Nicola Sturgeon responds to concert attack by 'huge talent' Morrissey - The National

A

Anonymous

Guest
I thought I remembered him being for Obama, too, but I could only find the #ObamaSoWhite quotes.

He turned against Obama, along with most, when it became evident he was a complete incompetent.
Obamacare= you work but dont need health care, well you pay it anyways or pay a fine, so the shiftless, who dont work and have no intention of ever paying for it, can get it cheap or free.


He said Obama was King Coconut. Pretty accurate.
 

ExpectingToFly

Active Member

countthree

Well-Known Member
Great, when can I send you my bank account number so you can make a sizable deposit?

You should have read the next sentence before jump to my jugular. That is: "They should redistribute better before making people pay more taxes."

You are a silly bigoted.
 
V

vegan.cro spirit #13

Guest
Right you are.
What we need is better distribution. Instead of sending funds to that wanker, better to send my way.
I will pm the acct no. Better IS better.

Don't feed Cheswich with funds, he already has several bites of the govt apple going now.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Good points, for me fair distribution of income should come at the source rather than through taxation. Taxation should be used to pay for the services that you agree on as a society or as a safety net for those that can't work or are temporarally out of work, not really to redistribute wealth but if as a society you've set things up so the richest take the piss it's necessary. I don't know how we reached a point where we found it acceptable to pay one person 300 times what another earns in the same company but for me something went horribly wrong there somewhere and the sharp answer is that people in that company won't be getting their worth to the business - contrary to how capitalist theory works. It's more than a ten fold increase on the Thatcher era who most argued had a Laissez Faire economic approach. I guess a part of the problem is the running down of Unions and convincing us that Unions are a bad thing, they are at their most excessive but when we're paid well or have good working conditions those things were hard fought for by Unions. I don't like the idea of government intervention but without laws in place to combat piss takers then it all comes back to taxation which I think is the wrong way around to tackle the situation.

Completly agree with your first sentence. But laws should focus more on avoiding economic crimes, monopolies, lobbies, dumping, frauds, etc., like the ones that carried the world to the 2009's crisis, and governments should prosecute economic criminals, corrupted officials or politicians who have off-shore accounts, to name a few criminals who never pay for their destructive crimes. That would be more effective to protect the health and viability of capitalism than laws setting minimal wages. And media should have an ethical stance on people who acquire money by means of non ethical ways, instead of picturing them as witty guys and a model to imitate. They are just crooks. If capitalism doesn't protect itself, socialism is a dangerous seductive idea to a lot of people. And we all know that all kind of socialisms end in dictatorships. These are the countries that everybody wants to leave.
 
V

vegan.cro spirit #4

Guest
Completly agree with your first sentence. But laws should focus more on avoiding economic crimes, monopolies, lobbies, dumping, frauds, etc., like the ones that carried the world to the 2009's crisis, and governments should prosecute economic criminals, corrupted officials or politicians who have off-shore accounts, to name a few criminals who never pay for their destructive crimes. That would be more effective to protect the health and viability of capitalism than laws setting minimal wages. And media should have an ethical stance on people who acquire money by means of non ethical ways, instead of picturing them as witty guys and a model to imitate. They are just crooks. If capitalism doesn't protect itself, socialism is a dangerous seductive idea to a lot of people. And we all know that all kind of socialisms end in dictatorships. These are the countries that everybody wants to leave.

the MEDIA should an ethical stance on people who acquire money by means of non ethical ways, instead
of picturing them as witty guys and a model to imitate? WTF does that even mean.:crazy:
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
Completly agree with your first sentence. But laws should focus more on avoiding economic crimes, monopolies, lobbies, dumping, frauds, etc., like the ones that carried the world to the 2009's crisis, and governments should prosecute economic criminals, corrupted officials or politicians who have off-shore accounts, to name a few criminals who never pay for their destructive crimes. That would be more effective to protect the health and viability of capitalism than laws setting minimal wages. And media should have an ethical stance on people who acquire money by means of non ethical ways, instead of picturing them as witty guys and a model to imitate. They are just crooks. If capitalism doesn't protect itself, socialism is a dangerous seductive idea to a lot of people. And we all know that all kind of socialisms end in dictatorships. These are the countries that everybody wants to leave.

