Big Boris, Our Prime Minister

[Guest TPAFKATS]

You sure it's Andy? I think it might be Joe.

Could be I suppose. Similar prose, dripping in intellect.

[faraway saint]

3 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

I keep quoting your posts so what's sauce for the goose and all that...

Ignored. 🤪

[jaybee]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

8 hours ago, jaybee said:

Without getting into words that may upset you my poor wee soul; read my response to BYK, the press opinion at that time was exactly as I stated, now whether or not you consider the man who bombed the Old Bailey a terrorist or not doesn't really matter .......most other people did, so what is your problem?
Dis you not like my opinion of Sturgeon?  tough. I should give a sh=t what you think.

It's not about your opinion of Sturgeon, it's about the misogynistic language that you use to insult her. I've been through this before with The knicker wetter /SNLT - language is important.

Fair enough I can relate to that and appreciate it without agreeing with it, I am also assuming that the 'offensive word is 'bitch', since she is indubitably SNP, that being the case it would be interesting to know, am I to be considered a Misogynist for using the 'term' or am I simply accused of using misogynistic language? 

The point I am making is that some times in order to fully express an opinion of something or someone; we need to use language outside of our norms, I can assure you I do not run round the country calling all women bitches, but the word is in use in the english language and very clearly intimated my opinion and yet I am wrong to use it, say some but not I and while I have no problem with people challenging me over its use in a constructive rather than destructive manner (take note Oaky) I will use whatever words fit the scenario best.  

That said language IS important and if I were to be consistently using similar language you would have a stronger case for challenging me and this is a Forum and opinions are what drives it.

[proudtobeabuddy]

So who is going to the big march on the 11th January? 

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

11 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

You sure it's Andy? I think it might be Joe.

Could be I suppose. Similar prose, dripping in intellect.

So intellect smells like pish?

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Fair enough I can relate to that and appreciate it without agreeing with it, I am also assuming that the 'offensive word is 'bitch', since she is indubitably SNP, that being the case it would be interesting to know, am I to be considered a Misogynist for using the 'term' or am I simply accused of using misogynistic language? 
The point I am making is that some times in order to fully express an opinion of something or someone; we need to use language outside of our norms, I can assure you I do not run round the country calling all women bitches, but the word is in use in the english language and very clearly intimated my opinion and yet I am wrong to use it, say some but not I and while I have no problem with people challenging me over its use in a constructive rather than destructive manner (take note Oaky) I will use whatever words fit the scenario best.  
That said language IS important and if I were to be consistently using similar language you would have a stronger case for challenging me and this is a Forum and opinions are what drives it.

Fair enough I can relate to that and appreciate it without agreeing with it, I am also assuming that the 'offensive word is 'bitch', since she is indubitably SNP, that being the case it would be interesting to know, am I to be considered a Misogynist for using the 'term' or am I simply accused of using misogynistic language? 
The point I am making is that some times in order to fully express an opinion of something or someone; we need to use language outside of our norms, I can assure you I do not run round the country calling all women bitches, but the word is in use in the english language and very clearly intimated my opinion and yet I am wrong to use it, say some but not I and while I have no problem with people challenging me over its use in a constructive rather than destructive manner (take note Oaky) I will use whatever words fit the scenario best.  
That said language IS important and if I were to be consistently using similar language you would have a stronger case for challenging me and this is a Forum and opinions are what drives it.

I wasn't for spending too much time on whether it misogynistic language or you being a misogynist.

However, if as you state you believe you are right to call a woman a bitch then you've pretty much answered your own question.

[jaybee]

4 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

9 hours ago, jaybee said:

Ok: you have a valid perspective............. from YOUR point of view.  I view Corbyn as an apologist and an appeaser in much the same way as Chamberlain was in WW2, I consider his politics as more Communist than Socialist and although his professed policies are aimed at the working class predominantly; just like communism they simply do not add up, and would have amounted to economic suicide I should say. As for Defeatist, OK, not perhaps the best description of what I meant, my intent was to show that he mediates his policies to give him the widest support, a clever (but dangerous) man...............but far far to left wing for me, and most of the country I might add. 

 

 

 

 

His manifesto was basically trying to emulate lots of things already in place in Scotland so I guess by 'country' you mean UK, most of Scotland doesn't seem to think they're far too left wing if the fact that we keep electing politicians enabling them is anything to go by.

 

Don't know if you saw or read this link I posted in the Referendum thread but it does demonstrate that the WM Government is the odd one out in Northern Europe.

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/scotland-isnt-different-its-britain-thats-bizarre/

 

You may or may not agree but I think this helps demonstrate why we need to leave this dis-United Kingdom.

Gosh!  a civil response; thank you and a weighty argument to support it, I like that.  I followed the link and read said article and I can entirely see where you are coming from, yes let's get Scotland to join this mid european eutopia.........and it does seem that way at the moment.  The problem that I can see is not all are equal, and not everyone deserves the same opportunities (think about that before you set the dogs loose) and furthermore the EU isn't going to work long term (an opinion I and many others hold) and more europeans think that it will collapse within a generation. (so should Scotland jump aboard just before it sinks)?  The EU is a giant dysfunctional overreaching bureaucracy that in trying to enable free trade actually ends up suppressing it through obsessive regulations and we end up with the nonsense of straight bananas and square eggs and yes I realise there is MORE to it than that and while the article paints a rosy picture; it's certainly not one I would aspire to, I have no problem working with Europe; we need to, I simply think we have better options outwith the stultifying control of the bureaucratic machine that is Brussels.

