Sexyslut79's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

sexyslut79

Over 90 days ago

Bi-curious Female, 45

•

Straight Male, 65

0 miles · Bristol

Profile Follows

Groups Meets Parties Stories

Forum

21 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
Aww, gawd.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
lecturer noun
Definition:
someone who teaches at a college or university.
If a university lecturer is not a teacher, and post grads are past the stage of being impressionable - ie not in their place to be influenced in the furtherance of their education...
What do lecturers actually do to command their salary and why do post grads actually bother going back to university?
No wonder the UK educational system is in such a fucking mess with lecturers who don't teach (but admit to smoking odd smelling substances whilst sat under a tree) and students who are not at University to learn.
Beggars belief.
Incidentally, the nuances of the double entendre in my reference to gravity seem to have been lost on you. Perhaps your mind was elsewhere?

Well this is the first time I have looked at this forum and it will certainly be my last. Half the people who have attacked my husband I recognise as people who have contacted us and been rejected-including the writer of this message -sour grapes perhaps, and rather pathetic in boys let alone men .Both they, and the other half moreover seem incapable of expressing themselves properly in their own language and if they can, demonstrate that their vocabularies are nonetheless limited by swearing like the writer of this message.
You may be, as my husband says "the kind of people who don't know much but think they do and are therefore fun to wind up' but I will do my utmost to persuade him to stop wasting his time debating with you. And to the rather silly man who called him an 'old git"-he is in far better shape than you will ever be and still climbs mountains in the Himalaya. You would probably collapse if you tried to get up a small hill in the South Downs .

21 Apr 2011

Quote by robbo-bi1
Am I wrong in thinking that the queen shares her birthday with Adolf Hitler and Sadam Hussein?
I'm afraid the pressures of work will prevent me from forum chatting for a time, but I shall look forward to sparring with you again.A worthy opponent .

100% wrong on both of those birthdays.
Adolf Hitler 20th April
Sadam Hussein 28th April
The old git has 2 to choose from and neither fit unfortunately.
Interesting that they should be born at roughly the same time of the year and have so many qualities in common though-and the fixed flags in Regent Street would not have seemed strange to someone going to a street party in Nuremburg in the 1930s.
Seig Heil, Your Majesty!

21 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
pmsl. Well, now I know you've lost the plot big time and you still can't get the quote thing right.
"I rest my case"
Oh, and thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated.

No I can't get the quote thing right and I'd welcome some instruction on how to do so. But I think I've made my point. In contrast, it seems, to your good self, I do know something about political philosophy and economic theory and perhaps because of this I neither incline towards the Left as some users of the forum do or to the Right as you clearly do, but take an overview.
I note by the way that like others of your age and persuasion, you admire Lord Mountbatten, rather than the far more respectworthy Gandhi or even Nehru. You are aware, I take it that Mountbatten's first language was German, that he was a closet homosexual, and that Nehru disrespected him enough to have an affair with his wife?
Here are some wonderful words by George Bernard Shaw - Those who can do, those who can't teach.
I note that you are neither a Politician nor an economist but, by your own admission, a teacher (and by all accounts not providing a very good example to the impressionable youth in today's society) so the quote seems pertinent.
I trust the OP will indulge my wandering off topic here but please tell me, as a philosopher, how can it be that a man such as Nehru can be both respect worthy and disrespectful at the same time?
And besides, what point do you seek to make by reminding your reader of the origins of the Battenberg family? And what perverse reason could there possibly be in your mind to mention suggestions as to his sexuality (when indeed, the very same was suggested of Nehru himself!)? Your profile calls for Bi Females and fair haired males so perhaps there may be a clue there dunno

