Go Corbyn

you also imply that the wealthy are wealthy because they are hardworking and ultimately deserving of their riches, and the poor are poor because they are lazy workshy arseholes, when nothing is further from the truth. the poor are generally poor because the wealthy and powerful orchestrate the divide of wealth that way. @euguene

replies to Cameron's twitter outburst http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/09/14/david-cameron-tweets-twitter-replies/

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:46 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 10:51 AM, westhead said:

...Healthcare and education should be a right for everyone...

what does it mean "should be a right" exactly? it's not air or sun that are just there, those are (still) expensive services.

i mean it's not wrong to have those systems socialized if there's a consensus about it, but no need to portray them as inherently ethical. essentially it's just more well off people paying for those who can't/can't be arsed to pay for themselves.

 

Say a kid's born into a working class family, who pay tax and national insurance - shouldn't they entitled to the same level of care for cancer treatment as a wealthy entrepreneur who pays a fraction of the tax just because he can afford private healthcare? Is it fair the NHS is being deliberately run into the ground to pave the way for US-style private healthcare? I don't think so. I believe it is an ethical issue and I believe there's a duty of care from a government to look after the people it taxes for those services.

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:50 PM, messiaen said:

you also imply that the wealthy are wealthy because they are hardworking and ultimately deserving of their riches, and the poor are poor because they are lazy workshy arseholes, when nothing is further from the truth. the poor are generally poor because the wealthy and powerful orchestrate the divide of wealth that way. @euguene

Right on.

camerons twitter outburst is just an intelligent and heavily scripted PR campaign, painting any party other the conservatives as 'insecure', or basically a gamble on wether or not the country will be over-run by wife raping isis members.

theres a pretty short article on the repeated insistent of the idea of 'security' from the tories scripted press releases recently. many are also point blank avoiding any interviews where they may have to answer questions with anything other than their scripted answers.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-called-jeremy-corbyn-6435223

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:53 PM, MDM Chaos said:

replies to Cameron's twitter outburst http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/09/14/david-cameron-tweets-twitter-replies/

Some nicely thought out intelligent replies there!

I suspect for any tweet written by any politician ever, there will be 20 replies telling them to fuck off. It's kinda the point of twitter.

considering its unlikely he or anyone he knows will actually read them, camerons twitter account doesnt deserve or merit any reply more intelligent or thought out than 'fuck off, you nasty cunt'

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:58 PM, fletcher said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:53 PM, MDM Chaos said:

replies to Cameron's twitter outburst http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/09/14/david-cameron-tweets-twitter-replies/

Some nicely thought out intelligent replies there!

 

I suspect for any tweet written by any politician ever, there will be 20 replies telling them to fuck off. It's kinda the point of twitter.

 

Twitter was never going to be able to accommodate healthy debate. Are you really going to voice criticism of an idea/movement/individual in 140 chars or less? I don't really blame so many people just falling back on "Go fuck yourself."

Still undecided on Corbyn, personally.

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:58 PM, fletcher said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:53 PM, MDM Chaos said:

replies to Cameron's twitter outburst http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/09/14/david-cameron-tweets-twitter-replies/

Some nicely thought out intelligent replies there!

 

I suspect for any tweet written by any politician ever, there will be 20 replies telling them to fuck off. It's kinda the point of twitter.

 

David Cameron's tweet was nicely thought out and intelligent was it? Seriously? That ridiculous example of hysterical hyperbole deserves nothing else other than scathing derision

Almost spat out some coffee at 'shit off you ham mannequin', lol

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:48 PM, messiaen said:

i would argue that leaving people to die in the street because they cant afford treatment is as inherently unethical as it gets, and as an extension from that line of thinking, free healthcare is inherently ethical.

there's nothing wrong with dying on the street if you can't be arsed to take care of yourself, i'm not talking about people who have suddenly became disabled and unable to work or something, i'm specifically talking about people who will exploit such systems.

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:50 PM, messiaen said:

you also imply that the wealthy are wealthy because they are hardworking and ultimately deserving of their riches, and the poor are poor because they are lazy workshy arseholes, when nothing is further from the truth. the poor are generally poor because the wealthy and powerful orchestrate the divide of wealth that way. @euguene

yeah i'm not really into marxist mythology, and that's going off topic quite bit. but anyway, taxation covers everyone anyway, those who worked hard and those who didn't.

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:56 PM, westhead said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:46 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 10:51 AM, westhead said:

...Healthcare and education should be a right for everyone...

what does it mean "should be a right" exactly? it's not air or sun that are just there, those are (still) expensive services.

i mean it's not wrong to have those systems socialized if there's a consensus about it, but no need to portray them as inherently ethical. essentially it's just more well off people paying for those who can't/can't be arsed to pay for themselves.

 

 

Say a kid's born into a working class family, who pay tax and national insurance - shouldn't they entitled to the same level of care for cancer treatment as a wealthy entrepreneur who pays a fraction of the tax just because he can afford private healthcare? Is it fair the NHS is being deliberately run into the ground to pave the way for US-style private healthcare? I don't think so. I believe it is an ethical issue and I believe there's a duty of care from a government to look after the people it taxes for those services.

you're pitting corporate tax with the regular taxes, which is a different issue. better compare middle class ( a lot of them vote conservative too) and the poor. why should those who pay nothing have the same healthcare as those who pay much more tax?

