Locke Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 On 16/06/2020 at 19:28, zugzwang said: How difficult is it to understand a young man talking about his own experience of going hungry? We have no idea whether What he is saying is even true His mother was unable to feed them due to genuine misfortune or due to incompetence or addiction e.g. smoking Child poverty is terrible. That is why we cannot suffer to live Socialists and crony capitalists (though I repeat myself) to inflict the policies which cause it to increase. None of this has anything to do with whether defining poverty relative to the median income of a geographic region is a worthwhile measure or a political cudgel (it is quite clearly a cudgel). If you lived in a country where the median income would get you the equivalent of a million quid in post tax income in Britain today, you would still be defining people who were driving Lambos as "in poverty". Perhaps something like food bank use is a better measure of poverty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 47 minutes ago, Locke said: We have no idea whether What he is saying is even true His mother was unable to feed them due to genuine misfortune or due to incompetence or addiction e.g. smoking Child poverty is terrible. That is why we cannot suffer to live Socialists and crony capitalists (though I repeat myself) to inflict the policies which cause it to increase. None of this has anything to do with whether defining poverty relative to the median income of a geographic region is a worthwhile measure or a political cudgel (it is quite clearly a cudgel). If you lived in a country where the median income would get you the equivalent of a million quid in post tax income in Britain today, you would still be defining people who were driving Lambos as "in poverty". Perhaps something like food bank use is a better measure of poverty. Free market capitalism fell over and died in 2008. It doesn't work and can't ever be made to work because financial markets by themselves are neither Pareto optimal or self-repairing. Disorder as measured by the Gibbs entropy of the price distribution increases without limit until the point of systemic collapse is reached. By common consent, Marcus Rashford is a credible witness. If you have evidence to the contrary then publish it or admit you're wrong and take a knee. Despite the many evident iniquities of the UK social model we still find ourselves richer, happier, healthier and more long-lived than at any time in our history. Save your doomsday propaganda for the naive and credulous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 28 minutes ago, zugzwang said: Free market capitalism fell over and died in 2008. It doesn't work and can't ever be made to work because financial markets by themselves are neither Pareto optimal or self-repairing. Disorder as measured by the Gibbs entropy of the price distribution increases without limit until the point of systemic collapse is reached. By common consent, Marcus Rashford is a credible witness. If you have evidence to the contrary then publish it or admit you're wrong and take a knee. Despite the many evident iniquities of the UK social model we still find ourselves richer, happier, healthier and more long-lived than at any time in our history. Save your doomsday propaganda for the naive and credulous. I think you may be having a stroke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagain Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 3 hours ago, zugzwang said: By common consent, Marcus Rashford is a credible witness By common consent it is a great idea;- to be fat to have an expensive german car you cannot afford, to "own" the latest iPhone to plan to spend every penny you earn on a monthly basis to cover yourself in tattoos to inject something into your lips ro make you look like a fish Just because something is "by common consent" does not mean its not total ********. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 9 minutes ago, bornagain said: By common consent it is a great idea;- to be fat to have an expensive german car you cannot afford, to "own" the latest iPhone to plan to spend every penny you earn on a monthly basis to cover yourself in tattoos to inject something into your lips ro make you look like a fish Just because something is "by common consent" does not mean its not total ********. Again, if you've got evidence that Rashford is being economical with truth then publish it. Otherwise, STFU and do one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagain Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 24 minutes ago, zugzwang said: Again, if you've got evidence that Rashford is being economical with truth then publish it. Otherwise, STFU and do one! Marcus Rashford is requiring the Government to end child poverty. A very noble activity, until you really consider what it means, presumably you understand the measure that is used to define poverty- if you don't I would suggest you look it up. Then perhaps take a visit to one of the websites that will calculate what benefits are payable to a household -particularly if one part of the household works the magic 16 hrs per week. Through my kids, I am familiar and friendly with a number of households where nobody works (or in one case where somebody ticks the box with 16 hrs) and all household income is direct from the state in one way or