The Politics Thread

[insaintee]

On 31/08/2017 at 8:21 PM, Bud the Baker said:

Struggling to understand why a clueless prick like you hasn't been sectioned yet................

I blame the SNP

[oaksoft]

58 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

You don't care, you're doing fine, and that's precisely the point that's being made.

See when you post over emotional and presumptive nonsense like that, all I can hear is a high pitch screeching.

You know absolutely nothing about me. You'd do well to remember that.

[beyond our ken]

10 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Is Bellside a part of Wishaw or a nearby village?

Is it really the side or is it the end?

 

[salmonbuddie]

See when you post over emotional and presumptive nonsense like that, all I can hear is a high pitch screeching.
You know absolutely nothing about me. You'd do well to remember that.

Someone's hurting a bit, too close to home was I?

You do realise that your final sentence could be construed as a threat.

[faraway saint]

12 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

 

 

Someone's hurting a bit, too close to home was I?

You do realise that your final sentence could be construed as a threat.

 

If it was from somebody else, maybe, Oaky?

[salmonbuddie]

If it was from somebody else, maybe, Oaky? [emoji38]

Hence the "construed" part of the statement...

[shull]

Wee petty skirmishes all over the Forum.  

Teacher will have the Strap out on Monday. 

[salmonbuddie]

Wee petty skirmishes all over the Forum.  [emoji38]
Teacher will have the Strap out on Monday. 

Usually involving you (did you see what I did there?)

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, salmonbuddie said:

 

Someone's hurting a bit, too close to home was I?

You do realise that your final sentence could be construed as a threat.

 

Grow up FFS. Away and dont be daft. 

[stlucifer]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Nope you are wrong.

I am saying that if they are taught how to budget they can both eat and heat.

I think a lack of education is at the root of the problem for the vast majority of these people.

It's a problem which is easily fixed but left wingers just don't want to hear it because it means accepting personal responsibility.

IMO that is the truth of it.

I really don't know where you are getting this venom from TBH.

You keep coming away with this "personal responsibility" nonsense without even a thought for actually admitting that there are many families who, no matter how hard they try, they cannot make ends meet because it's not possible to stretch out their income. There is no venom in my posts. I don't see where you get that. I am perplexed by you inability to understand the economics of the situation. Putting it as simply as I can. If you don't have the finances to adequately nourish and keep warm then no amount of pompous, arrogant, ill informed rhetoric will suddenly give you the extra funds required.

[salmonbuddie]

Grow up FFS. Away and dont be daft. [emoji38]

You need to learn to accept personal responsibility for stuff you post. It could easily be construed as a threat.

Let's see, accuses me of emotional, screeching responses, doesn't answer questions by using the accusations to swerve them then makes threats which he backpedals furiously away from. Remind you of anyone?

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, stlucifer said:

You keep coming away with this "personal responsibility" nonsense without even a thought for actually admitting that there are many families who, no matter how hard they try, they cannot make ends meet because it's not possible to stretch out their income. There is no venom in my posts. I don't see where you get that. I am perplexed by you inability to understand the economics of the situation. Putting it as simply as I can. If you don't have the finances to adequately nourish and keep warm then no amount of pompous, arrogant, ill informed rhetoric will suddenly give you the extra funds required.

Yeah you are as calm as a pussy cat.

I clearly have to remind you that at no stage did I say there were not people in the category you describe. I specifically stated that in my previous response to you and yet you still accuse me of ignoring it.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, salmonbuddie said:

You need to learn to accept personal responsibility for stuff you post. It could easily be construed as a threat.

Let's see, accuses me of emotional, screeching responses, doesn't answer questions by using the accusations to swerve them then makes threats which he backpedals furiously away from. Remind you of anyone?

I'll leave you to talk to others bud. Quite frankly I don't have the time or patience for your schoolyard pish.

[salmonbuddie]

I'll leave you to talk to others bud. Quite frankly I don't have the time or patience for your schoolyard pish.

