What will life be like under the Tories? (2010>)

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 24 Feb 2009, 18:42

caspian wrote: I'd vote Green if they weren't so clueless, or Plaid Cymru if they didn't represent a narrow nationalist agenda. Democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Gah! Vote Clueless: you know it makes sense! (sorry I can't translate that into Welsh for you

)

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 25 Feb 2009, 09:42

I read the green manifesto yesterday.
Its amazing the hoops they jumped through to support the EU whilst complaining about over fishing.

Although to be fair, it was better than I expected.

gug · Post by **gug** » 10 Mar 2009, 13:22

I think caspian is right.

It doesnt matter who you vote for the parties are all controlled by the same people behind the scenes.
Just look who arch socialist blair is working for now (as if his actual "employers" ever changed).

The Tories are just the same.
When you take a step back , its quite easy to see. You just look at the policies the current party is talking about, and see how the "opposition" berates
them for it, and then just watch the "oppostion" do exactly the same as the party before them when they get into power.

The Political parties are only there to make you believe you have a choice.

There is only one agenda in politics and it isnt one that benefits us.
The sad thing is that some people think they "identify" with one party or another and go out of their way thinking that those people in power really give
a flying shit about their "Loyal" supporters.

The reason things are like they are is because someone WANTS them just like they are.
We could have fed the starving, banished poverty, freed billions of lives from drugery - if those in power had really wanted to.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 10 Mar 2009, 13:54

I've heard Blair called a lot of things but never before an 'arch socialist'.

gug · Post by **gug** » 10 Mar 2009, 19:21

biffvernon wrote:I've heard Blair called a lot of things but never before an 'arch socialist'.

I was being ironic.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 10 Mar 2009, 21:19

gug wrote:It doesnt matter who you vote for the parties are all controlled by the same people behind the scenes.

I agree with this.
Both parties support big government with large scale taxation of the middle classes. The difference is around the fringes. One offers tax cuts for the rich and the other tax cuts for the poor.

In no case does anyone talk about abolition of income tax.

In both cases big corporations make tons of money from government contracts and always the big member banks of the bank of england make tons of money from interest from government bonds which we pay through income tax.

It's a beautiful scam if you're on the receiving side.

gug · Post by **gug** » 11 Mar 2009, 13:11

If anyone was in any doubt, being slightly embarrassed by "all these crazy conspiracy theories" - knowing that such things are just cooked up by kooks....

Just cast your mind back to last year and wonder what political party Oleg Deripaska or Nathanial Rothschild fancied based on their hard thought out and considered political sensibilities as they were entertaining George(Gideon) Osbourne and Peter Mandelson last year on Olegs Yacht.

We have two extraordinarily rich and connected people, one to the KGB who murdered his way to riches and the other, a member of a family who in their time have perverted, corrupted and controlled governments all over the world, from supporting lenin and trotsky to financing hitler and beyond.

No,of course, democracy really does exist and theres no way on earth that Osbourne and Mandelson were doing anything other than a bit of light holidaying with friends that they just happened to know well.

Democracy is a sham to make us believe we have a choice.

Anyone who thinks otherwise probably hasn't looked that deeply into it.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 11 Mar 2009, 14:36

gug wrote:Democracy is a sham

Oh, it exists alright. Here's America's version.

GordyJ1984 · Post by **GordyJ1984** » 28 Mar 2009, 17:04

Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 28 Mar 2009, 17:53

GordyJ1984 wrote:Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 28 Mar 2009, 18:02

fifthcolumn wrote:
gug wrote:It doesnt matter who you vote for the parties are all controlled by the same people behind the scenes.
I agree with this.
Both parties support big government with large scale taxation of the middle classes. The difference is around the fringes. One offers tax cuts for the rich and the other tax cuts for the poor.

In no case does anyone talk about abolition of income tax.

In both cases big corporations make tons of money from government contracts and always the big member banks of the bank of england make tons of money from interest from government bonds which we pay through income tax.

It's a beautiful scam if you're on the receiving side.

I see now, so the crisis of capitalism is SOCIALISM's fault!

To be fair, this isn't the first time I've heard this nonsensical argument, because most people just select their bogeyman at the age of 20 and stick with him through a lifetime, ignoring any evidence that contradicts their prejudices about Whose Fault It All Is.

SILVERHARP2 · Post by **SILVERHARP2** » 06 Apr 2009, 10:22

Ludwig wrote: I see now, so the crisis of capitalism is SOCIALISM's fault!

To be fair, this isn't the first time I've heard this nonsensical argument, because most people just select their bogeyman at the age of 20 and stick with him through a lifetime, ignoring any evidence that contradicts their prejudices about Whose Fault It All Is.

come on now , up the level of debate , you didnt actually make a point here, list out some of the arguments , evidence you are talking about.

gug · Post by **gug** » 06 Apr 2009, 21:27

Ludwig wrote:
fifthcolumn wrote:
gug wrote:It doesnt matter who you vote for the parties are all controlled by the same people behind the scenes.
I agree with this.
Both parties support big government with large scale taxation of the middle classes. The difference is around the fringes. One offers tax cuts for the rich and the other tax cuts for the poor.

In no case does anyone talk about abolition of income tax.

In both cases big corporations make tons of money from government contracts and always the big member banks of the bank of england make tons of money from interest from government bonds which we pay through income tax.

It's a beautiful scam if you're on the receiving side.
I see now, so the crisis of capitalism is SOCIALISM's fault!

To be fair, this isn't the first time I've heard this nonsensical argument, because most people just select their bogeyman at the age of 20 and stick with him through a lifetime, ignoring any evidence that contradicts their prejudices about Whose Fault It All Is.

athough i dont necessarily agree with the person that quoted me (because i believe that the people behind the scenes care little for any "ism" - capitalism, corporatism, socialism , fascism, its all the same stuff dressed up to appear differently as if there was some choice between them whilst the proles dance about decieved into supporting one side or the other.

Apart from which, i think it was you ludwig that claimed that capitalisms problems were created by socialism and not the poster. They said that both parties were alike.

Its all about power and control. Taking the extremes as a point.

Stalin, militaristic control of the masses, murdered millions.
Hitler, militaristic control of the masses, murdered millions.

Stalin (and earlier soviet leaders) funded by western banking interests
Hitler, funded by western banking interests.

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 06 Apr 2009, 22:34

gug wrote: athough i dont necessarily agree with the person that quoted me

Actually, if it was me you're referring to, I'm in close to 100% agreement with you. I'm not sure exactly who it is that controls the banks but it's obvious that whoever the bondholders are of government and owners of big corporations who supply government contracts make fortunes off of our backs if we allow income tax to exist and funnel a lot of our income through government expenditure.

In that case it doesn't really matter what the government spends it's money on (social programs, warfare, public health service, transport, whatever). In *all* cases it's in the interest of the holders of the certificates of ownership (whether bonds or shares) to have bigger and bigger government.

In that sense it is indeed a scam.

In another sense I suppose we merely decide in which direction to shuffle the deck. Sometimes the deck favours the rich, sometimes it favours the poor.

I wonder if we would all be better off with smaller government and no income tax. It's been a long time since that option was available.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 07 Apr 2009, 00:58

gug wrote:Its all about power and control. Taking the extremes as a point.

Stalin, militaristic control of the masses, murdered millions.
Hitler, militaristic control of the masses, murdered millions.

Stalin (and earlier soviet leaders) funded by western banking interests
Hitler, funded by western banking interests.

If you go far enough to the left in politics you reach the far right and vice versa. I think that's why Stalin and Hitler hated each other so much: they were so alike.