When do you think there will be a leadership challenge in the Lib Dems?

by Ivanhoe Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:46 pm

First topic message reminder :

The Lib-Dems will not let Nick Clegg lead them into the next general election because Clegg will definitely be a liability.

The Lib-Dems won't have their leadership challenge too near the general election because this will be seen as a vote grabber.

The Lib-Dems must have their leadership challenge ages before the next general election to be seen as a genuine change of leadership.

So, when do you think their leadership challenge will be ?

by bobby Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:12 pm

I have said many times, What Tony Blairs New Labour bought us was a Government for all, not just the workers but those like myself who have to make the money to pay the wage bill, and all that goes with it.

Labour albeit allways better than Conservative (with any size c you wish to put on it) Government, and what Tony Blair saw was the need to change and take us away from a Government for either the poor or the rich, as Mel said every one benefitted under Tony Blairs New Labour, as he governed for all. That is basically why traditional Old Labour values are as outdated as are the traditional Old Conservative values we are now being served up with.

For you or anyone else to say that New Labour where followers of Thatcher is to put it mildly is a load of bollocks, and couldnt be further from the truth.

Why did Tony Blair win the 1997 Election, If his policies where Thatchrite, and lets not forget 80% of New Labour Manifesto pledges where fulfilled within the first Parliament, would there have been a need for all of these pledges to have been implemented if they where Thatcherite, therefore would already have been in place.

Or was it Thatchers policies to rebuild the schools she had allready let go to ruin, rebuild/refurbish many hospitals thatcher allowed to lay fallow. There is a hundred and one things Tony Blair did that was diametrically opposed to the Thatcher, Tory doctrine.

You obviously think the Social Chapter which was a bill attached to the Maastricht treaty with an opt out clause put in by John (fancy a Curry) Major, and subsequently the opt out was used by John Major. The Chapter was then implemented in 1997 the first year of 13 good/better Labour years.

I would be very interested to know how The Blair Government was to fund the sweeping changes and the massive investments in our infrastructure and health/welfare system. He knew the best way was for our business sector to thrive and fund it through taxes at the same time as keeping unemployment down. Old labour is dead and we should let it rest in peace as it had its day, but now in a Global market which we must do our best to compete in, we need good healthy businesses to help fund the things we need such as the NHS.

I am really glad that people who think the way you do are now in a very small minority, as the rest of us have moved on, and once back in power, moved on for the better.

Perhaps you might now tell us why you think Tony Blairs New Labour was thatcherite other than assisting business.

by bobby Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:21 pm

The poor got means tested. The rich got tax cuts. Fact.

Well I knew this was coming.

The thing about means testing is that it is a double edged sword. It stops those who dont need benefits from preying on the public purse.

Its an obscenity that the queen got family allowance for her kids, and Herr Cameron took DLA benefits whilst his sick Son was still alive despite he and his wife are worth in excess of 30million pounds. Means testing if administered correctly will rid us of thei greed.

by Ivanhoe Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:35 pm

bobby wrote:The poor got means tested. The rich got tax cuts. Fact.

Well I knew this was coming.

The thing about means testing is that it is a double edged sword. It stops those who dont need benefits from preying on the public purse.

Its an obscenity that the queen got family allowance for her kids, and Herr Cameron took DLA benefits whilst his sick Son was still alive despite he and his wife are worth in excess of 30million pounds. Means testing if administered correctly will rid us of thei greed.

I knew this was coming. The thin end of the wedge.

Again, under Blair means testing continued for the poor, and tax cuts were given to the rich. The thing about means testing is that it doesnt apply to MP's on £60,000 a year salaries.

But it applies to UK workers on the minimum wage for Tax Credits, and pensioners on £5,000 a year State pension and Pensions Credits.

by Mel Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:46 am

Ivanhoe, I agree with bobby's excellent and very true post.
We seem to be stuck with the gullible folk who turned to the LD's at the last election and we have the old Labour guard sticking to their well meaning but dark ages ideology. As bobby has rightly said we have moved on. It had to happen and bobby has explained clearly to you about means testing and you still prefer to ignore what he has said.

The winter fuel allowance should be means tested, then instead of mercilessly cutting it, it should be increased with monies saved from giving it to the better off. The tax office could administer this at little extra cost and perhaps provide a few well needed jobs to boot.

