And that's why we don't give people like you power.

crazy shit going on in here re: the Kemerovo fire. unofficially at least 5 times more people died than being reported (64). and i'm not surprised.

 

i always knew going to malls in Russia was a risky business, it's just got confirmed now.

 

i bet the officials are like "thank GOD this happened a week AFTER the election".

 

no information AT ALL is being released and there are no lists saying who died or got injured. it's been more than 2 days since the tragedy.

It's all too typical of the British media that this story is not getting much coverage here. Of course, if it turns out that a British tourist escaped from it and went to hospital for a check-up, that will change.

don't let the fire extinguishers, alarms, cameras and fire exit here fool you. they don't work (unless we're talking about givenment buildings obviously)

 

That's awful! And Suedey comment above:

 

I think we can firmly blame the general public for once. As I type the BBC have the story amongst the top 5 in the world, though granted equal footing to Boris and Bercow squabbling like brats.

 

On the Most Read: Not even top 10, behind fish tank fumes leaves 10 in hospital, Dynamo has Crohns, and topping the list some gossip crap about a footballers car. meanwhile topping the Most watched: Cat stuck up a pole just beating owl released at wedding, Bowie statue vandalised and Flat Earther flies a DIY a rocket to prove he's a deluded or lying dick attempting to make money out of fools. If they fell off the edge of the flat Earth bet that would top the list for ages....

I disagree. Controversial right wing views spread hate and should not be given a platform.

 

What about controversial left-wing views too?

 

We'd also have to drop the pretense that we have freedom of speech...

What about controversial left-wing views too?

 

We'd also have to drop the pretense that we have freedom of speech...

 

Anything that spreads hate is against the law, left, right or centre. That is perfectly right. There is no such thing as unlimited free speech anywhere in the world and never has been. That's because where it is bound to conflict against other sorts of rights one or the other has to take precedent, and in those cases the right to mouth off, lie, disregard peoples rights, cause malicious harm, threaten, and so on, violates those rights. That will always be the case from now until the human race ends.

 

If someone isn't doing those things, then their right to free speech should be respected. If there is evidence that they intend to target one religious or racial group, for instance, then that is a world of difference from criticising the politics of a particular country....

What about controversial left-wing views too?

 

We'd also have to drop the pretense that we have freedom of speech...

 

Yes but I can't think of many left wing views that spread hate or ignorance? Maybe extreme conspiracy theorists, yes, or Stalin worshippers ... If they existed.

 

The threat right now to world peace and society as a whole is the alt right and their hate.

 

And that's why we don't give people like you power.

 

Mwaaa centrist Blairite running to help the right wing. Sweet.

Yes but I can't think of many left wing views that spread hate or ignorance?

 

Leftists tend to hate capitalism - the very system that created the wealth that Western countries enjoy - and that millions of people come to western countries to share in. :)

Leftists tend to hate capitalism - the very system that created the wealth that Western countries enjoy - and that millions of people come to western countries to share in. :)

 

Late stage and unfettered capitalism that has created immense poverty, extreme wealth and a plutocracy where the rich have ALLLLL the power. Advocating for a different economic system is um not hate speech lmaoooo. Loving crashes booms and busts is just bizarre and not patriotic.

Late stage and unfettered capitalism that has created immense poverty, extreme wealth and a plutocracy where the rich have ALLLLL the power. Advocating for a different economic system is um not hate speech lmaoooo. Loving crashes booms and busts is just bizarre and not patriotic.

 

That assertion is not borne out by the data, which demonstrates that the % of people living in extreme poverty has fallen from 60% in 1970, to just 13% of the world population in 2012 (and still falling) - and remember that there's been a major population boom since then, so there's even less people overall living outside of this.

That assertion is not borne out by the data, which demonstrates that the % of people living in extreme poverty has fallen from 60% in 1970, to just 13% of the world population in 2012 (and still falling) - and remember that there's been a major population boom since then, so there's even less people overall living outside of this.

 

Surely that would be due to the economic rise of China and India and Brazil?

 

I was talking extreme poverty in more relative terms - the collapse of the middle class, lack of a living wage, 0 hour contracts, depressed wage and living standards, and extreme relative poverty in even advanced nations. You cannot believe for one minute standards have improved for anyone who is not the 1% across most of the world.

You cannot believe for one minute standards have improved for anyone who is not the 1% across most of the world.

 

I can, and I have just provided evidence to back that up.

 

I'm not going to argue any more on this topic with yourself as I feel we'll just be around in circles, but I do welcome intelligent contribution from other members of the forum in relation to this topic.

Leftists tend to hate capitalism - the very system that created the wealth that Western countries enjoy - and that millions of people come to western countries to share in. :)

Leftists don't generally hate capitalism per se. They are just more inclined to believe that it requires rules and that unfettered capitalism is a bad thing.

Leftists don't generally hate capitalism per se. They are just more inclined to believe that it requires rules and that unfettered capitalism is a bad thing.

 

I'm not sure where 'queef' is on that scale, though.

I'm not sure where 'queef' is on that scale, though.

 

That unfettered capitalism is gross. Well regulated capitalism is better and socialism even better still.

