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.

U.S. culture isn't homologous. I'm more speaking as a Texan, an unusual one who has a strong disdain for the preachers and evangelists.

whatwhat wrote: Also the connotations you attach with socialism......

but that's just it brother man, i don't attach jack to S#*t. if you mean some Americans, then yes, i concure wholelly with you.
but I Don't.

WW, you can play that game all night to no avail. Whats the point in having a poltical discussion if your "game winning" argument is "haha! I dont support either party and i read the Independant"?

Who would you vote for, who did you vote for, any why?

What miracle cure would you suddenly implement that none of the big three parties would think of?

I voted Conservative because I feel that I have more in common with said party. The petty class war that people are currently waging with regards to politics is absolutely absurd, and frankly I am stunned that anyone over the age of 20 thinks that going to a good school makes you less capable of running a country.

I am extremely old fashioned and have the politcal views of someone my grandads age. I believe that hard working people should succeed, I have scorn for the weak and the work-shy. I believe that the Conservative party have more in common with me as a result. That is my opinion. I would be better off with lower taxes and lower spending, not the labour parties desperate attempts to spend their way into a beardy, social worker modern parent "melting pot" revolution.

This appears not to be the case, and if they dont crush the unions and start sacking people that need sacking, they are as spineless as the Labour party and come next election, I will make a decision at that time, but "the rich man is a bad man" is not a credible argument, and i have no time for your "haha! tough luck, cos I am nothing like you think I am but I wont actually give you any sensible information" attitude.

alarmingrick wrote:

whatwhat wrote: Also the connotations you attach with socialism......

but that's just it brother man, i don't attach jack to S#*t. if you mean some Americans, then yes, i concure wholelly with you.
but I Don't.

It's certainly an overwhelming number. The reason I am saying this is because you are talking about these words being given false meanings in a thread discussing British politics. Britain really doesn't have the same problem as America with this. Unless your Mattyrm of course.

mattyrm wrote:WW, you can play that game all night to no avail. Whats the point in having a poltical discussion if your "game winning" argument is "haha! I dont support either party and i read the Independant"?

That's not a "game winning" argument. That's me responding to you labelling me as a Daily Mirror reading labour voter.

mattyrm wrote:I am extremely old fashioned and have the politcal views of someone my grandads age. I believe that hard working people should succeed, I have scorn for the weak and the work-shy. I believe that the Conservative party have more in common with me as a result.

I don't know why you would think I would want to "play that game all night" I have no interest of talking politics with someone like you. Your views seem really akward. Your definition of right wing is unlike anything I have ever heard. And just meh...not interested mattyrm. As far as the rest of your post all I could see was you trying to make this a class argument. No thanks.

*starts handing out the T-shirts*

Thats a cool shirt, I like this one too.

Ah, tanks; natures way of telling people to be nice to one another

Funny thing, this topic was just the subject of "John Craven investigates" on Countryfile!

I started watching because it was a Yorkshire special, and there it was.

Enjoy lads!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yc523/Countryfile_30_01_2011/

whatwhat wrote:

Ulver wrote: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.

Who said I was justifying or defending it? I was merely adding some perspective that is left out of the media frenzy in the name of selling papers and airtime.

"Talking about loans not tuition fees"? What about tuition fee loans? http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/StudentFinance/Gettingstarted/DG_171573 Also note in that link:

The increase in the maximum tuition fee rate to £9,000 in 2012/13 only applies if you’re entering university or college for the first time in September 2012 or later. Not all universities or colleges will charge the maximum amount.

Protest - fine; violent protest - is for thugs, and quite frankly I don't want them as the 'future of this country'.

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

well then get with the program!

Frazzled wrote:

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

well then get with the program!

It's true, we use the word 'Tory' instead

Albatross wrote:The title of this thread is totally misleading.

Also, will some of you actually READ the BBC article? I've bolded the relevant parts for the hard-of-thinking:

Auntie Beeb wrote:Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not affected by the plans.

Score one for the good guys

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

HERETIC!

now where did I put my bow...

but you could make quite a bit of money off this plan, and who wouldn't want to own a forest

a forest might be good in the event of a zombie apocalypse...

FM Ninja 048 wrote:

Auntie Beeb wrote:Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not affected by the plans.

Score one for the good guys

Probably because they are all just desolate wastelands