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:27 am

Mel wrote:Ivanhoe, I agree with bobby's excellent and very true post.
We seem to be stuck with the gullible folk who turned to the LD's at the last election and we have the old Labour guard sticking to their well meaning but dark ages ideology. As bobby has rightly said we have moved on. It had to happen and bobby has explained clearly to you about means testing and you still prefer to ignore what he has said.

The winter fuel allowance should be means tested, then instead of mercilessly cutting it, it should be increased with monies saved from giving it to the better off. The tax office could administer this at little extra cost and perhaps provide a few well needed jobs to boot.

Mel, The State pension should be increased universially so as to have no need for winter fuel payments or means tested handouts, and yes, the rich should get it too, because they also pay in for it.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:33 pm

Mel wrote:Ivanhoe, I agree with bobby's excellent and very true post.
We seem to be stuck with the gullible folk who turned to the LD's at the last election and we have the old Labour guard sticking to their well meaning but dark ages ideology. As bobby has rightly said we have moved on. It had to happen and bobby has explained clearly to you about means testing and you still prefer to ignore what he has said.

The winter fuel allowance should be means tested, then instead of mercilessly cutting it, it should be increased with monies saved from giving it to the better off. The tax office could administer this at little extra cost and perhaps provide a few well needed jobs to boot.

The problem of Universal Benefits has always been that they go to people who don't need them, as well as to those who do. If we ever get the joined-up-government we have been promised, HMRC will be talking to DWP and vice-versa because together they already have the necessary information to ensure that the right people get the right amount of State Aid. Pensioners have a tax-free "threshold" slightly greater than those of working age, but this is reduced by any income they might have over £24,000 a year. (A personal pension in addition to the State Pension can have that effect.) So if they can identify a private pension, what is so difficult about including State Benefits in the calculation of an individual's Tax Code?

Gawd elpus!

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:40 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Mel wrote:Ivanhoe, I agree with bobby's excellent and very true post.
We seem to be stuck with the gullible folk who turned to the LD's at the last election and we have the old Labour guard sticking to their well meaning but dark ages ideology. As bobby has rightly said we have moved on. It had to happen and bobby has explained clearly to you about means testing and you still prefer to ignore what he has said.

The winter fuel allowance should be means tested, then instead of mercilessly cutting it, it should be increased with monies saved from giving it to the better off. The tax office could administer this at little extra cost and perhaps provide a few well needed jobs to boot.

The problem of Universal Benefits has always been that they go to people who don't need them, as well as to those who do. If we ever get the joined-up-government we have been promised, HMRC will be talking to DWP and vice-versa because together they already have the necessary information to ensure that the right people get the right amount of State Aid. Pensioners have a tax-free "threshold" slightly greater than those of working age, but this is reduced by any income they might have over £24,000 a year. (A personal pension in addition to the State Pension can have that effect.) So if they can identify a private pension, what is so difficult about including State Benefits in the calculation of an individual's Tax Code?

Gawd elpus!

""The problem of Universal Benefits has always been that they go to people who don't need them"".

Im not talking about welfare State benefits. Im refering to State pensions. This is a right, not a benefit, and its paid for via NI contributions paid by all British workers.

The State pension should be higher, and means tested and non means tested benefits should be outlawed. Abolished.

by Mel Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:55 pm

"the rich should get it too, because they also pay in for it."

What about those rich who have never worked a day in their lives?

"This is a right, not a benefit, and its paid for via NI contributions paid by all British workers."

What about all the other "rights" under NI contributions that this government have denied to contibutors?

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:58 pm

Mel wrote:"the rich should get it too, because they also pay in for it."

What about those rich who have never worked a day in their lives?

"This is a right, not a benefit, and its paid for via NI contributions paid by all British workers."

What about all the other "rights" under NI contributions that this government have denied to contibutors?

""What about those rich who have never worked a day in their lives?"".

Another thin end of the wedge question.

""What about all the other "rights" under NI contributions that this government have denied to contibutors?""

What about them ?

by Mel Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:17 pm

"What about them ?"

One can see where your sympathies lie in those two unthought out answers.

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:38 pm

Mel wrote:"What about them ?"

One can see where your sympathies lie in those two unthought out answers.

Once can see you make judgements.

My sympathies are with all Income Tax, and National Insurance payers.