Pretty much every capitalist country on earth has socialist elements though and with good reason 'cause without them there would be a free for all. I know in the US you have a different mentality towards these things but at some point we decided that a level of collectivism was Ok and needed. That doesn't make us Socialist or on the path to Communism, it just means that if you fall on hard times you won't starve and if you get sick you'll have your healthcare taken care of without going bankrupt. That's OK imo, lots of countries have the same approach and they're generally decent places to live. We have a minimum wage because the wages that were paid beforehand were often not enough to pay for a week of food let alone bills and rent too. ou still get billionaires, Mike Ashley springs to mind, who would pay nothing in wages if they could get away with it so the laws are there for good reason.

We've still got an added problem of our housing being insanely expensive, much of it on the back of buying property as investments, much of it down to a lack of housing used to bump up house prices to both give the impression that the economy was thriving and (tin foil hat on) possibly to help the likes of Blair to buy up masses of property and so make a shitload of money - and back to corruption.

I'm not bothered personally about protecting capitalism or guarding against Socialism, I'm pragmatic in that it makes sense to just use what works and for us that's a mixed economy. Agree on the other stuff though re dealing with crooks, naturally if you aren't run by crooks the need for the socialist element of your society recedes - unless those crooks are 'socialist' - I put that in quotation marks cause most of the bastards live in palaces while everyone under them queues for loaves.
 
V

vegan.cro spirit #17

Guest
Of course not.......... until the tax rate reaches 100 percent we are fully capitalist LOL
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Pretty much every capitalist country on earth has socialist elements though and with good reason 'cause without them there would be a free for all. I know in the US you have a different mentality towards these things but at some point we decided that a level of collectivism was Ok and needed. That doesn't make us Socialist or on the path to Communism, it just means that if you fall on hard times you won't starve and if you get sick you'll have your healthcare taken care of without going bankrupt. That's OK imo, lots of countries have the same approach and they're generally decent places to live. We have a minimum wage because the wages that were paid beforehand were often not enough to pay for a week of food let alone bills and rent too. ou still get billionaires, Mike Ashley springs to mind, who would pay nothing in wages if they could get away with it so the laws are there for good reason.

We've still got an added problem of our housing being insanely expensive, much of it on the back of buying property as investments, much of it down to a lack of housing used to bump up house prices to both give the impression that the economy was thriving and (tin foil hat on) possibly to help the likes of Blair to buy up masses of property and so make a shitload of money - and back to corruption.

I'm not bothered personally about protecting capitalism or guarding against Socialism, I'm pragmatic in that it makes sense to just use what works and for us that's a mixed economy. Agree on the other stuff though re dealing with crooks, naturally if you aren't run by crooks the need for the socialist element of your society recedes - unless those crooks are 'socialist' - I put that in quotation marks cause most of the bastards live in palaces while everyone under them queues for loaves.

You are calling "socialist elements" what I think are the necessary regulations for any kind of society. Without rules to protect the weak from the powerful there can't be any kind of human society. Socialism is not about elements, it's a whole economical system that by its mere formulation it's not compatible with democracy, at least in the long run.
About minimal wages, the existence of a strong legal system and and independent judiciary system would avoid any kind of abusive labour contract. Sadly, that doesn't exist in most of the countries because it would harm the interests of powerful people and governments.
 
Last edited:

countthree

Well-Known Member
the MEDIA should an ethical stance on people who acquire money by means of non ethical ways, instead
of picturing them as witty guys and a model to imitate? WTF does that even mean.:crazy:

It means what you think it should mean. If you belong to the media it's possible you feel atacked, because today's media people are there because they enjoy the power of the position, but most of them lack of the bravery and independence of the original founders of the press. Now, most media is not about freedom and truth, it's about huge businesses, sucking privileges from the economical power and extorsion.
 

Juliand123

Murder is the meat
And so the Nicola Sturgeon story edges ever closer to silliness...

Nicola Sturgeon responds to concert attack by 'huge talent' Morrissey - The National

NICOLA Sturgeon has responded to songwriter and arch-Brexiteer Morrissey, after he made a jibe at the First Minister during a concert in Scotland.

Performing at the SSE Hydro in Glasgow at the weekend, the former Smiths frontman asked concert-goers during a break between songs: “I am curious. Do any of you actually like Nicola Sturgeon?”