dunno

Anyway, enough of trading insults to each other's intelligence. I'm sure you can find a suitable tree to sit under and contemplate the world through a haze of funny smelling smoke but I'm afraid it's a bit too early in the year to be expecting apples to fall off branches so you can exercise your mind on matters of gravity. :wink:
Oh, and finally, Happy 85th today your Majesty. Long may you continue to reign in good health.
Actually I am a university lecturer not a teacher, and I lecture only post-graduates who are, one hopes, past the stage of being impressionable. But well done for quoting one of the founder members of the Fabian Society-there is hope for you yet it seems.
Tut tut, insinuations!!
As to your question about Nehru, Heidegger can provide you with an answer as I'm sure a sagacious and erudite man such as yourself will remember immediately.
The story of Isaac Newton and his apples is, I fear, as true as the story of Archimedes and his bath or, to put it another way, 'twaddle'.
Am I wrong in thinking that the queen shares her birthday with Adolf Hitler and Sadam Hussein?
I'm afraid the pressures of work will prevent me from forum chatting for a time, but I shall look forward to sparring with you again.A worthy opponent . :wink:
my thanks to my wife, a mere psychology graduate, for reminding me that GBS was not a founding member of the FS, just a member.

21 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
pmsl. Well, now I know you've lost the plot big time and you still can't get the quote thing right.
"I rest my case"
Oh, and thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated.

No I can't get the quote thing right and I'd welcome some instruction on how to do so. But I think I've made my point. In contrast, it seems, to your good self, I do know something about political philosophy and economic theory and perhaps because of this I neither incline towards the Left as some users of the forum do or to the Right as you clearly do, but take an overview.
I note by the way that like others of your age and persuasion, you admire Lord Mountbatten, rather than the far more respectworthy Gandhi or even Nehru. You are aware, I take it that Mountbatten's first language was German, that he was a closet homosexual, and that Nehru disrespected him enough to have an affair with his wife?

20 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
snip
As I said, I am an Historian and not an Economist, and won't comment on something I know little or nothing about.

so you didn`t write this then :silly:

Quote by sexyslut79
No Way!!! If anything, people shouldn't be allowed to vote unless they can show, by means of a test, that they understand the political and economic philosophies of the parties standing in the elections and the implications of those philosophies for society and the economy. How many people voted for Thatcher and then complained about the prices of travel on trains after they had been privatised, or about the state of public services after she had been in power for a few years? If they had understood Conservative Party political philosophy and the Friedmanite economic philosophy then they would have known what was going to happen. In any case, no political party would make voting compulsory in the knowledge that all those who don't want to vote would vote against them in retalliation.

It is one thing to understand a philosophy, and another thing to know whether it works and for whom. I knew what Friedman's ideas were and so I opposed the party who had taken them on board. The defence rests.
Twaddle. Squirming like a snake on the end of a pole. Rob got you bang to rights on this one. I hope you don't lecture law students...

Quote by ="sexyslut79
The defence rests.

They have a life of failed cases to look forward to if you do.
Your use of the term 'twaddle' makes it transparently clear to me that you are a highly erudite man and I wait with baited breath to read your summaries of the economic theories of Friedman and Keynes, and of the political philosophies of Edmund Burke and John Locke and their relevance to the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. Could I also beg you to enlighten us all as to the origins of social democracy and tell us all about the Second International . Perhaps whilst you're at it, if you have the time, you could tell us what a libertarian conservative is and which Conservative MPS regard themselves as libertarians, and whether you incline towards libertarianism or might also do us the kindness of telling us about the think tanks which advise the major political parties in Britain such as Demos and the Fabian Society and, again if you have the time,tell us all about Plato, Aristotle and the origins of democracy.

20 Apr 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
snip
As I said, I am an Historian and not an Economist, and won't comment on something I know little or nothing about.

so you didn`t write this then :silly:

Quote by sexyslut79
No Way!!! If anything, people shouldn't be allowed to vote unless they can show, by means of a test, that they understand the political and economic philosophies of the parties standing in the elections and the implications of those philosophies for society and the economy. How many people voted for Thatcher and then complained about the prices of travel on trains after they had been privatised, or about the state of public services after she had been in power for a few years? If they had understood Conservative Party political philosophy and the Friedmanite economic philosophy then they would have known what was going to happen. In any case, no political party would make voting compulsory in the knowledge that all those who don't want to vote would vote against them in retalliation.