The State should provide, but it isnt, and it wont, under the right wing.

by bobby Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:21 pm

Ivanhoe wrote: The State should provide, but it isnt, and it wont, under the right wing.

And how is the state supposed to provide unless people are employed and paying income tax, which in turn pays for the very things you want the State to provide, Only when the Labour Govenment did that very thing, you call them Thatcherite.
Please tell me Ivanhoe, where does the cash come from that pays for all the things the State should provide. Once you have answered this question, perhaps you will stop calling New Labour Thatcherite and actually praise them for their many achievements.

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:53 pm

bobby wrote:Ivanhoe wrote: The State should provide, but it isnt, and it wont, under the right wing.

And how is the state supposed to provide unless people are employed and paying income tax, which in turn pays for the very things you want the State to provide, Only when the Labour Govenment did that very thing, you call them Thatcherite.
Please tell me Ivanhoe, where does the cash come from that pays for all the things the State should provide. Once you have answered this question, perhaps you will stop calling New Labour Thatcherite and actually praise them for their many achievements.

Bobby, again, New Labour were Thatcherite in everything but name, privatisation the whole ball game.

Blair and Brown embraced Thatcherism from 1997.

Where do you think the cash comes from ?. Tax payers money send £9.1 billion a year abroad, fights wars in the middle east, and sends £50 million a day to the EU. Guess where that comes from bobby ?.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:54 pm

I suppose one would have a different perspective on such matters if one imagined that one was paying for everything oneself.

by bobby Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:16 pm

Ivanhoe wrote: Where do you think the cash comes from ?. Tax payers money send £9.1 billion a year abroad, fights wars in the middle east, and sends £50 million a day to the EU. Guess where that comes from bobby ?.

I know where it comes from, the same place that the cash for the health Service etc comes from, the Tax payer. And where does the Tax payer get it from. From the people they are employed by, you know people like me, Employers, those who did OK under New Labour enabling us to employ people and pay Tax.

Ivanhow wrote: Bobby, again, New Labour were Thatcherite in everything but name, privatisation the whole ball game.

I'm sorry Ivanhoe, but to me what you say is a load of twaddle, it has been explained time and time again how New Labour where against Thatcher and her politics. New Labour did use some of the private health facilities, but firstly to get the 2 year plus waiting list down to an 18 week maximum, Certain specialist clinics where also used as it was a better deal for the Tax payer in that it was cheaper to use private clinics than to fund them themselves and only have them used occasionaly.

Also Thatcher didn't invent business, business has been around since doomsday and before, I take it, your belief is that should any Government ever assist business, they are Thatcherite, and as I am involved in business I am Thatcherite, what utter nonsence

Please tell me exacrly what Blair and Brown embraced that made them Thatcherite.

I'll tell you what Ivanhoe, I am glad that any future Labour Government will be closer to Blair than the likes of Michael Foot or Ton Benn (both extreemly able a good politicians in their days, but their days have passed and it is now a wholly different ball game.

by Mel Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:32 pm

I think you made the point earlier which answers Ivanhoe's question bobby, when you rightly said that NL stood by their manifesto.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:51 pm

It needs Somebody to nail down the coffin on "The Entitled", who believe that a National Insurance Stamp confers perfect health and unlimited wealth upon all its subscribers.

by bobby Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:57 pm

Yes Thanks Mel, I'm beginning to feel I am pissing into the wind with our friend Ivanhoe, so I will pull the plug on this one.

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:40 pm

bobby wrote:Yes Thanks Mel, I'm beginning to feel I am pissing into the wind with our friend Ivanhoe, so I will pull the plug on this one.

Please do. The feeling is reciprocated. This site is slowly going right wing.

by Redflag Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:37 pm

bobby wrote:Ivanhoe wrote: The State should provide, but it isnt, and it wont, under the right wing.

And how is the state supposed to provide unless people are employed and paying income tax, which in turn pays for the very things you want the State to provide, Only when the Labour Govenment did that very thing, you call them Thatcherite.
Please tell me Ivanhoe, where does the cash come from that pays for all the things the State should provide. Once you have answered this question, perhaps you will stop calling New Labour Thatcherite and actually praise them for their many achievements.

Bobby I think the reason for calling Blair a Thatcherite is he kept a lot of her policies in place after his landslide win in 1997, I suppose everyone thought he would undo what she had put in place, and do be too supprised if Miliband has to do the same thing the NHS will need money poured into it to get it back to the way it should be and that might mean a lot of people will be treated in the private sector to get the waiting list down because more than likely they will be miles long after this shower are done.

