FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Greens Support Murder
Greens Support Murder
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
The deputy leader of the Greens was seen openly supporting a leader who is personally responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people around the world through the terrorist they train and finance. And probably well over 100,000 of his own citizens, at least 50,000 in the last month alone.
Can those on the left in here say if they agree with him supporting the Iran regime or if they disagree. No laws broken of course, we still have free speech (just about) for now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The deputy leader of the Greens was seen openly supporting a leader who is personally responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people around the world through the terrorist they train and finance. And probably well over 100,000 of his own citizens, at least 50,000 in the last month alone.
Can those on the left in here say if they agree with him supporting the Iran regime or if they disagree. No laws broken of course, we still have free speech (just about) for now. "
As vacuous poor attempts at points scoring go..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Has the OP considered that people on the left may vote Green warts & all in the hope it nudges the party that would ordinarily be expected to be ‘Centre Left’ (Labour) back to such a position seeing as they seem to have vacated it over the last few decades?
Does the OP agree with every single view point espoused by any member of a party whom he sticks an X in a box for?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
I see a lot of dodging but nobody actually willing to answer the question. Exactly the response I had expected, quietly agreeing with the systematic murder of tens of thousands of people, because they are defying Islam so probably deserve it
Wonderful ideology |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"quietly agreeing with the systematic murder of tens of thousands of people, because they are defying Islam so probably deserve it
"
That’s quite a stretch isn’t it?
Why do you accept some state sponsored terrorism but not all or none? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see a lot of dodging but nobody actually willing to answer the question. Exactly the response I had expected, quietly agreeing with the systematic murder of tens of thousands of people, because they are defying Islam so probably deserve it
Wonderful ideology "
Or an insight into your thought processes and 'logic'..?
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The deputy leader of the Greens was seen openly supporting a leader who is personally responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people around the world through the terrorist they train and finance."
If be didn't commit the murders himself, in person, he's not "personally responsible". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
"
Not all butchering tyrants. But some. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some."
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"The deputy leader of the Greens was seen openly supporting a leader who is personally responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people around the world through the terrorist they train and finance.
If be didn't commit the murders himself, in person, he's not "personally responsible"."
That’s a bit like saying Hitler wasn’t responsible for any of the Jews deaths in WW2 as he didn’t personally put any in a gas chamber. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
How easy would it be to say…
“I agree with many of their policies but I think under the circumstances this was perhaps not a wise choice”
In fact the only reason to not say that would be because you support their decision to support the Iran regime. Which is supporting it. So why not just come out and say that? Why deflect? If you’re so proud to internally defend Irans leadership, why be so reluctant to publicly defend them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"
In fact the only reason to not say that would be because you support their decision to support the Iran regime. Which is supporting it.
"
By this logic, anyone supporting Trump must be in favour of sex crimes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
He's kinda painted himself into a corner, got a huge swing in bi elections from the the left, presumably a substantial ethnic vote, now he has to prove his party was genuinely ethnic empathetic.
He can't say bomb they hell out of Iran now and depose their leader.
Politics is fickle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
Right now the greens look better even if they apparently support Iran. Media is not a source for bugger all. Still not sex trafficking perverts, ramping up a genocide and friends with some vile regimes. Right now Iran has been attacked to appease Israel. Not supporting that is the only decent position. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"
In fact the only reason to not say that would be because you support their decision to support the Iran regime. Which is supporting it.
By this logic, anyone supporting Trump must be in favour of sex crimes. "
Still not answered |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He's kinda painted himself into a corner, got a huge swing in bi elections from the the left, presumably a substantial ethnic vote, now he has to prove his party was genuinely ethnic empathetic.
He can't say bomb they hell out of Iran now and depose their leader.
Politics is fickle."
This is pretty much what Corbyn did when he was leading Labour. He bent over backwards to keep hold of some ethnic votes that backfired big time as it alienated the other voters.
Starmer, for all his issues, realised that the strategy to appeal to specific ethnic groups will not win him elections and decided to sacrifice their votes, which was the right call.
Funnily enough, Corbyn is still doing it in his "Your Party" circus. The Greens are going down the same path. It will work short term in these constituencies. They will learn later that there is a ceiling to how many votes they can win this way and that's not enough to win elections. Most centrists will desert them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"
In fact the only reason to not say that would be because you support their decision to support the Iran regime. Which is supporting it.
By this logic, anyone supporting Trump must be in favour of sex crimes.
Still not answered "
I’m not a greens supporter, so by your logic I’m in the clear  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans.."
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important."
I’ve yet to come across a leftist who supports any terror organisation tbf.
I’ve come across plenty of conservatives unable to tell the difference between Hamas and Palestine though.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important.
I’ve yet to come across a leftist who supports any terror organisation tbf.
I’ve come across plenty of conservatives unable to tell the difference between Hamas and Palestine though.