  On 9/14/2015 at 2:24 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:48 PM, messiaen said:

i would argue that leaving people to die in the street because they cant afford treatment is as inherently unethical as it gets, and as an extension from that line of thinking, free healthcare is inherently ethical.

there's nothing wrong with dying on the street if you can't be arsed to take care of yourself, i'm not talking about people who have suddenly became disabled and unable to work or something, i'm specifically talking about people who will exploit such systems.

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:50 PM, messiaen said:

you also imply that the wealthy are wealthy because they are hardworking and ultimately deserving of their riches, and the poor are poor because they are lazy workshy arseholes, when nothing is further from the truth. the poor are generally poor because the wealthy and powerful orchestrate the divide of wealth that way. @euguene

yeah i'm not really into marxist mythology, and that's going off topic quite bit. but anyway, taxation covers everyone anyway, those who worked hard and those who didn't.

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:56 PM, westhead said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:46 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 10:51 AM, westhead said:

...Healthcare and education should be a right for everyone...

what does it mean "should be a right" exactly? it's not air or sun that are just there, those are (still) expensive services.

i mean it's not wrong to have those systems socialized if there's a consensus about it, but no need to portray them as inherently ethical. essentially it's just more well off people paying for those who can't/can't be arsed to pay for themselves.

 

 

Say a kid's born into a working class family, who pay tax and national insurance - shouldn't they entitled to the same level of care for cancer treatment as a wealthy entrepreneur who pays a fraction of the tax just because he can afford private healthcare? Is it fair the NHS is being deliberately run into the ground to pave the way for US-style private healthcare? I don't think so. I believe it is an ethical issue and I believe there's a duty of care from a government to look after the people it taxes for those services.

you're pitting corporate tax with the regular taxes, which is a different issue. better compare middle class ( a lot of them vote conservative too) and the poor. why should those who pay nothing have the same healthcare as those who pay much more tax?

 

lol. you are such a tit.

lol

  On 9/14/2015 at 2:24 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:48 PM, messiaen said:

i would argue that leaving people to die in the street because they cant afford treatment is as inherently unethical as it gets, and as an extension from that line of thinking, free healthcare is inherently ethical.

there's nothing wrong with dying on the street if you can't be arsed to take care of yourself, i'm not talking about people who have suddenly became disabled and unable to work or something, i'm specifically talking about people who will exploit such systems.

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:50 PM, messiaen said:

you also imply that the wealthy are wealthy because they are hardworking and ultimately deserving of their riches, and the poor are poor because they are lazy workshy arseholes, when nothing is further from the truth. the poor are generally poor because the wealthy and powerful orchestrate the divide of wealth that way. @euguene

yeah i'm not really into marxist mythology, and that's going off topic quite bit. but anyway, taxation covers everyone anyway, those who worked hard and those who didn't.

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:56 PM, westhead said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:46 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 10:51 AM, westhead said:

...Healthcare and education should be a right for everyone...

what does it mean "should be a right" exactly? it's not air or sun that are just there, those are (still) expensive services.

i mean it's not wrong to have those systems socialized if there's a consensus about it, but no need to portray them as inherently ethical. essentially it's just more well off people paying for those who can't/can't be arsed to pay for themselves.

 

 

Say a kid's born into a working class family, who pay tax and national insurance - shouldn't they entitled to the same level of care for cancer treatment as a wealthy entrepreneur who pays a fraction of the tax just because he can afford private healthcare? Is it fair the NHS is being deliberately run into the ground to pave the way for US-style private healthcare? I don't think so. I believe it is an ethical issue and I believe there's a duty of care from a government to look after the people it taxes for those services.

you're pitting corporate tax with the regular taxes, which is a different issue. better compare middle class ( a lot of them vote conservative too) and the poor. why should those who pay nothing have the same healthcare as those who pay much more tax?

 

Because I give a shit people other than myself - can you dig that? If not, sorry mate, you're a lost cause.

thats what it boils down to me. are you a good person, who believes in giving to others simply because they are in need, even if it leaves you worse off yourself. or are you a (according to my sense of morality) a bad person, happy to leave others to suffer in order to ensure your own personal well being.

  Quote

Because I give a shit people other than myself - can you dig that? If not, sorry mate, you're a lost cause.

 

ok but why demand that from people who don't feel like caring for literally everyone? you could set up some charity yourself.

  On 9/14/2015 at 2:50 PM, messiaen said:

thats what it boils down to me. are you a good person, who believes in giving to others simply because they are in need, even if it leaves you worse off yourself. or are you a (according to my sense of morality) a bad person, happy to leave others to suffer in order to ensure your own personal well being.

but the system is too blunt to really differentiate between those in need and those who just can't be arsed.

