Sheikah Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying public funding would be CUT not removed. The health service and education would be stretched. Prices on public transport would undoubtedly rise. You said public services would be destroyed, not worsened. So, yeah. It's not hard to call me out on it, it's a simple premise. They haven't published figures because it doesn't add up. Well I'm sure you can add up better than economic experts. They should have you on board.
gaggle64 Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Here some good news we can all enjoy: the BNP have lost all of their council seats in the Barking Council vote in East London. At least there is some sanity in these islands. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8668885.stm
The fish Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Here some good news we can all enjoy: the BNP have lost all of their council seats in the Barking Council vote in East London. At least there is some sanity in these islands. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8668885.stm What's the difference between the BNP and a bus? A bus has seats!
Nicktendo Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 (edited) You said public services would be destroyed, not worsened. So, yeah. They would be effectively destroyed, they NHS is already in a mess. The simple fact is many of them don't care about these sorts of things. The Mining Industry and the Train services were two examples of services that needed investment and reorganisation, but instead they sold them off to line their own pockets. And if there wasn't a big revolt some of them (granted a small minority) would try and sell off the NHS in favour of an American style system, look up Daniel Hannan. http://www.politics.co.uk/news/general-election-2010/criticism-of-tories-school-plans-$1371211.htm I warn you not to have an urgent need for the NHS. Sure, the Tories say they've ringfenced health spending, but check the small print. They plan to drop Labour's guarantee on waiting times. No longer will any patient be sure to see a cancer specialist within two weeks: under the Tories, that decision will be left to the consultant. Fine for the sharp-elbowed middle class, who are used to barging their way to the front of the queue. Not so good for the poorest who, all the data shows, struggle to get the most from public services. from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/05/1983-cameron-victory-kinnocks-words Well I'm sure you can add up better than economic experts. They should have you on board. Very fucking clever. I'm not adding up better than experts, I'm merely repeating what Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown and Vince Cable have already said. If you cant understand that less tax = service cuts then it's you that can't add up. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5570754/Tory-plans-to-cut-inheritance-tax-send-the-wrong-message.html http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/uk-party-political-news/tory-inheritance-tax-cut-costs-6bn-%E2%80%93-cable Wake up to the facts. They only benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else. Same. Old. Tories. Don't bother replying if you're just going to insult me. Back it up with some evidence. Edited May 7, 2010 by Nicktendo
Sheikah Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 (edited) They would be effectively destroyed Oh my god, make your mind up you indecisive pratt. First you state that it would be destroyed; I then call you out on you being ridiculously OTT, to which you state that there'd just be cuts, only for you to now say it would be 'destroyed' again. And if there wasn't a big revolt some of them (granted a small minority) would try and sell off the NHS in favour of an American style system, look up Daniel Hannan. Like you said, small minority. Therefore, never going to happen. Very fucking clever. I'm not adding up better than experts, I'm merely repeating what Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown and Vince Cable have already said. If you cant understand that less tax = service cuts then it's you that can't add up. Well well, the opposition had something bad to say? I'll never. Well done in regurgitating the word of others and trying to pass it off as your own opinion (sure sign of a media brainwashed person). Btw - there are many ways to go about making money go further rather than taxing people more just because you think you can (borderline communism here). Blowing money on stupid things is not one of them. Edited May 7, 2010 by Sheikah Automerged Doublepost
Ashley Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 effectively 2. actually but not officially or explicitly i.e. similar to 'quite', 'very' and other such words which suggest a degree of that falls close to absolute, but not completely.
Sheikah Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 effectively 2. actually but not officially or explicitly i.e. similar to 'quite', 'very' and other such words which suggest a degree of that falls close to absolute, but not completely. Could you sound any more pretentious right now if you tried? Defining a word for me that undoubtedly I already knew. But my point still stands.
