Jumpergate - Cameron believes wrapping up warm is way to beat rising energy bills

then why did you say this?

Ok, you didn't specifically say I was bashing all rich people, but then why did you quote what I said and then say

 

Because:
'Whatever their (peoples) changing incomes they (people) are still going to be broadly either in the top 1% or the other 99%, aren't they?'

I read: 'As long as incomes are not equal, the wealthiest 1% will have more money than the rest per person'

...as, that is how it will always be. Not some desire to see incomes more equal - I can see that is what you meant.

Erm, because I thought it was 'bashing' rich people (as in, a little unfairly)

 

well, what was the unfair part?

 

Start>Finish


Ok, not really.

It would help if you were specific (name names) rather than painting with a broad brush...
It would help if you mentioned something other than them either being detrimental to people and the planet or only capable of 'ridiculous wasteful extravagance'.
It seems the only people that can be rich are people 'producing real value'.

You did cover all the bases (including seemingly being fair) - but my overwhelming feeling is there are not many rich people on your moral high ground...

 

I was really looking forward to this thread, because I thought it was a thread for bashing the religitard known as Kirk Cameron.

 

I'm not sure what the break down is far as what percentage of rich people might be fairly considered as having earned their money or not.

There might not be so many people on my list of worthy rich people, but if so, it's because of their actions rather than a knee-jerk anti-rich agenda.

Someone like Bill Gates made his money by making cheap knock-offs of other people's software and getting market share.

On the other hand, he has given away billions of dollars.

In most cases, I think that rich people usually do some valuable thing, but there is also a negative side to how they got rich.

 

Feel free to.

 

So, how's all that big gov't working out for you across the pond?

 

2009:
David Cameron said "this big government has reached the end of the road" in his conference address to the Tory conference in Manchester.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs3DSq5u3o"]David Cameron speech: 'Government got too big' - YouTube

BIG SOCIETY
We are helping people to come together to improve their own lives. The Big Society is about putting more power in people's hands - a massive transfer of power from Whitehall to local communities. We want to see people encouraged and enabled to play a more active role in society.

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Big_Society.aspx

 

I can see it, I'm actually posting from Canada so that might be why.

And I agree with what he said. But yeah.. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

deviate
'But yeah.. Let me know how that works out for you.'

What exactly?

 

Continuing to look to gov't for the solutions to problems. Until the gov't is there for

- highway and road maintenance
- defense, and by defense I mean defense not aggression
- to lock up people committing forcible and violent crimes

..and that is it. We will all be on this endless cycle of bullshit. Fear, instability, prosperity, recession, prosperity, recession.

 

being AWESOME!

 

Are you talking about me now or 'the people'?
I thought you were talking about the UK government.

Highway/Road maintenance? Lol...rather random.

 

Deviate...

Ever think it should be:

Serving the public trust (democracy, constitutional rights etc)
Protecting the innocent (defense, emergency services: fire, police, health care etc)
Upholding the law (well, erm, law etc)

?

 

Speaking in general terms. But yeah, I would say you fall into that camp, most people do.

And in the US it's needed federally because of interstate highway systems. Not random at all.

The gov't doesn't serve the Constitution, the Constitution limits the gov't powers. This is why they have continually pissed on it and eroded it away. To increasingly centralize their powers.

I can see defense being federally controlled as important, as I've already stated. But I'm also sure the private sector could do it better and more efficiently. Emergency services are local/state matters. Health care should be single payer and/or handled on local/state level.

It'd be great if the feds upheld the law. As it is now, they are above the law and have imposed a bunch of erroneous, control based laws. For example the drug war being institutionalized racism and classism, and criminalizing consensual, nonviolent acts to the point the punishment outweighs the 'crime' by a long shot. I can't think of a single amendment not violated by that institution.

 

deviate

'Emergency services are local/state matters. Health care should be single payer and/or handled on local/state level.'

Are you somehow differentiating between 'government' and 'local/state matters'?
Reading your last post, I do still think mentioning 'Highway/Road maintenance' and not healthcare/emergency service, police etc is a little random.
But it seems certain things you don't see as 'government' and other things you do.



Sorry for going all Robocop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8W6vDo_L3w"]ZX Spectrum: Robocop - Directives - YouTube

 

Pfft, no one should ever have to apologize for going Robocop.