 

Well then let's have a look at the % of wealth the 1% and top 10% have in comparison to the rest of the world. Oops. Blows your argument out the water. It has coalesced in the hands of the few. We have a record number of food banks here along. Record number of people basically living in poverty and not given a living wage. Capitalism is feudalism rebranded.

That unfettered capitalism is gross. Well regulated capitalism is better and socialism even better still.

 

Well then let's have a look at the % of wealth the 1% and top 10% have in comparison to the rest of the world. Oops. Blows your argument out the water. It has coalesced in the hands of the few. We have a record number of food banks here along. Record number of people basically living in poverty and not given a living wage. Capitalism is feudalism rebranded.

 

Err not quite. I agree about unfettered capitalism, I agree standards have dropped since the banking crisis which is a perfect example of unfettered capitalism, and previous generations have been ignored by previous generations of Capitalist-inclined inherited-wealth promoters and their cronies.

 

that said, i don't agree that in the West we are worse off, we aren't. Through a mixture of capitalism and social policies the living standards of ordinary people is hugely better than it was 50 years when I was a child (and we were so poor we had no indoor toilet, no hot water, no car, no phone, no central heating, no mobile, no colour TV, reduced nutrition in food availability which was expensive, no SKY, no expensive videogames, no internet, no new clothes, no bath, no shower, no fridge, blankets made out of old jumpers, piss-pots under the bed, no fitted carpet, no holidays, I could go on and on...

 

we DID have a few toys, a few books, a few old 78's, a black & white TV, a tin bath filled with a kettle, coal fire in the front room most of the time, a mangle/washing machine, a gas cooker, some old furniture." Oh and we lived in a cardboard box, but we were 'appy...!"

 

Equivalent poor people are WAY better off in the UK than 50/60 years ago and we don't have to go down t'pit and shorten our lives to earn cash to get by on, cos in those days there was piss-all subsidies for people who didn't work. So, explain how that all came about without capitalism (bridled or unbridled) because I don't recall any handouts from the State - it was working, free education, free further education, the NHS that all helped, but it was making money as a nation that paid for it. Nothing in life is free, and a balanced sensible combination of the least-bad parts of capitalism and socialism is what is needed. Extremism of any kind always fails because it isn't flexible and it encourages corruption which is the start of people using their own position to better themselves at cost of everyone generally. That applies to every political system ever invented....

Equivalent poor people are WAY better off in the UK than 50/60 years ago and we don't have to go down t'pit and shorten our lives to earn cash to get by on, cos in those days there was piss-all subsidies for people who didn't work. So, explain how that all came about without capitalism (bridled or unbridled) because I don't recall any handouts from the State - it was working, free education, free further education, the NHS that all helped, but it was making money as a nation that paid for it. Nothing in life is free, and a balanced sensible combination of the least-bad parts of capitalism and socialism is what is needed. Extremism of any kind always fails because it isn't flexible and it encourages corruption which is the start of people using their own position to better themselves at cost of everyone generally. That applies to every political system ever invented....

 

I can't disagree with this - but it is inequality that fuels socialists like Queef, rather than absolute poverty.

 

Not every rich person inherited their wealth though - many earned their fortune by hard graft, but socialists would rather ignore that, in order to 'justify' clobbering them with high taxes - as if it was a crime to be rich... :huh:

I can't disagree with this - but it is inequality that fuels socialists like Queef, rather than absolute poverty.

 

Not every rich person inherited their wealth though - many earned their fortune by hard graft, but socialists would rather ignore that, in order to 'justify' clobbering them with high taxes - as if it was a crime to be rich... :huh:

 

I dont have problems with rich people paying taxes. I do have problems with a system that allows tax avoidance and tax evasion because those in power have interests in keeping it going.

 

Utopia would be lovely, but....fantasy.

I can't disagree with this - but it is inequality that fuels socialists like Queef, rather than absolute poverty.

 

Not every rich person inherited their wealth though - many earned their fortune by hard graft, but socialists would rather ignore that, in order to 'justify' clobbering them with high taxes - as if it was a crime to be rich... :huh:

OTOH, Tories always justify support for cutting Inheritance Tax by pointing to people who have made their own money (in whatever way). The conveniently ignore the people who inherited their wealth and are demanding the right to pass that wealth down the generations tax-free ad infinitum.

The main argument I've seen regarding Inheritence Tax is that it is essentially a "double tax" ie that the money is taxed firstly at the point of income (presuming they haven't "offshored" it, of course), and then again when it is treated as Inheritence Tax (and if it does get passed down the generations, triple taxed, quadruple taxed, etc).

 

Of course, given that the current tax threshold for IT is £325k, you could feasibly tax 100% over that amount and still give a reasonably comfortable inheritence to your benefactors. I will however make the caveat that given that house prices in London have risen so substantially in the past 40 years, anyone who bought a house there when it was reasonably affordable will suddenly find that their descendents will face an unexpected tax bill due to the incredible appreciation in property prices over the last few years. I imagine that this will become a much bigger issue as these home owners begin to die out, and it is one issue that politicians could make a lot of capital out of (to pardon the expression).