Twitter Articles

[mrkint]

Because she's a thundercunt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... vfes#t=11s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BWFC_Insane]

Thing is quote the champagne socialist tag all you like, but I'd happily, happily vote for any party who proposed significant tax increases to fund a genuine fight against poverty.

I think it's perfectly congrous to live comfotably, donate to charity, but feel that society isn't ultimately what you would like it to be. I'm certainly not advocating communism. Just redressing the balance a little. Distributing a bit more of the wealth at the top, to solve some of the major problems we have. And whilst I'm certainly nowhere near the top, I'm very happy to chip into that like everyone else.

Why is it morally wrong on a collective level for a supermarket to make a profit while people are hungry, but it isn't on an individual level for you to eat food from M&S and have money left over to buy iPads?

What I said was there is something morally wrong with a society that lets that happen. I think there is a line between saying we should all live in mud huts with no worldly possessions until everyone can eat, and saying that you believe in some moderate re-distribution of wealth, Is there not?

Idealogically, do you want the society you live in to be driven by greed and money? I mean you personally might believe there is no other way, but it doesn't mean you'd have to be happy about it. Are you happy about it?

It's not the supermarkets fault. They are simply doing what they do.

Fair play to them.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Thing is quote the champagne socialist tag all you like, but I'd happily, happily vote for any party who proposed significant tax increases to fund a genuine fight against poverty.

I think it's perfectly congrous to live comfotably, donate to charity, but feel that society isn't ultimately what you would like it to be. I'm certainly not advocating communism. Just redressing the balance a little. Distributing a bit more of the wealth at the top, to solve some of the major problems we have. And whilst I'm certainly nowhere near the top, I'm very happy to chip into that like everyone else.

Why is it morally wrong on a collective level for a supermarket to make a profit while people are hungry, but it isn't on an individual level for you to eat food from M&S and have money left over to buy iPads?

What I said was there is something morally wrong with a society that lets that happen. I think there is a line between saying we should all live in mud huts with no worldly possessions until everyone can eat, and saying that you believe in some moderate re-distribution of wealth, Is there not?

Idealogically, do you want the society you live in to be driven by greed and money? I mean you personally might believe there is no other way, but it doesn't mean you'd have to be happy about it. Are you happy about it?

It's not the supermarkets fault. They are simply doing what they do.

Fair play to them.

My take is that talk of 'society's' morality is cheap and vacuous.

If morality is to have any meaning as a concept, it seems to be that is on an individual level. How can you lambast society, made up of individuals, for 'letting it happen' if you personally are not doing the most you can?

[BWFC_Insane]

Thing is quote the champagne socialist tag all you like, but I'd happily, happily vote for any party who proposed significant tax increases to fund a genuine fight against poverty.

I think it's perfectly congrous to live comfotably, donate to charity, but feel that society isn't ultimately what you would like it to be. I'm certainly not advocating communism. Just redressing the balance a little. Distributing a bit more of the wealth at the top, to solve some of the major problems we have. And whilst I'm certainly nowhere near the top, I'm very happy to chip into that like everyone else.

Why is it morally wrong on a collective level for a supermarket to make a profit while people are hungry, but it isn't on an individual level for you to eat food from M&S and have money left over to buy iPads?

What I said was there is something morally wrong with a society that lets that happen. I think there is a line between saying we should all live in mud huts with no worldly possessions until everyone can eat, and saying that you believe in some moderate re-distribution of wealth, Is there not?

Idealogically, do you want the society you live in to be driven by greed and money? I mean you personally might believe there is no other way, but it doesn't mean you'd have to be happy about it. Are you happy about it?

It's not the supermarkets fault. They are simply doing what they do.

Fair play to them.

My take is that talk of 'society's' morality is cheap and vacuous.

If morality is to have any meaning as a concept, it seems to be that is on an individual level. How can you lambast society, made up of individuals, for 'letting it happen' if you personally are not doing the most you can?

And my take of that is that it is a typical right wing, cop out.

You a) have no idea what I do.

and b) if you really think that you can only argue for wealth distribution if you yourself have the lowest standard of living, then that is indeed quite sad, and very misguided.

