Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:Seriously, MGS - how can you accuse people like Glen Beck of fear-mongering and manipulation with a straight face? This sort of behaviour is no different, in my eyes.

Until MSNBC gives MGS a daily talk program, it's fairly different in my eyes.

Manchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:Seriously, MGS - how can you accuse people like Glen Beck of fear-mongering and manipulation with a straight face? This sort of behaviour is no different, in my eyes.

Until MSNBC gives MGS a daily talk program, it's fairly different in my eyes.

Yeah Albatross, also I have freedom of speech here to tell it like it is!!

Maybe I should have my own show...

Are you not entertained?

What I may do, is buy land near southhampton port, and then launch Guerilla raids on the lorries from the comfort of the woods. I wonder whether any mini companies export or import through southhampton..........

Trees are for hippies. Bulldoze that gak, lay some asphalt and build a strip-mall.

Gibbsey wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
This is less important than how the move will be seen.

Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

I thought they also cut budgets at the schools by 40%, so ya know they need to get the money from somewhere.

And they eat babies... tasty tasty babies.

Orlanth wrote:Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

Yeah weren't they dumb. All that hollering and all this time there was nothing to bark about at all. Apart from the fact the 9k maximum figure was only 1.5k 5 years ago.

Orlanth wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
This is less important than how the move will be seen.

Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

I thought they also cut budgets at the schools by 40%, so ya know they need to get the money from somewhere.

And they eat babies... tasty tasty babies.

Um okay... have fun with that i guess...

whatwhat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

Yeah weren't they dumb. All that hollering and all this time there was nothing to bark about at all. Apart from the fact the 9k maximum figure was only 1.5k 5 years ago.

Sot it went up in the last four years of New Labour also, its currently about £3-4k from what I hear.

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

Yeah weren't they dumb. All that hollering and all this time there was nothing to bark about at all. Apart from the fact the 9k maximum figure was only 1.5k 5 years ago.

Sot it went up in the last four years of New Labour also, its currently about £3-4k from what I hear.

I'm not trying to defend New Labour. I'm responding to your failed comment.

It went up to 3k in 2006 and was met with protest then. Now it's going up to 9k and your trying to make out the press/students were shouting about nothing.

whatwhat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

Yeah weren't they dumb. All that hollering and all this time there was nothing to bark about at all. Apart from the fact the 9k maximum figure was only 1.5k 5 years ago.

Sot it went up in the last four years of New Labour also, its currently about £3-4k from what I hear.

I'm not trying to defend New Labour. I'm responding to your failed comment.

It went up to 3k in 2006 and was met with protest then. Now it's going up to 9k and your trying to make out the press/students were shouting about nothing.

It's £9K that they only have to pay back once they earn over a threshold limit, at an interest you could not hope to get anywhere else. So when they're earning loads of money from their extra education, they can pay back what it cost to get them said education and the rich lifestyle they were aiming for. If they don't earn enough, they don't pay it back.

I remember when students used to about less important things, like human rights and civil liberties.

Ulver wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

Yeah weren't they dumb. All that hollering and all this time there was nothing to bark about at all. Apart from the fact the 9k maximum figure was only 1.5k 5 years ago.

Sot it went up in the last four years of New Labour also, its currently about £3-4k from what I hear.

I'm not trying to defend New Labour. I'm responding to your failed comment.

It went up to 3k in 2006 and was met with protest then. Now it's going up to 9k and your trying to make out the press/students were shouting about nothing.

It's £9K that they only have to pay back once they earn over a threshold limit, at an interest you could not hope to get anywhere else. So when they're earning loads of money from their extra education, they can pay back what it cost to get them said education and the rich lifestyle they were aiming for. If they don't earn enough, they don't pay it back.

I remember when students used to about less important things, like human rights and civil liberties.

Your justification of it (which is flawed IMO, as it basiccly turns higher education in to one big boom or bust gamble) isn't relevant. The point is it's tripled in five years and Orlanth is trying to make out the press ans students were crying over spilt milk. Whatsmore you are talking about loans not tuition fees, not everyone is granted the full loan.

It seems to me that the people who are defending this governments cut the lot policy are doing so by saying near enough: 'boohoo go and cry about it somewhere else.' It's the fething eighties again.

I sincerly doubt that this is going to result in a toll booth being present whenever I want to go for a walk in the moors, the headline and the story reek of sensationalism, as does generally anything with "Tories" in the headline.

Its just more of the same from MGS, dakka's socialist mouthpiece.

I thought you would have laid off on this gak now you buggered off to the States?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:Seriously, MGS - how can you accuse people like Glen Beck of fear-mongering and manipulation with a straight face? This sort of behaviour is no different, in my eyes.

