Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

+1

I would also make anyone who loses there licence

take a block of driving lessons and make them sit

their test again

driving is not a right

Its tossers like Clarkson who think its cool to do

100mph+ on a PUBLIC road

its not its just fekkin dangerous

100 mph on a road that can take it and in a car that can take it is perfectly safe.

Your are obviously a girl and should be imprisoned for your inability to parallel park. Your ditzy relationship with traffic lights is annoying but not too bad. And I'll let you off for all the panel damage you do in high rise carparks. Now run along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

100 mph on a road that can take it and in a car that can take it is perfectly safe.

Your are obviously a girl and should be imprisoned for your inability to parallel park. Your ditzy relationship with traffic lights is annoying but not too bad. And I'll let you off for all the panel damage you do in high rise carparks. Now run along.

old_sexist_ad.jpgsexist_old_ad.jpg

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few accidents are caused by excessive speed (about 6% nationally, rising to 9% on rural roads)

Pull the other one. It hath got bells on't.

(yes I do know what statistic you're spinning to make Alistair Campbell blush there).

The vast majority of accidents are caused by poor driving.

More specifically, millions of drivers each taking tiny risks, which they get away with 100% of the time (to the nearest percentage point).

PPS - i'm a gold standard trained motorcyclist, with 10+ years riding (including central london), 20 years in cars, and not one scratch on either me or machine (or anyone behind me either) So I know what I'm talking about.

And I have 30 years driving, as well as cycling and motorcycling, with not a scratch. It doesn't make me an expert; just someone who doesn't behave like an idiot who thinks he knows (and drives) better, and whose general luck has held.

[edit to add] Since you mention central London, perhaps I should say MeToo, and add a bunch of other big cities such as several years in Rome.

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the debt/deficit issue, the point I make is that the Anglo-Saxon countries are not conservative, so why would they have lower debts/deficits? Look at the degree to which Bush expanded the state and state spending, look at his ideological crusade wars, none of this is conservative. If anything, Clinton ran a more fiscally conservative budget than any of the nominal conservatives immediately before or since, and that was just because he didn't have war to fight.

So, in your eyes, Bush was left-wing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

So, in your eyes, Bush was left-wing?

I wouldn't say left-wing in the European sense, but I would argue that Bush was effectvely a liberal in the American sense, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

So, in your eyes, Bush was left-wing?

Bush and "deficits don't matter" Regan were not small government economic conservatives, regardless of the propaganda, obviously they spunked the money on military keynesianism instead of welfare like traditional 'great society' progressives, but the outcome was the same, both continually ran huge deficits and blew through the national debt 'ceilings' set in law.

In recent times Clinton was the most economically conservative presidents, he balanced the budget, ran surpluses, bought back debt, it's hard to believe how things unraveled so quickly :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/411973.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/380923.stm

Economically speaking Bush II outdid Stalin for state spending, but of course he gets labelled right-wing because of the socially conservative stuff, Guns, Gays and God and not to mention the endless wars. Any president that stuck to being fiscally responsible could never afford to start a war!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Bush and "deficits don't matter" Regan were not small government economic conservatives, regardless of the propaganda, obviously they spunked the money on military keynesianism instead of welfare like traditional 'great society' progressives, but the outcome was the same, both continually ran huge deficits and blew through the national debt 'ceilings' set in law.

In recent times Clinton was the most economically conservative presidents, he balanced the budget, ran surpluses, bought back debt, it's hard to believe how things unraveled so quickly :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/411973.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/380923.stm

Economically speaking Bush II outdid Stalin for state spending, but of course he gets labelled right-wing because of the socially conservative stuff, Guns, Gays and God and not to mention the endless wars. Any president that stuck to being fiscally responsible could never afford to start a war!

This is all right on target. Certain cultural "hot spots" like abortion, gay marriage, etc., allowed the Left to paint Bush up as a dyed in the wool conservative, which was convenient given the mess he made of everything. That mess was largely caused by his liberal policies though. Bush did not just blow his money on the military though - think about the massive expenditure on the DHS and NCLB for example - these are classic Great Society goals! If Bush was a Republican he was the kind of Republican that died out in the 19th century!