"
Oh I know this one, Palestinians are people who want every Jew on the planet killed. Hamas are the ones they have hired to do it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"
In fact the only reason to not say that would be because you support their decision to support the Iran regime. Which is supporting it.
By this logic, anyone supporting Trump must be in favour of sex crimes.
Still not answered
I’m not a greens supporter, so by your logic I’m in the clear "
I didn’t ask for green supporters to declare their position, I asked for “those on the left” which you clearly are.
So perhaps at the 3rd time of pointing out that you don’t want to answer the question is because you don’t want to say it public. Are you ashamed of your position? Nobody will attacked you. Its the left go around shooting people because of their opinions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important.
I’ve yet to come across a leftist who supports any terror organisation tbf.
I’ve come across plenty of conservatives unable to tell the difference between Hamas and Palestine though.
Oh I know this one, Palestinians are people who want every Jew on the planet killed. Hamas are the ones they have hired to do it. "
And if one reversed the sky-fairies in your definition, they’d be accused of antisemitism.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"
So perhaps at the 3rd time of pointing out that you don’t want to answer the question is because you don’t want to say it public. Are you ashamed of your position? Nobody will attacked you. Its the left go around shooting people because of their opinions "
Is it the left who do that? I’d love to see your evidence to back that up
And your original point is so laughably flawed, as has repeatedly been pointed out to you (and you’ve ignored).
No leftist will support a regime that commits human rights violations on its own people. However (and this requires multiple strands of thought at the same time so it may be difficult for some to comprehend) it’s also not acceptable to just randomly launch missiles at a nation without little, flimsy or no reason to do so.
When we stop pretending that the USA, Israel and associated Allies are the ‘good guys’ then we can have a proper conversation about it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"
So perhaps at the 3rd time of pointing out that you don’t want to answer the question is because you don’t want to say it public. Are you ashamed of your position? Nobody will attacked you. Its the left go around shooting people because of their opinions
Is it the left who do that? I’d love to see your evidence to back that up
And your original point is so laughably flawed, as has repeatedly been pointed out to you (and you’ve ignored).
No leftist will support a regime that commits human rights violations on its own people. However (and this requires multiple strands of thought at the same time so it may be difficult for some to comprehend) it’s also not acceptable to just randomly launch missiles at a nation without little, flimsy or no reason to do so.
When we stop pretending that the USA, Israel and associated Allies are the ‘good guys’ then we can have a proper conversation about it.
"
No reason? lol
You just said the Iranians are the good guys? I rest my case.
Further debate with you is pointless. I don’t debate with people who believe killing people because they stood up for their human rights is perfectly acceptable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"
You just said the Iranians are the good guys? I rest my case.
Further debate with you is pointless. I don’t debate with people who believe killing people because they stood up for their human rights is perfectly acceptable. "
I’ll let you go back and find the bit where I said Iran were the good guys. Point it out to me, or feel free to apologise |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
In fact the only reason to not say that would be because you support their decision to support the Iran regime. Which is supporting it.
By this logic, anyone supporting Trump must be in favour of sex crimes. "
Its an ever increasingly downwards spiral into some sort of absolutely bizarre mandatory virtue signalling on everything certain posters think justified by asking questions / starting threads based upon their own grossly distorted opinions..
Mad.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important."
The site gives you the tools to locate those very things, which are on here..
Tbh i might be wrong but Hamas in all the threads since this chapter in the ever growing volume of middle Eastern war and turmoil started the other day haven't really been mentioned ..
Nor has hezbollah till yesterday..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important.
I’ve yet to come across a leftist who supports any terror organisation tbf.
I’ve come across plenty of conservatives unable to tell the difference between Hamas and Palestine though.
"
That's because you get arrested if you openly support terrorist organisations.
What do you think? Do you agree that Khamenei is an evil dictator? Do you agree that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important.
The site gives you the tools to locate those very things, which are on here..
Tbh i might be wrong but Hamas in all the threads since this chapter in the ever growing volume of middle Eastern war and turmoil started the other day haven't really been mentioned ..
Nor has hezbollah till yesterday..
"
I have asked this question point blank to some leftists on here and even on Reddit. The only replies when I ask their opinions on Hamas or Khamenei is just deflection. They seem to struggle to admit that they are bad. If I remember correctly, there was an interview where Suella asked a Pro-palestine protestor the same thing and that protestor refused to admit that Hamas are terrorists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important.
I’ve yet to come across a leftist who supports any terror organisation tbf.
I’ve come across plenty of conservatives unable to tell the difference between Hamas and Palestine though.
That's because you get arrested if you openly support terrorist organisations.
What do you think? Do you agree that Khamenei is an evil dictator? Do you agree that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians?"
I absolutely agree that Hamas are terrorists and are a significant part of the problem in Palestine.
I don’t, however believe they’re the only problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important.