Nicktendo Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 (edited) Like you said, small minority. Therefore, never going to happen. Well well, the opposition had something bad to say? I'll never. So where do the Tory's plan to raise extra money from then? Businesses? Young people? Single people? The poor? As it's factually and obviously not married couples or the millionaires. And even if it is a small minority, it doesn't hide the fact that people in the party hold those views and would be prepared to argue for them. Well done in regurgitating the word of others and trying to pass it off as your own opinion (sure sign of a media brainwashed person). Sorry, I'll reserve judgement until I hold a PhD in economics next time. Yes, it is my own opinion that has been influenced by what others have said, by what I have learned at university and what I have come to understand from reading academic, non-academic and media publications. Not simply reading the guardian and going 'OH YEAH THAT'S RIGHT!' They were merely easy accessible reference points, something, once again you've failed to produce... Btw - there are many ways to go about making money go further rather than taxing people more just because you think you can (borderline communism here). Blowing money on stupid things is not one of them. Evidence? Ideas? Theories? Or is this just your own opinion? You know, just like the Conservatives, if you shout it enough times with nothing grounded in fact to back it up, it doesn't make it true. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00scbd2/HARDtalk_David_Harvey_Marxist_Academic/ If you've got half an hour to spare, there's a world renowned economic expert who gives a good description of what a Conservative approach to economics means. Maybe watch that, come back with something that counters it, maybe. I don't know a plan from the Conservatives which shows what they ACTUALLY plan to do, because I'm pretty bored of replying to nothing now. Could you sound any more pretentious right now if you tried? Defining a word for me that undoubtedly I already knew. But my point still stands. Could you contribute something concrete and non-condescending to the discussion, please? Attacking my choice of words isn't really moving the discussion forward. I'll make it clear for you.. The NHS would be much worse off (under funded) under the conservatives than it is now. Edited May 7, 2010 by Nicktendo Automerged Doublepost
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Well done in regurgitating the word of others and trying to pass it off as your own opinion (sure sign of a media brainwashed person). If he has researched what has been said by someone and agree with it, surely there's nothing wrong with having the same opinion as someone else? That's not exactly brainwashing. It's hard to form a completely original opinion nowadays, anyway.
Sheikah Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 So where do the Tory's plan to raise extra money from then? Businesses? Young people? Single people? The poor? As it's factually and obviously not married couples or the millionaires. And even if it is a small minority, it doesn't hide the fact that people in the party hold those views and would be prepared to argue for them. Doesn't matter. Minority means that those views will never materialise; any party may have members that suddenly say something out of the blue, but as long as there's sense the ideas won't come to light. Yes, it is my own opinion that has been influenced by what others have said, by what I have learned at university and what I have come to understand from reading academic, non-academic and media publications. Bull-fucking-shit. Your whole argument is basically posting links to online articles that you've mindlessly absorbed; no doubt you'll do something else now, but just because I can't be bothered this Friday night to counter with some links doesn't make you correct. If you've got half an hour to spare, there's a world renowned economic expert who gives a good description of what a Conservative approach to economics means. Maybe watch that, come back with something that counters it, maybe. I don't know a plan from the Conservatives which shows what they ACTUALLY plan to do, because I'm pretty bored of replying to nothing now. Ha, you expect me to spend half an hour watching this at 10PM on a Friday? You're off your fucking nut, son. Could you contribute something concrete and non-condescending to the discussion, please? Attacking my choice of words isn't really moving the discussion forward. I'll make it clear for you.. Attacking your choice of constantly changing words isn't good enough? What, you want me to insult your appearance instead? Give me a photo then, I'll see what I can do. Off the top of my head, wasting money on pointless ID cards has been one way that Labour has stupidly blown money. The NHS would be much worse off (under funded) under the conservatives than it is now. Well we'll see.
Raining_again Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 the NHS is and will be pish under any government!!! (sorry to disappoint ya)
Nicktendo Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Doesn't matter. Minority means that those views will never materialise; any party may have members that suddenly say something out of the blue, but as long as there's sense the ideas won't come to light. Bull-fucking-shit. Your whole argument is basically posting links to online articles that you've mindlessly absorbed; no doubt you'll do something else now, but just because I can't be bothered this Friday night to counter with some links doesn't make you correct. Ha, you expect me to spend half an hour watching this at 10PM on a Friday? You're off your fucking nut, son. Attacking your choice of constantly changing words isn't good enough? What, you want me to insult your appearance instead? Give me a photo then, I'll see what I can do. Off the top of my head, wasting money on pointless ID cards has been one way that Labour has stupidly blown money. Well we'll see. Yawn. Still no evidence and now I'm "off my fucking nut." Stop being narrow minded, come back with something to say that isn't an attack and if you want evidence that I haven't 'mindlessly absorbed' then I'm happy to provide it... oh wait. I did, but it's 10pm on a Friday and you can't be arsed... :/ It's always excuses with the Tory party isn't it... You're not even worth arguing with.
Sheikah Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 You're not even worth arguing with. And yet, you have. Funny that. I provided evidence of how Labour wasted money; yes, not wasting money is a way to not have to tax people to an extreme simply because they've worked hard to secure a good job.