 

And again. From the poster who accused me of being condescending, you couldn't make it up.

 

[stlucifer]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Yeah you are as calm as a pussy cat.

I clearly have to remind you that at no stage did I say there were not people in the category you describe. I specifically stated that in my previous response to you and yet you still accuse me of ignoring it.

Firstly. Where's the "venom" in being astounded by your lack of insight?

Secondly. You're post indicate you think the vast majority of those in need are only CLAIMING to be in dire situations.  Clearly you don't have a clue and are too busy being smug about your ability to have what you need to care to actually research fully. Instead making statements that, because you made them, you appear to expect us lesser mortals to accept as fact. Your footnote is indeed ironic. Well maybe not because I fully believe your pomposity, in this instance, is anything but fake.

Edited September 2, 2017 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

11 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Firstly. Where's the "venom" in being astounded by your lack of insight?

 Clearly you don't have a clue

I highlighted it in bold in my response earlier.

I have also already explained my reasoning. Perhaps you can explain what nugget of truth you are holding onto that I need educated on so go ahead and educate me.
Why are you so sure that I don't have a clue? Where is your evidence that you are correct? I'll even settle for reasoned logic as an argument - I can at least respect that.

What I can't respect is a lack of any sort of reasoning from you whatsoever, your obsessive claiming of the moral high ground for no obvious reason and your continual attempts to redefine what I am saying. That is why I consider you a lesser person - it's absolutely nothing to do with your views.

Edited September 2, 2017 by oaksoft

[stlucifer]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

I highlighted it in bold in my response earlier.

I have also already explained my reasoning. Perhaps you can explain what nugget of truth you are holding onto that I need educated on so go ahead and educate me.
Why are you so sure that I don't have a clue? Where is your evidence that you are correct? I'll even settle for reasoned logic as an argument - I can at least respect that.

What I can't respect is a lack of any sort of reasoning from you whatsoever, your obsessive claiming of the moral high ground for no obvious reason and your continual attempts to redefine what I am saying.

While I'm not a fan of statistics they certainly, en masse, support my argument more than yours. Anecdotal evidence also supports my side of the argument whereas your stance, as far as I have seen,  has only been supported by, well, you. I suppose that means you must win the debate. There is no reasoning with someone whose mind is so closed that they don't even want to investigate. Perhaps in case it proves how absurd their stance is.

[insaintee]

11 hours ago, faraway saint said:

If it was from somebody else, maybe, Oaky?

Should be a semi-colon, not a comma; you'd do well to remember that.

[insaintee]

So can someone explain for me; are food banks a good thing or a bad thing

[salmonbuddie]

So can someone explain for me; are food banks a good thing or a bad thing:unsure:

Ask Schrödinger.

[oaksoft]

18 hours ago, stlucifer said:

While I'm not a fan of statistics they certainly, en masse, support my argument more than yours. Anecdotal evidence also supports my side of the argument whereas your stance, as far as I have seen,  has only been supported by, well, you. I suppose that means you must win the debate. There is no reasoning with someone whose mind is so closed that they don't even want to investigate. Perhaps in case it proves how absurd their stance is.

Of course statistics support your view. You can adjust the support whatever position you like. That is why you cannot trust them.

I am intruiged though. The stats support your view that this is not a budgeting issue for the majority who use foodbanks?

I'd be interested to see those.

In fairness you can't call me closed minded when I have now asked you twice for the evidence to back your position - evidence you tell me you have in your possession.

If you show me evidence which suggests this is not a simple budgeting issue for the majority then I will back down.

[oaksoft]

18 hours ago, stlucifer said:

While I'm not a fan of statistics they certainly, en masse, support my argument more than yours. Anecdotal evidence also supports my side of the argument whereas your stance, as far as I have seen,  has only been supported by, well, you. I suppose that means you must win the debate. There is no reasoning with someone whose mind is so closed that they don't even want to investigate. Perhaps in case it proves how absurd their stance is.