It is one thing to understand a philosophy, and another thing to know whether it works and for whom. I knew what Friedman's ideas were and so I opposed the party who had taken them on board. The defence rests.

20 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
I only said Robespierre had the right idea with regard to the royalty.

To which you alluded disposing of them by guillotine as under Robespierre's terrorist regime.

Quote by sexyslut79
...one does not have to be a 'leftist' to be anti-monarchy as most of the inhabitants of the United States of America , France, Italy, , Adolf Hitler, Oliver Cromwell and indeed Robespierre himself would confirm.

At odds with your comment is the fact that the peoples of these Countries will be flocking in their thousands to see the event first hand; good news for the British economy! Those who cannot will be glued to their TV sets to wish the happy couple every success in their new life together. Sadly, Herr Hitler and Robespierre will be prevented from enjoying the event.

Quote by sexyslut79
I am not quite sure why you raised the matter of the IRA in a discussion concerning the British royal family-the IRA seem as irrelevant to me in this context as Jason and the Argonauts. Perhaps you could clarify things for me.

Of course. You alluded to disposing of the Royal family in an act of terrorism as would be the preferred method of your chosen champion, Robespierre (see above). I helpfully provided a quote by Robespierre as follows...

Quote by Robespierre
"Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie"

to which I linked the untimely deaths - at the hands of Irish Republican fundamentalists for whom Robespierre's words must surely be a clarion call - of a member of the institution of lawful Governance, a very well respected member of the Royal family (Lord Mountbatten of Burma) and ordinary members of the public. I trust you can now see relevance.

Quote by sexyslut79
I am intrigued by your supposition that I have 'leftist tendencies'.As I neither believe that people are the way they are because of nurture or nature, but both , and I neither believe in complete state ownership of property nor complete individual ownership of property then I cannot be deemed as having either 'leftist' or 'rightist' tendencies. Perhaps I could be deemed as having 'centrist' the other hand it could just be that like most people I can find some common ground, to varying degrees, with every political party that there is from the BNP through the major three parties to the Socialist Alliance.

Perhaps you are right.
But why be so disparaging about another member who may not be as educated as you are or not able to articulate things in the way you might be capable of? That smacks of elitism and your references to Herr Hitler and Robespierre might suggest that 'centrist' is way short of the mark.
It may indeed be that thousands of people from countries where they very sensibly do not have monarchies will be flocking to see the
wedding of whichever chinless goof is marrying Kate Middleclass, but I am sure that millions won't be.
I have already clarified my position on Robespierre; he is not my 'champion'.
I may be wrong, but you seem to suspect that because I am a republican I must therefore support the Irish Republicans (and presumably the Republican Party in the United States of America too). Let me clarify my position for you. There is more chance of Osama bin Laden retiring to Lourdes and opening a charcuterie there than there is of my ever supporting the IRA and unlike the government and press in this country I am in full support of the measures taken by the Sri Lankese government to deal with the IRA's counterparts in that part of the world, the LTTE, popularly known as the Tamil Tigers
In my opinion, ignorance and arrogance born of ignorance are at the root of a greater part of Mankind's problems, and perhaps this answers your last question.
I didn't describe myself as a 'centrist'.I simply pointed out that one does not have to have 'leftist' tendencies to be a republican and that Hitler, who was, I am sure you'll agree, very far from having 'leftist' tendencies, was a republican.
It's good to see that my posts have resulted in so much vigorous discussion .
Suggesting that we should chop the heads off members of the Royal family suggests a level of extremism I'd rather not visit.
I do wish you would learn to use the excellent quote facilities here in the forum. The bit in red appears to be attributed to me but it is not, just to be clear.
I think there was a similar issue with one of Max's posts in this thread too. It took me ages to try and unravel it all.
You do like to change your mind a lot, don't you!
I suppose it would seem like that to one who doesn't read my posts properly.