Ganepark32 Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 What's this? A political topic on an internet forum turning into an argument? Well, I never thought I'd see the day.... It's all well and good debating the pros and cons of a party but whats the point in trying to say someone's dislike for a certain party is based on false reasoning or arguing that you're right with your stance on a certain party? It's an opinion which isn't going to be changed so why bother with the arguing. And you know, some people may probably say I have a cheek even speaking in relation to this because I chose not to vote but this is exactly why I chose not to vote: constant arguments that go nowhere and in the end are useless. There are much more important things in the world than someone's opinion on a political party and arguing about it so cut the arguing out. As I see it, this mess of an election needs sorted out as soon as. I can only imagine what people on the outside looking in are thinking of Britain right now (probably saying 'look at those idiots. Can't even run an election properly or even pick a government they want to run their country') and regardless of opinions on certain parties, it's going to take the effort of all parties to get it sorted.
Ashley Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Could you sound any more pretentious right now if you tried? Defining a word for me that undoubtedly I already knew. But my point still stands. Probably. I could cite some Foucault if you'd like. Hey maybe even some Marxists reactions to Cameron's (kind of) victory (and the irony that he was sold to the working classes by working class media (i.e. The Sun and Daily Mail) when in fact his policies are anything but working class. Talk about false consciousness!) Probably even some Baudrillard if I was really in the mood. (Daft could probably do it better though, damn Daft!) OR you could ask yourself if you apparently knew the intended usage of "effectively" why did you contest it ever so? If you want something less pretentious... Cameron...Cameron. Coincidence? While we're at it; another coincidence or truth uncovered? Anyway. PR? Going to happen or not do you think?
Sheikah Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 (edited) OR you could ask yourself if you apparently knew the intended usage of "effectively" why did you contest it ever so? Because no matter how you defined the word (you seem to be erroneously assuming that words have the one definition that you choose - if you look back to your post one of the definitions also lists 'actually') my post was still correct. To further this, here's a few definitions that completely contradict you: "in actuality or reality or fact; "she is effectively his wife"; "in effect, they had no choice" "In an efficient or effective manner; with powerful effect; Essentially; for all practical purposes" And most of all, even if you were to define it as 'not exactly true, but basically that', let's see what that means: First, he said public services would be destroyed. Second, he said it would be cut and not removed. And definitely no mention of beind destroyed. Third, he said it would be effectively destroyed. Which means it pretty much would be (by the definition of your choosing), but not actually; which is clearly bullshit, as the public services would still be running (even if less effective). In fairness, this is one hell of a pointless argument drawn out because I feel like arguing with your insistance on definition, and mostly because you were trying to be the pretentious woman on countdown with the dictionary. Nicktendo is guilty of nothing more than hyperbole, but now we've made it look like murder. Edited May 7, 2010 by Sheikah
Nicktendo Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Anyway. PR? Going to happen or not do you think? In the name of common sense and democracy. I certainly hope so. And Ganepark, you are completely right I just get too involved and passionate when debating with Tories, when really, all Marxism has taught me is that they can't be reasoned with... Oh well, back to planning the revolution I provided evidence of how Labour wasted money; That's a whole different argument, one I will gladly take part in. Can't stand labour and everything they stand for, their nanny state approach to governance is almost (but not quite), sorry, ignore that... it's effectively as bad as the Conservatives love affair with un-restricted free market economics.
Ashley Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Because no matter how you defined the word (you seem to be erroneously assuming that words have the one definition that you choose - if you look back to your post one of the definitions also lists 'actually') my post was still correct. To further this, here's a few definitions that completely contradict you: "in actuality or reality or fact; "she is effectively his wife"; "in effect, they had no choice" "In an efficient or effective manner; with powerful effect; Essentially; for all practical purposes" And most of all, even if you were to define it as 'not exactly true, but basically that', let's see what that means: First, he said public services would be destroyed. Second, he said it would be cut and not removed. And definitely no mention of beind destroyed. Third, he said it would be effectively destroyed. Which means it pretty much would be (by the definition of your choosing), but not actually; which is clearly bullshit, as the public services would still be running (even if less effective). In fairness, this is one hell of a pointless argument drawn out because I feel like arguing with your insistance on definition, and mostly because you were trying to be the pretentious woman on countdown with the dictionary. Nicktendo is guilty of nothing more than hyperbole, but now we've made it look like murder. Words are polysemic (I'm sorry, is that too pretentious too?). It is patently obvious (I'm sorry I'm referencing Niles Crane, is that too pretentious too?) that Nicktendo in any incident never meant that the public sector would be completely shut down. Yes, his choice of words in the written format may have seemed to suggest