On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 21:17:56 +0100, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
>
>"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.
Profit is wonderful, especially if one is a shareholder.
If the service is poor, exercise your other options. When customers migrate to
other services, companies notice.
|
| 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 |
|