20 Apr 2011

Quote by Illicit_friends
A big YES from me for AV. It could be a once in a life time opportunity to change our massively flawed current system.
It should always be about a majority vote. Isn't that what democracy is all about ?
Over a 2/3 of MP's elected in current system don't have a majority vote in their constituencies.... they should all be made to work for this. They will have to appeal to a much large section of their constituents to achieve this, so again a good thing for the public.
The fact that only 3 countries currently use the system is neither here nor there. Firstly lets not forget that a lot of countries only offer 2 choices, so AV is obviously not needed there. We should be proud to be leading the way in trying to bring a fairer voting system that will benefit everyone apart from the workshy MP's that currently sit in 'safe' seats that they believe makes them untouchable.
To hear people saying AV will help the lunatic fringe parties like the BNP etc. is absolutely ridiculous, and yet more lies peddled by the No campaign. It will in fact hinder their chances..... Why do you think the BNP are so against AV ?
AV works, and is the fairer system by far.... The 3 main parties all elect their leaders using this or similar systems. In fact Cameron wouldn't have been Tory leader if they used the FPTP system, would of been David Davis. So it's good enough for him but not for the people ?

Well said.

20 Apr 2011

Quote by Max777

I assume the paragraph I have highlighted in red is yours Sexyslut? If you had bothered to read earlier posts you would have seen where I got the figures from.
Would you please advise me as to which university you supposedly lecture at? My daughter intends to read history in a year or two and I want to ensure that her tuition fees are not wasted.

unlike the lecturer sitting under a tree bolt

bolt

smoking something illegal... tut tut
Let's just hope the illegal substances don't have a negative impact on his mental state...I resent paying my taxes so the NHS can treat those suffering from self induced psychosis!
Consider me rebuked. As to my mental state, it is true that my psychiatrist told me I was paranoid-but he's always had it in for me lol

lol

20 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
I only said Robespierre had the right idea with regard to the royalty.

To which you alluded disposing of them by guillotine as under Robespierre's terrorist regime.

Quote by sexyslut79
...one does not have to be a 'leftist' to be anti-monarchy as most of the inhabitants of the United States of America , France, Italy, , Adolf Hitler, Oliver Cromwell and indeed Robespierre himself would confirm.

At odds with your comment is the fact that the peoples of these Countries will be flocking in their thousands to see the event first hand; good news for the British economy! Those who cannot will be glued to their TV sets to wish the happy couple every success in their new life together. Sadly, Herr Hitler and Robespierre will be prevented from enjoying the event.

Quote by sexyslut79
I am not quite sure why you raised the matter of the IRA in a discussion concerning the British royal family-the IRA seem as irrelevant to me in this context as Jason and the Argonauts. Perhaps you could clarify things for me.

Of course. You alluded to disposing of the Royal family in an act of terrorism as would be the preferred method of your chosen champion, Robespierre (see above). I helpfully provided a quote by Robespierre as follows...

Quote by Robespierre
"Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie"

to which I linked the untimely deaths - at the hands of Irish Republican fundamentalists for whom Robespierre's words must surely be a clarion call - of a member of the institution of lawful Governance, a very well respected member of the Royal family (Lord Mountbatten of Burma) and ordinary members of the public. I trust you can now see relevance.

Quote by sexyslut79
I am intrigued by your supposition that I have 'leftist tendencies'.As I neither believe that people are the way they are because of nurture or nature, but both , and I neither believe in complete state ownership of property nor complete individual ownership of property then I cannot be deemed as having either 'leftist' or 'rightist' tendencies. Perhaps I could be deemed as having 'centrist' the other hand it could just be that like most people I can find some common ground, to varying degrees, with every political party that there is from the BNP through the major three parties to the Socialist Alliance.

