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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,142
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,168
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25,191
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,556
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,556
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,556
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 168
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,556
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 168
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,625
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DE-barking a log half [email protected] Woodworking 16 October 23rd 14 04:53 AM
OT Barking mad tealeaf. harry Home Repair 2 May 24th 13 08:01 PM
De barking? jas Woodworking 0 February 25th 08 03:20 AM
How do I Stop a Barking God? [email protected] Home Repair 16 August 4th 07 12:00 AM
Barking Dog gntry Home Repair 27 September 18th 04 10:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"