I’ve yet to come across a leftist who supports any terror organisation tbf.
I’ve come across plenty of conservatives unable to tell the difference between Hamas and Palestine though.
That's because you get arrested if you openly support terrorist organisations.
What do you think? Do you agree that Khamenei is an evil dictator? Do you agree that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians?
I absolutely agree that Hamas are terrorists and are a significant part of the problem in Palestine.
I don’t, however believe they’re the only problem. "
What do you think about Khamenei? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important.
I’ve yet to come across a leftist who supports any terror organisation tbf.
I’ve come across plenty of conservatives unable to tell the difference between Hamas and Palestine though.
That's because you get arrested if you openly support terrorist organisations.
What do you think? Do you agree that Khamenei is an evil dictator? Do you agree that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians?
I absolutely agree that Hamas are terrorists and are a significant part of the problem in Palestine.
I don’t, however believe they’re the only problem.
What do you think about Khamenei?"
Given that I’ve already mentioned Iran’s heinous human rights rights violations, I’d have thought that was obvious, no? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important.
The site gives you the tools to locate those very things, which are on here..
Tbh i might be wrong but Hamas in all the threads since this chapter in the ever growing volume of middle Eastern war and turmoil started the other day haven't really been mentioned ..
Nor has hezbollah till yesterday..
I have asked this question point blank to some leftists on here and even on Reddit. The only replies when I ask their opinions on Hamas or Khamenei is just deflection. They seem to struggle to admit that they are bad. If I remember correctly, there was an interview where Suella asked a Pro-palestine protestor the same thing and that protestor refused to admit that Hamas are terrorists."
I dont do deflection..
Does that latter point surprise you?
Its pretty similar to other viewpoints on atrocities and oppression by countries of all sides that by sone people who are generally of the same political leanings..
Its on all sides and is partly why there is less common ground between opposing views and the entrenched positions some take.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"l
You've effectively asked a question which is nonsense based upon some utterly bizarre assumptions you have thst those on 'the left' are supporters of butchering tyrants..
Its puerile..
Not all butchering tyrants. But some.
That sadly and equally bizarre is also the same across the political spectrum..
The fickleness of some humans..
I am still waiting for some leftists to open their mouths and admit that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians or that Khamenei is an evil dictator who is opposite to all the moral values that the left claims are important.
I’ve yet to come across a leftist who supports any terror organisation tbf.
I’ve come across plenty of conservatives unable to tell the difference between Hamas and Palestine though.
That's because you get arrested if you openly support terrorist organisations.
What do you think? Do you agree that Khamenei is an evil dictator? Do you agree that Hamas are evil terrorists who are at least part of the problem for the Palestinians?
I absolutely agree that Hamas are terrorists and are a significant part of the problem in Palestine.
I don’t, however believe they’re the only problem.
What do you think about Khamenei?
Given that I’ve already mentioned Iran’s heinous human rights rights violations, I’d have thought that was obvious, no? "
Fair enough. But your original statement that no leftist will ever support a regime that commits human rights violation is wrong. The Pro-palestine protest groups in UK who have been shouting things in support of the Supreme leader of Iran. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The deputy leader of the Greens was seen openly supporting a leader who is personally responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people around the world through the terrorist they train and finance."
"If he didn't commit the murders himself, in person, he's not "personally responsible"."
"That’s a bit like saying Hitler wasn’t responsible for any of the Jews deaths in WW2 as he didn’t personally put any in a gas chamber."
No, it's like saying that Hitler wasn't "personally responsible", which he wasn't. He bears the majority of the responsibility for the millions of Jews killed, but he isn't "personally responsible". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 9 weeks ago
Gosport |
"The deputy leader of the Greens was seen openly supporting a leader who is personally responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people around the world through the terrorist they train and finance. And probably well over 100,000 of his own citizens, at least 50,000 in the last month alone.
Can those on the left in here say if they agree with him supporting the Iran regime or if they disagree. No laws broken of course, we still have free speech (just about) for now. "
This argument relies on a massive logical fallacy. Opposing an illegal military escalation that risks a regional war is not the same as supporting a dictator. In fact, the Greens have spent years calling for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be listed as a terrorist organization and supporting the 'Woman, Life, Freedom' protesters.
You don't help the victims of a regime by bombing their cities; you help them by targeted sanctions and international law, exactly what the Greens have advocated for while the major parties were still playing catch-up. It’s possible to hate a regime and also hate the idea of another devastating war.
Zack Polanski has not expressed support for Hamas or the Iranian leadership; rather, his positions are rooted in a critique of military intervention and what he describes as violations of international law. Regarding Iran, he recently condemned US and Israeli military strikes, which included the assassination of the Supreme Leader, as "illegal and unprovoked," while simultaneously acknowledging the regime's history of "evil" acts against its own citizens and its role in sponsoring terror. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
So again I ask, what should be done then. Because sanctions have been in place for decades and not worked. Or are you quite happy to stand by and hear about the genocide and think “not my problem”? If so and you are one of those who constantly moans about Gaza then you are clearly racist.
