Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Adorno)
    That's where the fallacy lies. The BNP is successful not because it peddles racist nonsense about immigrants but because it puts forward an economic vision of society that you would have once found Labour putting forward. Indeed, it is Labour supporters, in the main, who keep the BNP afloat as a political party. Sure there are fascists in that party but to focus on them is to miss the point. Thatcher, by contrast, was altogether more dangerous.
    That's probably because the Labour Party has slowly been creeping further and further right-wing and this source gives a recent update of where the parties stand. Thatcher was right-wing but she had the guts to speak out and she got things done.

    (Original post by Adorno)
    If you say so. But if there's such a thing as Broken Britain then it is because the Right are stuck in the same anti-everything mantra they've always been stuck in. It's the Broken Record of Britain and you, my friend, are it.
    We are not anti-everything. We seem anti-everything in contrast to Labour who are pro-everything in fear of 'offending someone'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    We are not anti-everything. We seem anti-everything in contrast to Labour who are pro-everything in fear of 'offending someone'.
    Except, of course, the fact that Labour is very well represented in Unite Against Fascism which pisses off the BNP; that Labour has no qualms about pissing of the Tory Right; that Labour invaded Iraq and demonstrated that it had no qualms about pissing off large numbers of its own supports and many others around the world. But i'm sure your hyperbole is quite accurately wrong.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Except, of course, the fact that Labour is very well represented in Unite Against Fascism which pisses off the BNP; that Labour has no qualms about pissing of the Tory Right; that Labour invaded Iraq and demonstrated that it had no qualms about pissing off large numbers of its own supports and many others around the world. But i'm sure your hyperbole is quite accurately wrong.
    That's what you would think but that is not the case. Why do you think that so many immigrants come to the UK? They travel all across Europe and even act illegally to get into the UK, but they pass great countries like Germany and France and I ask why? I will tell you why, because it is only the UK and the previous Labour Government that let them in and gave them a free house and money. Face it, that Labour are the most wishy-washy party that don't have the guts do anything, apart from when it was Blair following the tail of Bush or having a little argument with the Tories in PMQs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    That's what you would think but that is not the case. Why do you think that so many immigrants come to the UK? They travel all across Europe and even act illegally to get into the UK, but they pass great countries like Germany and France and I ask why? I will tell you why, because it is only the UK and the previous Labour Government that let them in and gave them a free house and money. Face it, that Labour are the most wishy-washy party that don't have the guts do anything, apart from when it was Blair following the tail of Bush or having a little argument with the Tories in PMQs.
    Non sequitur. You use this premise to support this conclusion: 'We seem anti-everything in contrast to Labour who are pro-everything in fear of 'offending someone'. Hmmm.

    All you've done here is demonstrate that Labour was pro-immigration. Too pro-immigration for your liking perhaps (and, indeed, many Conservatives and many Labour leader contenders), but whatever. I seem to remember all three parties supporting the points-system to block out unskilled labour. And also, there's little we can do about movement of labour within the EU. But like I say, whatever, I'm not getting into it.

    Now does this really justify your attempt to portray Labour as the most wishy-washy party that lacks the guts to do anything? We banned fox-hunting. We brought the minimum wage despite powerful proponents and opponents of it. We brought forward the most pro-equalities agenda (be it in gay rights or otherwise). For most of your "pro's" there's also an "anti". Anti-discrimination, anti-animal-cruelty, anti-child-poverty, and so forth. I'm not a party propagandist so I don't think I really need to continue in order to support my conclusion that you're simply misguided. It seems that hyperbole is the sine qua non of any militant Labour-basher these days. "They lacked guts, they were weak" ... whatever.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Non sequitur. You use this premise to support this conclusion: 'We seem anti-everything in contrast to Labour who are pro-everything in fear of 'offending someone'. Hmmm.

    All you've done here is demonstrate that Labour was pro-immigration. Too pro-immigration for your liking perhaps (and, indeed, many Conservatives and many Labour leader contenders), but whatever. I seem to remember all three parties supporting the points-system to block out unskilled labour. And also, there's little we can do about movement of labour within the EU. But like I say, whatever, I'm not getting into it.

    Now does this really justify your attempt to portray Labour as the most wishy-washy party that lacks the guts to do anything? We banned fox-hunting. We brought the minimum wage despite powerful proponents and opponents of it. We brought forward the most pro-equalities agenda (be it in gay rights or otherwise). For most of your "pro's" there's also an "anti". Anti-discrimination, anti-animal-cruelty, anti-child-poverty, and so forth. I'm not a party propagandist so I don't think I really need to continue in order to support my conclusion that you're simply misguided. It seems that hyperbole is the sine qua non of any militant Labour-basher these days. "They lacked guts, they were weak" ... whatever.
    Well said.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Non sequitur. You use this premise to support this conclusion: 'We seem anti-everything in contrast to Labour who are pro-everything in fear of 'offending someone'. Hmmm.

    All you've done here is demonstrate that Labour was pro-immigration. Too pro-immigration for your liking perhaps (and, indeed, many Conservatives and many Labour leader contenders), but whatever. I seem to remember all three parties supporting the points-system to block out unskilled labour. And also, there's little we can do about movement of labour within the EU. But like I say, whatever, I'm not getting into it.
    Labour has proven to be pro-everything, like I have said, to prevent offending people. To say they are pro-immigration is putting it lightly; as I said before, why do immigrants insist on seeking home in the UK? They travel across Europe, passing many other countries including France and Germany, but will do anything to get to Britain. Why? The reason is that the UK, under a Labour Government allows immigrants to come and stay here. "Oh dear, you don't have a house or any money? It's alright we will use Taxpayer's money and give you a free house and money to make you comfortable here" They aren't racing to stay in France, because France has the guts (under a Conservative President) to say no, we are not giving you benefits. Immigrants sleep in tents at Calais, waiting for the right time to get into the UK, so that wishy-washy Labour, too scared to say no, will give them money.

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Now does this really justify your attempt to portray Labour as the most wishy-washy party that lacks the guts to do anything? We banned fox-hunting. We brought the minimum wage despite powerful proponents and opponents of it. We brought forward the most pro-equalities agenda (be it in gay rights or otherwise). For most of your "pro's" there's also an "anti". Anti-discrimination, anti-animal-cruelty, anti-child-poverty, and so forth. I'm not a party propagandist so I don't think I really need to continue in order to support my conclusion that you're simply misguided. It seems that hyperbole is the sine qua non of any militant Labour-basher these days. "They lacked guts, they were weak" ... whatever.
    You banned fox-hunting? This proves my point that Labour are too weak to make any strong decisive action on major issues, like immigration or benefits. Instead, they feel that banning fox-hunting showed their balls. Doesn't everyone care about poor innocent foxes? The foxes that enter people's homes, go upstairs and kill a baby? Everything that you have mentioned, is another example of Labour trying to appeal to everyone and trying to get cheap votes? Labour is weak and lack guts, just like Gordon Brown did.

    On the contrary, you are misguided and so are Labour. They have been in Government for 13 years, and the keep homing in at how they brought in the minimum wage. An achievement...yes? Their only valid achievement...yes?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Labour has proven to be pro-everything, like I have said, to prevent offending people.
    FALSE. Labour has been proven not to be pro-everything, like I have said. COUNTER-EXAMPLE: Labour were anti-discrimination, introducing many anti-discrimination laws. Did this please everyone? Nope, certainly not many on the benches opposite them. You've repeated this point now and you have quite clearly been proven wrong. Your claim has been falsified. Why even open your argument with that sentence if you KNEW you were going to be held to account for it? Stop spluttering unsupported soundbites and form a proper argument. Jesus Christ man!

    To say they are pro-immigration is putting it lightly; as I said before, why do immigrants insist on seeking home in the UK? They travel across Europe, passing many other countries including France and Germany, but will do anything to get to Britain. Why? The reason is that the UK, under a Labour Government allows immigrants to come and stay here. "Oh dear, you don't have a house or any money? It's alright we will use Taxpayer's money and give you a free house and money to make you comfortable here" They aren't racing to stay in France, because France has the guts (under a Conservative President) to say no, we are not giving you benefits. Immigrants sleep in tents at Calais, waiting for the right time to get into the UK, so that wishy-washy Labour, too scared to say no, will give them money.
    Like I said, all this shows was that Labour were pro-immigration. Anybody who has been glimpsing at a copy of the Daily Mail could tell that. I'd rather not get sidetracked onto this COMPLETELY DIFFERENT argument about the pros and cons of immigration and assylum seekers and the merits and demerits of different countries' approaches to immigration and non-EU assylum seekers.

    You banned fox-hunting? This proves my point that Labour are too weak to make any strong decisive action on major issues, like immigration or benefits.
    The Tories lacked any strong opinion on what should be done during the global financial crisis. Whether you agree with it or not, Labour nationalised the banks - the Lib Dems agreed with this measure. This was a strong decisive action; a very important political decision about our economy made very quickly. Again, the minimum wage was a very strong and decisive socialist measure. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to be quite strict and harsh here. Please formalise your argument.

    1. Labour banned fox-hunting
    2. Therefore, this proves your point that Labour are too weak to make any strong decisive action on major issues.

    That is such a poor argument. Compare it with my counter-argument.

    1. If Labour has carried out an action which is both strong and decisive on a major issue, then Labour is not too weak to make any strong decisive action on a major issue.

    2. If Labour has written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries, then Labour have carried out an action which is both strong and decisive on a major issue.

    3. Labour has written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.

    4. Therefore, Labour are not too weak to make any strong decisive action on a major issue.

    That is a valid, sound and persuasive argument. Can you challenge any of the premises? The conclusion is trivially true. Therefore, you are WRONG. Stop coming out with mindless dribble.

    Instead, they feel that banning fox-hunting showed their balls.
    Nope, nobody has said that. You're just asserting that. How does that opinion follow from anything you or I (or Labour) have said? Please stop this rather lazy nonsense.

    Doesn't everyone care about poor innocent foxes? The foxes that enter people's homes, go upstairs and kill a baby? Everything that you have mentioned, is another example of Labour trying to appeal to everyone and trying to get cheap votes? Labour is weak and lack guts, just like Gordon Brown did.
    Your point might carry some weight if it was known that fox-hunting was a vote-winner. It appears to be an issue which attracts mixed opinions.

    I actually look forward to a discussion on animal rights with you if you really want one. Since this isn't actually the point that we were discussing, I don't feel guilty in merely directing you to a very good article by Peter Singer, moral philosopher (preference utilitarian).

    Even if you could prove that banning fox-hunting was a vote-winner, you'd also need to give some evidence that this was the motive behind the measure.

    There are numerous flaws in your implicit pro-fox-hunting argument. I recommend looking at the Brian May clip in my post.

    On the contrary, you are misguided and so are Labour. They have been in Government for 13 years, and the keep homing in at how they brought in the minimum wage. An achievement...yes? Their only valid achievement...yes?
    On the evidence presented here it certainly is neither Labour nor I who are misguided. I didn't barge into a thread unarmed with any coherent, cogent nor logical argument.

    But OH GOODY, you have given another claim to falsify. Your point: 1. The minimum wage was their only valid achievement and this is the only thing they keep harking on about. I feel that I've written enough (I get the feeling that long posts tend to piss people off) so this time I'll be the lazy one and merely present this. At a brief glance I think they list a view of Labour's top 50 achievements. Another one of your claims has been falsified? I think so, bro
    Offline

    8
    Labour's Top 50 Failures

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    FALSE. Labour has been proven not to be pro-everything, like I have said. COUNTER-EXAMPLE: Labour were anti-discrimination, introducing many anti-discrimination laws. Did this please everyone? Nope, certainly not many on the benches opposite them. You've repeated this point now and you have quite clearly been proven wrong. Your claim has been falsified. Why even open your argument with that sentence if you KNEW you were going to be held to account for it? Stop spluttering unsupported soundbites and form a proper argument. Jesus Christ man!
    You are claiming that Labour was not pro-everything, because they offended the Tories? Anti-discrimination laws proves that Labour is pro-everything. It was Labour that introduced this 'politically correct' society, that we know live in because they were so scared of offending anyone. I think that your argument on how Labour weren't pro-everything because they had a little bicker with the Tories in PMQ's is not sufficient proof - maybe it is you that should stop spluttering with invalid information.

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Like I said, all this shows was that Labour were pro-immigration. Anybody who has been glimpsing at a copy of the Daily Mail could tell that. I'd rather not get sidetracked onto this COMPLETELY DIFFERENT argument about the pros and cons of immigration and assylum seekers and the merits and demerits of different countries' approaches to immigration and non-EU assylum seekers.
    I'm not surprised that you don't want to talk about this issue, because immigration was Labour's biggest failure. Thanks to Labour, we have more asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and immigrants on benefits than we did prior to 1997.

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    The Tories lacked any strong opinion on what should be done during the global financial crisis. Whether you agree with it or not, Labour nationalised the banks - the Lib Dems agreed with this measure. This was a strong decisive action; a very important political decision about our economy made very quickly. Again, the minimum wage was a very strong and decisive socialist measure. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to be quite strict and harsh here. Please formalise your argument.

    1. Labour banned fox-hunting
    2. Therefore, this proves your point that Labour are too weak to make any strong decisive action on major issues.
    The only opinion that Labour held on the global financial crisis, was one which has caused the UK to have the highest levels of debt since the Second World War. Gordon Brown bleated on, "we are leading the world out of recession", yet were are the last country to come out of the recession. How do you explain that? Well it is always nice to see that you focus on the important issue of the formality of my argument, just as Labour focussed on the every important issue of fox-hunting :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    That is such a poor argument. Compare it with my counter-argument.

    1. If Labour has carried out an action which is both strong and decisive on a major issue, then Labour is not too weak to make any strong decisive action on a major issue.

    2. If Labour has written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries, then Labour have carried out an action which is both strong and decisive on a major issue.

    3. Labour has written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.

    4. Therefore, Labour are not too weak to make any strong decisive action on a major issue.

    That is a valid, sound and persuasive argument. Can you challenge any of the premises? The conclusion is trivially true. Therefore, you are WRONG. Stop coming out with mindless dribble.
    1) Fox-hunting is definitely a major issue

    2) That's something you are proud of?

    3) You are repeating yourself like a broken a record. Or maybe that's because you fail to think of anything that Labour has actually done which was successful.

    Well you certainly have a misguided and obscured definition of the words, 'valid, sound and persuasive' because your argument is anything but that. You have groaned about Labour's failures, repeated yourself and haven't actually presented anything worthwhile.

    On the evidence presented here it certainly is neither Labour nor I who are misguided. I didn't barge into a thread unarmed with any coherent, cogent nor logical argument.[/QUOTE]

    Instead, you barged into a response not knowing what you are talking about and have easily slipped into repeating yourself. Perhaps that's because your argument carries so little weight, that this is all you can talk about - fox hunting and wiping off other countries debt. The fact is that we are poor and we have no money, yet Labour just said to other countries, "Bahh forget it, this one is on us." When will you realise that Labour's success' are now their biggest failures.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    The fact is that we are poor and we have no money, yet Labour just said to other countries, "Bahh forget it, this one is on us." When will you realise that Labour's success' are now their biggest failures.
    Mate, we are one of the richest countries in the world. If we are "poor" then what of those countries where the majority of people live on less than $1 per day? What are they if we are "poor" and "have no money"?
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Mate, we are one of the richest countries in the world. If we are "poor" then what of those countries where the majority of people live on less than $1 per day? What are they if we are "poor" and "have no money"?
    The difference is that those countries didn't have many from the start, but we did. Now we both have no money and we are both in debt - except we have time before getting to that situation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    The difference is that those countries didn't have many from the start, but we did. Now we both have no money and we are both in debt - except we have time before getting to that situation.
    Yeah, any respect any of us may have had for you has evapourated now. If you insist on claiming that Britain is now a "poor" country then you really are losing your marbles. Go and live in a favela mate, come back and then tell us all that Britain is "poor".
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Yeah, any respect any of us may have had for you has evapourated now. If you insist on claiming that Britain is now a "poor" country then you really are losing your marbles. Go and live in a favela mate, come back and then tell us all that Britain is "poor".
    Do we have any money? No
    Are we in debt? Yes
    Therefore, is the government poor? Yes
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Do we have any money? No
    Are we in debt? Yes
    Therefore, is the government poor? Yes
    Do we have any money: yes.
    Are we in debt: yes
    Is the debt something we can cope with: yes
    Is the government, bearing in mind all of its assets, poor? No.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Do we have any money: yes.
    The Former Chief Secretary to the Treasurer even told us that we have no money left. Perhaps you are not realising the scope of the situation, we actually have no money. Anything we get from taxes is spent on public services and even that isn't enough; we are worse than having no money, we are in debt.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    The Former Chief Secretary to the Treasurer even told us that we have no money left. Perhaps you are not realising the scope of the situation, we actually have no money. Anything we get from taxes is spent on public services and even that isn't enough; we are worse than having no money, we are in debt.
    We obviously do have money or this particular initiative wouldn't be possible:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-1998317.html
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Labour's Top 50 Failures
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Yes, I often find the Conservative website to present a non-biased and charitable view of Labour. This copying and pasting is merely clutching at straws. I present a pro-Labour argument and you return with this garbage. Please say, explicitly, where this aids your argument. You are moving the goalposts. I'm not having a "did Labour succeed/fail" discussion with you, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion on specific points. You can't keep on changing the topic. How does a list of '50 perceived failures by Tories' counter my argument that Labour achieved '50 perceived achievements'? You see, I originally quoted my article to counter and defeat your claim that Labour had only made one valid achievement (your words). I don't see what argument your article is supposed to be supporting.


    Summary: That the Conservatives can find 50 failures committed by Labour does not mean that Labour have only made one achievement (when I listed at least 50). I therefore still cannot accept your assertion.

    You are claiming that Labour was not pro-everything, because they offended the Tories? Anti-discrimination laws proves that Labour is pro-everything. It was Labour that introduced this 'politically correct' society, that we know live in because they were so scared of offending anyone. I think that your argument on how Labour weren't pro-everything because they had a little bicker with the Tories in PMQ's is not sufficient proof - maybe it is you that should stop spluttering with invalid information.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    This is quite frustrating because I'm trying to have a frank discussion here, but you're misrepresenting me. I'm not typing in codes. I never said that Labour was not pro-everything merely because they offended the Tories. There, I've answered your question; but you could have worked that out by actually reading what I'd written. I said they were not pro-everything because they were anti-many-things. I then gave an example and thus defeated your claim that they were pro-everything. Anti-discrimination laws prove that they're 'pro-everything'? How so? You're obscuring your argument. What do you really mean to say? It's quite clear that anti-discrimination laws can be pro-some-things and anti-some-things. It is pro-gay-equality, but anti-business-bigotry. I daresay that introducing a pro-politically-correct-society has offended a fair number of people. Many people are upset by positive discrimination. Now, regardless of whether you're for or against positive discrimination (I mean, Cameron has used it to try to get more female MPs, so we're not just talking about Labour here...), I fundamentally disagree with your argument that just because a government is encouraging a politically correct society that they are 'scared' of offending people. Maybe, just maybe, they are morally opposed to a racist business owner selecting purely white staff, or denying homosexuals from their hotels. There is a wider debate to be had on these issues, but we needn't even get into it. All that needs to be demonstrated is that it is not necessarily the case that governments introduce this type of legislation purely because they're scared of offending minorities (or whatever).