BTW, I do love the inference that if you stand your ground you are wholesome, good and caring but if I stand my ground, I am closed minded, pompous and a hater of people in trouble. This is lefties all over isn't it. All black and white. No grey at all. No wonder voters don't vote for this tripe.

[oaksoft]

13 hours ago, insaintee said:

So can someone explain for me; are food banks a good thing or a bad thing

It depends who you ask.

I think it is great that society is prepared to get off their arses and help those who are in trouble - whether self inflicted or not.

That has to be a good thing - rather than waiting on the government to help you.

TBH I actually can't see why people are saying they are a bad thing.

It is no surprise to see that the recent proliferation of them is breeding demand and dependency. What is surprising is that so many seem to believe it represents increasing need,
That is a strange thing to believe. How were all these starving people coping before all these foodbanks recently opened? They were managing somehow but that doesn't fit the lefty agenda.

So, I short they are a good thing but there are too many of them and it's causing dependency. People should be more grateful that we have them. This is a good news story about society coming together and we should celebrate that IMO.

[stlucifer]

24 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Of course statistics support your view. You can adjust the support whatever position you like. That is why you cannot trust them.

I am intruiged though. The stats support your view that this is not a budgeting issue for the majority who use foodbanks?

I'd be interested to see those.

In fairness you can't call me closed minded when I have now asked you twice for the evidence to back your position - evidence you tell me you have in your possession.

If you show me evidence which suggests this is not a simple budgeting issue for the majority then I will back down.

Let me see you adjust those stats to prove your argument then. You ask for evidence but you don't accept the evidence of numbers using the foodbanks. You try to make out they cause dependency yet you don't have proof of that. It's an assumption on your part. There is no other way to prove the need other than the uptake which, by the way, in most cases is means tested. There are some who try to use the system but are turned away. Yes. People survived without them. They went cold or didn't pay rent to get food on the table. Going into debt. Perhaps that's what you call budgeting.

As for your further post. When did I say I was "wholesome, good and caring"? I just don't have the "I'm alright Jack" attitude. I feel lucky not to be in the situation of being a negative  statistic. As for being a "Lefty". The very fact you use this term in a negative context speaks volumes. 

[Bellside Bud]

9 hours ago, stlucifer said:

Let me see you adjust those stats to prove your argument then. You ask for evidence but you don't accept the evidence of numbers using the foodbanks. You try to make out they cause dependency yet you don't have proof of that. It's an assumption on your part. There is no other way to prove the need other than the uptake which, by the way, in most cases is means tested. There are some who try to use the system but are turned away. Yes. People survived without them. They went cold or didn't pay rent to get food on the table. Going into debt. Perhaps that's what you call budgeting.

As for your further post. When did I say I was "wholesome, good and caring"? I just don't have the "I'm alright Jack" attitude. I feel lucky not to be in the situation of being a negative  statistic. As for being a "Lefty". The very fact you use this term in a negative context speaks volumes. 

He's right to use the term "lefty" in a negative context though. There hasn't been a single example anywhere where Communism or Socialism has led to an equal enriched society. It's one of those political principles that sounds lovely on paper, and which sounds feasible so long as you can stop people from behaving like humans. Without exception every country that has gone down an extreme left wing route has landed up with a violent race to the bottom, where only the most corrupt end up with power and where every social freedom we enjoy is denied by a paranoid state. 

Oaksoft is right. The UK isn't a failed state. We aren't a poor nation. And our poverty line is well above the International poverty line of $1.25 per person per day. Oaksoft is also right that it's a personal financial management issue. The evidence comes from the Trussell Trust. I know, I'm sorry to keep going back to the evidence that comes from people who know rather than anecdotal evidence from those with a political agenda. The Trussell Trust says that by far the most common reasons for people ending up at foodbanks is "low income", "benefit delays", "benefit changes" and "debt".