The Politics Thread
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34760
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Indeed sir!CAPSLOCK wrote:Without seeing the original quote, I'm not sure Cameron mentioned 1940...maybe he did, maybe he didn't
To be honest I don't think Worthy or I took great issue with the 40 bit, it was the 'junior partner' reference
Nothing to do with the date - no-one who participated were "junior partners", they all contributed as well as able. Some just joined in late, because they thought it wasn't problem.
On the same principle that he accuses Pakistan of possibly not doing everything it can about "terrorism", I note that he didn't accuse the US of dragging it's heels in 194x to join the World War, in fact he praised them for (by default) being the "Senior" partner.
feck*.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 44175
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
It's a well known fact that John Wayne and Audie Murphy ( yeah, I know about those Purple Hearts) won World War II on their own, "Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" and all that. Even The Red Beret had Alan Ladd as our best commando ( make that paratrooper) . 

Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
I wonder when the not right Yanks will win Waterloo and Trafalger?TANGODANCER wrote:It's a well known fact that John Wayne and Audie Murphy ( yeah, I know about those Purple Hearts) won World War II on their own, "Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" and all that. Even The Red Beret had Alan Ladd as our best commando ( make that paratrooper) .
On a serious note was doing some research a few years ago and Nelson is rated by the US Navy as one of the greatest ever sailors and lets face it only stormin' Norman ever came close to the Duke of wellie with his outlook to war.
Read Stormin' Normans autobiography and you'll appreciate a real hero and leader.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34760
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:21 pm
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34760
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 15355
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: Vagantes numquam erramus
What I love is the quote (don't no where its attributed to, but it appears to hint Downing Street):
So nowt to do with not giving five year olds milk, but what people would think of not giving five yeqar olds milk? F*ck sake, is there any politician left capable of making a decision without consulting Mori?He will have considered the political fallout both within the coalition and with the public. The political damage would be too great
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:26 pm
- Location: North London, originally Farnworth
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 44175
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
I agree with the Digger. Kids will maybe drink milk at home out of the fridge, but generally prefer juice, coke, lemonade etc. During and after World War II it was welcome and necessary because poverty amongst the working classes was a reality. Food rationing, whilst mybe hard to image today, was a fact of life and hard times lasted almost till the mid-fifties and beyond for a lot of lower income families. Kids didn't suffer from lack of food and drink against money needed for beer and pleasure, but for money for rent, gas and electric meters and actually putting food on the table. If Farnwoth today is anything to go by, a twelve-month food shortage could pass almost unnoticed as a guide to kids health and well-being. 

Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:26 pm
- Location: North London, originally Farnworth
F*** me, TD. I was in Farnworth on Saturday. Saw my childhood home. Once a neat property on Rawson Street, now very scruffy and extremely neglected. The people seemed scruffy and well overfed. We stopped off in the market for some fish and chips, about the best part of the visit. St Greg's church seemed to be locked up, the pubs all dowdy and a general feeling of neglect. I have a house in Hackney, East London which is a place of luxury by comparison, and my second home in Hockley, Essex is a palace even though it is still not fully built. I think they must still make shell-suits in Farnworth.
Anyway, give 'em water. It's healthier.

Anyway, give 'em water. It's healthier.

Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man and let history make up its own mind.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 44175
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
All true Digger. Pity I didn't know you were over or you could have called for a brew.Gravedigger wrote:F*** me, TD. I was in Farnworth on Saturday. Saw my childhood home. Once a neat property on Rawson Street, now very scruffy and extremely neglected. The people seemed scruffy and well overfed. We stopped off in the market for some fish and chips, about the best part of the visit. St Greg's church seemed to be locked up, the pubs all dowdy and a general feeling of neglect. I have a house in Hackney, East London which is a place of luxury by comparison, and my second home in Hockley, Essex is a palace even though it is still not fully built. I think they must still make shell-suits in Farnworth.![]()
Anyway, give 'em water. It's healthier.


Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Ain'tmany "real" Farnworth folk left in Farnworh now, the decline started by pulling down the centre of Farnworth, the owd co-op then allowing certain pubs to go the way they went! One smokies was all the town needed.TANGODANCER wrote:All true Digger. Pity I didn't know you were over or you could have called for a brew.Gravedigger wrote:F*** me, TD. I was in Farnworth on Saturday. Saw my childhood home. Once a neat property on Rawson Street, now very scruffy and extremely neglected. The people seemed scruffy and well overfed. We stopped off in the market for some fish and chips, about the best part of the visit. St Greg's church seemed to be locked up, the pubs all dowdy and a general feeling of neglect. I have a house in Hackney, East London which is a place of luxury by comparison, and my second home in Hockley, Essex is a palace even though it is still not fully built. I think they must still make shell-suits in Farnworth.![]()
Anyway, give 'em water. It's healthier.Market Street is all fast food joints, tattoo parlours, cash generators, sunbed and nail emporiums and hair salons. Farnworth used to be one of the best Friday nights around back in the day. Times have changed and not always for the better, although Brackley Street fish and chips are'nt bad at all.
Edit
And when Joey Banglas went so did the town
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34760
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Bullshit. Answer the question. Do you expect me to pay for your children? If so, why?Worthy4England wrote:Good to see the politics of memememe have only been in hiding for a while.Bruce Rioja wrote:And why in the fecking hell am I shelling out for other folks kids to drink milk?
If you want kids - pay for them yourself!!!
May the bridges I burn light your way
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34760
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Personally, I don't care. If I was charged for it, I would have the ability to pay.Bruce Rioja wrote:Bullshit. Answer the question. Do you expect me to pay for your children? If so, why?Worthy4England wrote:Good to see the politics of memememe have only been in hiding for a while.Bruce Rioja wrote:And why in the fecking hell am I shelling out for other folks kids to drink milk?
If you want kids - pay for them yourself!!!
Maybe we should have a totally consumption based tax system. So for example basing road tax on the mileage you do instead of the size of your car engine. Maybe I shouldn't have to pay library fees in my Council Tax, because I buy books rather than loan them.
Memememe.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
The politics of memememe are employed by those that expect others to pick up or share their tab. What's wrong with paying for what you use? For e.g. Why should I pay the same for my water as the family of five next door? I'm not expected to pay the same for my gas or electricity.Worthy4England wrote:Personally, I don't care. If I was charged for it, I would have the ability to pay.
Maybe we should have a totally consumption based tax system. So for example basing road tax on the mileage you do instead of the size of your car engine. Maybe I shouldn't have to pay library fees in my Council Tax, because I buy books rather than loan them.
Memememe.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34760
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Complete bollocks.Bruce Rioja wrote:The politics of memememe are employed by those that expect others to pick up or share their tab. What's wrong with paying for what you use? For e.g. Why should I pay the same for my water as the family of five next door? I'm not expected to pay the same for my gas or electricity.Worthy4England wrote:Personally, I don't care. If I was charged for it, I would have the ability to pay.
Maybe we should have a totally consumption based tax system. So for example basing road tax on the mileage you do instead of the size of your car engine. Maybe I shouldn't have to pay library fees in my Council Tax, because I buy books rather than loan them.
Memememe.
I expect no-one to pick up my tab - for anything - as you probably well know. I don't mind picking up some tab on behalf of others.
The politics of memememe, are employed by those who think that someone's getting some sort of benefit to which they're personally not entitled in the right here and right now. It usually manifests as "why should I pay for £X when I don't use it" - which if taken to it's logical conclusion removes the requirement for any form of social benefits.
So we pay for everything at the point of use (all indirect taxes) and then the rich can afford it and the poor will struggle. We remove the right to anything welfare state unless you're actually paying for it...
Mememememe.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
RubbishWorthy4England wrote:Complete bollocks.Bruce Rioja wrote:The politics of memememe are employed by those that expect others to pick up or share their tab. What's wrong with paying for what you use? For e.g. Why should I pay the same for my water as the family of five next door? I'm not expected to pay the same for my gas or electricity.Worthy4England wrote:Personally, I don't care. If I was charged for it, I would have the ability to pay.
Maybe we should have a totally consumption based tax system. So for example basing road tax on the mileage you do instead of the size of your car engine. Maybe I shouldn't have to pay library fees in my Council Tax, because I buy books rather than loan them.
Memememe.
I expect no-one to pick up my tab - for anything - as you probably well know. I don't mind picking up some tab on behalf of others.
The politics of memememe, are employed by those who think that someone's getting some sort of benefit to which they're personally not entitled in the right here and right now. It usually manifests as "why should I pay for £X when I don't use it" - which if taken to it's logical conclusion removes the requirement for any form of social benefits.
So we pay for everything at the point of use (all indirect taxes) and then the rich can afford it and the poor will struggle. We remove the right to anything welfare state unless you're actually paying for it...
Mememememe.
I don't mean you personally. Now please answer my original question. If people choose to have children then they shouldn't rely on others to fund them. Pure and simple.
Furthermore, it works both ways. I'm happy to pay by the mile for driving as I don't expect others to pick up my tab. Where's the mememe in that?

May the bridges I burn light your way
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests