Lessons have been learned though, there is no chance of history repeating itself there like happened with the jews

 

I'm sure the Rwandans are glad to hear that.

I'm sure the Rwandans are glad to hear that.

 

That was a civil war between 2 tribes

 

Fail to see where that sort of thing is likely to happen in the EU

Lessons have been learned though, there is no chance of history repeating itself there like happened with the jews

Clearly not seeing as you still think it's appropriate to generalise everyone in a race as being 'human trash'. It doesn't become OK just because we aren't setting up extermination camps. You're contriving to miss the entire point I'm making constantly, which is nothing to do with genocide and entirely to do with the fact that those countries didn't accept Jews because of stereotypes about what people were like because they were Jewish. The same rationale is being made for not accepting Roma.

Edited December 2, 201311 yr by Cassandra

I'd like to add to Suede's post about the 50% tax rate.

 

It was known in advance that the rate was being brought in. So far in advance that so very many people carried out more tax evasion than they usually do and played with their income streams to receive more of it under the lower rate and artificially lower their income for the incoming 50% tax rate so they could avoid paying their fair share. The Tory's come to power and swing the axe with enough time for people to once more play with their income and push income back to the 45% tax rate and artificially lower their income and thus their tax liability under the 50% rate. Because of this the 50% tax rate does not look as effective as it could have been because everyone with half a brain cell engaged in tax evasion. It was also axed about 3 nano seconds into a Tory government, so quick in fact that there was not a full tax year under the 50% rate that was not either manipulated by front loading income or delaying income. Had the 50% tax rate been introduced a year earlier, and thus been in effect for a year longer, the revenue it generated would have been far higher as it would have been so much harder for the accounting firms to manipulate people's income streams.

Clearly not seeing as you still think it's appropriate to generalise everyone in a race as being 'human trash'. It doesn't become OK just because we aren't setting up extermination camps. You're contriving to miss the entire point I'm making constantly, which is nothing to do with genocide and entirely to do with the fact that those countries didn't accept Jews because of stereotypes about what people were like because they were Jewish. The same rationale is being made for not accepting Roma.

 

But in reality is it any different to the constant labelling of our own citizens as chavs which almost everyone does?

 

Society labels anyone who shops at Primark / Poundland / Lidl / Aldi as chavs

 

Anyone young and on benefits or is a single mum is automatically labelled a chav

 

Anyone who dresses a certain way is labelled a chav

 

Anyone a bit boisterous in a public place is labelled a chav

 

The word chav is a negative term to look down on people yet is considered socially acceptable as 90% of the country seem to do it

 

 

Clearly not seeing as you still think it's appropriate to generalise everyone in a race as being 'human trash'. It doesn't become OK just because we aren't setting up extermination camps. You're contriving to miss the entire point I'm making constantly, which is nothing to do with genocide and entirely to do with the fact that those countries didn't accept Jews because of stereotypes about what people were like because they were Jewish. The same rationale is being made for not accepting Roma.

 

Plus it is nothing to do with race either it is to do with acceptable standards of behaviour

 

For society to function properly it needs a code, a series of lines that must not be crossed, those that do cross it forfeit their right to be treated equally and treated as humans

 

Be it white English drunken thugs, white English burglars, white English paedophiles, islamic extremists and if they misbehave here roma, i dont think it is racist to say white English burglars and rapists dont deserve to be treated as humans

 

So IF roma come here and misbehave then they don't deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, those that come here from roma community and behave deserve to be treated with dignity and respect

But in reality is it any different to the constant labelling of our own citizens as chavs which almost everyone does?

 

Society labels anyone who shops at Primark / Poundland / Lidl / Aldi as chavs

 

Anyone young and on benefits or is a single mum is automatically labelled a chav

 

Anyone who dresses a certain way is labelled a chav

 

Anyone a bit boisterous in a public place is labelled a chav

 

The word chav is a negative term to look down on people yet is considered socially acceptable as 90% of the country seem to do it

Well no, it's not too much different but no-one's saying labelling or false labelling is acceptable either, so I don't see how that's justifying it. You definitely wouldn't think my mum's a chav, Craig, so I'm sure you'd be surprised to learn she's a single mum and she shops at Lidl and Aldi upon meeting her?

 

Plus it is nothing to do with race either it is to do with acceptable standards of behaviour

 

For society to function properly it needs a code, a series of lines that must not be crossed, those that do cross it forfeit their right to be treated equally and treated as humans

 

Be it white English drunken thugs, white English burglars, white English paedophiles, islamic extremists and if they misbehave here roma, i dont think it is racist to say white English burglars and rapists dont deserve to be treated as humans

 

So IF roma come here and misbehave then they don't deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, those that come here from roma community and behave deserve to be treated with dignity and respect

CHRIST. The difference between you calling Roma people 'human trash' and calling white English drunken thugs as 'human trash' is that you clearly don't think all white English people are drunken thugs, burglars, paedos or Islamic extremists, whereas you seem to think that it's a general rule that Roma people fall into that category. Do you not understand the differences?

 

First and last time I try to argue with you vaguely rationally.

Well no, it's not too much different but no-one's saying labelling or false labelling is acceptable either, so I don't see how that's justifying it. You definitely wouldn't think my mum's a chav, Craig, so I'm sure you'd be surprised to learn she's a single mum and she shops at Lidl and Aldi upon meeting her?