Until MSNBC gives MGS a daily talk program, it's fairly different in my eyes.

Yeah Albatross, also I have freedom of speech here to tell it like it is!!

Maybe I should have my own show...

Are you not entertained?

anyone else notice something amazing about the exchange between MGS and Alby? look again.
notice how there wasn't 1 side or the other being called a Nazi/Facist/Commie bent on killing the other side?
that's what a political disucssion should look like, IMHO! get both points of view out instead of the name calling.
we used to be able to do that here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:I sincerly doubt that this is going to result in a toll booth being present whenever I want to go for a walk in the moors, the headline and the story reek of sensationalism, as does generally anything with "Tories" in the headline.

Its just more of the same from MGS, dakka's socialist mouthpiece.

I thought you would have laid off on this gak now you buggered off to the States?

thanks mattyrm! just had to play the "Socialist" card!
can't he be liberal with out being socialist? and if he is, what difference does it make?
it's his point of view, not him telling you what yours is?

whatwhat wrote:

Ulver wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

Yeah weren't they dumb. All that hollering and all this time there was nothing to bark about at all. Apart from the fact the 9k maximum figure was only 1.5k 5 years ago.

Sot it went up in the last four years of New Labour also, its currently about £3-4k from what I hear.

I'm not trying to defend New Labour. I'm responding to your failed comment.

It went up to 3k in 2006 and was met with protest then. Now it's going up to 9k and your trying to make out the press/students were shouting about nothing.

It's £9K that they only have to pay back once they earn over a threshold limit, at an interest you could not hope to get anywhere else. So when they're earning loads of money from their extra education, they can pay back what it cost to get them said education and the rich lifestyle they were aiming for. If they don't earn enough, they don't pay it back.

I remember when students used to about less important things, like human rights and civil liberties.

Your justification of it (which is flawed IMO, as it basiccly turns higher education in to one big boom or bust gamble) isn't relevant. The point is it's tripled in five years and Orlanth is trying to make out the press ans students were crying over spilt milk. Whatsmore you are talking about loans not tuition fees, not everyone is granted the full loan.

It seems to me that the people who are defending this governments cut the lot policy are doing so by saying near enough: 'boohoo go and cry about it somewhere else.' It's the fething eighties again.

You mkissed the point , its not risen to £9K, it has a £9k cap, big difference. What the scaremongers gleefully wont tell you is that only a minority of courses merit such fees. Veterinary studies being a possible candidate.

Students however assume that fees = £9k, and it looks like you do too. Ed Milliband is laughing all the way to an election, knowing all he has to do is see Cameron fail to stem the tide take over and blame the previous administration without good reason. Cameron fails only on account of Brown/Blairs catestrophic overspending, with interest defered until 2012, at the cost of extra interest of course. Brown wanted another go, though if he had wont in 2010 he would be out in 2014-5 because whoever is in has to carry the can. Cameron has several choices on how to raise money, but all of them will piss off people, avoiding them will only end in utter ruin as the interest payments themselves are now a sizable portion of our GDP.
What irks me is that Milliband is part of the initial problem, a corrupt little gravy trainer who is happy to mortage your kids and grandkids to get elected, and that isn't entirely a metaphore. How blind can people be? We will be paying for Blair/Browns 'fun time' for decades. Something must give, a lot of things must give actually. Students however want free pie.

alarmingrick wrote:thanks mattyrm! just had to play the "Socialist" card!
can't he be liberal with out being socialist? and if he is, what difference does it make?
it's his point of view, not him telling you what yours is?

Perhaps you should drop the idea, the largely Amrican viewpoint, that the word 'socialist' is a derogatory term and acknowledge that some people actually believe socialism has a part to play in politics. Even if mattyrm was using it as such, which doesn't really mean much considering his politics is fuelled mainly by his love of being the bottom feeder in a capitalist hierarchy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:You mkissed the point , its not risen to £9K, it has a £9k cap, big difference.

No the 3k cap has risen to a 9k cap. I haven't missed anything, you have. No university is going to be charging less under the new policies.

Orlanth wrote:Students however assume that fees = £9k, and it looks like you do too. Ed Milliband is laughing all the way to an election, knowing all he has to do is see Cameron fail to stem the tide take over and blame the previous administration without good reason. Cameron fails only on account of Brown/Blairs catestrophic overspending, with interest defered until 2012, at the cost of extra interest of course. Brown wanted another go, though if he had wont in 2010 he would be out in 2014-5 because whoever is in has to carry the can. Cameron has several choices on how to raise money, but all of them will piss off people, avoiding them will only end in utter ruin as the interest payments themselves are now a sizable portion of our GDP.
What irks me is that Milliband is part of the initial problem, a corrupt little gravy trainer who is happy to mortage your kids and grandkids to get elected, and that isn't entirely a metaphore. How blind can people be? We will be paying for Blair/Browns 'fun time' for decades. Something must give, a lot of things must give actually. Students however want free pie.

