We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Shameless labour

18911131448

Comments

  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Flyboy152 wrote: »
    You have successfully epitomised the reason why the Tories are referred to as "The Nasty Party." You have no compassion for your fellow man and don't give a fig of for those who are less fortunate than yourself.

    Sed ibi gratia Dei es mei

    What on earth is wrong with you?

    You sound more like an extreme socialist than a labour supporter.

    Can you please explain, rather than simply going off on tangents, how it's nasty, and you have no compassion if you believe people have a right to shelter, but not a right to own it if they can't afford it?

    I can honestly not see how that can be construed as nasty, or having no compassion, or not giving a fig for your fellow man, yet you seem to be well off on tangents trying to make it out to be....so I'd love to know your reasoning.
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 26 January 2011 at 8:06PM
    StevieJ wrote: »
    In response to



    Didn't see any exclusion clauses.

    That's why I used the word context in my post.

    You stripped what the poster said of every shred of context, and used an absolute extreme. One very heart wrenching extreme which has absolutely naff all to do with what was posted, to try and gain the moral high ground.

    It was quite clear he was referring to staying in a house which the person cannot afford, and actually owning said house without actually having paid for it.

    If these kinds of responses are the general labour supporters real thoughts, and real arguments, then I'm glad I;m not associated. It's pure denial and really quite worrying extremes....with the ability to actually discussed thrown right out of the window. Try to be rational and you get accused of all sorts on yoru character.

    The very fact that you said "didnt see any exclusion clauses" suggests anything anyone says that's not in line with the labour line, you will simply tear to pieces and completely rip any context to make your point. I also found that wording, rather depressing.

    How many clauses should I be adding to the bottom of this post, if I don't wish for that sort of response you furnished the last poster with?
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    What are you going on about?
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • A._Badger
    A._Badger Posts: 5,881 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    StevieJ wrote: »
    What are you going on about?

    He is saying your post was in execrable taste. He's right.
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    A._Badger wrote: »
    He is saying your post was in execrable taste. He's right.

    Why use a word like bad when execrable will do, it may shock you but I don't agree.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • PhylPho wrote: »
    Ah. . . so it's a message from the Tories that communicated doom and gloom sufficient to instill fear into the electorate?

    Well their scaremongering was obviously bad enough that they couldn't manage an overall majority in what should have been a landslide with Gordon Browns unpopularity.
  • A._Badger
    A._Badger Posts: 5,881 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    StevieJ wrote: »
    Why use a word like bad when execrable will do, it may shock you but I don't agree.

    I suppose I should be shocked that you think they're interchangeable. But I'm not.
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    A._Badger wrote: »
    I suppose I should be shocked that you think they're interchangeable. But I'm not.

    Are you for real?
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • PhylPho
    PhylPho Posts: 1,443 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    [/CENTER]


    Can you quote any of the other dozen or so messages left for the incoming administration by the outgoing?

    Or do you think that this is the only comment ever left by Chief Secretary for Chief Secretary?

    Er: the poster referred to a specific 'message' at a specific period of time, i.e., the doom and gloom communicated by the Tories after the May election. My response related to another specific message of doom and gloom communicated by Labour at the same specific period of time.

    People who are uncomfortable with facts have been known to try to finesse 'em to such an extent that an original point gets conveniently buried beneath extra verbiage.

    But I can't think why you'd want to attempt that here.
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    PhylPho wrote: »
    Er: the poster referred to a specific 'message' at a specific period of time, i.e., the doom and gloom communicated by the Tories after the May election. My response related to another specific message of doom and gloom communicated by Labour at the same specific period of time.

    People who are uncomfortable with facts have been known to try to finesse 'em to such an extent that an original point gets conveniently buried beneath extra verbiage.

    But I can't think why you'd want to attempt that here.

    Then again, it could have been a joke :)
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.