This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Nov 14 6.10pm | |
---|---|
Jayda Fransen, who will contest the constituency's forthcoming by-election as a candidate for Britain First, also said her party is in regular contact with the Ukip team, and they share "almost identical" policies. Fransen told IBTimes UK: "Actually we often speak with their [Ukip's] campaign team. "The people in the picture were speaking with us about politics and knew who we were, so [the claim by Ukip that they posed under false pretenses] is wrong." Fransen also repeated her support for Ukip's Rochester candidate Mark Reckless, claiming she wants him to win the by-election, even though they are rival candidates. She said: "We fully support Mark Reckless because he is on the right side of politics and we [Britain First] are on the same page together. We are encouraging people to vote Ukip. "Ukip policies are almost identical to ours; they are the only party which is speaking on issues like immigration and religion. We know Ukip has to play the political game by distancing themselves from us and we understand that entirely."
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Nov 14 6.14pm | |
---|---|
Quote sydtheeagle at 12 Nov 2014 6.03pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.28pm
Interesting. Firstly, there are many misunderstandings in the above and seeing as how neither Chomsky, Friedman or Hayek could agree on the term, I find it rather interesting that you think you can define it. Secondly, which blog did that come from? The term, surely, is irrelevant? It's just a word and words can have meaning ascribed to them by context. They're not absolute. More to the point, since neither Chomsky, Friedman or Hayek's support is critical to any definition of the word, who cares what they could or couldn't agree with? The Austrian/Chicago School of Economic thought is in any case now largely discredited. I see few misunderstanding in Nick's post, so I'd like to know where you think they are. Always the last refuge of a scoundrel to criticise someone, but to fail to point out the specific errors you're accusing them of making. Is Nick wrong only because you said so? This renders your post little more than fluffy vitriol. History, upon even a cursory examination, supports Nick's contention that corporations first appeared as organisations in the late 19th century to oversee large scale public projects. If governments can be said not have worked together OPENLY to ensure wealth transference upwards, they have certainly done so implicitly. How else do you account for the current, unbalanced, society we live in...the product of successive governments? Do you think working people are willingly disenfranchising themselves? Easy credit became the norm because it was an easy way for banks to make (more) money. In fact, there came a point when it was the only way. Once you have no more rich people to lend to, you cash in on the poor ones at prohibitive interest rates. It's the only option. The trouble is that the risk managers got their sums wrong about what the poor borrowers could afford. (The fact that these people became indebted and thus trapped was of neither concern nor interest to anyone in the structured products community of the Financial Services industry. At least until the excrement hit the ventilation extractor.) Deregulation of markets really amounted to little more than letting the poachers run the game estate. Or to use another metaphor, do you expect good behaviour if you give the lunatics the keys to the asylum? What do you think an institution that is designed to generate profit is going to do when it is deregulated. Take sensible risks? Settle for marginal returns? The real problem in all this is Stalin. And no, I'm not joking. History always holds the real answers (another point implicitly made by Nick's post). The discrediting of communism (rightly -- but with it -- and wrongly -- went the credibility of more or less every colour of left wing ideology) delivered two decades of unfettered right-wing dominance that delivered a world hallmarked, ultimately, by a divided society and economic collapse. That these regimes still have apologists beggars belief. The rebirth of Keynesian perspectives attests somewhat to this. You appear to be long on rhetoric and very short on detail. Edited by sydtheeagle (12 Nov 2014 6.03pm) What makes a mockery of the whole financial fiasco is the trillions that was used to bail out the financial sector, yet the neoliberal press help the government spread the lie that we are suffering austerity because of the fault of the poor and immigration. UKIP are no different.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Kermit8 Hevon 12 Nov 14 6.18pm | |
---|---|
Don't forget the Public Sector, nick. Public Enemy No.1 according to the right-wing press and the right on Hol three years ago. Ironic and somewhat ungracious that it was public money that bailed out the private financial fvck-ups yet the blame buck was passed on to the former by the powers that be and their acolytes. Quite amazing we haven't had a full on revolution in this country for centuries what with all the sh1te the people have had to put up with from their betters. Edited by Kermit8 (12 Nov 2014 6.20pm)
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
sydtheeagle England 12 Nov 14 8.51pm | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 12 Nov 2014 6.14pm
What makes a mockery of the whole financial fiasco is the trillions that was used to bail out the financial sector, yet the neoliberal press help the government spread the lie that we are suffering austerity because of the fault of the poor and immigration. UKIP are no different. If you recall, prior the current economic crash, in 1999/2000 we had the comms sector crash when Marconi, MCI Worldcom and others went under...very similar cause and effect; incompetent corporate leadership and a total lack of adequate governance. Then, we had Enron too. The right (in the form of both major parties here and in America) learned nothing from any of these events, the better to turn a blind eye to the inadequacies or outright dishonesty of their cronies/supporters/funders (all three being the same). Until there is a sweeping shift to the left, it seems self-evident that history is doomed to repeat itself, increasingly as farce. But this seems not to trouble the voters of middle England.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Nov 14 9.06pm | |