But be reassured the Labour party will be fair too all and not just the chosen few like the Tories have done in the last two years, you got to admit when Labour gets in there is going to be shit a mile high to clear up so we must do our bit to help the Labour party clean up the mess that the yellow and blue Tories have made.

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:45 pm

Redflag wrote:
bobby wrote:Ivanhoe wrote: The State should provide, but it isnt, and it wont, under the right wing.

And how is the state supposed to provide unless people are employed and paying income tax, which in turn pays for the very things you want the State to provide, Only when the Labour Govenment did that very thing, you call them Thatcherite.
Please tell me Ivanhoe, where does the cash come from that pays for all the things the State should provide. Once you have answered this question, perhaps you will stop calling New Labour Thatcherite and actually praise them for their many achievements.

Bobby I think the reason for calling Blair a Thatcherite is he kept a lot of her policies in place after his landslide win in 1997, I suppose everyone thought he would undo what she had put in place, and do be too supprised if Miliband has to do the same thing the NHS will need money poured into it to get it back to the way it should be and that might mean a lot of people will be treated in the private sector to get the waiting list down because more than likely they will be miles long after this shower are done.

"""""Bobby I think the reason for calling Blair a Thatcherite is he kept a lot of her policies in place after his landslide win in 1997, I suppose everyone thought he would undo what she had put in place"""

Precisely.

Blair and Brown wasted 13 years in Government sticking to Thatcherism. I know, I was a Labour supporter and activist prior to Blair taking Labour to the right from 1997.

But be reassured the Labour party will be fair too all and not just the chosen few like the Tories have done in the last two years, you got to admit when Labour gets in there is going to be shit a mile high to clear up so we must do our bit to help the Labour party clean up the mess that the yellow and blue Tories have made.

by Redflag Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:52 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:
bobby wrote:Yes Thanks Mel, I'm beginning to feel I am pissing into the wind with our friend Ivanhoe, so I will pull the plug on this one.

Please do. The feeling is reciprocated. This site is slowly going right wing.

You have got that one very wrong Ivanhoe, Ivan would never allow this forum to go to the right the most of the people that post on this forum are Labour voters or members of the Labour party like myself. If it ever goes right wing I will leave faster than a virgin train at 125mph.

by bobby Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:40 pm

Thatchers and every other Tories ideal is to have every thing in the private sector, and they succeeded with our utilities, Rail and parts of the NHS to name just 3.
Once these companies have been sold off, the shares can be purchased by anyone with the readies, many of the staff of the newly privatised Companies then sold them on making themselves a nice little earner. Masses of the shares where eventually purchased by overseas Companies such as the French power giant EDF. Once a company like EDF have a great big wad of shares, just how are a Labour Government going to get them back, they may (emphasis on may) be able to pass some sort of Draconian law forcing any UK share holder to sell them back to the Government, but just how are they going to get them back from a foreign company if that foreign company doesn’t want to flog them and is protected by their own or European law from being forced to sell.

Mel has said time and time again that most of the Tory ideological policies have been and will be irreversible and what I have said is the reason that is so. Blair did not embrace Thatcher’s policies, but was stuck with them by circumstances and law.

I must say I actually find it quite disgusting when a so called Labour supporter and supporter who claims to be an activist can say such a thing without finding out the facts first. I am a member of the Labour Party and will remain so, as long as we don’t go back to the 1 party for the rich and another for the poor. Labour went away from that with Tony Blair’s “Third Way“, unfortunately the Tories didn’t and haven’t.

For anyone to call me right wing I must say is to me a bloody insult, or perhaps these extreme left people should start their own party and live in the past should they so wish.

Just to keep us on topic. The Lib-Dems will get stuffed come the next GE and find themselves with no political future.

by bobby Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:42 pm

By the way Red should the site go right wing, wouldn't that be democracy at work?

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:51 pm

It's not easy to project a vibrant future for the Lib-Dems after the next General Election. A few MPs will have discovered a closer affinity with the Tories and will "cross the floor of the House", while Nick Clegg is assured a comfortable post in Brussells and Vince Cable will lead the remainder with mass rallies in a telephone box.