All that needs to happen for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 9 weeks ago
Gosport |
I completely agree that the Iranian regime’s actions against its own people are evil and that we shouldn't stand by. But the idea that 'doing something' must mean military strikes is a dangerous simplification.
If we look at the last 25 years, from Iraq to Libya, Western military intervention has consistently failed to improve civilian lives. In Libya, an intervention sold as 'humanitarian' turned the country into a failed state with ongoing civil war. In Iraq, a 'regime change' war led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and the birth of ISIS.
Zack Polanski’s point isn't that we should ignore the suffering of Iranians; it's that we should stop repeating the same mistake of thinking we can bomb a country into a better future. Opposing an illegal, unprovoked war that would likely kill thousands more innocent people isn't 'racist' or 'lazy'—it’s learning the lessons of history. There is a huge difference between 'doing nothing' and refusing to start another catastrophic war that will only cause more civilian blood to be spilled.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has the OP considered that people on the left may vote Green warts & all in the hope it nudges the party that would ordinarily be expected to be ‘Centre Left’ (Labour) back to such a position seeing as they seem to have vacated it over the last few decades?
Does the OP agree with every single view point espoused by any member of a party whom he sticks an X in a box for?
"
Wanting the Labour Party to change direction doesn’t excuse the Greens hitching their wagon to a bunch of homophobic mysogynists.
Chasing the Gaza obsessed Muslim vote will eventually clash with the ‘trans women are women’ mob… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
People like Polanski mean well, jaw jaw etc and international conventions that Nations agree with and abide by..
But..
When a state like Iran acts as it has, with its repeated threats and is not going to change then it cant be left to the point where it has the capability to destroy a city..
They care less about their own people with their obsessions to kill others..
There's a naivety about polanski plus playing politics.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"I completely agree that the Iranian regime’s actions against its own people are evil and that we shouldn't stand by. But the idea that 'doing something' must mean military strikes is a dangerous simplification.
If we look at the last 25 years, from Iraq to Libya, Western military intervention has consistently failed to improve civilian lives. In Libya, an intervention sold as 'humanitarian' turned the country into a failed state with ongoing civil war. In Iraq, a 'regime change' war led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and the birth of ISIS.
Zack Polanski’s point isn't that we should ignore the suffering of Iranians; it's that we should stop repeating the same mistake of thinking we can bomb a country into a better future. Opposing an illegal, unprovoked war that would likely kill thousands more innocent people isn't 'racist' or 'lazy'—it’s learning the lessons of history. There is a huge difference between 'doing nothing' and refusing to start another catastrophic war that will only cause more civilian blood to be spilled.
"
With respect, stating that the current military action is wrong while admitting everything tried thus far has not worked, while not suggesting an alternative is basically saying to do nothing.
6 years ago, even 6 months ago, that might have been an option. But the Iranian people have literally stepped into the firing line. The regime has shown they are going to murder anyone who stands against them.
Some problems are important, but not urgent.
Some problems are urgent but not important.
Some are neither
This one is both in my opinion but some clearly don’t agree.
How many have to die before it’s urgent? A million? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"I completely agree that the Iranian regime’s actions against its own people are evil and that we shouldn't stand by. But the idea that 'doing something' must mean military strikes is a dangerous simplification.
If we look at the last 25 years, from Iraq to Libya, Western military intervention has consistently failed to improve civilian lives. In Libya, an intervention sold as 'humanitarian' turned the country into a failed state with ongoing civil war. In Iraq, a 'regime change' war led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and the birth of ISIS.
Zack Polanski’s point isn't that we should ignore the suffering of Iranians; it's that we should stop repeating the same mistake of thinking we can bomb a country into a better future. Opposing an illegal, unprovoked war that would likely kill thousands more innocent people isn't 'racist' or 'lazy'—it’s learning the lessons of history. There is a huge difference between 'doing nothing' and refusing to start another catastrophic war that will only cause more civilian blood to be spilled.
With respect, stating that the current military action is wrong while admitting everything tried thus far has not worked, while not suggesting an alternative is basically saying to do nothing.
6 years ago, even 6 months ago, that might have been an option. But the Iranian people have literally stepped into the firing line. The regime has shown they are going to murder anyone who stands against them.
Some problems are important, but not urgent.
Some problems are urgent but not important.
Some are neither
This one is both in my opinion but some clearly don’t agree.
How many have to die before it’s urgent? A million? "
The question is not the number of deaths, the question is about the processes of going to war - like it or not, they can’t just be skipped. Take that to its natural conclusion and you have a free for all.