---|---|
Quote sydtheeagle at 12 Nov 2014 8.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Nov 2014 6.14pm
What makes a mockery of the whole financial fiasco is the trillions that was used to bail out the financial sector, yet the neoliberal press help the government spread the lie that we are suffering austerity because of the fault of the poor and immigration. UKIP are no different. If you recall, prior the current economic crash, in 1999/2000 we had the comms sector crash when Marconi, MCI Worldcom and others went under...very similar cause and effect; incompetent corporate leadership and a total lack of adequate governance. Then, we had Enron too. The right (in the form of both major parties here and in America) learned nothing from any of these events, the better to turn a blind eye to the inadequacies or outright dishonesty of their cronies/supporters/funders (all three being the same). Until there is a sweeping shift to the left, it seems self-evident that history is doomed to repeat itself, increasingly as farce. But this seems not to trouble the voters of middle England.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 12 Nov 14 9.45pm | |
---|---|
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.42pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.26pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.17pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.16pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.10pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.04pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.53pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 4.42pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.24pm
ukip supporters don't read articles to understand they read merely in order to reply. LOUDLY. The thing I find amazing is that if this was such a scoop, why the mainstream press is not all over it at the moment? It appears that only the Guardian is reporting it. Why could that be?
He is not to be trusted, it appears. Not by a long chalk.
Thanks Kermit.
No sale. You are just being your usual smug self.
You may decide to continue to do so but how will you know that his latter thoughts truly usurp the video-based ones? The flip-flopping chatterbox is snookering his own supporters. Or, he would be if they weren't so damned well in love with him.
Draw from it what you will Kermit. However, you are a smart guy and must have doubts that you have witnessed the full extent of what was discussed in those events videoed.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Nov 14 9.48pm | |
---|---|
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 9.45pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.42pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.26pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.17pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.16pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.10pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.04pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.53pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 4.42pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.24pm
ukip supporters don't read articles to understand they read merely in order to reply. LOUDLY. The thing I find amazing is that if this was such a scoop, why the mainstream press is not all over it at the moment? It appears that only the Guardian is reporting it. Why could that be?
He is not to be trusted, it appears. Not by a long chalk.
Thanks Kermit.
No sale. You are just being your usual smug self.
You may decide to continue to do so but how will you know that his latter thoughts truly usurp the video-based ones? The flip-flopping chatterbox is snookering his own supporters. Or, he would be if they weren't so damned well in love with him.
Draw from it what you will Kermit. However, you are a smart guy and must have doubts that you have witnessed the full extent of what was discussed in those events videoed.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 12 Nov 14 9.49pm | |
---|---|
Quote sydtheeagle at 12 Nov 2014 6.03pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.28pm
Interesting. Firstly, there are many misunderstandings in the above and seeing as how neither Chomsky, Friedman or Hayek could agree on the term, I find it rather interesting that you think you can define it. Secondly, which blog did that come from? The term, surely, is irrelevant? It's just a word and words can have meaning ascribed to them by context. They're not absolute. More to the point, since neither Chomsky, Friedman or Hayek's support is critical to any definition of the word, who cares what they could or couldn't agree with? The Austrian/Chicago School of Economic thought is in any case now largely discredited. I see few misunderstanding in Nick's post, so I'd like to know where you think they are. Always the last refuge of a scoundrel to criticise someone, but to fail to point out the specific errors you're accusing them of making. Is Nick wrong only because you said so? This renders your post little more than fluffy vitriol. History, upon even a cursory examination, supports Nick's contention that corporations first appeared as organisations in the late 19th century to oversee large scale public projects. If governments can be said not have worked together OPENLY to ensure wealth transference upwards, they have certainly done so implicitly. How else do you account for the current, unbalanced, society we live in...the product of successive governments? Do you think working people are willingly disenfranchising themselves? Easy credit became the norm because it was an easy way for banks to make (more) money. In fact, there came a point when it was the only way. Once you have no more rich people to lend to, you cash in on the poor ones at prohibitive interest rates. It's the only option. The trouble is that the risk managers got their sums wrong about what the poor borrowers could afford. (The fact that these people became indebted and thus trapped was of neither concern nor interest to anyone in the structured products community of the Financial Services industry. At least until the excrement hit the ventilation extractor.) Deregulation of markets really amounted to little more than letting the poachers run the game estate. Or to use another metaphor, do you expect good behaviour if you give the lunatics the keys to the asylum? What do you think an institution that is designed to generate profit is going to do when it is deregulated. Take sensible risks? Settle for marginal returns? The real problem in all this is Stalin. And no, I'm not joking. History always holds the real answers (another point implicitly made by Nick's post). The discrediting of communism (rightly -- but with it -- and wrongly -- went the credibility of more or less every colour of left wing ideology) delivered two decades of unfettered right-wing dominance that delivered a world hallmarked, ultimately, by a divided society and economic collapse. That these regimes still have apologists beggars belief. The rebirth of Keynesian perspectives attests somewhat to this. You appear to be long on rhetoric and very short on detail. Edited by sydtheeagle (12 Nov 2014 6.03pm)
