Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 11:02, bert wrote:
In article , Capitol writes critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote: Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now. You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts in the EU, Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the country is still in hock. You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Better still, look at S Africa https://tinyurl.com/lw3edjp -- "If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the news paper, you are mis-informed." Mark Twain |
#82
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
In article ,
TimW wrote: And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long time. Has that contributed to peace? Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another? What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? I don't think so. Depends on whether you think N Korea has plans to take over the world. If the deterrent argument works for the UK, I can't see any reasons it doesn't equally apply for N Korea. Or any other wannabe nuclear power. After all, the most powerful country in the world now has 'America first' as its principle. So just how is any other country doing the same with theirs somehow morally wrong? -- *In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#83
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 11:15, bert wrote:
In article , TimW writes On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote: On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: " ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the entire human race, is the crazy person in the room." He does have a point. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/ TW Perhaps he does, but it is flawed. Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed? Beachy Head is that way Don't understand that at all. Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral destruction by the other side. The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is taking a suicidal stance. Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better result than the destruction of some of them? TW And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long time. Has that contributed to peace? Yes. In the post-WW2 era it deterred the USSR from invading western Europe. Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another? What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? I don't think so. TW But there has been no use of nuclear weapons in these wars. That is the point of nuclear weapons. It makes sure no one uses nuclear weapons. Maybe if everyone had them they would prevent conventional wars also. But then look how WW1 started. Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin |
#84
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
bert wrote:
In article , Capitol writes critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote: Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now. You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts in the EU, Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the country is still in hock. You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Greece doesn't have austerity, it has a currency problem. (and a tax gathering nightmare!) |
#85
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 01:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Zero hours contracts wouldn't be there if minimum waqes weren't so high. How would that change the NHS bank system or supply teachers? |
#86
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote:
In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some and employ more. ;-) Part time is better than zero hours contracts. Not all zero hour contracts are bad. Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc. Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad" No one is saying they are inherently bad, but they are only good if you want them. There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15 hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your right to negotiate that with your employer. And what if the employer can't offer 15 hours a week? The choice may be 10 hours/week or none. You seem to be suggesting that legislating so that "none" is the only option on offer. Who benefits from that? Self righteous socialists who put ideology before the well-being of their own followers. Well I suppose they might get a warm fuzzy feeling that they have "protected" the poor downtrodden worker from "exploitation" (or "a job" as the less ideologically driven might call it!) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#87
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote: In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some and employ more. ;-) Part time is better than zero hours contracts. Not all zero hour contracts are bad. Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc. Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad" No one is saying they are inherently bad, but they are only good if you want them. There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15 hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your right to negotiate that with your employer. And what if the employer can't offer 15 hours a week? The choice may be 10 hours/week or none. You seem to be suggesting that legislating so that "none" is the only option on offer. Who benefits from that? Self righteous socialists who put ideology before the well-being of their own followers. Well I suppose they might get a warm fuzzy feeling that they have "protected" the poor downtrodden worker from "exploitation" (or "a job" as the less ideologically driven might call it!) Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips... Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's. From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers. -- Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques. |
#88
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
In article , Capitol
writes bert wrote: In article , Capitol writes critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote: Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now. You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts in the EU, Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the country is still in hock. You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Greece doesn't have austerity, it has a currency problem. (and a tax gathering nightmare!) Are there two countries called Greece? -- bert |
#89
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes On 25/04/17 11:15, bert wrote: In article , TimW writes On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote: On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: " ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the entire human race, is the crazy person in the room." He does have a point. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/ TW Perhaps he does, but it is flawed. Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed? Beachy Head is that way Don't understand that at all. Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral destruction by the other side. The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is taking a suicidal stance. Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better result than the destruction of some of them? TW And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long time. Has that contributed to peace? Yes. In the post-WW2 era it deterred the USSR from invading western Europe. Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another? What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? I don't think so. TW But there has been no use of nuclear weapons in these wars. That is the point of nuclear weapons. It makes sure no one uses nuclear weapons. Maybe if everyone had them they would prevent conventional wars also. But then look how WW1 started. Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. Without too much destruction of property Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. Neutron bombs are not too bad. -- bert |
#90