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:32 pm

bobby wrote:Thatchers and every other Tories ideal is to have every thing in the private sector, and they succeeded with our utilities, Rail and parts of the NHS to name just 3.
Once these companies have been sold off, the shares can be purchased by anyone with the readies, many of the staff of the newly privatised Companies then sold them on making themselves a nice little earner. Masses of the shares where eventually purchased by overseas Companies such as the French power giant EDF. Once a company like EDF have a great big wad of shares, just how are a Labour Government going to get them back, they may (emphasis on may) be able to pass some sort of Draconian law forcing any UK share holder to sell them back to the Government, but just how are they going to get them back from a foreign company if that foreign company doesn’t want to flog them and is protected by their own or European law from being forced to sell.

Mel has said time and time again that most of the Tory ideological policies have been and will be irreversible and what I have said is the reason that is so. Blair did not embrace Thatcher’s policies, but was stuck with them by circumstances and law.

I must say I actually find it quite disgusting when a so called Labour supporter and supporter who claims to be an activist can say such a thing without finding out the facts first. I am a member of the Labour Party and will remain so, as long as we don’t go back to the 1 party for the rich and another for the poor. Labour went away from that with Tony Blair’s “Third Way“, unfortunately the Tories didn’t and haven’t.

For anyone to call me right wing I must say is to me a bloody insult, or perhaps these extreme left people should start their own party and live in the past should they so wish.

Just to keep us on topic. The Lib-Dems will get stuffed come the next GE and find themselves with no political future.

""Blair did not embrace Thatcher’s policies, but was stuck with them by circumstances and law"".

Can you prove this ?

by Shirina Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:52 pm

By the way Red should the site go right wing, wouldn't that be democracy at work?

This site will never go right-wing for a very simple reason: It's been my experience that many right-wingers cannot adhere to the rules of conduct on this forum. In other words, they tend to get banned in larger numbers than they can maintain here.

by Redflag Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:36 am

Shirina wrote:
By the way Red should the site go right wing, wouldn't that be democracy at work?

This site will never go right-wing for a very simple reason: It's been my experience that many right-wingers cannot adhere to the rules of conduct on this forum. In other words, they tend to get banned in larger numbers than they can maintain here.

There has never been a more truer post than yours Shirina, Im on another forum and the right wingers there are just a shower of spoilt Brats and AH Ivanhoe sometimes visits this forum and he should know better, I know that Ivan would not allow this forum to go right wing and for that Im glad otherwise I would be off, Im thinking of blowing my top on the other site with my final thread a last hooray and too let them all know "What I Really Think" of there S**T HOLE of a forum they have. cheers

by Ivanhoe Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:32 am

Redflag wrote:
Shirina wrote:
By the way Red should the site go right wing, wouldn't that be democracy at work?

This site will never go right-wing for a very simple reason: It's been my experience that many right-wingers cannot adhere to the rules of conduct on this forum. In other words, they tend to get banned in larger numbers than they can maintain here.

There has never been a more truer post than yours Shirina, Im on another forum and the right wingers there are just a shower of spoilt Brats and AH Ivanhoe sometimes visits this forum and he should know better, I know that Ivan would not allow this forum to go right wing and for that Im glad otherwise I would be off, Im thinking of blowing my top on the other site with my final thread a last hooray and too let them all know "What I Really Think" of there S**T HOLE of a forum they have.

Okay, I admit I was a bit hasty in my assumptionh about this site being right wing. The site I have been on will remain nameless, but the site is for small talkers, their site members have absolutely no depth of feeling or political knowledge whatsover, I was banned from the site im speaking about for raising political issues, as was someone else recently, certain paid up site members accused me of getting on my soapbox.

by bobby Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:16 am

Ivanhoe said: Can you prove this ?

I probably could, if I was prepared to spend the time researching. My responses come from memory and i'd like to think common semce.

I am not prepared to give my valuable time to researching something you would not believe anyway. I removed my blinkers years ago, its a shame you haven't.

By the way, can you prove Blairs Government was actually Thatcherite. It would be interesting to see just what it is that makes you think as you do.

by witchfinder Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:16 pm

According to a poll published today the Corby by election is virtualy a foregone conclusion ( a Labour gain ), but the comforting aspect of this poll is that it confirms all other polls.

The Corby poll translates into a national lead of 11 points ( most polls show 10 points ), the constituency is a "no hope" as far as the Lib Dems are concerned, but their share of the vote is down to 7%, which is actualy lower than what most polls show.

