Main Menu

Emo Kills:

Started by PeterWolf, 17 May, 2008, 11:28:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roger Godpleton

If Carol Malone represents the voice of "ordinary people" then I'm starting a purge.

I'm also routinely shocked by Amanda Platell. I doubt that most men hate women as much as she seems to.

Rod Liddle is funny sometimes, but it usually seems like all he's trying to do is to make up for the fact that he had a column in the Guardian so he can hang out at all the swanky right wing parties.

For balance, I have to say that Polly Toynbee and Seumas Milne are boring.
He's only trying to be what following how his dreams make you wanna be, man!

Peter Wolf


  Peter Hitchens is mostly alright.


  Do these columnists just write their own dribblings because they are getting paid for it or do they represent some sort of opinion that reflects their readership ?

 What would really help these types is if they could do some research and have a cohesive argument worked out before they write their opinion.Julie Burchill writes a paragraph on why she supports the invasion of Iraq for example yet she doesnt really know what she is talking about and her opinion/worldview is simplistic to say the least.


 I would say that Simon Heffer is a sad old self hating right wing fascist and if i was Simon Heffer i would probably hate myself as well.

Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death

Robin Low

"Peter Hitchens is mostly alright."

I understand Hitler was an absolute hoot at parties, too.

Regards

Robin

Peter Wolf

"I understand Hitler was an absolute hoot at parties, too. "


 Probably only in the Nazi "Partie".


 I dont quite get why you posted that comment other than my admittance to liking a Daily Mail columnist/political commentator which i suppose is as bad as admitting to being a Paedophile on this thread but although obviously like i said i dont agree with quite a few things that he says i think on an awful lot of political issues he is correct.

 I dont adopt his opinions as i have my own but how i get a comparison to Hitler for saying i like someone who speaks out against authoritarian government in the UK [Frederick Forsyth and Harold Pinter also spring to mind ] along with many other things , i am a bit baffled by that comment of yours as it doesnt make any sense.
Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death

House of Usher

I can see why Robin objected to 'Peter Hitchens is alright', because he's not. I wouldn't go so far as to compare him to Hitler though. Just because he writes for the Daily Mail and is a bit of a right-wing thickie?

Everybody, including Peter Hitchens, is in agreement that it's his brother Christopher who's got the brains. Personally I'm not interested in anything Peter Hitchens has to say. He's a dullard.
STRIKE !!!

The Amstor Computer

Everybody, including Peter Hitchens, is in agreement that it's his brother Christopher who's got the brains

Well-pickled, but yes. Both of them are fairly odious, but the sooner Christopher "Lesbian" Hitchens shuffles off to some obscure, ineffectual thinktank, the better.

Peter Wolf


 I have got specific reasons for saying that Peter Hitchens is correct when he is commenting on Politics [in the strictest sense of the word] in the UK and various other issues related to so i fail to see why that is wrong.

 Heres 4 examples:

 Critical of Neoconservatives = right wing ? Dont think so.


 Critical of the ID card scheme ? =  same as above.


 Critical of the erosion of civil liberties in the UK ?  same as above.


 Critical of authoritarian government ? = same as above.

 These are issues that i feel very strongly about so anyone who is given a platform to speak out publicly about these matters and does so is alright in my book or at least deserves some credit for it.


 Yet at the same time i know *exactly* where you are coming from  as he supports Israel for starters and all his religion and morality etc etc and yes he is a bit mixed up but from the point of view of the 3 points above and others related to then he has been more outspoken and critical of those issues than many of the politically correct Broadsheet Intelligensia have been as far as i know .

 I rest my case.

 ]My Brother was also smarter than i am as is my Father and my sister and my Mother as i am the thickest member of the family.]




 
Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death

JimBob

 But why does Pete Hitchens hold these views? Because he believes the english middle class are somehow a chosen people and anything that infringes their rights is bad, everyone else however can pretty much do one. Libertarianism is only  popular with those who'ld do ok out of it, any one living in a shit hole can go hang under their philosophy. Oh and Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great" is a guilty pleasure of mine, its rantastic.

Robin Low

"I dont adopt his opinions as i have my own but how i get a comparison to Hitler for saying i like someone who speaks out against authoritarian government in the UK"

Well, I wasn't comparing you to Hitler. It was a sarcastic response to your comment that Peter Hitchens is alright. Technically, I was comparing Hitchens to Hitler

Of course, any comparison with Hitler is so extreme that it actually constitutes a joke, in this case playing on the fact that Hitchens is just a nasty, ignorant little shit who writes for nasty, ignorant newpapers like the Express and the Mail that pander to their small, petty-minded and equally ignorant readers.