Perhaps you are right.
But why be so disparaging about another member who may not be as educated as you are or not able to articulate things in the way you might be capable of? That smacks of elitism and your references to Herr Hitler and Robespierre might suggest that 'centrist' is way short of the mark.
It may indeed be that thousands of people from countries where they very sensibly do not have monarchies will be flocking to see the
wedding of whichever chinless goof is marrying Kate Middleclass, but I am sure that millions won't be.
I have already clarified my position on Robespierre; he is not my 'champion'.
I may be wrong, but you seem to suspect that because I am a republican I must therefore support the Irish Republicans (and presumably the Republican Party in the United States of America too). Let me clarify my position for you. There is more chance of Osama bin Laden retiring to Lourdes and opening a charcuterie there than there is of my ever supporting the IRA and unlike the government and press in this country I am in full support of the measures taken by the Sri Lankese government to deal with the IRA's counterparts in that part of the world, the LTTE, popularly known as the Tamil Tigers
In my opinion, ignorance and arrogance born of ignorance are at the root of a greater part of Mankind's problems, and perhaps this answers your last question.
I didn't describe myself as a 'centrist'.I simply pointed out that one does not have to have 'leftist' tendencies to be a republican and that Hitler, who was, I am sure you'll agree, very far from having 'leftist' tendencies, was a republican.
It's good to see that my posts have resulted in so much vigorous discussion .
Suggesting that we should chop the heads off members of the Royal family suggests a level of extremism I'd rather not visit.

20 Apr 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

No government under the sun is going to agree with all my views. Personally, I have common ground with every party in the UK from the BNP through the three main parties to the Socialist Alliance, but the common ground varies in extent.I have the least with the BNP and the Conservatives and the most with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Personally, I'd like to see a proper democratic government representing everyones's I had my way, the three biggest parties in government would be the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens in that order. But I'd like to see a few MPs from the smaller parties in government BNP because I think to an extent they do have a point viz immigration, the Socialist Alliance to chivvy for a fairer distribution of wealth, and even a good smattering of Tories to make sure we keep some, though not all of our traditions alive (but not fox hunting, sorry Bluefish )
That is why I favour proprtional representation.

so why just make a point of of how crap the Tories did ....fucking hell where you been for the last decade under Labour. TB (turd boy) and and the idiot they call brown could not have fucked up the UK economy any worse if they`d been trying .
at least try to add a little balance to your post`s that`s if you honestly believe what you write above
and to clarify my own position i favour none of the party`s but always use my local mp to my advantage wink

wink

I am not aware that I did. I don't know whether or not Labour were good for the economy-I am an Historian not an Economist and I am not prepared to comment on something I know little or nothing about. But I felt and feel that Labour is better for society than the Tories who seem bent on taking from the poor to give to the rich as usual. Having said this,I can think of numerous reasons why I would not place Tony Blair's government on my list of favourite governments, not the least of which is that I feel that he humiliated Britain by following America in everything like a slavering dog.
i gather you missed the part where brown gave the banks a few bob of the tax payers coppers
or aware of the cuts because of such actions are crippling many working families
that brown refused to stand up to banks regarding paying bonus from the very funds he paid to the banks to save their very rich arses
then we have the lib dems that have held the biggest ever manifesto garage sale to play spot the faithful Tory dog
you may wish to hold off voting again till you know what your vote means as you stated in your reply to fem innocent

innocent

As I said, I am an Historian and not an Economist, and won't comment on something I know little or nothing about.