I'm perfectly happy to contribute towards it, are you?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

My take is that talk of 'society's' morality is cheap and vacuous.

If morality is to have any meaning as a concept, it seems to be that is on an individual level. How can you lambast society, made up of individuals, for 'letting it happen' if you personally are not doing the most you can?

And my take of that is that it is a typical right wing, cop out.

You a) have no idea what I do.

and b) if you really think that you can only argue for wealth distribution if you yourself have the lowest standard of living, then that is indeed quite sad, and very misguided.

I'm perfectly happy to contribute towards it, are you?

I am not the one making hypocritical or meanignless statements. If it makes you feel better to say that supermarkets making large profit when some people go hungry is evidence of a moral deficiency in society then that is up to you.

I am happy to make my contribution to civic society and welfare safety nets, yes - as Obama said recently, and I don't often quote him, these safety nets are what free us to take risks and be collectively productive.

However, I appreciate that hunger in the world is a fact of life. Do I like it? No, in the same way that I don't like seeing animals struggle to find food on wildlife documentaries, but I wouldn't advocate a tax revamp to deal with that issue either.

You say you want to be taxed more. If that is so, it wouldn't make sense to me if you were not going out of your way to give that money away to the causes you think it should go to. But you're right, I have no idea what you do in this regard.

[as]

Emma Davies has just, without any hint of irony, twatted this. Unbelievable, Geoff!

I don't understand how supermarkets are allowed to make £879mil profit when people struggle to eat? There is something badly wrong with that

She's not worded it well at all.

There is something morally wrong with a society though where this does happen. IMO at least.

Yeah, if only those M&S shoppers bought one Findus Lasagne for themselves and one for someone struggling to eat, eh?

Thing is quote the champagne socialist tag all you like, but I'd happily, happily vote for any party who proposed significant tax increases to fund a genuine fight against poverty.

I think it's perfectly congrous to live comfotably, donate to charity, but feel that society isn't ultimately what you would like it to be. I'm certainly not advocating communism. Just redressing the balance a little. Distributing a bit more of the wealth at the top, to solve some of the major problems we have. And whilst I'm certainly nowhere near the top, I'm very happy to chip into that like everyone else.

We live in a country with a royal family - christ, we pay Camilla to fulfill Charlie-boys steak & BJ day! The poor will get poorer and you know the rest.

Anyone catch the Curtis Woodhouse twitter story? Some bloke abuses him for months so he finds out where he lives and drives over to 'have a word'

[BWFC_Insane]

My take is that talk of 'society's' morality is cheap and vacuous.

If morality is to have any meaning as a concept, it seems to be that is on an individual level. How can you lambast society, made up of individuals, for 'letting it happen' if you personally are not doing the most you can?

And my take of that is that it is a typical right wing, cop out.

You a) have no idea what I do.

and b) if you really think that you can only argue for wealth distribution if you yourself have the lowest standard of living, then that is indeed quite sad, and very misguided.

I'm perfectly happy to contribute towards it, are you?

I am not the one making hypocritical or meanignless statements. If it makes you feel better to say that supermarkets making large profit when some people go hungry is evidence of a moral deficiency in society then that is up to you.

I am happy to make my contribution to civic society and welfare safety nets, yes - as Obama said recently, and I don't often quote him, these safety nets are what free us to take risks and be collectively productive.

However, I appreciate that hunger in the world is a fact of life. Do I like it? No, in the same way that I don't like seeing animals struggle to find food on wildlife documentaries, but I wouldn't advocate a tax revamp to deal with that issue either.

You say you want to be taxed more. If that is so, it wouldn't make sense to me if you were not going out of your way to give that money away to the causes you think it should go to. But you're right, I have no idea what you do in this regard.

The point of taxation is that as a society we'd be helping out our poorest and most vulnerable people, its a method that broadly can lower the gap between the richest and the poorest in our society. That is something that I think should happen. That doesn't mean I'm advocating everyone living out of a box under a railway bridge. There is a balance, as I know you are aware.

A bit like you're not advocating the abandonment of the welfare state and the gassing of the homeless.