another. For most of the people I know, this is a lifestyle choice, and to be fair, when you do the numbers it make sense - they appear to have more disposal income than me - until the kids reach the magic age when the benefits tap gets turned off - then the shit hits the fan and somebody has to get a full time job. I am as certain as I can be that there is no need for the state to throw any more resources at them, all that will happen is the money that would have been used to feed the kids will be diverted to a more recreational purpose. For some element of disclosure, this is in northern Britain, I have no real idea how it works given the cost of housing in the south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainb Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bornagain said: Marcus Rashford is requiring the Government to end child poverty. A very noble activity, until you really consider what it means, presumably you understand the measure that is used to define poverty- if you don't I would suggest you look it up. Then perhaps take a visit to one of the websites that will calculate what benefits are payable to a household -particularly if one part of the household works the magic 16 hrs per week. Through my kids, I am familiar and friendly with a number of households where nobody works (or in one case where somebody ticks the box with 16 hrs) and all household income is direct from the state in one way or another. For most of the people I know, this is a lifestyle choice, and to be fair, when you do the numbers it make sense - they appear to have more disposal income than me - until the kids reach the magic age when the benefits tap gets turned off - then the shit hits the fan and somebody has to get a full time job. I am as certain as I can be that there is no need for the state to throw any more resources at them, all that will happen is the money that would have been used to feed the kids will be diverted to a more recreational purpose. For some element of disclosure, this is in northern Britain, I have no real idea how it works given the cost of housing in the south. Its better in London. Local housing benefit rates for London for a 3 bedroom property cap at £1,919.90 a month. If you had kids of different sexes over the age of 8 the council is obliged to house in a property where they have separate bedrooms, so 3 bedrooms for 2 kids is far from atypical. Obviously its the £15 a week that makes all the difference. Getting back to the original point, of what the definition of poverty is - to point out the absurdity of using a % of median income, apply it to Monaco. Oh to be living on the poverty wage there. Edited June 19, 2020 by captainb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, bornagain said: By common consent it is a great idea;- to be fat to have an expensive german car you cannot afford, to "own" the latest iPhone to plan to spend every penny you earn on a monthly basis to cover yourself in tattoos to inject something into your lips ro make you look like a fish Just because something is "by common consent" does not mean its not total ********. Wonder if the chicks with big lips occasionally get tempted by the little box under the fish tank? Edited June 19, 2020 by dances with sheeple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Hun Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 1 hour ago, captainb said: the council is obliged to house in a property where they have separate bedrooms, Lol, good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwick-Watcher Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 1 hour ago, captainb said: Its better in London. Local housing benefit rates for London for a 3 bedroom property cap at £1,919.90 a month. If you had kids of different sexes over the age of 8 the council is obliged to house in a property where they have separate bedrooms, so 3 bedrooms for 2 kids is far from atypical. Obviously its the £15 a week that makes all the difference. Getting back to the original point, of what the definition of poverty is - to point out the absurdity of using a % of median income, apply it to Monaco. Oh to be living on the poverty wage there. Over £20k annual housing benefit tax free. Madness to work then isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainb Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 21 minutes ago, Peter Hun said: Lol, good one. Kid under 15 and any connection to the local area they are obliged in either a council property or from the private sector at a rate of upto £1995 a month assuming single mum with two kids of different sexes in london. https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/homelessness/guide/homeless_get_help_from_the_council/who_qualifies_for_housing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 1 hour ago, bornagain said: Marcus Rashford is requiring the Government to end child poverty. No, he isn't. Marcus Rashford was asking the govt to extend its existing voucher scheme for vulnerable and under-privileged kids through the six week Summer Holiday based on his personal experience of going hungry when growing up. Again, provide evidence that he is not telling the truth; or take a knee. Quote Boris Johnson heaped praise on Marcus Rashford tonight after executing a dramatic U-turn to grant 'needy' children free meals in the school summer holidays. The PM revealed he had 'personally congratulated' the England footballer in a phone call this afternoon for his campaign to make sure disadvantaged families get support during the break. Downing Street declared earlier that around 1.3million children currently eligible for free lunches in England will get vouchers worth £15 a week that can be spent in supermarkets. The £120million Covid Summer Food Fund is a 'one-off' recognition of the struggles families faced as the coronavirus lockdown sends the economy into a tailspin. A spokesman for 22-year-old Rashford said he had 'thanked the Prime Minister for U-turning on a decision that could have been detrimental to the stability of families across the country'. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8427979/Boris-Johnson-congratulated-Marcus-Rashford-schools-campaign.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainb Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 43 minutes ago, Peter Hun said: Lol, good one. And if your referencing number of bedrooms try entering single adult with two children of different sexes in below... Of course some of those working cant afford a luxury of offering every child its own room, but hey why quibble... https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/BedroomCalculator.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainb Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 10 minutes ago, zugzwang said: No, he isn't. Marcus Rashford was asking the govt to extend its existing voucher scheme for vulnerable and under-privileged kids through the six week Summer Holiday based on his personal experience of going hungry when growing up. Again, provide evidence that he is not telling the truth; or take a knee. I feel desperately sorry for any child going hungry. Issue is benefits are set at a level that provide well beyond a level of income where that should ever be the case, on the assumption that the person receiving the benefit i.e the parent spends it on food and essentials. Chucking another £15 voucher into that mix does not solve that issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagain Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 51 minutes ago, zugzwang said: No, he isn't. Marcus Rashford was asking the govt to extend its existing voucher scheme for vulnerable and under-privileged kids through the six week Summer Holiday based on his personal experience of going hungry when growing up. Again, provide evidence that he is not telling the truth; or take a knee. It is pleasing (though somewhat expected) that you are now getting into the semantics of what MR has and hasn't asked for, we both know he specifically mentions child poverty and that that is the whole thrust of the discussion on here. The issue we are discussing is whether the taxpayer does, or does not provide enough cash for very poor families to feed their kids - and I think there is a large body of evidence that suggests that we do. As I said, I have witnessed this close up and the households I am familiar with are doing absolutely fine - although if you offer some more than they accept it. Could I suggest that you either start funding the poor yourself, or campaigning at the next election for an increase in state benefits, we saw in December what people really think when they are allowed to express their views in the privacy of the ballot box. The bit that you quoted from the Daily Mail is merely a politician pandering to the electorate - give it until Autumn when redundancies are all over the press and this issue will be consigned to history.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Hun Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 3 hours ago, captainb said: And if your referencing number of bedrooms try entering single adult with two children of different sexes in below... Of course some of those working cant afford a luxury of offering every child its own room, but hey why quibble... https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/BedroomCalculator.aspx Obligation doesn't mean they do it. Not quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainb Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 37 minutes ago, Peter Hun said: Obligation doesn't mean they do it. Not quickly. With a £2k per month budget it is not impossible even in London to rent a 3 bed property in the private sector - council will push you into one if on their books. Get bored of the council taking time; then you can source yourself and put the claim through. Two kids different sex and your eligible for a three bed property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 4 hours ago, bornagain said: It is pleasing (though somewhat expected) that you are now getting into the semantics of what MR has and hasn't asked for, we both know he specifically mentions child poverty and that that is the whole thrust of the discussion on here. The issue we are discussing is whether the taxpayer does, or does not provide enough cash for very poor families to feed their kids - and I think there is a large body of evidence that suggests that we do. As I said, I have witnessed this close up and the households I am familiar with are doing absolutely fine - although if you offer some more than they accept it. Could I suggest that you either start funding the poor yourself, or campaigning at the next election for an increase in state benefits, we saw in December what people really