Thank you for the diatribe. Unfortunately, I have had a few drinks and cannot formulate a cogent response to your ramblings but I will endeavour to do so tomorrow old sport.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 12 Nov 14 9.50pm | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 12 Nov 2014 9.48pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 9.45pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.42pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.26pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.17pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.16pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.10pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.04pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.53pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 4.42pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.24pm
ukip supporters don't read articles to understand they read merely in order to reply. LOUDLY. The thing I find amazing is that if this was such a scoop, why the mainstream press is not all over it at the moment? It appears that only the Guardian is reporting it. Why could that be?
He is not to be trusted, it appears. Not by a long chalk.
Thanks Kermit.
No sale. You are just being your usual smug self.
You may decide to continue to do so but how will you know that his latter thoughts truly usurp the video-based ones? The flip-flopping chatterbox is snookering his own supporters. Or, he would be if they weren't so damned well in love with him.
Draw from it what you will Kermit. However, you are a smart guy and must have doubts that you have witnessed the full extent of what was discussed in those events videoed.
You support lefty fascists. They aren't for the working man, just for a shift in power. Here's to the new boss...
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Nov 14 9.58pm | |
---|---|
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 9.50pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Nov 2014 9.48pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 9.45pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.42pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.26pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.17pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.16pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.10pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.04pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.53pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 4.42pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.24pm
ukip supporters don't read articles to understand they read merely in order to reply. LOUDLY. The thing I find amazing is that if this was such a scoop, why the mainstream press is not all over it at the moment? It appears that only the Guardian is reporting it. Why could that be?
He is not to be trusted, it appears. Not by a long chalk.
Thanks Kermit.
No sale. You are just being your usual smug self.
You may decide to continue to do so but how will you know that his latter thoughts truly usurp the video-based ones? The flip-flopping chatterbox is snookering his own supporters. Or, he would be if they weren't so damned well in love with him.
Draw from it what you will Kermit. However, you are a smart guy and must have doubts that you have witnessed the full extent of what was discussed in those events videoed.
You support lefty fascists. They aren't for the working man, just for a shift in power. Here's to the new boss... And Lord Dartmouth is?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 12 Nov 14 10.04pm | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 12 Nov 2014 9.58pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 9.50pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Nov 2014 9.48pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 9.45pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.42pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.26pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.17pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.16pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 5.10pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 5.04pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.53pm
Quote matt_himself at 12 Nov 2014 4.42pm
Quote Kermit8 at 12 Nov 2014 4.24pm
ukip supporters don't read articles to understand they read merely in order to reply. LOUDLY. The thing I find amazing is that if this was such a scoop, why the mainstream press is not all over it at the moment? It appears that only the Guardian is reporting it. Why could that be?
He is not to be trusted, it appears. Not by a long chalk.
Thanks Kermit.
No sale. You are just being your usual smug self.
You may decide to continue to do so but how will you know that his latter thoughts truly usurp the video-based ones? The flip-flopping chatterbox is snookering his own supporters. Or, he would be if they weren't so damned well in love with him.
Draw from it what you will Kermit. However, you are a smart guy and must have doubts that you have witnessed the full extent of what was discussed in those events videoed.
You support lefty fascists. They aren't for the working man, just for a shift in power. Here's to the new boss... And Lord Dartmouth is? Attachment: image.jpg (16.79Kb)
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Nov 14 10.12pm | |
---|---|
Did you make that meme all by yourself? Very creative Matthew.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.