this heading) you wouldn't use such terms, you'd
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>in a position to present an informed opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Comments such as 'socialist vultures' and 'spending other peoples'
>>>>>>money'
>>>>>>are the equivalent to "if you type 'google' into google you'll break
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been giving your comments some consideration. You are right
>>>>> about
>>>>> one
>>>>> thing, socialists are not carrion scavengers. Socialists are worse
>>>>> than
>>>>> scavengers, they are parasites, more closely related to ticks, fleas
>>>>> and
>>>>> tapeworms.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least vultures do the work of finding an organism which is finished
>>>>> using
>>>>> it's assets.
>>>>
>>>>In the UK; we have the Toraidhe, who decide that publicly owned assets
>>>>actually belong to them while they're in government - and sell them off
>>>>to
>>>>foreign investors.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is quite apparent you do not like the conservative party in the UK.
>>>
>>> If someone has done something illegal, they should be prosecuted. On
>>> the
>>> other
>>> hand, if you simply disagree with their policies, vote them out of
>>> office.
>>>
>>> If you can't vote them out of office, well, you are shit-out-of-luck.
>>>
>>> By the way, exactly what "publicly owned assets" were sold off
>>> inappropriately?
>>
>>It would be quicker to list the family silver that they haven't flogged
>>off!
>>
>>British Rail, British Telecom (GPO) and the national grid spring to mind
>>without much thought.
>>
>>I'm not too sure who actually owned our car manufacturers, but I can't
>>think
>>of any that remain in British ownership since the previous infestation of
>>thieving Toraidhe.
>
> I do not believe any government should be in the business of competing
> with
> private enterprise. As a result, the separation of BT from the post
> office and
> the privatization of British Rail were appropriate.
Now they're run by people who DGAF about anything but profit - they're all
massively more expensive now. In most cases the service has deteriorated
sharply.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 |
|