20 Apr 2011

Quote by Max777

I assume the paragraph I have highlighted in red is yours Sexyslut? If you had bothered to read earlier posts you would have seen where I got the figures from.
Would you please advise me as to which university you supposedly lecture at? My daughter intends to read history in a year or two and I want to ensure that her tuition fees are not wasted.

unlike the lecturer sitting under a tree bolt

bolt

smoking something illegal... tut tut
Let's just hope the illegal substances don't have a negative impact on his mental state...I resent paying my taxes so the NHS can treat those suffering from self induced psychosis!
lol

lol

No. sorry, I won't tell you where I lecture-this is a swingers' site and I have my reputation to think of!!!!
But I'm glad to know your daughter intends to read History and I wish her the best of luck.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by essex34m

How do you know that foreign nationals are attracted to the UK by the lure of benefits? Are you privy to the statistics?

The entire post you quoted from myself was nothing but opinion, with no facts, figures or knowledge to speak of.
Really? Well if you need some facts, figures and knowledge to back up your opinion I'm sure you can find them in such erudite publications as The Sun (which is owned by a foreign national) and The Daily Mail.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

No government under the sun is going to agree with all my views. Personally, I have common ground with every party in the UK from the BNP through the three main parties to the Socialist Alliance, but the common ground varies in extent.I have the least with the BNP and the Conservatives and the most with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Personally, I'd like to see a proper democratic government representing everyones's I had my way, the three biggest parties in government would be the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens in that order. But I'd like to see a few MPs from the smaller parties in government BNP because I think to an extent they do have a point viz immigration, the Socialist Alliance to chivvy for a fairer distribution of wealth, and even a good smattering of Tories to make sure we keep some, though not all of our traditions alive (but not fox hunting, sorry Bluefish )
That is why I favour proprtional representation.

so why just make a point of of how crap the Tories did ....fucking hell where you been for the last decade under Labour. TB (turd boy) and and the idiot they call brown could not have fucked up the UK economy any worse if they`d been trying .
at least try to add a little balance to your post`s that`s if you honestly believe what you write above
and to clarify my own position i favour none of the party`s but always use my local mp to my advantage wink

wink

I am not aware that I did. I don't know whether or not Labour were good for the economy-I am an Historian not an Economist and I am not prepared to comment on something I know little or nothing about. But I felt and feel that Labour is better for society than the Tories who seem bent on taking from the poor to give to the rich as usual. Having said this,I can think of numerous reasons why I would not place Tony Blair's government on my list of favourite governments, not the least of which is that I feel that he humiliated Britain by following America in everything like a slavering dog.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV

"Rubbish" -well I don't know how to respond to such an articulate counter-argument. And if you think my remarks that the royal family are parasites are 'horrid' you obviously don't get out enough. Personally I think Robespierre had the right idea. Send them to the guillotine along with their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys.

Ah, Robespierre. A favoured study if there ever was one.
But hang on a minute... wasn't he the main man concerning the reign of terror in the FRENCH revolution and his downfall was executing people for seemingly meaningless reason. Truly a terrorist in everyone's book and your suggested appreciation of his treatment of Louis XVI and how it might now concern the British Royal Family is not surprising, given your leftist tendencies.
Having argued "Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie" he was himself executed by the guillotine (face up I recall just to make it more exciting for him) and justice was truly seen to be done by the people, for the people
Strains of Irish Republicanism dogma there too.. justification for blowing up innocent people like Airey Neave, Lord Louis Mountbatten and those poor unfortunate people in Omagh.
Vive la Revolution! :thumbup:
That is what you are saying, right?
I only said Robespierre had the right idea with regard to the royalty.I would also say Oliver Cromwell did too, but this does not mean I approve of everything Cromwell did-particularly in regard to the Levellers and the Diggers. Also, one does not have to be a 'leftist' to be anti-monarchy as most of the inhabitants of the United States of America , France, Italy, , Adolf Hitler, Oliver Cromwell and indeed Robespierre himself would confirm.
I am not quite sure why you raised the matter of the IRA in a discussion concerning the British royal family-the IRA seem as irrelevant to me in this context as Jason and the Argonauts. Perhaps you could clarify things for me.
I am intrigued by your supposition that I have 'leftist tendencies'.As I neither believe that people are the way they are because of nurture or nature, but both , and I neither believe in complete state ownership of property nor complete individual ownership of property then I cannot be deemed as having either 'leftist' or 'rightist' tendencies. Perhaps I could be deemed as having 'centrist' the other hand it could just be that like most people I can find some common ground, to varying degrees, with every political party that there is from the BNP through the major three parties to the Socialist Alliance.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

The cost of the Royal "parasites" in 2009/10 was £38million, benefit fraud and overpayment was some £3.3 billion. Your version of these statistics is as biased as everything else in your post.