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes In article , TimW wrote: And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long time. Has that contributed to peace? Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another? What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? I don't think so. Depends on whether you think N Korea has plans to take over the world. If the deterrent argument works for the UK, I can't see any reasons it doesn't equally apply for N Korea. Or any other wannabe nuclear power. After all, the most powerful country in the world now has 'America first' as its principle. So just how is any other country doing the same with theirs somehow morally wrong? Who said it was morally wrong? It is a purely pragmatic argument. -- bert |
#91
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"TimW" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote: On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: " ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the entire human race, is the crazy person in the room." He does have a point. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/ TW Perhaps he does, but it is flawed. Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed? Beachy Head is that way Don't understand that at all. Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral destruction by the other side. The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is taking a suicidal stance. Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better result than the destruction of some of them? And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long time. Has that contributed to peace? Yep, they have ensured that there will never be a WW3. Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? Corse not with lower level wars than a full world war. What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another? But no full world war again. What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Corse not. Is North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? It is stopping the US from ****ing them over militarily like it has done with so many other places it doesnt like. Because even someone like Trump realises what would happen to South Korea if it was stupid enough to try that. I don't think so. It has made it safe from being ****ed over by the US, There hasnt been another full war between India and Pakistan since they both got nukes, for a reason. Yes, no one is going to try invading Britain again, Trident is a complete waste of money now, but thats an entirely separate matter to what nukes are useful for for others like Israel etc. |
#92
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 11:15, bert wrote: In article , TimW writes On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote: On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: " ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the entire human race, is the crazy person in the room." He does have a point. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/ TW Perhaps he does, but it is flawed. Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed? Beachy Head is that way Don't understand that at all. Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral destruction by the other side. The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is taking a suicidal stance. Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better result than the destruction of some of them? TW And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long time. Has that contributed to peace? Yes. In the post-WW2 era it deterred the USSR from invading western Europe. Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another? What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? I don't think so. TW But there has been no use of nuclear weapons in these wars. That is the point of nuclear weapons. It makes sure no one uses nuclear weapons. Maybe if everyone had them they would prevent conventional wars also. But then look how WW1 started. Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. Wars havent been about that for a long time now, if they ever were. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. And that is impossible given the nature of war. Without too much destruction of property Thats very easy now. Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. They are on the no destruction of property now. But basically kill everything if used like that. Sort of like what Genghis Khan was into, but with no real effort at all to use. |
#93
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"Capitol" wrote in message o.uk... bert wrote: In article , Capitol writes critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote: Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now. You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts in the EU, Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the country is still in hock. You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Greece doesn't have austerity, Corse it does with what the govt spends. it has a currency problem. (and a tax gathering nightmare!) Those too. |
#94
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 18:59, Hankat wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 11:15, bert wrote: In article , TimW writes On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote: On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: " ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the entire human race, is the crazy person in the room." He does have a point. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/ TW Perhaps he does, but it is flawed. Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed? Beachy Head is that way Don't understand that at all. Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral destruction by the other side. The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is taking a suicidal stance. Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better result than the destruction of some of them? TW And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long time. Has that contributed to peace? Yes. In the post-WW2 era it deterred the USSR from invading western Europe. Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another? What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? I don't think so. TW But there has been no use of nuclear weapons in these wars. That is the point of nuclear weapons. It makes sure no one uses nuclear weapons. Maybe if everyone had them they would prevent conventional wars also. But then look how WW1 started. Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. Wars havent been about that for a long time now, if they ever were. No, wars have always been claimed to be about something else. But they aren't. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. And that is impossible given the nature of war. No, its easy actually. Sort out the conscripts into 'worth kepping' and 'cannon fodder' Without too much destruction of property Thats very easy now. No, it isn't. , Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. They are on the no destruction of property now. But basically kill everything if used like that. YOu dont have any knowledge of nuclear weapons, do you? Sort of like what Genghis Khan was into, but with no real effort at all to use. No, not really. -- "I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently. This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and all women" |
#95
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: " ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the entire human race, is the crazy person in the room." He does have a point. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/ TW Perhaps he does, but it is flawed. Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed? Beachy Head is that way Don't understand that at all. Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral destruction by the other side. The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is taking a suicidal stance. Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. And your point is? If you are anti nuclear why not move to a country which has no nuclear protection? In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better result than the destruction of some of them? TW It'd stop the man made climate change and the planet could chill through the nuclear winter. Seriously, do you actually believe that the entire human race would be destroyed in a nuclear war? |
#96
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 19:45, Richard wrote:
How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. Thibet? -- €œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.€ Thomas Sowell |
#97