think when they are allowed to express their views in the privacy of the ballot box. The bit that you quoted from the Daily Mail is merely a politician pandering to the electorate - give it until Autumn when redundancies are all over the press and this issue will be consigned to history.... Way ahead of you. Let's start with a nationwide program of general needs social housing to relieve the acute demand pressure in the private sector; re-nationalise the natural monopolies; introduce a Land Value Tax, a Tobin Tax on financial speculation, and a Citizen's Income; finance a National Investment Bank to bring back the manufacturing jobs that the neolibs have spent forty years offshoring to the Far East. Fortress Britain. It's time for real change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagain Posted June 20, 2020 Share Posted June 20, 2020 8 hours ago, zugzwang said: Way ahead of you. Let's start with a nationwide program of general needs social housing to relieve the acute demand pressure in the private sector; re-nationalise the natural monopolies; introduce a Land Value Tax, a Tobin Tax on financial speculation, and a Citizen's Income; finance a National Investment Bank to bring back the manufacturing jobs that the neolibs have spent forty years offshoring to the Far East. Fortress Britain. It's time for real change. So when it comes down to it you are not going to start spending your own money to feed the poor - I kind of suspected that would be the case. As for JC type politics, I would have thought that the last election would have taught you that twitter and facebook is not the real world. A famous politician told us that the trouble wih socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money, this is as true today as it was then. Taking your points one at a time. Housing - I agree that something must be done, but god knows what. I don't think the issue is that we have too few houses - although if we do, there are going to be no end of redundant offices and shops to convert , we need to find a need for the city centre. I think the issue with housing is it is just much too expensive - most of us are here on this site because we believe that high house prices are bad for the nation - this is an area that could be improved radically by government action - but no government will do anything radical because they would never get elected. Natural Monoplies - not a chance - I don't know how old you are but can you remember the cost and quality of service we used to receive - all monopolies ultimately exploit the customer - it is just how it is. Government should be breaking them down into smaller units rather that building them up into monolithic structures. Nationalising them would simply make them larger, much more bureaucratic and more expensive. I firmly believe that the larger a business, the more waste. I have worked for a few and it seems that there is pretty much a square law, double the size of the firm, and the size of the bureaucracy goes up by a factor of four, the speed of response goes down by four and decisions make less sense. Internal politics becomes one of the most important things and people become dedicated to pursuing their own careers by gaming the business. Big business and big government is bad. Very bad. Financial Speculation - much too complicated to do anything constructive about, how does the law descriminate between sound,prudent management and speculation - the short answer is it can't. Geovernments never successfully interfere with global markets and a big issue is the law of unintended consequences, by fiddling with the law, history shows we usually create more opportunities for people of a particular mind-set. Land Value Tax -mmmmm, not sure. Citizens income - this would end of costing the (reduced number) of taxpayers a shit load more. What levels of citizens income would you provide - clearly you believe that the current level of state support is inadequate which is the basis of the Marcus Rashford debate - so how much is enough ? If you pay enough for somebody to have a comfortable life then I rather suspect that a lot of people will withdraw from the world of work, if I were a minimum wage employee then I would be tempted to do so. Unfortunately a citizens income sas to be paid for. Manufacturing- this is an area where I have considerable personal experience - it is too late, we do not have the skillset, mindset or enthusiasm to set up a competetive manufacturing economy - it requires people to study and genuinely understand maths and physics to a high standards, it requires bloody minded hard effort, a willingness to take risks, drive and leadership. We have destroyed out capacity to take risk and do anything difficult. We have brought up a generation of kids who have been taught that everybodies opinion counts, that political correctness is the most important thing, that nobody fails, that I deserve to pass exams without doing any work. None of this will cut when you are trying to compete with the Chinese, Koreans, Japs and even the east Europeans. I have included a section of my original post of this matter, it is now acceptable to;- to be fat to have an expensive german car you cannot afford, to "own" the latest iPhone to plan to spend every penny you earn on a monthly basis to cover yourself in tattoos to inject something into your lips ro make you look like a fish Look at what