    And, indeed, you're going to have to mix this interpretation with the fact that the government did introduce a points system to immigration, and did react to Islamic extremism by toughening terror laws - conceivably offensive measures.

    At no point did I say that Labour were not pro-everything purely because they had a little bicker with the Tories during PMQs. That's merely your own invention. FFS, all I ask is that you deal with what is written.


    Summary: You still have not supported the assertion that Labour are "pro-everything" and therefore you should not characterise Labour in that way. It made stances on discrimination, for example, which implies that Labour were against the right of employers to employ in accordance with a racist agenda.

    I'm not surprised that you don't want to talk about this issue, because immigration was Labour's biggest failure. Thanks to Labour, we have more asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and immigrants on benefits than we did prior to 1997.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    That's a childish dig. And yes, as most Labour candidates have acknowledged, there were serious problems with immigration policy. But rather than write even more than I'm already doing, I'd rather finish the discussion that we were already having. I'm limiting the scope of the discussion to what I originally challenged you for. You made a claim, I tackled it in my post. I'm not going to get distracted.

    I will say, however, that in 1997 we didn't have the amount of free movement of labour which we have today as part of the EU, and that we have introduced a points-based system; and that we've never had thorough border controls. It's rather telling that you do immediately associate "more assylum seekers...and immigrants on benefits" with 'failure'.


    Summary: You are introducing a new and irrelevant topic into our discussion.

    The only opinion that Labour held on the global financial crisis, was one which has caused the UK to have the highest levels of debt since the Second World War. Gordon Brown bleated on, "we are leading the world out of recession", yet were are the last country to come out of the recession. How do you explain that? Well it is always nice to see that you focus on the important issue of the formality of my argument, just as Labour focussed on the every important issue of fox-hunting
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I made a post about how the Conservatives probably would have gotten us into more debt. They supported and always said they'd match Labour spending commitments. They were complicit in Labour's spending. They also advocated tax reductions through most of Blair's premiership. The public finances would not have been much better. I unashamedly support Keynesian-stimulus spending during a recession - what would you have done? We were one of the last countries to come out of recession (not by much, and it's not that significant - pot luck), but we had healthier growth figures than a lot of them.


    Summary: Again, irrelevant, but, again, dealt with.

    1) Fox-hunting is definitely a major issue

    2) That's something you are proud of?

    3) You are repeating yourself like a broken a record. Or maybe that's because you fail to think of anything that Labour has actually done which was successful.
    Premise 1 is arguably false. Premise 2 is true. Conclusion 3 does not follow from the premises. This is a worthless argument.

    Well you certainly have a misguided and obscured definition of the words, 'valid, sound and persuasive' because your argument is anything but that. You have groaned about Labour's failures, repeated yourself and haven't actually presented anything worthwhile.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Then tell me precisely how that formal argument was neither valid, sound nor persuasive. Do you disagree with any of the premises? Do you disagree with the conclusion? Do you disagree with the way the syllogism/argument was structured?

    I feel that you've lost sight of what I actually challenged you for because you haven't defended any of the claims which I falsified. You're not just throwing empty sentences at me, which tends to make this whole quoting-each-other routine seem rather petty.

    I've been direct in my claims.

    Summary: I'd prefer if you'd be more specific on which premise you disagree with or how the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or voice any other specific objection to my argument.

