Loz

So you are saying it was Ken's fault then?

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes it was I have tube map with it on. Boris > Cancelled it. East Dulwich was on the original Overgorund plans but it fell off years before Boris took the reins. I wouldn't even blame Ken, either - pretty sure TFL changed the plans.

If Liberals like liberalism so much, then why don't they go live in Liberia? Eh?

I reckon jelly is an UndisputedTruth invention for trying to make bankers look bad.

I have dipped my toe into the Mail occasionally and it is also full of the demented. But the Gruiniad's news coverage is actually pretty good. In fact, I'd say their site is the second best news source in the UK, after the Beeb. And it comes with added nuts.

jelly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But those black sheep among the left who don't think much of socialism (or haven't yet been > assimilated) are far outweighed by their 'comrades' who subscribe to and espouse its > destructive ideology. And I disagree, in that from my experience most "proper liberals" (whatever > that entails) do lean towards a big, all-powerful centralised government. Liberals are not necessarily lefties. Liberals don't believe in big government. I'd suggest you get a better understanding of Liberalism before trying to start such a debate. At the moment it's all a bit silly.

Well... yes. I did say it was a tad depressing.

wee quinnie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm voting Boris. Mainly because, out of all the candidates, he will do the least damage. > > > > Which is more than a tad depressing, when you think about it. > > Genuinely intrigued by this. What damage do you think the others are going to do? Ken is a complete loose cannon now (and I say that as someone who voted for him in two elections). He's gone from suggesting things that are good for London and is now back to is 70's ideological self. Another term from Ken would be just terrible for London. His fare cut would be extraordinarily damaging to TFL budgets and he'll go pursuing his ?25 congestion charge rate. His housing policy is doo-lally and his pledge to have a London EMA is a complete waste of money. Jenny Jones, as far as I can see, put the 'mental' in 'environmental'. Whereas Caroline Lucas is new Green - pragmatic but principled - Jones is the green of old: Monster Raving Loony Party stylee policies with an environmental slant. Fortunately she is really quite unelectable - she's polling lower than the UKIP candidate at the moment. Let's face it - if she really cared for the environment she wouldn't be printing off and distributing thousands and thousands and thousands of leaflets in a futile cause. That's pretty much the definition of a waste of the Earth's resources. Brian Paddick? Actually, he'd be OK, but I have more chance of being elected than he does. And I'm not on the ballot. If there are any other candidates then, like most people, I am completely unaware of their existence. And Boris? Like the previous four years he'll do something close to completely nothing. Which is the safe option.

Three days registered and 25 posts later, I suspect an old EDFer here. Any guesses?

.

Oh, God, quids, I have a complete addiction to the Comment is Free section. And a forehead-shaped hole on my desk. So many bitter, twisted individuals on there.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although I do have to admit that it is less > tasteless watching people trying to justify > self-righteous idealism and well meaning idiocy > than prejudice and exploitation. > > Agree with that, It's why I still tend to prefer > the company of lefties to righties, despite the > fact they'd have us all bankrupt before you could > say Polly Tonybee :)) I thought it was only me who read the Guardian to laugh/cry at some of the opinion pieces.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway people in the city are celebrating I'm sure. That must be nice for them. Yep, it saved them quite a bit of money hiring accountants to avoid the tax.

I laughed when Milliband was doing his "Just nod if you're going to benefit from [the 45% tax change], or shake your head if you're not. Come on, we've got plenty of time." bit. Mad Hattie was sitting behind him nodding her head furiously. I don't think anyone briefed her on the joke.

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Once this is implemented, they're going to "consult" on introducing the mansion tax on > properties valued at over ?2m owned by these people, with the intention of legislating in > Finance Bill 2013 for commencement in April 2013. > > Sounds like they are laying the groundwork for a mansion tax "proper." Sounds like they are pushing it to the back burner, probably permanently. Did you never watch Yes Minister?