we watch on the TV, see what is popular, we have turned into a nation of soft, self indulgent narcissisitic cretins. No amount of government policy is going to change this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smash Posted June 20, 2020 Share Posted June 20, 2020 (edited) 32 minutes ago, bornagain said: So when it comes down to it you are not going to start spending your own money to feed the poor - I kind of suspected that would be the case. As for JC type politics, I would have thought that the last election would have taught you that twitter and facebook is not the real world. A famous politician told us that the trouble wih socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money, this is as true today as it was then. Taking your points one at a time. Housing - I agree that something must be done, but god knows what. I don't think the issue is that we have too few houses - although if we do, there are going to be no end of redundant offices and shops to convert , we need to find a need for the city centre. I think the issue with housing is it is just much too expensive - most of us are here on this site because we believe that high house prices are bad for the nation - this is an area that could be improved radically by government action - but no government will do anything radical because they would never get elected. Natural Monoplies - not a chance - I don't know how old you are but can you remember the cost and quality of service we used to receive - all monopolies ultimately exploit the customer - it is just how it is. Government should be breaking them down into smaller units rather that building them up into monolithic structures. Nationalising them would simply make them larger, much more bureaucratic and more expensive. I firmly believe that the larger a business, the more waste. I have worked for a few and it seems that there is pretty much a square law, double the size of the firm, and the size of the bureaucracy goes up by a factor of four, the speed of response goes down by four and decisions make less sense. Internal politics becomes one of the most important things and people become dedicated to pursuing their own careers by gaming the business. Big business and big government is bad. Very bad. Financial Speculation - much too complicated to do anything constructive about, how does the law descriminate between sound,prudent management and speculation - the short answer is it can't. Geovernments never successfully interfere with global markets and a big issue is the law of unintended consequences, by fiddling with the law, history shows we usually create more opportunities for people of a particular mind-set. Land Value Tax -mmmmm, not sure. Citizens income - this would end of costing the (reduced number) of taxpayers a shit load more. What levels of citizens income would you provide - clearly you believe that the current level of state support is inadequate which is the basis of the Marcus Rashford debate - so how much is enough ? If you pay enough for somebody to have a comfortable life then I rather suspect that a lot of people will withdraw from the world of work, if I were a minimum wage employee then I would be tempted to do so. Unfortunately a citizens income sas to be paid for. Manufacturing- this is an area where I have considerable personal experience - it is too late, we do not have the skillset, mindset or enthusiasm to set up a competetive manufacturing economy - it requires people to study and genuinely understand maths and physics to a high standards, it requires bloody minded hard effort, a willingness to take risks, drive and leadership. We have destroyed out capacity to take risk and do anything difficult. We have brought up a generation of kids who have been taught that everybodies opinion counts, that political correctness is the most important thing, that nobody fails, that I deserve to pass exams without doing any work. None of this will cut when you are trying to compete with the Chinese, Koreans, Japs and even the east Europeans. I have included a section of my original post of this matter, it is now acceptable to;- to be fat to have an expensive german car you cannot afford, to "own" the latest iPhone to plan to spend every penny you earn on a monthly basis to cover yourself in tattoos to inject something into your lips ro make you look like a fish Look at what we watch on the TV, see what is popular, we have turned into a nation of soft, self indulgent narcissisitic cretins. No amount of government policy is going to change this. So we have the capacity to turn into a nation of cretins but this is irreversible. The capacity for change one way but not the other?? How is that compatible with "bornagain"? Edited June 20, 2020 by smash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagain Posted June 20, 2020 Share Posted June 20, 2020 24 minutes ago, smash said: So we have the capacity to turn into a nation of cretins but this is irreversible. The capacity for change one way but not the other?? How is that compatible with "bornagain"? Edited 11 minutes ago by smash Whilst I accept the given sufficient time, it is reversible, we need to go all the way back to basics with our aspirations, the education system and the way we bring up our children. Our current situation is the result of decades of decay. It will take decades to repair the damage - yet a government has a term