  On 9/14/2015 at 2:24 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:48 PM, messiaen said:

i would argue that leaving people to die in the street because they cant afford treatment is as inherently unethical as it gets, and as an extension from that line of thinking, free healthcare is inherently ethical.

there's nothing wrong with dying on the street if you can't be arsed to take care of yourself, i'm not talking about people who have suddenly became disabled and unable to work or something, i'm specifically talking about people who will exploit such systems.

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:50 PM, messiaen said:

you also imply that the wealthy are wealthy because they are hardworking and ultimately deserving of their riches, and the poor are poor because they are lazy workshy arseholes, when nothing is further from the truth. the poor are generally poor because the wealthy and powerful orchestrate the divide of wealth that way. @euguene

yeah i'm not really into marxist mythology, and that's going off topic quite bit. but anyway, taxation covers everyone anyway, those who worked hard and those who didn't.

 

 

 

honestly no idea how you can be stupid enough to believe that the poor are poor through their own idiocy a mere 7 years after it was proven that the working/middle class lost all their money through reckless overlending from the banks. also considering the wealthiest 1 percent in britain have literally doubled their wealth in the same amount of time, its astounding to me that there are people pottering about in the firm belief that the country has been fucked over by lazy shitebags defrauding the country for their 75 quid a week benefit.

  On 9/14/2015 at 2:53 PM, eugene said:

 

  Quote

Because I give a shit people other than myself - can you dig that? If not, sorry mate, you're a lost cause.

 

ok but why demand that from people who don't feel like caring for literally everyone? you could set up some charity yourself.

 

Because it should be an obligation as a citizen of the UK. If you don't like it maybe you could go and live in the Victorian era, or somewhere else where they don't have public healthcare and education - perhaps Indonesia? You could put your kids out on the street, selling their arses to pay for your root canal surgery. That'd be nice wouldn't it?

  On 9/14/2015 at 2:57 PM, messiaen said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 2:24 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:48 PM, messiaen said:

i would argue that leaving people to die in the street because they cant afford treatment is as inherently unethical as it gets, and as an extension from that line of thinking, free healthcare is inherently ethical.

there's nothing wrong with dying on the street if you can't be arsed to take care of yourself, i'm not talking about people who have suddenly became disabled and unable to work or something, i'm specifically talking about people who will exploit such systems.

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 1:50 PM, messiaen said:

you also imply that the wealthy are wealthy because they are hardworking and ultimately deserving of their riches, and the poor are poor because they are lazy workshy arseholes, when nothing is further from the truth. the poor are generally poor because the wealthy and powerful orchestrate the divide of wealth that way. @euguene

yeah i'm not really into marxist mythology, and that's going off topic quite bit. but anyway, taxation covers everyone anyway, those who worked hard and those who didn't.

 

honestly no idea how you can be stupid enough to believe that the poor are poor through their own idiocy a mere 7 years after it was proven that the working/middle class lost all their money through reckless overlending from the banks. also considering the wealthiest 1 percent in britain have literally doubled their wealth in the same amount of time, its astounding to me that there are people pottering about in the firm belief that the country has been fucked over by lazy shitebags defrauding the country for their 75 quid a week benefit.

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 3:07 PM, westhead said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 2:53 PM, eugene said:

 

  Quote

Because I give a shit people other than myself - can you dig that? If not, sorry mate, you're a lost cause.

ok but why demand that from people who don't feel like caring for literally everyone? you could set up some charity yourself.

 

Because it should be an obligation as a citizen of the UK. If you don't like it maybe you could go and live in the Victorian era, or somewhere else where they don't have public healthcare and education - perhaps Indonesia? You could put your kids out on the street, selling their arses to pay for your root canal surgery. That'd be nice wouldn't it?

 

why the fuck should it be? no one should be forced to pay for some 25-35 y/o neckbeards subsistence and healthcare, for example.

I'm not discussing this with you anymore. You're an imbecile.

  On 9/14/2015 at 3:11 PM, westhead said:

I'm not discussing this with you anymore. You're an imbecile.

i'm just a product of public education.

  On 9/14/2015 at 3:23 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 3:11 PM, westhead said:

I'm not discussing this with you anymore. You're an imbecile.

i'm just a product of public education.

 

Me too, but there's a fundamental difference between us.

yeah, you seem to hold the notion that paying for people who are perfectly able and should be paying for themselves is somehow not a bad idea.

i think there is a huge misconception around benefit fraud, in fact (according to my sources) only 0.7% of claims are fraudulent.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/welfare-fraud-error-universal-credit

but I also read elsewhere that the amount of benefits that go unclaimed balances out even this amount (can't find source).

  On 9/14/2015 at 3:50 PM, MDM Chaos said:

i think there is a huge misconception around benefit fraud, in fact (according to my sources) only 0.7% of claims are fraudulent.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/welfare-fraud-error-universal-credit

 

but I also read elsewhere that the amount of benefits that go unclaimed balances out even this amount (can't find source).

But I think there's a difference between pure 'fraud' I'm a legal sense and the lazy fucks who abuse the system (just go into any job centre in the UK to see these people, any time of the day and there will be examples of this). Same thing for child benefits from the people that push out more ugly sprogs than they actually want just to claim. In a legal sense is it fraud? No, but they know they are doing it to claim the cash.