You do realise you are saying this in an argument supporting a rise in tuition fees which brings with it a huge amount of low interest government loans also? A lot of which wont ever be repaid.

Orlanth wrote: We will be paying for Blair/Browns 'fun time' for decades.

We feel the same bar tab! Bush was drinking with Blair at the bar!

The term socialist isn't a dirty word in the UK like it is here in the US, it's not immediately associated with communist (or nazi according to the birther/Beck/Palinites...) so mattyrm is not being quite as insulting as it might appear to some US readers.

I guess my politics are free market socialist, I want certain things in the hands of the government and certain things in the hands of the free market.

Water, the military, education, health services, transportation infrastructure and income support for the needy should be maintained by the government and owned by the people in my opinion. Most other things I am happy to have run by the free market in order to promote innovation and adaptability. I also support the notions of individual property ownership and individual reward for hard work and private wealth accumulation, whilst I also strongly support proportional taxation, especially in the case of the top % where the amount of money owned is disproportionate to the needs of the individual to such a degree that it ties up money and resource that could be shared.

whatwhat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:thanks mattyrm! just had to play the "Socialist" card!
can't he be liberal with out being socialist? and if he is, what difference does it make?
it's his point of view, not him telling you what yours is?

Perhaps you should drop the idea, the largely Amrican viewpoint, that the word 'socialist' is a derogatory term and acknowledge that some people actually believe socialism has a part to play in politics. Even if mattyrm was using it as such, which doesn't really mean much considering his politics is fuelled mainly by his love of being the bottom feeder in a capitalist hierarchy.

But that's my point! the word shouldn't be sharpened and used a weapon! you did notice i put " and if he is, what difference does it make?"!
i think that's the problem, everyone is stuck on what each label means, when they shouldn't be labeling! i personally don't think it's a bad word.
i think socialism just another way people see things.

edit
and for the record, i was kidding with mattyrm. i didn't mean for it to sound so serious!

alarmingrick wrote:

Orlanth wrote: We will be paying for Blair/Browns 'fun time' for decades.

We feel the same bar tab! Bush was drinking with Blair at the bar!

Up to a point, though while the Iraq adventure was/is expensive Blair did stuff Bush didn't do. Blair wanted to have the benefits of both left and right wing policy, high public spending and low taxation, this could only come about by catestrophic spending, first selling off our nations gold reserves (our guarantor is now gone) then by borrowing and squandering like a cheap African dictator.

It got to the point in late 2009 that senior civil servants made formal written complaints, en masse, over spending.

Yeah MGS has always said he is a Soclialist, I didnt really feel as If I was labelling him there.

Its not really a dirty word here as MGS said, I think the Americans have demonised the word, and unlike WW, I certainly dont see myself as being ultra capitalist, nor as a "bottom-feeder", once again WW likes to try and be needlessly offensive but will doubtless take umbrage if i retort.

On a related note, i found an excellent show MGS you might like to watch, but i dont know if you can see Iplayer there, here is the link, you might get it on youtube.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y37gk/Posh_and_Posher_Why_Public_School_Boys_Run_Britain/

Its genuinelly a good watch.. i found it very enlightening. Especially as Thatcher was from a working class background and it was essentially 13 years of labour that has seen the nation return to "posh politics"

It was also the labour party that have had the most MPs fiddling, and the only party with one serving a custodial sentance as a result.

Politcally I am certainly not an ultra capitalist, nor an ultra Tory, I just really feel that we are in the situation we are in after 13 YEARS of labour, but now the time to pay has come, its all the new parties fault? That argument makes no sense to me. I have nothing in common with people that went to Eton, but iI think the people that read the Daily Mirror and the Guardian are easily just as brainwashed as the Daily Fail readers that they do so love to mock.

I am not a Tory, and im not a Labour supporter, but i definately feel I have far more in common with Thatcher than I do with Ken Livingstone.

Gibbsey wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How much for Sherwood Forest?

http://www.woods4sale.co.uk/woodlands/204/details.htm

can i just say how awesome you are for posting that link?

now who wants to pool together 120,000 Pounds?

Hrm. All mineral rights included, so mining Sherwood Forest is perfectly acceptable...

mattyrm wrote:Yeah MGS has always said he is a Soclialist, I didnt really feel as If I was labelling him there.