I think it's a poor argument really. I'd prefer a genuinely "all in it together" culture across our society where we accept that some people are going to be better off than others, but also are not so driven by greed that the gap is continually being widened under the banner of capitalism via the vehicle of tabloid right wing shock policitcs.

[thebish]

I think it's a poor argument really. I'd prefer a genuinely "all in it together" culture across our society where we accept that some people are going to be better off than others, but also are not so driven by greed that the gap is continually being widened under the banner of capitalism via the vehicle of tabloid right wing shock policitcs.

all of which is fair enough - but the original assertion that supermarkets shouldn't be making (large... how large is large??) profits is, I think, a bit naive...

what kind of alternative model do you think supermarkets should operate that would make their activity "moral"?

[BWFC_Insane]

I think it's a poor argument really. I'd prefer a genuinely "all in it together" culture across our society where we accept that some people are going to be better off than others, but also are not so driven by greed that the gap is continually being widened under the banner of capitalism via the vehicle of tabloid right wing shock policitcs.

all of which is fair enough - but the original assertion that supermarkets shouldn't be making (large... how large is large??) profits is, I think, a bit naive...

what kind of alternative model do you think supermarkets should operate that would make their activity "moral"?

Agree with that. I don't think she worded it well. The supermarkets haven't in themselves caused hunger or poverty.

But in general in my view the profit they create and the people made wealthy by that, should be along with everyone else, prepared to give up a small extra chunk towards the genuinely greater good.

Thats my view at least.

And I don't think the supermarkets are immoral (well not for profit reasons at least) they operate in the way society allows them to.

[Beefheart]

My take is that talk of 'society's' morality is cheap and vacuous.

If morality is to have any meaning as a concept, it seems to be that is on an individual level. How can you lambast society, made up of individuals, for 'letting it happen' if you personally are not doing the most you can?

And my take of that is that it is a typical right wing, cop out.

You a) have no idea what I do.

and b) if you really think that you can only argue for wealth distribution if you yourself have the lowest standard of living, then that is indeed quite sad, and very misguided.

I'm perfectly happy to contribute towards it, are you?

I am not the one making hypocritical or meanignless statements. If it makes you feel better to say that supermarkets making large profit when some people go hungry is evidence of a moral deficiency in society then that is up to you.

I am happy to make my contribution to civic society and welfare safety nets, yes - as Obama said recently, and I don't often quote him, these safety nets are what free us to take risks and be collectively productive.

However, I appreciate that hunger in the world is a fact of life. Do I like it? No, in the same way that I don't like seeing animals struggle to find food on wildlife documentaries, but I wouldn't advocate a tax revamp to deal with that issue either.

You say you want to be taxed more. If that is so, it wouldn't make sense to me if you were not going out of your way to give that money away to the causes you think it should go to. But you're right, I have no idea what you do in this regard.

The point of taxation is that as a society we'd be helping out our poorest and most vulnerable people, its a method that broadly can lower the gap between the richest and the poorest in our society. That is something that I think should happen. That doesn't mean I'm advocating everyone living out of a box under a railway bridge. There is a balance, as I know you are aware.

A bit like you're not advocating the abandonment of the welfare state and the gassing of the homeless.

I think it's a poor argument really. I'd prefer a genuinely "all in it together" culture across our society where we accept that some people are going to be better off than others, but also are not so driven by greed that the gap is continually being widened under the banner of capitalism via the vehicle of tabloid right wing shock policitcs.

That's a bit general. There are several reasons for tax to exist. To provide for public goods that the private sector realisically can't or won't (e.g street lights, national defence etc), as well as several others that some would argue the public sector can do better. To influence behaviour ( e.g higher indirect taxes on things you don't want to buy, lower taxes on the things you do), pigovian taxes exist to offset negative externalities, taxes can be used for investment in infrastructure. Redistribution of wealth is just one of many reasons.

[BWFC_Insane]

My take is that talk of 'society's' morality is cheap and vacuous.

If morality is to have any meaning as a concept, it seems to be that is on an individual level. How can you lambast society, made up of individuals, for 'letting it happen' if you personally are not doing the most you can?