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 25/04/17 11:02, bert wrote: In article , Capitol writes critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote: Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now. You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts in the EU, Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the country is still in hock. You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Better still, look at S Africa https://tinyurl.com/lw3edjp That's not austerity. That's Africa as a whole for at least another fifty years. |
#98
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 19:51, Richard wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 11:02, bert wrote: In article , Capitol writes critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote: Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now. You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts in the EU, Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the country is still in hock. You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Better still, look at S Africa https://tinyurl.com/lw3edjp That's not austerity. That's Africa as a whole for at least another fifty years. And you dont think its austere? -- €œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.€ Thomas Sowell |
#99
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 16:43, bert wrote:
Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the country is still in hock. You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Greece doesn't have austerity, it has a currency problem. (and a tax gathering nightmare!) Are there two countries called Greece? no it has a tax problem with the general population believing that it is right and proper to not declare their earnings, bit like some of you on here. |
#100
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote:
In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: No one is saying they are inherently bad, but they are only good if you want them. There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15 hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your right to negotiate that with your employer. And what if the employer can't offer 15 hours a week? The choice may be 10 hours/week or none. You seem to be suggesting that legislating so that "none" is the only option on offer. Who benefits from that? Self righteous socialists who put ideology before the well-being of their own followers. don't be so silly |
#101
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 25/04/17 19:51, Richard wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 11:02, bert wrote: In article , Capitol writes critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote: Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now. You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts in the EU, Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the country is still in hock. You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Better still, look at S Africa https://tinyurl.com/lw3edjp That's not austerity. That's Africa as a whole for at least another fifty years. And you dont think its austere? It's poverty. The "austerity" which critcher is on about is government manipulation of funds by reducing his beer and fag money. |
#102
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 25/04/17 19:45, Richard wrote: How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. Thibet? I did not write that. Please snip more accurately. TIA |
#103
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote: On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote: In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips... Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's. From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers. don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to believe that this is possible. |
#104
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 11:05, bert wrote:
In article , critcher writes On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15 hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your right to negotiate that with your employer. It already is. And the courts have also intervened, which rarely gets mentioned. Holiday pay should now be based on your average ACTUAL hours not your contractual hours. The 15 hours minimum isn't. |
#105
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 25/04/17 18:59, Hankat wrote: [snip] They are on the no destruction of property now. But basically kill everything if used like that. YOu dont have any knowledge of nuclear weapons, do you? Seeing that it is Speed, why limit that to nuclear weapons? |
#106
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race Not even possible. oh it is extremely possible, take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed, destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries like ours. a better result than the destruction of some of them? That didnt even happen with the Japs. |
#107
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"critcher" wrote in message news
On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote: On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote: In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips... Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's. From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers. don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to believe that this is possible. You are absolutely stupid. Have you ever lived in a socialist country? |
#108
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 10:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/04/17 10:46, TimW wrote: On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote: On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news Nuke are here to stay. Get over it, snowflake. And one of the best defences against them is having more of your own and being really prepared to use them. At least be grateful that advanced targeting means the ones we have are not so big. And improved anti-missile defences mean we don't need so many TW = Thik Wanka and be thankful we can control where they fly, I think not. |
#109
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 20:11, Richard wrote:
"critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote: On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote: In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips... Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's. From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers. don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to believe that this is possible. You are absolutely stupid. Have you ever lived in a socialist country? no mores the pity and I think you would have difficulty finding one to live in, |
#110
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
In article , critcher
writes On 25/04/2017 11:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15 hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your right to negotiate that with your employer. It already is. And the courts have also intervened, which rarely gets mentioned. Holiday pay should now be based on your average ACTUAL hours not your contractual hours. The 15 hours minimum isn't. Isn't what? -- bert |
#111
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/2017 20:01, Richard wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 19:51, Richard wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 11:02, bert wrote: In article , Capitol writes critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote: That's not austerity. That's Africa as a whole for at least another fifty years. And you dont think its austere? It's poverty. The "austerity" which critcher is on about is government manipulation of funds by reducing his beer and fag money. How the **** can the government manipulate my spend, except by taxing me more and making the job market heavily against honest toil thereby reducing my wages, which of course I don't have to work for if I believe them not to be a true reflection of the work and profit I make for my company. |
#112