Edited by Tecumseh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economically speaking Bush II outdid Stalin for state spending, but of course he gets labelled right-wing because of the socially conservative stuff, Guns, Gays and God and not to mention the endless wars. Any president that stuck to being fiscally responsible could never afford to start a war!

That's the disaster of a broken electoral system: it creates misalliances like that, elevating a nutjob like Bush to the top of what was once the economically literate party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

old_sexist_ad.jpgsexist_old_ad.jpg

Strangely, all those statements are true.

1. Think about it in terms of buying a mortgage.

2. Women think they're worth nothing unless they work (or are on benefits).

3. Hormone therapy instead of vitamins.

At least both sexes are consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

This is all right on target. Certain cultural "hot spots" like abortion, gay marriage, etc., allowed the Left to paint Bush up as a dyed in the wool conservative, which was convenient given the mess he made of everything. That mess was largely caused by his liberal policies though. Bush did not just blow his money on the military though - think about the massive expenditure on the DHS and NCLB for example - these are classic Great Society goals! If Bush was a Republican he was the kind of Republican that died out in the 19th century!

Yes, good observation, along with the costly prescription drug benefit reforms, but one could argue that was a fickle attempt to buy the votes of 40 million senior citizens, not to mention a huge tax payer funded gift to the pharmaceutical industry. Whatever is said about Bush, he didn't shrink the size of the federal government one bit during his tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

That's the disaster of a broken electoral system: it creates misalliances like that, elevating a nutjob like Bush to the top of what was once the economically literate party.

The electoral system isn't to blame on a technical level anyway. Bush could never have got in had he run a conservative campaign, which is why he went with the diluted "compassionate conservatism" version and even with that he almost lost it. Even Nixon was a liberal on many domestic issues. Only Reagan stands out as vaguely conservative in modern times. His miltary spending was lower than Eisenhower's by the way as a percentage of GDP. Americans seem to be demanding more and more liberalism from their leaders since FDR - or they have got hooked on govt. spending!

Edited by Tecumseh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Yes, good observation, along with the costly prescription drug benefit reforms, but one could argue that was a fickle attempt to buy the votes of 40 million senior citizens, not to mention a huge tax payer funded gift to the pharmaceutical industry. Whatever is said about Bush, he didn't shrink the size of the federal government one bit during his tenure.

Right, and also don't forget that the GOP controlled House and Senate for most of Bush's tenure, so his Great Society agenda must have been more widely supported across the party, notwithstanding dirty deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all right on target. Certain cultural "hot spots" like abortion, gay marriage, etc., allowed the Left to paint Bush up as a dyed in the wool conservative, which was convenient given the mess he made of everything. That mess was largely caused by his liberal policies though. Bush did not just blow his money on the military though - think about the massive expenditure on the DHS and NCLB for example - these are classic Great Society goals! If Bush was a Republican he was the kind of Republican that died out in the 19th century!

So the Department of Homeland Security is a liberal organisation. Nice one.

Your definition of left-wing or liberal seems to be anyone who increases public spending, no matter what it's for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Strangely, all those statements are true.

That's where they've been going wrong, clearly if advertisers readopted these first principles it would make their products appeal to women, it might even provoke quite a response! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

So the Department of Homeland Security is a liberal organisation. Nice one.

.

You probably need to read my post again! Expanding government is a liberal-left target, yes. Also, intrusive surveillance is also a favoured pastime of the left. Just because the DHS violates civil liberties does not mean it must be right wing. Even if it is a right-wing organization, its inception and funding by Bush is a liberal thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

So the Department of Homeland Security is a liberal organisation. Nice one.

Your definition of left-wing or liberal seems to be anyone who increases public spending, no matter what it's for.

It's big government authoritarianism, much like many of the ideas dreamt up by NuLabour, like ID cards, great liberal causes don't have a monopoly on statism. Terms like "left" or "right" aren't really that helpful, you need to place things in an economic, social and libertarian/authoritarian sphere otherwise it's just a meaningless epithet.