this, but anyone who listens to English (of England, can't speak for American, Australian etc English) in the oral format will know that 'absolutely' is often used, incorrectly granted, to mean 'somewhat'. So the issue shouldn't be with my pretension (and a little pretension never hurt anyone -- unless F.R.I.E.N.D.S. counts as too pretentious?) but rather with the fact that you chose to lampoon Nicktendo for using the definition of a word that may have been technically incorrect but, more than likely knowingly to you, colloquially commonly used and understood within the context of an Internet forum as opposed to a PHD research paper. He was using intentionally evocative and emotive language. Its a fucking debate about an election. I wouldn't expect anything else. We can either criticise improper, or less common, usage of words or actually debate the bloody issues! Which, as it stands, is that Tories have a record of fucking the public sector up the bloody arse (to put it politely). Prior to the last Conservative leadership public sector jobs were seen as the pinnacle sector (in terms of pay, work-life balance, benefits etc). By 1997 they were pretty much aligned with the private sector. Not completely of course, it still has some benefits, but compared to 30 years ago its shit all. (and when I argue I can be a cunt of a thing too, but thats not an electoral issue, its a sibling one )
Sheikah Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 (edited) Words are polysemic (I'm sorry, is that too pretentious too?). It is patently obvious (I'm sorry I'm referencing Niles Crane, is that too pretentious too?) that Nicktendo in any incident never meant that the public sector would be completely shut down. Yes, his choice of words in the written format may have seemed to suggest this, but anyone who listens to English (of England, can't speak for American, Australian etc English) in the oral format will know that 'absolutely' is often used, incorrectly granted, to mean 'somewhat'. Which as I said, is hyperbole. And when someone is having to resort to hyperbole to make a party sound atrocious, it's a very easy thing to call on. You interjected with a definition that was clearly not needed, because, yes, you were clearly being pretentious. Very pretentious. And your 'pretending to be pretentious' charade is pulled off with ease because you are - shock horror; very pretentious! So the issue shouldn't be with my pretension (and a little pretension never hurt anyone -- unless F.R.I.E.N.D.S. counts as too pretentious?) but rather with the fact that you chose to lampoon Nicktendo for using the definition of a word that may have been technically incorrect but, more than likely knowingly to you, colloquially commonly used and understood within the context of an Internet forum as opposed to a PHD research paper. And yet, as above, hyperbole is almost always excusable in modern day language but in this case it was clearly a biased way to spin a party to make them sound far worse than they were. Hence: I called him on that. I find it strange that I'm having to explain this to you; have you not observed a debate before? One person is likely to place spin on an issue, and people can shoot down spin where they see it. In this instance, stating that public services would be destroyed and therefore it's a reason to detest Conservatives is a clear over-exaggeration -- as you say, it's common to do, but it's also incredibly common for someone to shoot down such an overblown statement. It wasn't such a big deal until you went and provided a definition. It really was a shooting down of spin. Except now, it seems so much more. He was using intentionally evocative and emotive language. Its a fucking debate about an election. I wouldn't expect anything else. We can either criticise improper, or less common, usage of words or actually debate the bloody issues! Neither would I. And I would expect anyone who noticed that someone was making mountains to suit their argument to call them out on it. Cue me. Edited May 7, 2010 by Sheikah
Ashley Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Which as I said, is hyperbole. And when someone is having to resort to hyperbole to make a party sound atrocious, it's a very easy thing to call on. You interjected with a definition that was clearly not needed, because, yes, you were clearly being pretentious. Very pretentious. And your 'pretending to be pretentious' charade is pulled off with ease because you are - shock horror; very pretentious! And yet, as I stated above, hyperbole is almost always excusable in modern day language but in this case it was clearly a biased way to spin a party to make them sound far worse than they were. Hence: I called him on that. I find it strange that I'm having to explain this to you; have you not observed a debate before? One person is likely to place spin on an issue, and people can shoot down spin where they see it. In this instance, stating that public services would be destroyed and therefore it's a reason to detest Conservatives is a clear over-exaggeration -- as you say, it's common to do, but it's also incredibly common for someone to shoot down such an overblown statement. Neither would I. And I would expect anyone who noticed that someone was making mountains to suit their argument to call them out on it. Cue me. My pretension is as much a shocking revelation as the fact everything Jordan ('model', not ex-member) does is for money. My gods honest intention of that post (the definition one) was to point out that there are a plethora of definitions for 'absolutely' because you seem stagnated by the word. I just focused on presenting it in a stylistic format rather than just a dull "it can also mean..." But I still stand by my point that I interjected (in a public debate, how dare I!) because I genuinely felt that you were focusing on Nicktendo's semantics (and dare I say, using it as an excuse to avoid debate) and then my pretension. I was trying to move it along by trying to perhaps explain what Nicktendo meant because we can all try for the life of us to say something and express it badly. Sometimes it can help for someone to try and clear things up.