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 18:59, Hankat wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message news On 25/04/17 11:15, bert wrote: In article , TimW writes On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote: On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: " ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the entire human race, is the crazy person in the room." He does have a point. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/ TW Perhaps he does, but it is flawed. Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed? Beachy Head is that way Don't understand that at all. Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral destruction by the other side. The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is taking a suicidal stance. Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better result than the destruction of some of them? TW And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long time. Has that contributed to peace? Yes. In the post-WW2 era it deterred the USSR from invading western Europe. Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another? What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? I don't think so. TW But there has been no use of nuclear weapons in these wars. That is the point of nuclear weapons. It makes sure no one uses nuclear weapons. Maybe if everyone had them they would prevent conventional wars also. But then look how WW1 started. Wars are a natural way to eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. Wars havent been about that for a long time now, if they ever were. No, wars have always been claimed to be about something else. But they aren't. Have fun listing even a single war that was about eliminate young males of breeding age when the population exceeds the ability of the land to sustain them in the style to which they wish to become accustomed. I might be having a brain fart and might kick myself but I can't personally think of even a single example of a war like that. The trick is to ensure the right young males get killed. And that is impossible given the nature of war. No, its easy actually. Sort out the conscripts into 'worth kepping' and 'cannon fodder' Thats never going to be politically viable. Without too much destruction of property Thats very easy now. No, it isn't. Corse it is with neutron bombs. Nuclear weapons are not very good at that. They are on the no destruction of property now. But basically kill everything if used like that. YOu dont have any knowledge of nuclear weapons, do you? Try neutron bombs. Sort of like what Genghis Khan was into, but with no real effort at all to use. No, not really. All you can do is deny with no evidence supplied at all. |
#113
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 16:43, bert wrote: Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the country is still in hock. You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's why the borrowing is so high. If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece. Greece doesn't have austerity, it has a currency problem. (and a tax gathering nightmare!) Are there two countries called Greece? no it has a tax problem with the general population believing that it is right and proper to not declare their earnings, Thats just one of its problems. The other one was an insanely over generous aged pension system that was completely unaffordable. |
#114
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"critcher" wrote in message news
On 25/04/2017 20:01, Richard wrote: [snip] That's not austerity. That's Africa as a whole for at least another fifty years. And you dont think its austere? It's poverty. The "austerity" which critcher is on about is government manipulation of funds by reducing his beer and fag money. How the **** can the government manipulate my spend, except by taxing me more and making the job market heavily against honest toil thereby reducing my wages, which of course I don't have to work for if I believe them not to be a true reflection of the work and profit I make for my company. You are the one whining about austerity, so it must be impacting you somehow. Are you saying that you are a lazy **** sponging off the company you work for? BTW, it would help if you could construct sentences which are less than a page in length. |
#115
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"critcher" wrote in message news
On 25/04/2017 20:11, Richard wrote: "critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote: On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote: In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips... Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's. From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers. don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to believe that this is possible. You are absolutely stupid. Have you ever lived in a socialist country? no mores the pity and I think you would have difficulty finding one to live in, I don't want to live in one. Surely there must be a socialist country to which your skills would be a benefit. How about Venezuela? You are the socialist non-right-winger who seeks utopia, so off you go. |
#116
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"bert" wrote in message ...
In article , critcher writes On 25/04/2017 11:05, bert wrote: In article , critcher writes On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15 hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your right to negotiate that with your employer. It already is. And the courts have also intervened, which rarely gets mentioned. Holiday pay should now be based on your average ACTUAL hours not your contractual hours. The 15 hours minimum isn't. Isn't what? Longer than a year? |
#117
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"Hankat" wrote in message ...
I might be having a brain fart and might kick myself but I can't Try harder |
#118
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race Not even possible. oh it is extremely possible, Nope. take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed, Most isnt all. destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries like ours. Plenty survived those getting ****ed over at the end of WW2 in the losing countrys. Sure, lots starved to death in Japan etc but nothing even remotely like everyone died there. Didnt happen in the worst famines where some even resorted to eating their kids, quite literally. Usually swapping kids so you didnt have to eat your own. a better result than the destruction of some of them? That didnt even happen with the Japs. |
#119
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
"critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 20:11, Richard wrote: "critcher" wrote in message news On 25/04/2017 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 25/04/17 13:31, John Rumm wrote: On 25/04/2017 11:06, bert wrote: In article , John Rumm writes On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote: On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote: Warm fuzzy feelings butter no parsnips... Labour is all about anti-management: Never having run anything that had to survive without someone else's money being nicked, they have no idea how to bake a bigger cake, only how to steal slices of someone else's. From the average labour supporters worldview, anyone with more than them cant be entitled to keep it. Self legalising robbers. don't be so stupid, socialism is about sharing responsibilities both to the firm and the workforce but most of you right wingers never seem to believe that this is possible. You are absolutely stupid. Have you ever lived in a socialist country? no mores the pity and I think you would have difficulty finding one to live in, Nope, Norway isnt that far away. |
#120
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT Barking mad Corbyn
On 25/04/17 20:11, critcher wrote:
On 25/04/2017 10:43, Rod Speed wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote: "TimW" wrote in message news On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote: [snipped Harry] Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn: Talk about flawed? How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having Nuclear Weapons? I think none. In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race Not even possible. oh it is extremely possible, take away supermarkets and shops from us and most would be ****ed, destroy the supply chains and god help society in advanced countries like ours. that wouldn't desroy the human race, however, just the detritus and the snowflakes. a better result than the destruction of some of them? That didnt even happen with the Japs. -- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" Margaret Thatcher |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DE-barking a log half | Woodworking | |||
OT Barking mad tealeaf. | Home Repair | |||
De barking? | Woodworking | |||
How do I Stop a Barking God? | Home Repair | |||
Barking Dog | Home Repair |