Divide & conquer

marklv

LilacPixie wrote: »

Vatican City is a Sovergein state set up in 1920 something for the RC

Yes, but unlike Israel in the case of Jews it is not meant to be a homeland for Catholics, as it would be rather crowded, to say the least. The Vatican is a big square, a few streets, a massive cathedral, several buildings and a green area at the back. That's it.

ninky_2

marklv wrote: »

I am an expressing a legitimate concern about the possible influence of Israel into British foreign policy through the Milibands. It is in no way and anti-Semitic comment

however some of the biggest critics of israel are actually jewish so unless you can back up your assertions with facts about or knowledge of the milibands stance then you are actually being prejudiced since you are making assertions solely based on the fact they are jewish.

in fact ed miliband has faced criticism for keeping an anti-israel protester on his campaign team. he's also called for an end to the gaza blockade.

why don't you look at the facts? if you can come up with anything that suggests the milibands have one ear in tel aviv then do please let us know as i'm sure we'd all be interested.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/33005/labour-leader-candidates-debate-israel

bendix

Of course he can't ninky.

His ridiculous assertion that the Milibands (and God knows I feel uncomfortable defending them) have close ties with Israel is based solely on the fact they're Jewish.

I like marklv posting on these boards. His bigotism - made rather pathetic by his weak attempts to hide it - is a useful reminder of how a large percentage of the population thinks.

StevieJ

marklv wrote: »

You are totally bonkers. I am an expressing a legitimate concern about the possible influence of Israel into British foreign policy through the Milibands. It is in no way and anti-Semitic comment and you are a perfect idiot to even think it. The same concern would be there if the Milibands were of Iranian or Russian descent.

You mean like Barack Hussein Obama

Jonbvn

bendix wrote: »

oh. ok.

Ummmmm. Right.

Anyway, you're welsh. Your view doesnt count.

But you're into lady boys, so your views don't count either.;)

StevieJ

ninky wrote: »

however some of the biggest critics of israel are actually jewish so unless you can back up your assertions with facts about or knowledge of the milibands stance then you are actually being prejudiced since you are making assertions solely based on the fact they are jewish.

in fact ed miliband has faced criticism for keeping an anti-israel protester on his campaign team. he's also called for an end to the gaza blockade.

why don't you look at the facts? if you can come up with anything that suggests the milibands have one ear in tel aviv then do please let us know as i'm sure we'd all be interested.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/33005/labour-leader-
candidates-debate-israel

There are in fact many Jewish movements, groups and organizations whose ideology regarding Zionism and the so-called "State of Israel" is that of the unadulterated Torah position that any form of Zionism is heresy and that the existence of the so-called "State of Israel" is illegitimate.

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

StevieJ

marklv wrote: »

Pakistan split from India in 1947 over religion but it isn't a state specifically meant for Muslims. I think Saudi Arabia would be a closer analogy, but my point is that Judaism is not merely a religion, but a clear ethnic identity. Few non-Jews convert into the religion, it takes a much higher level of commitment than it does to convert into any other religion.

Here's one.

'I`m colored, Jewish and Puerto Rican. When I move into a neighborhood, I wipe it out!'

bendix

Jonbvn wrote: »

But you're into lady boys, so your views don't count either.;)

As i have said several times, Jonbvn, it is those who immediately link the word Thailand with ladyboys that need to ask themselves some questions about their predilictions, not those who have happily built homes in Thailand without ever giving the third gender a second thought.

Methinks you're a little too interested in them. Is there anything you'd like to tell us?

N1AK

ninky wrote: »

no i'm saying its too low. raise wages and you raise tax revenues. more public income is raised from turnover paid into wages than is earned from that which is creamed off into private profit.

there is absolutely no evidence statistically that raising or bringing in a minimum wage increases unemployment. in fact, i tentatively assert that the opposite is true.

Raising the total amount of money paid by employers to its employees, normally, would increase tax revenue and:

1. This could be done by having more people work but earn lower wages.
2. Increasing average wages doesn't automatically increase total wages (employment levels must remain steady)

Both of these points make your assertion far less QED than you treat it as being.

Ignoring the current minimum wage, what the correct minimum wage etc are, surely you agree that their would be a point at which the minimum wage would be too high? If for example it was set at £25ph (~£80kpa).

Continuing on the assumption that you agree a minimum wage could theoretically be too high, what makes you confident that you have the economic insight to calculate the correct level?

Surely you agree that different jobs might be lost at different wage increments? Packaging jobs might be lost at say £10ph, but Lawyers might be safe until say £25 etc.

ninky_2

N1AK wrote: »

Ignoring the current minimum wage, what the correct minimum wage etc are, surely you agree that their would be a point at which the minimum wage would be too high? If for example it was set at £25ph (~£80kpa).
Continuing on the assumption that you agree a minimum wage could theoretically be too high, what makes you confident that you have the economic insight to calculate the correct level?

Surely you agree that different jobs might be lost at different wage increments? Packaging jobs might be lost at say £10ph, but Lawyers might be safe until say £25 etc.

actually no. in that the value of a wage only exists in relation to the value of money at that particular point there is no particular cut off point - only the point at which it exceedes the relative value of other things and the value that job can generate.

i do see a problem with raising the minimum wage too suddenly - since this would not give time for other things to adjust accordingly.

i'd say to you that surely you would see there is a point at which a wage is too low? and do you feel confident in knowing when this is. to my mind it is when it fails to provide what is a living wage to the average human at the typically most expensive stage of life.