Ah! That one 😁Wales
Ah! That one 😁Wales
Well done. Your most informative post for a long time.Like Robert Mugabe used to do you mean?
Finding the truth offensive when it touches a a personal sore spot seems to be a common reaction among the right wing cohort here who then decide to ignore it.Have you been studying at the Wisbech School of Discussion? I haven't seen his posts for months now thank goodness, but that was one of his favourite patronising put-downs.
Where did I compare myself to Robert Mugabe? [Steeleye is a great fan of his by the way]Well done. Your most informative post for a long time.
Comparing yourself to Mugabe is not something I would be happy about but at least you are being honest.
Tell that to StarmerFinding the truth offensive when it touches a a personal sore spot seems to be a common reaction among the right wing cohort here who then decide to ignore it.
An inability to handle criticism isn’t healthy.
What I said, and you want to deny, is that all tax is spent on our behalf, as a consequence of the way democracy works. Not necessarily that it is all spent directly on us. Defence spending is not directly spent on us. Our foreign policy, including our aid, is just another example. Targeted assistance is very much in all our interests.You want a list of tax funded things that don’t all do together? You ask for one example - how about the £8 million we send to China in foreign-aid (down from £80 million in 2019).
Responding to a post drawing attention to your childish name calling in that way seemed to suggest you were.Where did I compare myself to Robert Mugabe? [Steeleye is a great fan of his by the way]
Pretty harsh comparing someone posting on a website to a dictator responsible for at least 20,000 deaths.Responding to a post drawing attention to your childish name calling in that way seemed to suggest you were.
Mugabe was intolerant, argumentative and advocated policies often regarded as racist. You can see why a comparison could be made.
I tend to agree. It would be.Pretty harsh comparing someone posting on a website to a dictator responsible for at least 20,000 deaths.
How on earth could any rational person come to that conclusion from what I posted.Responding to a post drawing attention to your childish name calling in that way seemed to suggest you were.
Mugabe was intolerant, argumentative and advocated policies often regarded as racist. You can see why a comparison could be made.
Of course it isn't. Spending on our own defence is in our interests, giving money to powers that are likely to be the very people we need to defend against is not.What I said, and you want to deny, is that all tax is spent on our behalf, as a consequence of the way democracy works. Not necessarily that it is all spent directly on us. Defence spending is not directly spent on us. Our foreign policy, including our aid, is just another example. Targeted assistance is very much in all our interests.
I suppose, unusually, that’s a reasonable comment. Looking back you must have intended it to apply not to the actual subject of the comment you responded to but just to the sentence you highlighted. Easy mistake to make though, given to whom I was responding.How on earth could any rational person come to that conclusion from what I posted.
We target the spending in ways that are intended to influence behaviour in our favour.Of course it isn't. Spending on our own defence is in our interests, giving money to powers that are likely to be the very people we need to defend against is not.
I accept your magnanimous, grovelling apology!I suppose, unusually, that’s a reasonable comment. Looking back you must have intended it to apply not to the actual subject of the comment you responded to but just to the sentence you highlighted. Easy mistake to make though, given to whom I was responding.
I do challenge it. Many of the decisions of all parties are in pursuit of a set of ideological ideas rather than acting in our best interests.We target the spending in ways that are intended to influence behaviour in our favour.
You are entitled to regard that as unwise. What you cannot do is challenge the fact that our elected government do spend that money in that way in the belief it’s in our best interests.
Wow. That’s scary. Who here wants that? Certainly not seen anyone post that. I have seen many that decry the collectivisation of farming through big business takeover though, driven by market distortion caused by an unwise tax incentive to non-farmers.Collectivisation in the Soviet Union. Reducing the power of the kulaks (prosperous peasants). Sound familiar? Some posters on here want this.
Britannica Money
Collectivization, policy adopted by the Soviet government, pursued most intensively between 1929 and 1933, to transform traditional agriculture and to reduce the economic power of prosperous peasants. Under collectivization the peasantry were forced to give up their individual farms and join...www.britannica.com
Certainly, some on here favour increasing intervention in more and more areas of our lives and the taking of assets in taxation from those who happen to have more than others; all in the name of 'progress' and 'fairness' and improvements for poorer people, whereas the consequences of their policies will have the opposite effect to those aims.Wow. That’s scary. Who here wants that? Certainly not seen anyone post that. I have seen many that decry the collectivisation of farming through big business takeover though, driven by market distortion caused by an unwise tax incentive to non-farmers.