of 5 years; hence for all practical purpose it is irreversible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted June 20, 2020 Share Posted June 20, 2020 3 hours ago, bornagain said: So when it comes down to it you are not going to start spending your own money to feed the poor - I kind of suspected that would be the case. As for JC type politics, I would have thought that the last election would have taught you that twitter and facebook is not the real world. A famous politician told us that the trouble wih socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money, this is as true today as it was then. Taking your points one at a time. Housing - I agree that something must be done, but god knows what. I don't think the issue is that we have too few houses - although if we do, there are going to be no end of redundant offices and shops to convert , we need to find a need for the city centre. I think the issue with housing is it is just much too expensive - most of us are here on this site because we believe that high house prices are bad for the nation - this is an area that could be improved radically by government action - but no government will do anything radical because they would never get elected. Natural Monoplies - not a chance - I don't know how old you are but can you remember the cost and quality of service we used to receive - all monopolies ultimately exploit the customer - it is just how it is. Government should be breaking them down into smaller units rather that building them up into monolithic structures. Nationalising them would simply make them larger, much more bureaucratic and more expensive. I firmly believe that the larger a business, the more waste. I have worked for a few and it seems that there is pretty much a square law, double the size of the firm, and the size of the bureaucracy goes up by a factor of four, the speed of response goes down by four and decisions make less sense. Internal politics becomes one of the most important things and people become dedicated to pursuing their own careers by gaming the business. Big business and big government is bad. Very bad. Financial Speculation - much too complicated to do anything constructive about, how does the law descriminate between sound,prudent management and speculation - the short answer is it can't. Geovernments never successfully interfere with global markets and a big issue is the law of unintended consequences, by fiddling with the law, history shows we usually create more opportunities for people of a particular mind-set. Land Value Tax -mmmmm, not sure. Citizens income - this would end of costing the (reduced number) of taxpayers a shit load more. What levels of citizens income would you provide - clearly you believe that the current level of state support is inadequate which is the basis of the Marcus Rashford debate - so how much is enough ? If you pay enough for somebody to have a comfortable life then I rather suspect that a lot of people will withdraw from the world of work, if I were a minimum wage employee then I would be tempted to do so. Unfortunately a citizens income sas to be paid for. Manufacturing- this is an area where I have considerable personal experience - it is too late, we do not have the skillset, mindset or enthusiasm to set up a competetive manufacturing economy - it requires people to study and genuinely understand maths and physics to a high standards, it requires bloody minded hard effort, a willingness to take risks, drive and leadership. We have destroyed out capacity to take risk and do anything difficult. We have brought up a generation of kids who have been taught that everybodies opinion counts, that political correctness is the most important thing, that nobody fails, that I deserve to pass exams without doing any work. None of this will cut when you are trying to compete with the Chinese, Koreans, Japs and even the east Europeans. I have included a section of my original post of this matter, it is now acceptable to;- to be fat to have an expensive german car you cannot afford, to "own" the latest iPhone to plan to spend every penny you earn on a monthly basis to cover yourself in tattoos to inject something into your lips ro make you look like a fish Look at what we watch on the TV, see what is popular, we have turned into a nation of soft, self indulgent narcissisitic cretins. No amount of government policy is going to change this. You're the one who's not living in the real world, Bonehead. You, Skidmark, Tufton Street, Kayfabe (Locke) and Barking (Arpeggio). A ratshit collective of doomsday propagandists and petulant man-babies endlessly recycling the same declinist tropes, End of Days narratives and deranged conspiracy theories that have become your stock-in-trade. "Oh, Weimar! Oh, Covid! Please, come destroy us!" Fatalistic resignation meet moral exhaustion. And you're still lying about Marcus Rashford! Take a knee? You're not fit to lace his boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForGreatLager... Posted June 20, 2020 Share Posted June 20, 2020 https://www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk/news/2017/09/06/england-footballer-marcus-rashford-sets-property-investment-firm/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted June 20, 2020 Author Share Posted June 20, 2020 Like the f'g typical socialist that he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.