The 58-year-old musician, who backed a Leave vote in the European referendum, then added: “Those hands will be in anybody’s pocket.”

His comments halfway through the Saturday night gig provoked a mix of cheers and boos, but fans disagreed about who they were directed against.

However, Nicola Sturgeon has now shared her thoughts on the incident.


Speaking to Paul Ward for PA, she said that while she was not a huge fan of The Smiths she had always thought of Morrissey as a "huge talent".

However, she continued, that she thought people probably went to his concerts to hear his music rather then his political views.

In October 2016 he hailed the UK-wide vote to leave the EU as “magnificent” and has previously told of his admiration for former Ukip leader Nigel Farage and how he almost voted for Ukip.

He previously backed the Yes campaign movement ahead of the independence referendum in 2014, saying Scotland needed to leave the “United King-dumb”.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If Moz is driven by nationalism then why wasn't he speaking out in favour of Sturgeon? Her party are nationalists after all. I know they try to pretend they are the cuddly variety but they are still nationalists.
 
V

vegan.cro spirit #4

Guest
It means what you think it should mean. If you belong to the media it's possible you feel atacked, because today's media people are there because they enjoy the power of the position, but most of them lack of the bravery and independence of the original founders of the press. Now, most media is not about freedom and truth, it's about huge businesses, sucking privileges from the economical power and extorsion.

the media is overwhelmingly left wing, lol, what are you talking about. what world do you live in?

shifting the answers of the Presidential debate to Clinton? according to you that would be ethical. they glorify any crackpot they stumble upon, any dude that puts on a dress is instantly made a role model.

media should be objective not ethical.
 
F

Fanny-Anne

Guest
the media is overwhelmingly left wing, lol, what are you talking about. what world do you live in?

shifting the answers of the Presidential debate to Clinton? according to you that would be ethical. they glorify any crackpot they stumble upon, any dude that puts on a dress is instantly made a role model.

media should be objective not ethical.
To try and convinve people like her is hopeless and of course she knows she is living a lie but some people simply have no option as they inherited what they are from their parents. Very few are the people out there that formed an opinion themselves that was not influenced by parents and kindergarten and schools and companies they work for not to mention media.
 

Peterb

Well-Known Member
To try and convinve people like her is hopeless and of course she knows she is living a lie but some people simply have no option as they inherited what they are from their parents. Very few are the people out there that formed an opinion themselves that was not influenced by parents and kindergarten and schools and companies they work for not to mention media.
But not you Mr Fanny.
You are a free spirit no?
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
the media is overwhelmingly left wing, lol, what are you talking about. what world do you live in?

shifting the answers of the Presidential debate to Clinton? according to you that would be ethical. they glorify any crackpot they stumble upon, any dude that puts on a dress is instantly made a role model.

media should be objective not ethical.

You obviously missed the whole point, got angry and then replied with a load of old shit. Very unusual for you...
 

ExpectingToFly

Active Member
If Moz is driven by nationalism then why wasn't he speaking out in favour of Sturgeon? Her party are nationalists after all. I know they try to pretend they are the cuddly variety but they are still nationalists.

Your point suffers from the usual generalisation that's either ignorantly or wilfully deployed to make the SNP out to be something that they aren't. NATIONALISM! It's a word designed to be ugly and make us think straight away of belligerent bigots and racist regimes. It's an unfortunate word, because it encompasses many strands of thinking. Sturgeon is only a nationalist in the sense that she advocates independence for Scotland. She's also a social democratic, centre-left politician; pro-EU, pro-immigration, socially liberal, in favour of progressive tax policies, and so on. Considering the sheer number of countries who've liberated themselves from the British Empire alone, never mind anyone else, many people in history fighting for such causes would be considered 'nationalists'. Do they all deserve condemnation for daring to support a break away from Westminster rule?

You may not agree with Sturgeon's support for independence or her politics, but trying to conflate her and her party with the likes of UKIP is frankly absurd.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You obviously missed the whole point, got angry and then replied with a load of old shit. Very unusual for you...

the OP obviously did not think I missed the point . You have quite the ego, thinking you are all posters lol

"Journalists", should attempt to obtain productive employment.
 
Top Bottom