And who funded this poll ?
It was none other than Lord Ashcroft

I suspect that when it actualy comes down to voting, the Lib Dems will actualy come out worse than what most polls are predicting, or at least this is what the evidence seems to suggest, if this Corby opinion poll was repeated in a general election the Lib Dems would come out with 7 seats.

by oftenwrong Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:23 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:
bobby wrote:Thatchers and every other Tories ideal is to have every thing in the private sector, and they succeeded with our utilities, Rail and parts of the NHS to name just 3.

""Blair did not embrace Thatcher’s policies, but was stuck with them by circumstances and law"".

Can you prove this ?

A report of a 16th.Century trial for witchcraft includes a challenge from the Prosecutor to the Accused, demanding proof that a piece of her evidence is true. To which she replies, "There are things of which it is possible to be absolutely sure without requiring absolute proof, Sir. I am sure that you possess an arsehole without requiring to see it."

by Ivanhoe Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:31 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:
bobby wrote:Thatchers and every other Tories ideal is to have every thing in the private sector, and they succeeded with our utilities, Rail and parts of the NHS to name just 3.

""Blair did not embrace Thatcher’s policies, but was stuck with them by circumstances and law"".

Can you prove this ?

A report of a 16th.Century trial for witchcraft includes a challenge from the Prosecutor to the Accused, demanding proof that a piece of her evidence is true. To which she replies, "There are things of which it is possible to be absolutely sure without requiring absolute proof, Sir. I am sure that you possess an arsehole without requiring to see it."

Actually and in response to this poster, I did say that I made the comment tounge in cheek. ( no pun intended, "lol".

by Shirina Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:18 pm

their site members have absolutely no depth of feeling or political knowledge whatsover

If people there actually had depth and political knowledge, it would be a left-wing site. Very Happy

by oftenwrong Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:39 pm

Shirina wrote:
their site members have absolutely no depth of feeling or political knowledge whatsover
If people there actually had depth and political knowledge, it would be a left-wing site.

Clearly there is pleasure and stimulation to be found in the company of like-minded friends, but on the other hand there's not much of a challenge in preaching to the converted. I actually admire those of a right-wing inclination who stick with "Cutting Edge" despite being caught in a pretty continuous cross-fire.

by Mel Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:12 am

Stange how they become masochists, innit?

by Shirina Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:21 pm

I actually admire those of a right-wing inclination who stick with "Cutting Edge" despite being caught in a pretty continuous cross-fire.

The difference, though, OW, is that the right-wingers may get "crossfire," but the left-wing usually receives horrific insults in return. And I don't mean your garden variety "F-bombs" or being called an "a-hole." I mean being threatened, being stalked, and if you're female, God help you ... because they'll take every opportunity to sexualize you in most unflattering ways.

You're absolutely right, though - there is no sport or challenge in simply agreeing with each other. I wish more right-wingers *would* show up here, especially American ones. But the reality is ... and I do mean this truly IS the reality ... a goodly number of right-wingers do not have any depth of knowledge concerning what they're talking about. They won't cite sources ("Do your own homework!"), they won't vet their own "facts," and they'll refuse to answer direct questions. If you push just a little bit, they'll often lash out at you or retreat behind castle walls of propaganda regurgitation.

Honestly, with that kind of debate, there's not much challenge even if there *were* a lot of right-wingers here.

There are a few good ones out there, especially "Goldwater Conservatives" here in the US, but most right-wingers here in this country, anyway, are so strung out on the proverbial Kool-Aid that facts mean nothing to them. One simply becomes fed up with explaining the simplest things over and over and having NONE of it register in their brains.

Anyway, back to the original topic. Cool

by oftenwrong Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:20 pm

One of the few times I've had to abandon a lively exchange of views was when someone said, "I'm not going to argue because I know I'm right."

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:23 pm

So you met my father, too, eh....? Very Happy

by Mel Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:21 am

"So you met my father, too, eh....? "

Ah yes Phil, the Archbishop. Another of the family blessed with exellent wit. Very Happy

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:36 pm

One of my Dad's favourites was to respond to an obsequious guest of my mother's who might say: " So pleased to meet you, Mr Hornby" , by saying : "Why?".

On a really bad day , it would be : " I wish I could say the same..." Shocked

by Sponsored content