Trump ignored both international and domestic processes here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has the OP considered that people on the left may vote Green warts & all in the hope it nudges the party that would ordinarily be expected to be ‘Centre Left’ (Labour) back to such a position seeing as they seem to have vacated it over the last few decades?
Does the OP agree with every single view point espoused by any member of a party whom he sticks an X in a box for?
Wanting the Labour Party to change direction doesn’t excuse the Greens hitching their wagon to a bunch of homophobic mysogynists.
Chasing the Gaza obsessed Muslim vote will eventually clash with the ‘trans women are women’ mob…"
The Greens are just following Corbyn's playbook. It will help them gather a decent number of votes to make themselves relevant in politics. But the inherent conflicts in their ideology will catch up in the general elections.
There will be debates where the media will focus on their views on LGBT and Mothin Ali's views on the same. They will eventually retain only the votes from fringe groups as most others will see that they are a bunch of frauds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"Has the OP considered that people on the left may vote Green warts & all in the hope it nudges the party that would ordinarily be expected to be ‘Centre Left’ (Labour) back to such a position seeing as they seem to have vacated it over the last few decades?
Does the OP agree with every single view point espoused by any member of a party whom he sticks an X in a box for?
Wanting the Labour Party to change direction doesn’t excuse the Greens hitching their wagon to a bunch of homophobic mysogynists.
Chasing the Gaza obsessed Muslim vote will eventually clash with the ‘trans women are women’ mob…
The Greens are just following Corbyn's playbook. It will help them gather a decent number of votes to make themselves relevant in politics. But the inherent conflicts in their ideology will catch up in the general elections.
There will be debates where the media will focus on their views on LGBT and Mothin Ali's views on the same. They will eventually retain only the votes from fringe groups as most others will see that they are a bunch of frauds."
The cult of personality in fringe politics is nothing new though. Zack is a massively popular, charismatic leader who has got the greens in the national picture
If Farage left reform tomorrow their support would equally plummet as UKIP’s did when he left them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"Has the OP considered that people on the left may vote Green warts & all in the hope it nudges the party that would ordinarily be expected to be ‘Centre Left’ (Labour) back to such a position seeing as they seem to have vacated it over the last few decades?
Does the OP agree with every single view point espoused by any member of a party whom he sticks an X in a box for?
Wanting the Labour Party to change direction doesn’t excuse the Greens hitching their wagon to a bunch of homophobic mysogynists.
Chasing the Gaza obsessed Muslim vote will eventually clash with the ‘trans women are women’ mob…
The Greens are just following Corbyn's playbook. It will help them gather a decent number of votes to make themselves relevant in politics. But the inherent conflicts in their ideology will catch up in the general elections.
There will be debates where the media will focus on their views on LGBT and Mothin Ali's views on the same. They will eventually retain only the votes from fringe groups as most others will see that they are a bunch of frauds."
I agree. I can understand them celebrating their win, but if they actually think a 10% swing to the right in one of the most far left seats in the country is a good sign for them, they are even more crazy than their manifesto ideas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has the OP considered that people on the left may vote Green warts & all in the hope it nudges the party that would ordinarily be expected to be ‘Centre Left’ (Labour) back to such a position seeing as they seem to have vacated it over the last few decades?
Does the OP agree with every single view point espoused by any member of a party whom he sticks an X in a box for?
Wanting the Labour Party to change direction doesn’t excuse the Greens hitching their wagon to a bunch of homophobic mysogynists.
Chasing the Gaza obsessed Muslim vote will eventually clash with the ‘trans women are women’ mob…
The Greens are just following Corbyn's playbook. It will help them gather a decent number of votes to make themselves relevant in politics. But the inherent conflicts in their ideology will catch up in the general elections.
There will be debates where the media will focus on their views on LGBT and Mothin Ali's views on the same. They will eventually retain only the votes from fringe groups as most others will see that they are a bunch of frauds.
The cult of personality in fringe politics is nothing new though. Zack is a massively popular, charismatic leader who has got the greens in the national picture
If Farage left reform tomorrow their support would equally plummet as UKIP’s did when he left them."
You’re probably right there, but what does that say about the the voters?
Some say Andy Burnham would’ve won the by-election for Labour.
Are we really that shallow? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has the OP considered that people on the left may vote Green warts & all in the hope it nudges the party that would ordinarily be expected to be ‘Centre Left’ (Labour) back to such a position seeing as they seem to have vacated it over the last few decades?
Does the OP agree with every single view point espoused by any member of a party whom he sticks an X in a box for?
Wanting the Labour Party to change direction doesn’t excuse the Greens hitching their wagon to a bunch of homophobic mysogynists.
Chasing the Gaza obsessed Muslim vote will eventually clash with the ‘trans women are women’ mob…
The Greens are just following Corbyn's playbook. It will help them gather a decent number of votes to make themselves relevant in politics. But the inherent conflicts in their ideology will catch up in the general elections.