Its not really a dirty word here as MGS said, I think the Americans have demonised the word, and unlike WW, I certainly dont see myself as being ultra capitalist, nor as a "bottom-feeder", once again WW likes to try and be needlessly offensive but will doubtless take umbrage if i retort.

On a related note, i found an excellent show MGS you might like to watch, but i dont know if you can see Iplayer there, here is the link, you might get it on youtube.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y37gk/Posh_and_Posher_Why_Public_School_Boys_Run_Britain/

Its genuinelly a good watch.. i found it very enlightening. Especially as Thatcher was from a working class background and it was essentially 13 years of labour that has seen the nation return to "posh politics"

It was also the labour party that have had the most MPs fiddling, and the only party with one serving a custodial sentance as a result.

Politcally I am certainly not an ultra capitalist, nor an ultra Tory, I just really feel that we are in the situation we are in after 13 YEARS of labour, but now the time to pay has come, its all the new parties fault? That argument makes no sense to me. I have nothing in common with people that went to Eton, but iI think the people that read the Daily Mirror and the Guardian are easily just as brainwashed as the Daily Fail readers that they do so love to mock.

I am not a Tory, and im not a Labour supporter, but i definately feel I have far more in common with Thatcher than I do with Ken Livingstone.

This is another thing that defenders of the current government do. Apparently you can't express the opinion that the Coalition aren't dealing with the budget issue correctly without saying that it's also their fault we're in this mess. It's not surprising though as the current government use the same tactic. Any criticism the opposition put to them can be met with the argument "You put us in this mess." That's true, but it's only relevance in most arguments is to give the coalition an easy way of justifying anything they want to do.

You also apparently can't be against the current government without being on the side of the labour party. Or perhaps that's just mattyrms way of making the argument easier, by putting you under a label he has ammunition against. Well tough luck, I'm not a labour supporter and I read the independent.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah MGS has always said he is a Soclialist, I didnt really feel as If I was labelling him there.

Its not really a dirty word here as MGS said, I think the Americans have demonised the word, and unlike WW, I certainly dont see myself as being ultra capitalist, nor as a "bottom-feeder", once again WW

but not all of us here(U.S.) see it as a bad word either. it's just there are factions who like to use words like that as a weapon, to turn public opinion against the individuals/ideas they disagree with.

look at liberal and progressive as an example. conservatives turned being liberal into a bad thing, and the libs let them for the most part. and mainly did it by linking them to bad things(in the Cons eyes) such as gun control,
abortion, social welfare, civil rights, etc....

then the liberals changed the title to progresive. before they could even clearly define themselves, the public was being told what they believe and stood for( in other words still liberals, etc..). i think it was last week or the week before, i heard a quote (from certain person who has his own thread atm) about how the Nazis had adopted progresive principles and ideals. see what was done there....

It's similar to how "conservative" is now associated with racist bible toting gay bashers who beat their wives while drunk.

Even though conservative in the end means nothing of the sort, it's associated with that kind of person.

Melissia wrote:It's similar to how "conservative" is now associated with racist bible toting gay bashers who beat their wives while drunk.

Even though conservative in the end means nothing of the sort, it's associated with that kind of person.

exactly! and i don't feel the need to say all conseratives are that way. the irony, pain even, of bashing gays while being gay is punishment
enough at times, imho. RE: Ken Melman

These are again all American things. In britain the word conservative is not associated with bible toting gay bashers.

In Canada, the word conservative is associated with an incompetent and malevolent federal party.

Fafnir wrote:In Canada, the word conservative is associated with an incompetent and malevolent federal party.

So basically the same as the US then.

whatwhat wrote:These are again all American things. In britain the word conservative is not associated with bible toting gay bashers.

but neither do we. that's The point i was making WW. we all don't "see it that way cause we're Yanks".

i am finding the issue of tuition hikes interesting over there. based on what i had consumed of the news on the issue, i thought it was also a 9k jump, not a raise
to that point from 4k or whatever it was. that said though, i can see how that any increase would totally end some hopes of any college. given the economic enviroment
everywhere really. i do see the merits of tightening the purse, but there some things that should go, before others. how much is it again you guys pony up to the Royals
every year to live on?

alarmingrick wrote:

whatwhat wrote:These are again all American things. In britain the word conservative is not associated with bible toting gay bashers.

but neither do we. that's The point i was making WW. we all don't "see it that way cause we're Yanks".

Actually it is kind of an American thing in that your politics seems very black and white and most people either fall on the side of the democrats or republicans. Also the connotations you attach with socialism come from the cold war opposition to the USSR. Something which was also the case in Britain yet socialism still hasn't become a hate word.