    Instead, you barged into a response not knowing what you are talking about and have easily slipped into repeating yourself. Perhaps that's because your argument carries so little weight, that this is all you can talk about - fox hunting and wiping off other countries debt. The fact is that we are poor and we have no money, yet Labour just said to other countries, "Bahh forget it, this one is on us." When will you realise that Labour's success' are now their biggest failures.
    I wrote my reply with a direct argument and a precise aim of rebutting the claims you made. You said that Labour were a "wishy-washy party that could not make any strong and decisive decision about anything major". You said that Labour were "pro-everything". I showed that these claims were demonstrably false. I'll let others decide if you've even responded to my rebutting claims, never mind whether people think they were decent answers.

    I feel that you have missed the point of my argument if you think I've just decided to mention fox hunting or countries' debts for no reason other than to harp on about them. You're not dealing with the arguments in which those issues were mentioned.

    I have to repeat myself because I feel that, however polite and clear I'm trying to make my argument, you're behaving like a brick wall which shouts empty claim after empty claim which altogether lack coherency. This makes this discussion rather fruitless and, with respect, I feel that the blame does not lie with me.

    I'm not going to broaden the topic even more by discussing the cancelling of third world debt. I introduced that topic to demonstrate that Labour did provide strong and decisive commitments on major issues, and thus that you were incorrect to characterise the Labour Party in the way that you did. I did not introduce it to have a massive discussion on whether countries should cancel the debt of third world countries - I will only do that if you can demonstrate that it vindicates your original argument that Labour were, to paraphrase a little, a spineless party.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    The Former Chief Secretary to the Treasurer even told us that we have no money left. Perhaps you are not realising the scope of the situation, we actually have no money. Anything we get from taxes is spent on public services and even that isn't enough; we are worse than having no money, we are in debt.
    We have no money? Then how come I live in a nice flat and can afford nice food? Oh yes, because I earn a reasonable wage, just like the vast majority of British people and unlike the vast majority of those in, say, the Congo, Ivory Coast, etc.

    As for being in debt meaning you have no money, does this mean every family with a mortgage has no money, regardless of their living standards? Of course not.

    We don't have no money, quite clearly, else we wouldn't be able to afford anything. We're in the top few percent of the world in terms of wealth, however you measure it. To say we're a poor country is utterly ridiculous.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Drogue)
    We have no money? Then how come I live in a nice flat and can afford nice food? Oh yes, because I earn a reasonable wage, just like the vast majority of British people and unlike the vast majority of those in, say, the Congo, Ivory Coast, etc.

    As for being in debt meaning you have no money, does this mean every family with a mortgage has no money, regardless of their living standards? Of course not.

    We don't have no money, quite clearly, else we wouldn't be able to afford anything. We're in the top few percent of the world in terms of wealth, however you measure it. To say we're a poor country is utterly ridiculous.
    I'm not going to respond because I am disgusted by your reasoning for warning. Being condescending? There is nothing in TSR Rules which prevent me from doing so. Seeing as you wish to be an overbearing moderator, then I will treat as such and will not respond to what you said above.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    I'm not going to respond because I am disgusted by your reasoning for warning. Being condescending? There is nothing in TSR Rules which prevent me from doing so. Seeing as you wish to be an overbearing moderator, then I will treat as such and will not respond to what you said above.
    (Original post by TSR Rules)
    Comments we believe to be rude [or] deliberately antagonising... will lead to a warning and may result in the involved member(s) being suspended or banned immediately.
    (Original post by TSR Rules)
    The moderators’ decision is final. We reserve the right to delete, edit, or move any content at our discretion.
    What you posted was both rude and deliberately antagonising. End of story. If you take issue with warnings, please post in AAM where a mod can review it for you.

    I'm surprised you turn to an unrelated moderation decision as an excuse not to answer a post though. You've no requirement to reply, of course, but it seems like a strange excuse to me.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Drogue)
    What you posted was both rude and deliberately antagonising. End of story. If you take issue with warnings, please post in AAM where a mod can review it for you.

    I'm surprised you turn to an unrelated moderation decision as an excuse not to answer a post though. You've no requirement to reply, of course, but it seems like a strange excuse to me.
    :mfing:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.