There will be debates where the media will focus on their views on LGBT and Mothin Ali's views on the same. They will eventually retain only the votes from fringe groups as most others will see that they are a bunch of frauds.
The cult of personality in fringe politics is nothing new though. Zack is a massively popular, charismatic leader who has got the greens in the national picture
If Farage left reform tomorrow their support would equally plummet as UKIP’s did when he left them."
I agree that Zack has a better personality compared to Corbyn and he may be a bit more successful in his endeavours to blind the people of the party's conflicting views on each issues. Same with Farage. Guy managed to take most of the popular ex Tories while running on a platform blaming Tories for all the issues in the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has the OP considered that people on the left may vote Green warts & all in the hope it nudges the party that would ordinarily be expected to be ‘Centre Left’ (Labour) back to such a position seeing as they seem to have vacated it over the last few decades?
Does the OP agree with every single view point espoused by any member of a party whom he sticks an X in a box for?
Wanting the Labour Party to change direction doesn’t excuse the Greens hitching their wagon to a bunch of homophobic mysogynists.
Chasing the Gaza obsessed Muslim vote will eventually clash with the ‘trans women are women’ mob…
The Greens are just following Corbyn's playbook. It will help them gather a decent number of votes to make themselves relevant in politics. But the inherent conflicts in their ideology will catch up in the general elections.
There will be debates where the media will focus on their views on LGBT and Mothin Ali's views on the same. They will eventually retain only the votes from fringe groups as most others will see that they are a bunch of frauds.
The cult of personality in fringe politics is nothing new though. Zack is a massively popular, charismatic leader who has got the greens in the national picture
If Farage left reform tomorrow their support would equally plummet as UKIP’s did when he left them.
You’re probably right there, but what does that say about the the voters?
Some say Andy Burnham would’ve won the by-election for Labour.
Are we really that shallow?"
I think it's just that societies generally go around in circles. They pick a charismatic guy who wins elections and fucks up. Then they vote for a boring bureaucrat who does nothing much to change people's lives and they go to another charismatic person who promises the world. And the cycle goes on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Zack is a massively popular, charismatic leader ..."
Is he?
I don't pay much attention to the Greens, but I saw Zack for the first time on The Last Leg over the weekend. To me he came across as, well, a bit simple, and desperate for the attention. Maybe he put on a really bad performance for that one show, but from that performance I don't see the charisma at all.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone can point me to a video where he comes across well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Zack is just another delusional, middle class liberal who thinks your average fanatical fundamentalist is just misunderstood and, basically, a nice person really.
If they turn out to be terrorists, it’s not their fault. They were mentally ill and the locals were far right racists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 9 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Zack is a massively popular, charismatic leader ...
Is he?
I don't pay much attention to the Greens, but I saw Zack for the first time on The Last Leg over the weekend. To me he came across as, well, a bit simple, and desperate for the attention. Maybe he put on a really bad performance for that one show, but from that performance I don't see the charisma at all.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone can point me to a video where he comes across well."
He probably connects well with his target audience.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"Zack is a massively popular, charismatic leader ...
Is he?
I don't pay much attention to the Greens, but I saw Zack for the first time on The Last Leg over the weekend. To me he came across as, well, a bit simple, and desperate for the attention. Maybe he put on a really bad performance for that one show, but from that performance I don't see the charisma at all.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone can point me to a video where he comes across well."
That’s going to be personal - for me, I fail to understand the popularity of Farage, but some fawn over his very word. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"Zack is just another delusional, middle class liberal who thinks your average fanatical fundamentalist is just misunderstood and, basically, a nice person really.
If they turn out to be terrorists, it’s not their fault. They were mentally ill and the locals were far right racists."
Yep. Lefties have a strange view of a lot of things. I do wonder if it should be treated as mental illness. Do they still do lobotomies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"Zack is just another delusional, middle class liberal who thinks your average fanatical fundamentalist is just misunderstood and, basically, a nice person really.
If they turn out to be terrorists, it’s not their fault. They were mentally ill and the locals were far right racists.
Yep. Lefties have a strange view of a lot of things. I do wonder if it should be treated as mental illness. Do they still do lobotomies? "
Are you still accusing people of ‘supporting Iran’ if they aren’t going full-Rambo mode? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Zack is a massively popular, charismatic leader ...
Is he?
I don't pay much attention to the Greens, but I saw Zack for the first time on The Last Leg over the weekend. To me he came across as, well, a bit simple, and desperate for the attention. Maybe he put on a really bad performance for that one show, but from that performance I don't see the charisma at all.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone can point me to a video where he comes across well.
He probably connects well with his target audience.."
Yeah he seems to say all the right things for the middle class progressive types. I saw an interview where he struggled a lot to give answers about his views on nuclear weapons and even some questions on budget and finance. Yet some left wing subreddits were in love with him and were criticising the media for "targeting" him with those questions.
