Saintandy666

Occupy aren't anti-capitalism. That is how some publications wished to present them, but again it's just a general misunderstanding. Socialism has moved on, people don't seem to understand it. Ian Hislop put it well on HIGNFY on some peoples attitude to the occupy movement - "You don't have to want to return to a barter system in the stone age to complain about the way the finacial crisis effected large numbers of people in the world, do you! Even if you're having a cup of coffee and you've got a tent!" What occupy wanted was reform of capitalism, not abolishing it. They weren't anti-capitalism at all.

Socialism has moved far beyond ownership of property and industry these days. It's more about fair redistribution and decent public services funded by a decent progressive tax system.

So please explain to me, how ideologically speaking those two views would be the default view of those who are so called left wing and right wing?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373 Great summary on the BBC.

That's a gross simplification and a bit biased as well.

Left wing and Right wing is just a measurement of economic policy and most people don't seem to understand this. They seem to associate libertarianism with left wing and authoritarianism with right wing which I do not understand given that is not always the case at all. Supposedly post-modernism has made such labels obsolete, but post-modernism is a tonne of wishy washy bullcrap so I'd say it's still relevant, but in this country? I don't know... both our main parties have triangulated so much they've ended up pretty much the same on all policies, though that is showing signs of change now.

To make faces and dish out disparaging looks.

I just don't understand why anyone would buy Portsmouth. Their debt is so huge. With us, our debt for a rich person wasn't completely ridiculous... once cleared a clear opportunity for profit was there as it wasn't TOO big. But with portsmouth... it's just totally ridiculous. How could an investor ever wish to make money back?!

People have short political memories, and this quite unprecedented as well in modern times(only thing remotely similar is lib-lab pact of 1977), so we don't know how things will work out in the next 25 years. It all depends on who is leader as most people these days just pick by which leader they like if they aren't already picking by tribalism. I'm handling 'power' fine as well Lib Dems always ride low between elections, let's just wait and see. We'll get bashed at the next election, but I don't think as badly as some people believe.

Wouldn't want to see them go out of business.

In your opinion of course. I would argue differently, such is life.

That's probably true for the next few elections, but people can be naive and fickle.

They aren't in power though. They are sharing power in a coalition. Big difference. If the Liberal Democrats had won an outright majority, things would be different but they didn't so they aren't.

I hope people aren't seriously thinking he actually meant to call young people ****s... and realise it is just country messed up. Even Cleggy isn't that stupid.

Yes.

I'll still be voting Cleggy come next election probably.

Doesn't seem to have had much success since he left us from a quick glance at Wikipedia. He certainly had his moments, but he was very frustrating if I recall correctly. Will be interesting to see how he is getting on. Hope makes at least a cameo next month!

The thing I don't understand is that people ***** and moan about the BBC, but then ***** and moan when the BBC have to drop F1 because of the licence fee freeze. It'll never go back to free to air TV now skys megabucks are involved.

They haven't emailed me back.

Apparently these losses are 'good losses' though, as they are Lloyds and RBS losing and taking loses on bad assets and getting it out of their systems. I'm split on these mega headline bonuses. One half of me says, no-one should get paid that much, especially on top of their humongous salary already. But at the same time, if we want our tens of billions back, we have to pay the salaries that the top people demand or it will never be a successful business. There aren't many people capable of running a huge business. And if other banks are paying bonuses, and we refuse to none of the best will come and sort our nationalised banks out.

Not much you can do about it really. It's either let big corporations like Google and Apple and Facebook know about what you like and to an extent what you do or just not use their services. It's worrying, but I guess privacy is gonna be thing of the past. I dread to think of the scandals of the future and how easy it will be to find, for example something dogey an MP said on an internet forum or facebook or whatever when they were young. We're just going to have to accept more than ever to forgive easier. The quick regrettable quips of the past, that would have just been said to your friend, well now they are being left on the internet too forever. People should check out their internet footprint sometime.

Commercial radio has far too many adverts.

All about the French one. Our one is ****, Land of Hope and Glory would be miles better.

Read where? Do you have statistics to back this up beyond your own niggle? I'm not saying that mosques haven't been recruiting grounds before, especially with the likes of Abu Qatada and such. But how can you justify and back up your statement that a significant number are grounds for the breeding of Islamist extremism? What percentage would say are and what evidence do you have to back that up? Most Muslims in this country aren't extreme and are law abiding respectful citizens.

Well of course my views would be different if I lived there, because you are only allowed one view or you are quietly dealt with and that view isn't mine. I already said with my post on the harm principle what my view on that is.