bridge too far

folk

golden

venice

I'm with you on this one - in fact I posted as much yesterday. AA may put whatever spin he likes on this; I think that David Lampitt has been IMPOSED on PFC to sniff out what's been going on.

most

Colllins [as in Phil who starred in that dross 'Buster' I watched last night ]

still

innings

Shall we start a 'rent-a-quote' thread. Churchill was referring to Socialism, although of course he adopted bits of it during WW2. New Labour isn't Socialism. Jeez I even say it in my sleep now, I've said it to you so many times

Yes, I think what you say is absolutely right. We could probably post posts of thousands of words about the fact that we've never had proper socialism in this country and about why 'wasters' have become wasters. I'll continue to believe in it, even though we'll never ever get socialism in the proper sense of the word. However, it's only because people have banged on about it over the years that we've got perhaps a little more in the way of equality of opportunity and decent health and education services than we've ever had before. We've still got a long way to go though.

He also said: 'The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery'.

(I'm assuming we're following on from 'kitten' and not 'cute'?) Heels

I'm not being patronising at all. I just get so fed up with people misunderstanding what socialism actually means and I try to help them understand. They spout their rhetoric without bothering to read about any of the 'isms' - communism, fascism, you name it - a lot of people only read what's in the papers and don't bother to delve further. And many people seem to think the last 13 years were ruled by a Socialist government. New Labour isn't socialism. Socialism is a simple concept. Give everyone a decent education and healthcare and encourage them to reach their potential. If they choose not to - OK - they possibly won't get far in life. If they use the support of health and education to achieve their potential then they may well amass wealth which is to everyone's advantage. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with wealth and its associated trappings. It's just a shame that more people aren't able to aspire to it because they've had a poor start to life. You could say that John Prescott, for all his faults, demonstrates that someone from a fairly deprived background pulled himself up by his bootstraps (putting himself through University) and has achieved his potential. Some of his actions were those of an idiot (but no different to many other people in a position of some authority) but he shouldn't be judged any differently or more harshly than those others just because he was once 'working class'.

Nice would have been very acceptable in the BTF club for play on word artistes. ------------------------------------ However - (a) mistake

Get out of here! You're a bloke!

See Dune - this is where you get it so very wrong. Socialists aren't against people being rich / enjoying the trappings of wealth. They just want EVERYBODY to fulfil their potential and if that leads to wealth then great. It's not about dragging people down but rather raising people up. It's not equality that Socialists want but equality of opportunity and that's a very different thing to what you, in your ignorance, perceive to be Socialism. Do yourself a favour, love. Read some proper books.

(de) lyon

van

extraction (money and teeth)

He could have been on his lunch break :smt102

drill

side

hands

triplicate

Bless - it's been done lovie -------------------------------- duplicate