Sheikah Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 (edited) My pretension is as much a shocking revelation as the fact everything Jordan ('model', not ex-member) does is for money. My gods honest intention of that post (the definition one) was to point out that there are a plethora of definitions for 'absolutely' because you seem stagnated by the word. I just focused on presenting it in a stylistic format rather than just a dull "it can also mean..." I think if you went by any of the listed definitions, it pretty much does mean that it is really destroyed, for all intents and purposes. It was, as you said, substitution out of heated passion as many do in the English language. I'm not saying he's an immoral, crazy person for doing that. It's just that using hyperbole in this kind of argument is exactly like the hot-air politicians when they try to trash talk every other party there is. But I still stand by my point that I interjected (in a public debate, how dare I!) because I genuinely felt that you were focusing on Nicktendo's semantics (and dare I say, using it as an excuse to avoid debate) and then my pretension. I was trying to move it along by trying to perhaps explain what Nicktendo meant because we can all try for the life of us to say something and express it badly. Sometimes it can help for someone to try and clear things up. Well, it's either a case that he genuinely uses the word 'destroyed' to refer to still functioning systems, or that his passion in the argument against Conservatives led him to spin it negatively. I assumed the latter, which is probably the case, and given the OTT nature of the comment I felt it completely fair to call on. His whole point that the services would be 'destroyed' falls flat when you get him to acknowledge that the services would still be running. Anyway, that's quite enough on this. Nick's post-thanking here, so it might be best for us to stop so he can save his index finger and go to bed. :p Edited May 7, 2010 by Sheikah
Nicktendo Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Anyway, that's quite enough on this. Nick's doing some smashing post-thanking here. I could argue, but when Ashley says exactly what I want to say in a much better way, what's the point. I'm merely lending him my moral support. Oh, and I think he's pretty fit. I'd love to meet him in a B&B somewhere..
Ashley Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Nicktendo you're welcome but my cottaging days are long behind me. The Tories are in control! I'll probably be hanged for it! I think if you went by any of the listed definitions, it pretty much does mean that it is really destroyed, for all intents and purposes. It was, as you said, substitution out of heated passion as many do in the English language. I'm not saying he's an immoral, crazy person for doing that. It's just that using hyperbole in this kind of argument is exactly like the hot-air politicians when they try to trash talk every other party there is. Because, shock gasp!, politicians are people too. We're not acting like politicians, we're acting like humans. And in fact the second definition in the OED is "used for emphasis" and I don't think we can get a more generally agreed-upon source of definitions than the OED. Well, it's either a case that he genuinely uses the word 'destroyed' to refer to still functioning systems, or that his passion in the argument against Conservatives led him to spin it negatively. I assumed the latter, which is probably the case, and given the OTT nature of the comment I felt it completely fair to call on. His whole point that the services would be destroyed falls flat when you get him to acknowledge that the services would still be running. I'll leave it at that Anyway, that's quite enough on this. Nick's doing some smashing post-thanking here. You don't tell me when to shush!
Sheikah Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 (edited) I could argue, but when Ashley says exactly what I want to say in a much better way, what's the point. Crikey, you must be really bad then. :p Because, shock gasp!, politicians are people too. We're not acting like politicians, we're acting like humans. I'm saying that using hyperbole to trash talk a party is being like a politician; I'm aware these are also human beings but they have traits that I wouldn't be proud to admit to share. Spinning actions to sound worse than normal is one... And in fact the second definition in the OED is "used for emphasis" and I don't think we can get a more generally agreed-upon source of definitions than the OED. Well, that means he placed emphasis on it being destroyed. Not that the word following is false or exaggerated. A similar definition is this: "In an efficient or effective manner; with powerful effect". Essentially, it means you're placing even greater effect on the word 'destroyed'. ARGH. Why are we still arguing this? :p I'll leave it at that He tried to make an action sound worse than it worse and trash the party for that reason; whether heat of the moment or not. And I'll leave it at that! You don't tell me when to shush! Hmm...shush. Edited May 7, 2010 by Sheikah
Nicktendo Posted May 7, 2010 Posted May 7, 2010 Crikey, you must be really bad then. :p No, I just finished writing a 12,000 word dissertation last night and my mind needs a shed load of time to recover. Political banter is always worth a crack though, even if my mind and hands are running on empty. My index finger, that's another matter Sheikah, I admire that you care about politics when nearly half the population doesn't. I admire the fact you will defend and justify your views, even if some of us don't agree. It's much better trying to explain stuff to people who know what you mean rather than the majority that prefer to watch Britain's got Talent or something else resembling 'entertainment.' Keep it real homeboy. Now I must go wipe the blue stains off my face...
Recommended Posts