Considering the fact that their previous favourite was Corbyn, the bar for charisma was pretty low anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"Most of what polanski says is bollocks, complete la la land .."
They wanna spend an extra £160 billion but not said where they are gonna get it from.
Should people who don’t pay tax have a say on what the tax rates should be for people who do? Or how that tax money is spent?
These lefties wouldn’t dream of allowing me to tell them how to spend theirs benefits.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most of what polanski says is bollocks, complete la la land ..
They wanna spend an extra £160 billion but not said where they are gonna get it from.
Should people who don’t pay tax have a say on what the tax rates should be for people who do? Or how that tax money is spent?
These lefties wouldn’t dream of allowing me to tell them how to spend theirs benefits.
"
That's equally bloody nonsense fella..
Educate yourself .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"Most of what polanski says is bollocks, complete la la land ..
They wanna spend an extra £160 billion but not said where they are gonna get it from.
Should people who don’t pay tax have a say on what the tax rates should be for people who do? Or how that tax money is spent?
These lefties wouldn’t dream of allowing me to tell them how to spend theirs benefits.
That's equally bloody nonsense fella..
Educate yourself .."
There was a large element of sarcasm mate, but we are already past the point where there’s less nett contributors than there are receivers.
When your policy is to take more money from Peter so you can give more to Paul, you can always count on Paul’s support at the ballot box |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"
Should people who don’t pay tax have a say on what the tax rates should be for people who do? Or how that tax money is spent?
"
You mean the offshore mob? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most of what polanski says is bollocks, complete la la land ..
They wanna spend an extra £160 billion but not said where they are gonna get it from.
Should people who don’t pay tax have a say on what the tax rates should be for people who do? Or how that tax money is spent?
These lefties wouldn’t dream of allowing me to tell them how to spend theirs benefits.
That's equally bloody nonsense fella..
Educate yourself ..
There was a large element of sarcasm mate, but we are already past the point where there’s less nett contributors than there are receivers.
When your policy is to take more money from Peter so you can give more to Paul, you can always count on Paul’s support at the ballot box "
We are in agreement that polanski is pandering to the naive and what he says is not achievable..
And as one who's leanings are left on sone areas, socially democratic or whatever the lables are I'm pretty consistent in my long held views that there are some who take the piss and game the system as a lifestyle choice which boils my piss..
Equally those who tax evade boil my piss ..
Welfare is critical to a decent modern society and those in need have to be supported whether that's short-term or longer if they are genuinely unable to contribute .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"Most of what polanski says is bollocks, complete la la land ..
They wanna spend an extra £160 billion but not said where they are gonna get it from.
Should people who don’t pay tax have a say on what the tax rates should be for people who do? Or how that tax money is spent?
These lefties wouldn’t dream of allowing me to tell them how to spend theirs benefits.
That's equally bloody nonsense fella..
Educate yourself ..
There was a large element of sarcasm mate, but we are already past the point where there’s less nett contributors than there are receivers.
When your policy is to take more money from Peter so you can give more to Paul, you can always count on Paul’s support at the ballot box
We are in agreement that polanski is pandering to the naive and what he says is not achievable..
And as one who's leanings are left on sone areas, socially democratic or whatever the lables are I'm pretty consistent in my long held views that there are some who take the piss and game the system as a lifestyle choice which boils my piss..
Equally those who tax evade boil my piss ..
Welfare is critical to a decent modern society and those in need have to be supported whether that's short-term or longer if they are genuinely unable to contribute .."
All in favour of a welfare system to support those who fall on hard times and to support those who can’t work for medical reason. I personally think those medical reasons have been stretched to include “I don’t want to work so I’ll say I have a bad back or anxiety”.
I don’t think we do enough to tackle benefit fraud. I know the argument is that it can very often cost more to catch the culprits than it would to just hand over the money, but for me it’s a matter of principle. I think if the consequences of fraud are that you have to pay the money back and can never claim again, people may think twice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
". I personally think those medical reasons have been stretched to include “I don’t want to work so I’ll say I have a bad back or anxiety”.
"
Growing up there was a bloke who loved over the road, who never worked a day in his life (my parents wording) because he had ‘a bad back’ even though you’d see him pottering in his garden, lugging things in and out of the house etc. that was 35+ years ago.
There’s nothing new under the sun.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most of what polanski says is bollocks, complete la la land ..
They wanna spend an extra £160 billion but not said where they are gonna get it from.
Should people who don’t pay tax have a say on what the tax rates should be for people who do? Or how that tax money is spent?
These lefties wouldn’t dream of allowing me to tell them how to spend theirs benefits.
That's equally bloody nonsense fella..
Educate yourself ..
There was a large element of sarcasm mate, but we are already past the point where there’s less nett contributors than there are receivers.