One could argue Bush was an ardent socialist, it's just that the only beneficiaries were the kleptocrats in Wall Street B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

It's big government authoritarianism, much like many of the ideas dreamt up by NuLabour, like ID cards, great liberal causes don't have a monopoly on statism. Terms like "left" or "right" aren't really that helpful, you need to place things in an economic, social and libertarian/authoritarian sphere otherwise it's just a meaningless epithet.

One could argue Bush was an ardent socialist, it's just that the only beneficiaries were the kleptocrats in Wall Street B)

I agree with this, actually. Authoritarianism and libertarianism are good ways to describe governments in terms of their social agendas, we can use realist or idealist to describe their foreign policies and liberal or conservative to describe their economic policies.

Bush was authoritarian, idealist, and liberal. How that makes him a conservative is beyond me - just because he was against abortion and gay marriage! It's not enough, we must look at the whole sweep of his tensure. Bush was never a conservative.

Edited by Tecumseh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

So, liberals expand government.

Therefore, anyone who expands government is a liberal.

Is that how it goes?

A real conservative would reduce the size of the state. That is what his ideology tells him is the best thing to do. Not that conservatism, strictly speaking, is an ideology, but you know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

A real conservative would reduce the size of the state. That is what his ideology tells him is the best thing to do. Not that conservatism, strictly speaking, is an ideology, but you know what I mean.

That's not conservatism, that's 19th century classical liberalism :P

Good liberals decry 'right-wing' economic rent seekers and monopolistic land owners, and their protective tariffs, take the Corn Laws for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A real conservative would reduce the size of the state. That is what his ideology tells him is the best thing to do. Not that conservatism, strictly speaking, is an ideology, but you know what I mean.

So your definition of left-wing or liberal is anyone who expands the state, no matter how it's done or what it's for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

That's not conservatism, that's 19th century classical liberalism :P

Good liberals decry 'right-wing' economic rent seekers and monopolistic land owners, and their protective tariffs, take the Corn Laws for example.

You will know how often conservatism and classical liberalism have been conflated in the past, at least on certain issues. Time blurs the boundaries of ideological beliefs, after all. Look at the GOP and its protectionist stance during the 19th century, and the free-trade Democrats! Now a total role reversal as the GOP generally argue for free-trade and the Dems slap tariffs on everything.................which brings us to Bush 2 and his steel tariffs - yes Barry another left-wing thing to do! By the way Barry I feel your line of questioning is trying to lead me up the garden path a little?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

So your definition of left-wing or liberal is anyone who expands the state, no matter how it's done or what it's for.

Not necessarily, though it may make them a hypocrite or ideologically bankrupt, you can label Bush whatever you like but he certainly wasn't a fiscally responsible small government conservative, that's for sure, but Clinton could legitimately claim that mantle.

I guess it makes him a statist, with a predilection for military spending. Maybe he was just an idiot that refused nothing and signed everything that was put before him.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

Not necessarily, though it may make them a hypocrite or ideologically bankrupt, you can label Bush whatever you like but he certainly wasn't a fiscally responsible small government conservative, that's for sure.

I guess it makes him a statist, with a predilection for military spending. Maybe he was just an idiot that refused nothing and signed everything that was put before him.

He certainly was no idiot. He had very good political acumen and used it ruthlessly to his own advantage. I would agree that he was a statist as well. If we sum up his tenure as persident, we start to see certain trends: state expansion, new government departments, idealistic foreign campaigns, no cutting in spending at all. It's not looking good for anyone arguing Bush 2 was a conservative!

Like I said, he was an authoritarian, idealistic, liberal on everything but a few simple cultural issues and his opinions on them were probably informed by his religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

You will know how often conservatism and classical liberalism have been conflated in the past, at least on certain issues. Time blurs the boundaries of ideological beliefs, after all. Look at the GOP and its protectionist stance during the 19th century, and the free-trade Democrats! Now a total role reversal as the GOP generally argue for free-trade and the Dems slap tariffs on everything.................which brings us to Bush 2 and his steel tariffs - yes Barry another left-wing thing to do! By the way Barry I feel your line of questioning is trying to lead me up the garden path a little?

That could probably be explained by popularism in the affected states and special pleading/lobbying. Which brings us on to another issue, Haliburton, Enron and cronyism. Mind you, all could be seen as less damaging than Clinton repealing the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 201 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.