Frederick Forsyth is much the same. However, he and I have at least one non-biological thing in common, namely that we've both had letters printed in the Daily Telegraph (only one myself, but Forsyth on an almost daily basis, it seems).

Regards

Robin

Roger Godpleton

On numerous occasions Peter Hitchens has said that democracy is overrated when it doesn't produce the results he wants.

Basically he's like the Pisswasser (sp) to Roger Scruton's champagne.
He's only trying to be what following how his dreams make you wanna be, man!

Peter Wolf


"Libertarianism is only popular with those who'ld do ok out of it, any one living in a shit hole can go hang under their philosophy. "

 I would have thought everyone would benefit from Libertarianism as Libertarianism doesnt [or shouldnt ] discriminate as its Egalitarian .

 Its a shame to have the class issue bought into the argument as its boring and a bit like reading a Julie Burchill column .


"New/old/whatever Labour ? is only popular with those who'ld do ok out of it, any one living in a shit hole can go hang under their philosophy."

 I changed the words a bit  !


 [I take it thats a Telegraph endorsement then robin ? ]
Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death

House of Usher

Libertarianism is only popular with those who'ld do ok out of it, any one living in a shit hole can go hang under their philosophy.

"I would have thought everyone would benefit from Libertarianism as Libertarianism doesnt [or shouldnt ] discriminate as its Egalitarian."

Oh Peter - but you make Jimbob's point so well for him. The fact that it doesn't discriminate is entirely what is wrong with libertarianism! Libertarianism holds that it's okay for landlords to charge high rents because
if the tenants can't afford it they can rent elsewhere. It holds that there should be no minimum wage, and employers should be free to pay wages as low as he/she likes, because workers are free to go and work for someone else if they want. Libertarianism doesn't descriminate on tax, so rich and poor would pay the same proportion of their income in tax, or indeed, it would prefer to do away with income tax altogether and tax people on what they spend instead. This is manifesftly unfair: a rich man and a poor man both need shoes. Shoes cost e.g. £30 a pair, of which let's say £5 is charged in tax. The rich man and the poor man are both charged £5 tax on the basis of needing to wear shoes, despite the rich man earning £340,000 and the poor man earning £12,000. So under libertarian principles, it is okay to make everyone contribute absolutely equally through taxation (remember Thatcher's Poll Tax) rather than contributing what their income means they can afford and proportionate to the benefit they derive from a well-ordered society.

Libertarianism is not an equalizer, because if everyone is free to do what they like, only the rich can afford to do what they like.
STRIKE !!!

Peter Wolf


 Thats all true enough   but that wasnt my point in the sense of the free market or the poll tax or even  the cost of utilities or even the cost of a TV licence.

 "Everyone pays the same so its fair !"

 Like you say something that is equal therefore fair isnt fair in practice.

 If we had a fair system in this country you would have concessions made in the cost of bills and council tax that impoverished pensioners have to pay instead of privatised utilities making record profits year in year out.

 Under a libertarian system you would also pay less tax as the overall tax burden would decrease because you wouldnt have an unnaccountable government squandering billions of taxpayers money as a Libertarian government would be accountable.

 You could say that the financial system is Libertarianism taken to the extreme but the minority who have all the wealth like the system as it i because it is heavily slanted in their favour .The system maintains their position to the extent that they own and control governments and the banking system.

 So as it is the financial system is Libertarian in the extreme ,so much so that it actually becomes anti -libertarian.

 


 What i was doing was applying Libertarianism to the political system in the sense that there has been a creeping authoritarianism with the government in this country and i am applying Libertarianism to personal liberty and responsibilty and a government that is by the people for the people instead of what you have at the moment which is a government that is effectivly anti libertarian as the state is encroaching into everyones lives more and more both here and in the US to the extent that in the US DNA samples are taken from newborn children and stored on a database therefore the DNA sample and information becomes property of the state as just one example .A libertarian government would not *force* parents to have their children vaccinated .A libertarian government would not spy on its citzens or legislate against them.

 There is a definate trend towards authoritarianism so i am daring to suggest that this is not a good thing so therefore a Libertarian style of government has to be better for everyone.


 The general trend in politics in the broad scale is towards centralisation and central government with the EU and Federal government /Nafta in the US.

 All anti libertarian of course.


 [phew is that the time ??!!]

 

Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death

JimBob

Peter you really need to read more in regard to what libertarianism means. It certainly doesn't include concessions for the weak. And where did you get that dna story from? Its utter nonsense, firstly becase the yanks haven't gone big on the technology required, and secondly their civil liberties bodies would have thrown a massive fit to the extent we would all have heard. No offence but thats bollocks.