How the hell do you work that out Brendan? Unless you have a 200 a day smoking habit. Lots in the budget I like. The continued move towards a ?10K person limit is very good. The remove of stamp duty breaks for companies is very good as well. Change in corporate tax is a positive move too. The child benefit changes to remove the cliff edge was needed. Whilst the move from 50% to 45% is, on paper, financially valid, it was a bit politically naive. It was noticeable that it was the only part of the budget that Miliband picked up on and will probably be in most headlines. I'd have left it for next year as it's taken the shine away from the lower end changes.

I'm voting Boris. Mainly because, out of all the candidates, he will do the least damage. Which is more than a tad depressing, when you think about it.

I would ask them if they do BOGOF - Buy One Get One Free - deals. Because it sounds like if they do, you'd buy one... and get one. Whoopee.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But SF you still haven't said if you think gay Christians should be allowed to have their > relationship blessed in a church before God. That is the whole point here, not whether we call it a > marriage or not. Personally, I have no opinion on this, myself (not being a member of any religious organisation). That is up to the members of the church/mosque/temple whatever to come to terms with, within the bounds of their own faith. On the other hand, when it comes to the state, same sex marriage should be the accepted norm.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think though there is a clear line between defending the rights of innocents (gays, > foreigners and any other group that just is) and the rights of those who break the law > (peadophiles). Although I take the point....for me that's a no brainer. And there are some things > where there is a clear moral right. We outlaw murder for example. That is right. We outlaw > unwarranted prejudice. That is right, and so on. "Those who break the law". Didn't Alan Turing break the law by simply being gay? Do we outlaw all murder? Was Osama bin Laden murdered? Sex with an underage person is illegal. If two 15 year olds have sex, whom should be arrested? This is why the whole 'moral right' idea is flawed. No argument can claim moral right, because you get into an absolutism that just doesn't work. And then you need to start qualifying this absolutism with phrases like 'unwarranted prejudice', which then bring subjectivity straight back into the mix. StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And has nowt to do with liberal, Guardianista views It's not the liberal Guardianista view that tends to succumb to the this, it the weird lefty stuff. The sort of thing that seemed to power the entire Occupy movement.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well unfortunately I think most people would agree that a view that seeks to end descrimination, as > opposed to one that upholds it is more valid. Hmmm. I'd argue that one. It's a bit too classic Guardianista - "my view is right... because, um... it is". You have some very solid arguments. You don't need to rely on such a tenuous position. Besides, as an example, would you consider that an opinion that seeks to end discrimination against, say, paedophiles as opposed to one that upholds it is more valid? I think not.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting to see that although the consultation has only opened today, Yvette Cooper is already > contradicting Lynne Featherstone's and Theresa May's (see The Times today) line that this will > only apply to Civil marriages. > > Interesting times ahead. What Cooper actually said: "Religious marriages are a matter for each church and denomination, not for the government. But equally, the government should go further than they currently plan. Churches who want to celebrate gay marriage [should have] the chance to do so." So, she is saying that if churches want to marry same-sex couples, they should be allowed to. Seems reasonable? Strangely, the proposed bill says religious same-sex marriages are specifically prohibited. So she has a point.

Agreed. At least Tessa's office posts on here occasionally. Absolutely zilch from Mad Hattie's crew.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz - So what is the 'centuries old meaning of marriage', SF - Male and Female Is that it? Is that all you have? What about polygamous and polyandrous cultures - they've been around for centuries? So that's (usually) male and several females. And anyway, you are wrong. Same sex marriage has been around for centuries going back to (at least) the Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. Some tribes in Africa have had same sex marriage throughout their history up to the present day. So you cannot rely on a fallacious centuries old meaning' to prop up your argument.

More stats: - Top 10% of incomes start at ?44,900 - Top 5% of incomes start at ?61,500 - Top 1% of incomes start at ?149,000 ?44,900 Colossal? Ironically, that is not very far from the equivalent in pre-tax income to the ?26,000 cap the government wants to put on benefits, which some are saying is unreasonable.