When your policy is to take more money from Peter so you can give more to Paul, you can always count on Paul’s support at the ballot box
We are in agreement that polanski is pandering to the naive and what he says is not achievable..
And as one who's leanings are left on sone areas, socially democratic or whatever the lables are I'm pretty consistent in my long held views that there are some who take the piss and game the system as a lifestyle choice which boils my piss..
Equally those who tax evade boil my piss ..
Welfare is critical to a decent modern society and those in need have to be supported whether that's short-term or longer if they are genuinely unable to contribute ..
All in favour of a welfare system to support those who fall on hard times and to support those who can’t work for medical reason. I personally think those medical reasons have been stretched to include “I don’t want to work so I’ll say I have a bad back or anxiety”.
I don’t think we do enough to tackle benefit fraud. I know the argument is that it can very often cost more to catch the culprits than it would to just hand over the money, but for me it’s a matter of principle. I think if the consequences of fraud are that you have to pay the money back and can never claim again, people may think twice. "
I cant disagree with that in principle but I also want the same rigour applied to those who duck their obligations tax wise which far exceeds the amount lost through the above..
The system however is designed to allow the rich and powerful to do so.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"Most of what polanski says is bollocks, complete la la land ..
They wanna spend an extra £160 billion but not said where they are gonna get it from.
Should people who don’t pay tax have a say on what the tax rates should be for people who do? Or how that tax money is spent?
These lefties wouldn’t dream of allowing me to tell them how to spend theirs benefits.
That's equally bloody nonsense fella..
Educate yourself ..
There was a large element of sarcasm mate, but we are already past the point where there’s less nett contributors than there are receivers.
When your policy is to take more money from Peter so you can give more to Paul, you can always count on Paul’s support at the ballot box
We are in agreement that polanski is pandering to the naive and what he says is not achievable..
And as one who's leanings are left on sone areas, socially democratic or whatever the lables are I'm pretty consistent in my long held views that there are some who take the piss and game the system as a lifestyle choice which boils my piss..
Equally those who tax evade boil my piss ..
Welfare is critical to a decent modern society and those in need have to be supported whether that's short-term or longer if they are genuinely unable to contribute ..
All in favour of a welfare system to support those who fall on hard times and to support those who can’t work for medical reason. I personally think those medical reasons have been stretched to include “I don’t want to work so I’ll say I have a bad back or anxiety”.
I don’t think we do enough to tackle benefit fraud. I know the argument is that it can very often cost more to catch the culprits than it would to just hand over the money, but for me it’s a matter of principle. I think if the consequences of fraud are that you have to pay the money back and can never claim again, people may think twice.
I cant disagree with that in principle but I also want the same rigour applied to those who duck their obligations tax wise which far exceeds the amount lost through the above..
The system however is designed to allow the rich and powerful to do so.."
I agree that tax evasion should also be tackled with the same vigour. We may disagree with how much effort goes into each, as I personally think benefits fraud is almost thought of as a non crime is certain circles.
I think the tax system as a whole creates loopholes by being too diverse and complex…
A PAYE employee on £35k takes home just under £28k. Then pays a further 20% on just about everything they buy except food. If they save any money they pay tax on any interest they get. If they drink alcohol or smoke that’s taxed at a higher rate. If they drive a car it’s taxed at a higher rate etc. the government try to take a bite out of everything. And when you die, despite it having been taxed dozens of times over, if you leave a decent amount money to your kids, the government takes a third of it. I’d say the overall tax burden is close to 100%.
Smoking and drinking costs the NHS and that’s why they are taxed we are told. Well over eating costs the NHS as well. So do sports injuries. Where do you draw the line? My mother smoked all her life and barely cost the NHS a penny in relation to her smoking. My father drank 60 odd units of alcohol most of his life and never cost the NHS a penny because of the consequences of that.
In my opinion the fairest tax is income tax. It’s not straight forward when it comes to the self employed I know, but i personally think all other taxes with the exception of some form vehicle use tax, should be scrapped. Lots of people don’t use the roads so shouldn’t have to pay to build and maintain them, but other than that, take it at source and it’s all but impossible to avoid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"Lots of people don’t use the roads so shouldn’t have to pay to build and maintain them, "
Don’t they have deliveries? Don’t they need services which use roads? Don’t they want the safety of a fire service or ambulance service which use roads?
This ‘I don’t use it so I shouldn’t pay for it’ is the very antithesis of functioning society.
Example: I wouldn’t use a youth club - But if such a thing existed to help stop kids hanging round on street corners, that’s better for all, isn’t it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
The problem with the ‘only the strong survive’ approach to taxation, where you leave people to fend for themselves and remove state support, remove taxation funding for services etc, is that many people who *think* they’d be financially able to cope, actually have no idea how out of their depth they’d actually be.
The billionaires won’t let you in their gated communities, bro.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
