Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

msi

Members
  • Posts

    10,416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by msi

  1. 9 minutes ago, satsuma said:

    The main problem is anyone with any brains left Russia and what you have now is the remains, they are scrabbling around to cobble together working kit that is sixty years old.  A teenager with a NLAW can take out the best of their gear.  Probably a bunch of teenagers with some RPGs could do the same.  It's impossible to win against a mobilised population, especially when the alternative to resisting is a painful end for Ukranians caught by Russia.  

    Autocratic regimes rely on the illusion they are all-powerful-all-knowing to break civilian will.  Every man, woman, and child will hold a grudge and not forget nor forgive.  Even if Russia wins, they will end up in an Israel/Palestine situation for decades, if not generations.

     

    No one in Europe wants that game plan on their door step

  2. 12 minutes ago, ChrisSussex said:

     

    How do you know this? If you read it in a UK news paper I would assume it might not be the case. What is a fact is Russia has  a large military industry - one of the reasons India is being careful about getting too involved in this conflict besides the oil they are receiving from Russia is a lot of their weapons are made in Russia. The fact that Russia can provides a lot of the hardware to one of the worlds largest armies suggest they have a lot of military manufacturing capacity. You add to this the fact their economy is on a war footing I would assume they are producing a lot of weapons. I would imagine that China would prefer for Russia to win the war in Ukraine so if it does get the the stage they are running out of arms I would assume China will probably start to manufacture weapons for Russia.

     

    Personally I am neutral on this conflict and think the UK should stay out of it, but I do feel very sorry for the Ukrainian and Russian-Ukrainian people caught in this terrible conflict which probably did not need to happen.

    That isn't neutral mate....

  3. Just now, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    :lol:

    I spoke to an agent last week who tried to convince me to offer more money on a house me and my wife tried to buy last year, she didnt seem to accept that we were just not interested any more at any price, never mind paying more than last year

    They told me other people were interested and we'd miss out, they phoned me.

    Remind you of the delusions of some folk here.... :)

  4. 11 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

    It's the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, so it was enacted under the Coalition; I don't know how much of it comes from Labour ideas pre-2010.

    But in general, I do agree Labour handled the crisis pretty well.  (My complaint is that they didn't give the BoE the right targets, helping to create the crisis in the first place).

    Fair points

  5. 25 minutes ago, Trampa501 said:

    Have to admit that (like Harry and Meghan) he's made the most of his circumstances ie getting sacked as leader by his party. Most of us get the sack and we are in danger of earning zilch for the next few months or years. Bojo is clearing £8 or £9 million. Nice work if you can get it. And he still gets paid for being a MP!

    ...and he is still cheered on by the drooling ToryFanBoyz.  He could be on CCTV on Epstein Island high-fiving prince Andrew and they'd still go BeTtEr ThE dEvIl yOu KnoW cOs YoU cAnT tRuSt LaBoUR

  6. 31 minutes ago, MrMonkey said:

    People want socialism. They just don't want it to carry the label of 'socialism'.

    Slide3.jpg

    Source: https://www.survation.com/new-poll-public-strongly-backing-public-ownership-of-energy-and-key-utilities/

     

    8 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

    Note I said they don’t want TRUE socialism where not just the utilities and natural monopolies you list but EVERY company is state owned or state regulated 

    Extend that poll to see how many want, for example, farms supermarkets and cinemas to be nationalised 

    Difference between Socialism (of whatever hue) and a Social Contract.  Even the most right wing 'libertarian' hasn't advocated private armies and companies with Nuclear arsenals

  7. 48 minutes ago, Sackboii said:

    Touched a nerve ?

    Go on - define 'true socialism'. You've asked it plenty of times of others, and you've continued to ask when you didn't get a response. Just returning the favour.

    You fail to understand. I call you out because you use socialism as a label to shut up opponents that can break down your points and you clap back without thinking.

    Quote

    I don't have a definition, because as I stated in my post above, it can mean different things to different people at different times.

    That destroys the English Language and any commonality of terms.  By the same argument you are a M*ron because it means a different thing eh?

    Quote

    The fact you have failed to define it when challenged illustrates you don't have a definition either, so suggesting your definition (which you have thus far failed to provide) is moot is simply avoiding answering it. And you call me a loon ?

    Loony Left is a phrase often used and it evidently applies to you.

    Do you know the meaning of moot?  Go cry fanboi.  You've been found out.

     

    I'll let you have the last comment as your type love to do

  8. 1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

    Thanks :) Of course in reality it's a sliding scale isn't it, from what I had in mind which is almost communism, to a total free-for-all capitalism.

    Most Brits these days are somewhere in the middle, which is why figures like Corbyn and Thatcher (if she were running today) cannot muster enough support win, and centrists like Blair, Cameron and indeed Starmer can.

    It feels like the old totemic struggle of socialsm vs capitalism, and lurching from nationalising everything to privitasing it every 10 years, has kind of been replaced by fiddling around in the compromise middle ground.  A kind of narrowing of the overton window if you like.

    You get it.  The regular shift is part of the political discourse. What I rail against are the hidden forces pushing the overton window for their own purposes and the jeering fanboyz that don't see this.

     

  9. 58 minutes ago, Sackboii said:

    I see you ask that a lot. Not many (if any) answer your call because I’m sure it means different things to different people, at different times. It’s like you’re baiting them and expect them to fall foul of whatever your definition of ‘true socialism’ is so that you can berate them for being so foolish.

    Help us out here - what is true socialism ? Define ‘true socialism’. Enlighten us.

     

    I have no intention of splitting hairs about definitions. What I call out is how the loudest wailers seem to cry against something they cannot define making it, at best, a default boogeyman and, at worst, a label to shut up any dissenting viewpoint that threaten them.

     

  10. 3 minutes ago, Nick Cash said:

    I think if the Labour Party had 2 or 3 other prospective MPs with similar qualities to Keir then they would be a decent contender for a decent government. They don’t unfortunately.  The Telegraph is just beginning it’s attacks on Keir. They are clearly worried. 

    Chris Bryant seems a pretty straightforward guy (apart from claiming £20K pa in 'expenses')

  11. 2 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    How stupid do they think everyone is. 

    We'll you've seen the loons and fake 'personas' here....

    11 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

    Isn't it just.

    People will look back at that image in 50 years time and absolutely curl up with embarrassment, the way that we now curl up with embarrassment seeing apartheid / segregation signs like "Entrance for whites only"

    Well those with a brain do.  Plenty here call that FrEeDoM oF aSsOcIaTiOn

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information