And finally I DO have an irrational loathing of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond which makes me wonder; is it that I am just dead against an independent Scotland?  and yes it is I am against separatism although it's probably the fact that both Salmond and then Sturgeon seem very driven to reach that utopia that encourages my displeasure, but should I be surprised that ANY politician simply wants to be the BIG cheese in their pantry.

I can't remember who came up with the idea (so no attribution) but the concept of only having people in Parliament who do NOT aspire to be there and thus disbarring those who do aspire to be there (mostly for the wrong reasons; ie; money, power) seems more and more a sensible idea.....so it definitely can't have been mine.

[jaybee]

21 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

47 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Fair enough I can relate to that and appreciate it without agreeing with it, I am also assuming that the 'offensive word is 'bitch', since she is indubitably SNP, that being the case it would be interesting to know, am I to be considered a Misogynist for using the 'term' or am I simply accused of using misogynistic language? 
The point I am making is that some times in order to fully express an opinion of something or someone; we need to use language outside of our norms, I can assure you I do not run round the country calling all women bitches, but the word is in use in the english language and very clearly intimated my opinion and yet I am wrong to use it, say some but not I and while I have no problem with people challenging me over its use in a constructive rather than destructive manner (take note Oaky) I will use whatever words fit the scenario best.  
That said language IS important and if I were to be consistently using similar language you would have a stronger case for challenging me and this is a Forum and opinions are what drives it.

 

I wasn't for spending too much time on whether it misogynistic language or you being a misogynist.

However, if as you state you believe you are right to call a woman a bitch then you've pretty much answered your own question.

 

It's somewhat difficult to debate anything if you miss the whole point and given that originally you couldn't be arsed replying I don't know why you did and if it's too much trouble to stretch your intellect to try to see a point of view.............then you are right don't bother.

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, jaybee said:

Gosh!  a civil response

I don't think any of us need lessons in civility from a person who calls a woman a "bitch".

You are not going to get a decent conversation from any decent person on here while you are using phrases like that so stop whining, put the misogynistic piggery behind you and move on.

Edited December 20, 2019 by oaksoft

[shull]

It's okay to be bitchy. 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, jaybee said:

n a constructive rather than destructive manner (take note Oaky) I

Blah, blah f**king blah.

Stop the misogynistic piggery if you want to have a decent conversation with adults.

Edited December 20, 2019 by oaksoft

[shull]

There's a whole lot of fecking bitching going on in this Topic. 

[shull]

9 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Blah, blah f**king blah.

Stop the misogynistic piggery if you want to have a decent conversation with adults.

Chief Bitch with his head up his own arse once again. 

Perfect prat. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

It's somewhat difficult to debate anything if you miss the whole point and given that originally you couldn't be arsed replying I don't know why you did and if it's too much trouble to stretch your intellect to try to see a point of view.............then you are right don't bother.

Your point of view is an abusive comment based on her being a woman. You didn't say, I don't like Sturgeon because, you called her that snp bitch.

[jaybee]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

10 hours ago, jaybee said:

Gosh!  a civil response

I don't think any of us need lessons in civility from a person who calls a woman a "bitch".

You are not going to get a decent conversation from any decent person on here while you are using phrases like that so stop whining, put the misogynistic piggery behind you and move on.

For a supposedly clever man you really are a bit thick, either that; or you read what suits you and interpret accordingly.

By the way I have strong opinions on some.................things, whilst on the other hand; you have to be right about everything.

what does that tell you?

[jaybee]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Blah, blah f**king blah.

Stop the misogynistic piggery if you want to have a decent conversation with adults.

My response to that and to you in general begins with an f and ends in cough.

[jaybee]

7 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

10 hours ago, jaybee said:

It's somewhat difficult to debate anything if you miss the whole point and given that originally you couldn't be arsed replying I don't know why you did and if it's too much trouble to stretch your intellect to try to see a point of view.............then you are right don't bother.

Your point of view is an abusive comment based on her being a woman. You didn't say, I don't like Sturgeon because, you called her that snp bitch.

Go play with your mate Oaky; you make a fine pair of intransigent prats, quick to play the 'politically correct card when it suits you.

Actually I called her that SNP bitch if you wish to be correct.

[ford prefect]

I always love the way the Tories bash on about the poor supposedly gaining benefits fraudulently. While never focussing on big business and rich people who use every tax avoidance scheme going to minimise what they pay. A morally bankrupt party for sociopaths.

[oaksoft]

6 minutes ago, ford prefect said:

I always love the way the Tories bash on about the poor supposedly gaining benefits fraudulently. While never focussing on big business and rich people who use every tax avoidance scheme going to minimise what they pay. A morally bankrupt party for sociopaths.