 

I don't judge people based on what supermarket or shop they use though

 

I use 99p store occasionally for things like batteries and sweets, they have some great deals BUT i always decline a bag from them and take a Waitrose supermarket bag with me to fill the 99p store things with incase people see me with a 99p store bag in the street and assume i am poor

 

There is a social stigma when it comes to certain shops, human nature

CHRIST. The difference between you calling Roma people 'human trash' and calling white English drunken thugs as 'human trash' is that you clearly don't think all white English people are drunken thugs, burglars, paedos or Islamic extremists, whereas you seem to think that it's a general rule that Roma people fall into that category. Do you not understand the differences?

 

First and last time I try to argue with you vaguely rationally.

 

I have never said all roma are burglars, beggars and thieves, but if I see France, Italy and Germany turning them away then it is right to raise legitimate concerns about their behaviour, Germany/France/Italy are not 'master race' nations

 

We have enough home grown criminals without adding to the list with foreign ones, Italy/France/Germany would not refuse them without good reason

Interesting chart on Political Betting comparing where past Prime Ministers and opposition leaders were with their approval ratings at this point in previous election cycles (18 months before the election):

 

 

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php...re-an-election/

 

So, although it's true Miliband is behind where all previous opposition leaders who won the election were at this point, and barely ahead of where Hague was, Cameron isn't doing so hot either: he's behind where Brown (BROWN!!!) was at this point, and WELL behind where Major was before the '92 election.

Brown was out of office by this point wasn't he?!

Brown was out of office by this point wasn't he?!

 

November 2008.

 

Admittedly that point is a bit flattering for Brown because that was after he'd just bailed out the banks, but even so, it should be a sobering reminder to Tories including Craig of how much they totally overestimate what an election-saving asset Cameron (compared to Miliband) is supposed to be.

Edited December 3, 201311 yr by Danny

November 2008.

 

Admittedly that point is a bit flattering for Brown because that was after he'd just bailed out the banks, but even so, it should be a sobering reminder to Tories including Craig of how much they totally overestimate what an election-saving asset Cameron (compared to Miliband) is supposed to be.

 

Cameron is a useless sack of shite, would happily get rid of him, but his approval ratings have been consistently comfortably ahead of Miliband's and i have no doubt that that will make a difference with many floating voters

 

 

Cameron is a useless sack of shite, would happily get rid of him, but his approval ratings have been consistently comfortably ahead of Miliband's and i have no doubt that that will make a difference with many floating voters

How does someone's approval rating impact on floating voters. It is the last thing I would check. I don't give a shit about what other people think of politicians, I just need to know what they stand for to make up my mind and as do so very many others.

Cameron is a useless sack of shite, would happily get rid of him, but his approval ratings have been consistently comfortably ahead of Miliband's and i have no doubt that that will make a difference with many floating voters

 

But again, you overestimate how much impact leaders have. The leader would only be enough to swing an election on their own if they're MASSIVELY more popular than the opposition leader -- for example, Alex Salmond compared to the Scottish Labour leader before the last Scottish election, or Angela Merkel compared to the leader of her main opposition party (Merkel's party and the Social Democrats in terms of their brands were about equal, as was their general performances in local elections). Cameron being marginally more popular than Miliband (and sometimes not even that--you'd be surprised how many times Ed has had a slight lead over Cameron in approval ratings over the past 18 months) is not going to compensate for how much stronger the Labour brand is compared to the Conservatives'. Cameron will need something like a 15-20% lead in approval ratings just to pull the Tories' score even -- a 2% lead as at present is just not going to do it.

Edited December 3, 201311 yr by Danny

Cameron is a useless sack of shite, would happily get rid of him, but his approval ratings have been consistently comfortably ahead of Miliband's and i have no doubt that that will make a difference with many floating voters

 

Cameron should be more concerned with how the traditional Tory voters see him - I can see him losing quite a few to UKIPs crazy and mostly racist rhetoric, which would leave some of the dodgy seats open to being taken by Labour. He should be VERY concerned. :D

How does someone's approval rating impact on floating voters. It is the last thing I would check. I don't give a shit about what other people think of politicians, I just need to know what they stand for to make up my mind and as do so very many others.

 

The Daily Mail, Express, Sun etc will lay into Miliband like they have no politician in history in the build up to the next election and undoubtedly some or even many will be influenced enough to be put off voting for Ed

 

This is going to be a dirty campaign, perhaps the dirtiest the western world has ever seen, the attacks on Ed from the media will be remorseless and relentless

 

I think Ed is a well meaning decent man but as dynamic as a dead dog

Cameron should be more concerned with how the traditional Tory voters see him - I can see him losing quite a few to UKIPs crazy and mostly racist rhetoric, which would leave some of the dodgy seats open to being taken by Labour. He should be VERY concerned. :D

 

A vote for UKIP is a vote for Ed via the back door, tory voters know that, thats why i dont think many traditional tories will vote UKIP

2% lead as at present is just not going to do it.

 

A strong growing economy plus Crosby getting his media pals to destroy Miliband in print will, not that i condone personal attacks on Ed

And by the way, I still don't think it's impossible Miliband will have a slight lead over Cameron even in personal approval ratings by the election, mainly because I think it's very possible Ed will "win" the debates -- partly because people's expectations will be, like Clegg last time, that Ed will be a disaster or a non-factor in them so just being decent would itself be enough for him to be seen to have won, and also because he's actually surprisingly decent in that type of thing rather than speeches where he comes across robotic and painfully over-rehearsed (and thus inauthentic).

Edited December 3, 201311 yr by Danny