And my take of that is that it is a typical right wing, cop out.

You a) have no idea what I do.

and b) if you really think that you can only argue for wealth distribution if you yourself have the lowest standard of living, then that is indeed quite sad, and very misguided.

I'm perfectly happy to contribute towards it, are you?

I am not the one making hypocritical or meanignless statements. If it makes you feel better to say that supermarkets making large profit when some people go hungry is evidence of a moral deficiency in society then that is up to you.

I am happy to make my contribution to civic society and welfare safety nets, yes - as Obama said recently, and I don't often quote him, these safety nets are what free us to take risks and be collectively productive.

However, I appreciate that hunger in the world is a fact of life. Do I like it? No, in the same way that I don't like seeing animals struggle to find food on wildlife documentaries, but I wouldn't advocate a tax revamp to deal with that issue either.

You say you want to be taxed more. If that is so, it wouldn't make sense to me if you were not going out of your way to give that money away to the causes you think it should go to. But you're right, I have no idea what you do in this regard.

The point of taxation is that as a society we'd be helping out our poorest and most vulnerable people, its a method that broadly can lower the gap between the richest and the poorest in our society. That is something that I think should happen. That doesn't mean I'm advocating everyone living out of a box under a railway bridge. There is a balance, as I know you are aware.

A bit like you're not advocating the abandonment of the welfare state and the gassing of the homeless.

I think it's a poor argument really. I'd prefer a genuinely "all in it together" culture across our society where we accept that some people are going to be better off than others, but also are not so driven by greed that the gap is continually being widened under the banner of capitalism via the vehicle of tabloid right wing shock policitcs.

That's a bit general. There are several reasons for tax to exist. To provide for public goods that the private sector realisically can't or won't (e.g street lights, national defence etc), as well as several others that some would argue the public sector can do better. To influence behaviour ( e.g higher indirect taxes on things you don't want to buy, lower taxes on the things you do), pigovian taxes exist to offset negative externalities, taxes can be used for investment in infrastructure. Redistribution of wealth is just one of many reasons.

Yes sorry, I meant the part or portion of taxation I was discussing and advocating, not taxation as a whole......

[Beefheart]

I think it's a poor argument really. I'd prefer a genuinely "all in it together" culture across our society where we accept that some people are going to be better off than others, but also are not so driven by greed that the gap is continually being widened under the banner of capitalism via the vehicle of tabloid right wing shock policitcs.

all of which is fair enough - but the original assertion that supermarkets shouldn't be making (large... how large is large??) profits is, I think, a bit naive...

what kind of alternative model do you think supermarkets should operate that would make their activity "moral"?

Could you not also argue that without supermarkets operating with low margins that food on the whole would be more expensive and as such you'd have more people going hungry? (I know this isn't strictly true as you can buy meat cheaper at butchers, fruit & veg cheaper from the market etc but the % of income spent on food has just started to creep up after a long period of decline)

[bwfcdan94]

Because she's a thundercunt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... vfes#t=11s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Thick of it is probably one of my top 5 T.V series I have ever watched series upon series it gets better and better.

When is Jamie coming back I like Malcolm but when Jamie is there as well the shouting goes up 3 fold as does descriptions of how people bodies work when a IPods are rammed up their as*

"do you want me to hole punch your face"

"what did you expect, their builders. spiderbuilder, batomobuilder2

"Its just vouls"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZLkvzJGfJA

[boltonboris]

"Congrats on the homophobic headline, ya massive poof"

[Annoyed Grunt]

Not an article but, @crimershow..........odd..........

[mrkint]

Enjoying the EPPASODS

http://www.crimershow.com/eppasods.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Montreal Wanderer]

Enjoying the EPPASADS

http://www.crimershow.com/eppasods.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was the website written by one of our younger posters? Please spell correctly - it is eppasods.

[Annoyed Grunt]

It's getting odder and odder....A mayor hooked on jellybeans......eating borgors......

[boltonboris]

A little entertaining.. But could somebody fill me in the background? What the fvck is it about?!

[Annoyed Grunt]

Piss take on American crime shows...other than that, not a clue..