Another one who doesn't understand the difference between benefits fraud (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal).

Those stealing benefits should be hunted down like the scum that they are.

[FTOF]

31 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Another one who doesn't understand the difference between benefits fraud (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal).

Those stealing benefits should be hunted down like the scum that they are.

However, tax evasion is illegal, which is probably what many people mean when they talk about tax avoidance.

However, you have to question the morals of someone who avoids paying tax, but benefits from services that are funded by tax payers. 

The UK loses billions of pounds due to legal tax avoidance. Although it's very difficult to compare tax avoidance costs and benefit fraud costs, both have a significant impact on services funded by tax payers.

https://fullfact.org/online/comparing-benefit-and-tax-fraud/

So, many people may view tax avoiders as scum, as they're cheating the system too, albeit with the law on their side. Greed is never an endearing feature to an individual's persona.

Edited December 21, 2019 by FTOF

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, FTOF said:

However, tax evasion is illegal, which is probably what many people mean when they talk about tax avoidance.

However, you have to question the morals of someone who avoids paying tax, but benefits from services that are funded by tax payers. 

The UK loses billions of pounds due to legal tax avoidance. Although it's very difficult to compare tax avoidance costs and benefit fraud costs, both have a significant impact on services funded by tax payers.

https://fullfact.org/online/comparing-benefit-and-tax-fraud/

So, many people may view tax avoiders as scum, as they're cheating the system too, albeit with the law on their side. Greed is never an endearing feature to an individual's persona.

If you understand the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance, why do you insist on continuing to compare legal tax avoidance with illegal benefits cheating?

Every pound a benefits cheat steals is taken directly from the pot of money used to help the most vulnerable in society. I don't understand how anyone can either attempt to excuse or downplay how scummy this behaviour is.

 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

And so should those that use a parking space for 30 seconds, e.g. while they post a letter, without buying a parking ticket. (Obviously when somewhere that requires a ticket.)

The fact that large scale tax avoidance is legal is only down to the ineptitude of those writing the legislation. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the idea that the loopholes are deliberate so the rich can get richer.

Sometimes, as oldco found out, what is regarded one day as tax avoidance can be regarded the next day as tax evasion. All down to how good your accountants and lawyers are.

I don't think that there is any great support for people defrauding benefits (other from those doing so), it's more that it's the "wee guy" that is constantly painted in a bad light for "stealing" while the "big guy" is painted as a pillar of society while "avoiding" paying even more and, as previously said, sometimes it's really evasion.

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with large scale tax avoidance if they used the extra money for the benefit of society (starting businesses, giving to charity etc.) rather than buying another Ferrari/Picasso or just using it to up their bank balance in a tax haven. Of course, if they were going to use it to benefit society rather than just themselves, it would probably be easier for them to just pay the tax.

Do you really want to get into a discussion comparing the consequences of benefits stealing with those of overstaying in a parking space?

I am not getting into any further discussions where people compare legal tax avoidance with illegal benefits stealing. It's f**king ridiculous. BTW the "wee guy" you are describing is a thieving c**t and is taking money directly out of the fund designed to help the most vulnerable în society. You leftiês really should be. be attacking him instead of excusing him or downplaying his criminality with all this "aye but...."  nonsense.

This is that left wing tendency to have a blindspot for one of your own that I accused salmonbuddie of yesterday. That is precisely what you. criticise the rich for doing.

Edited December 21, 2019 by oaksoft

[FTOF]

18 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

If you understand the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance, why do you insist on continuing to compare legal tax avoidance with illegal benefits cheating?

Every pound a benefits cheat steals is taken directly from the pot of money used to help the most vulnerable in society. I don't understand how anyone can either attempt to excuse or downplay how scummy this behaviour is.

 

I'm not downplaying how scummy benefit cheating is.

I'm suggesting that a lot of people find tax avoiders equally scummy.

You really should read things more carefully.

 

[Hiram Abiff]

On 12/20/2019 at 10:06 AM, TPAFKATS said:

On 12/20/2019 at 2:34 AM, jaybee said:

Without getting into words that may upset you my poor wee soul; read my response to BYK, the press opinion at that time was exactly as I stated, now whether or not you consider the man who bombed the Old Bailey a terrorist or not doesn't really matter .......most other people did, so what is your problem?
Dis you not like my opinion of Sturgeon?  tough. I should give a sh=t what you think.

It's not about your opinion of Sturgeon, it's about the misogynistic language that you use to insult her. I've been through this before with The knicker wetter /SNLT - language is important.

From a guy who has recently made several misogynistic posts on this forum, that’s some irony

as per your defence of your jack Ross affair posts, Sturgeon doesn’t read this forum so he can call her what he wants

you really are a grade A thick cretin 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Hiram Abiff

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, FTOF said:

I'm not downplaying how scummy benefit cheating is.

I'm suggesting that a lot of people find tax avoiders equally scummy.

You really should read things more carefully.

 

Oh you know exactly what you are doing - deliberately attempting to conflate the two issues as though they were two sides of the same coin.

Magnificent display of whataboutery.

Benefits thieves are scum. End of. No need for comparison with anything else.