I am always surprised that some people on housing benefits are treated with so much more respect than others....I mean 38 million to just a handful of already ultra-rich dole scroungers ...it's nothing is it...only 38 million
how many hospital beds is that ??
No doubt the history lecturer can supply a history lesson on the civil list and how the Crown Estates generates a sizeable surplus for the treasury.
No doubt a history lecturer could....I shall just ask how the crown estates etc. became the proerty of the crown ??
No the History lecturer can't supply a lesson on the civil list, because he doesn't know anything about it, and he is not interested in whether or not the Crown estates generates a sizable surplus for the treasury. I've made my views on the Royal family clear. As soon as that bunch of inbred parasites and all their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys are sent to the guillotine the better.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

"Rubbish" -well I don't know how to respond to such an articulate counter-argument.

well is there a better word than rubbish? is crap a beter argument?

Quote by sexyslut79
And if you think my remarks that the royal family are parasites are 'horrid' you obviously don't get out enough. Personally I think Robespierre had the right idea. Send them to the guillotine along with their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys.

i get out a lot thankyou very much.
if you are so anti royal family and it seems anti government, then a sugestion may be for you to move to a country that better suits your needs perhaps?
your last comment is so anti royalist and i take it you will not be watching the royal wedding on the telly? lucky you can say those coments now as years ago it would have been you orft to the gulotine to have your head off.:notes:
I infer from your numerous spelling mistakes that English is not your first language , so I will try to speak as simply as I can. First, I would point out that whatever the situation in your country , in Britain we believe in freedom of speech, and consequently people are not killed, tortured or driven out because they don't support the current government .Second, a great many people in Britain are republicans, including Roy Hattersley, Ken Livingstone and the odious Rupert Murdoch, (who is incidentally a foreigner but allowed to speak his mind nonetheless). Third, I would certainly not have been beheaded for being a republican in the seventeenth century at least; in fact I would have been beheaded for being a royalist as King Charles 1 discovered. Fourth,having travelled extensively and being as a result in a good position to judge, Britain, suits my needs, as you put it, better than any other country in the world.
With regard to watching the royal wedding on the television, if I was given the choice of either doing that or being tied to a chair and subjected to an endless talk by David Beckham on the joys of kicking a bag of wind around a patch of grass with several hundred voices shouting 'goal' in the background, I'd choose the as, fortunately, no-one will put me in that unenviable position, I shall probably spend my time sitting under a tree smoking a joint.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

With regard to your comments on 'benefit cheats', firstly, if there wasn't such a huge gap between rich and poor, property and rents weren't so high, and a lot of peoples' wages weren't so low, people wouldn't need to cheat benefits.

is that an excuse then for peeple to steel money?
sorry never heard so much the parasite comment well how horrid
"Rubbish" -well I don't know how to respond to such an articulate counter-argument. And if you think my remarks that the royal family are parasites are 'horrid' you obviously don't get out enough. Personally I think Robespierre had the right idea. Send them to the guillotine along with their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

The cost of the Royal "parasites" in 2009/10 was £38million, benefit fraud and overpayment was some £3.3 billion. Your version of these statistics is as biased as everything else in your post.

Is that so? From where do you derive your figures? The Sun? The Daily Mail? The Daily Express? Do you really think that the media tells the truth about anything when every single newspaper and every single television station has a political agenda?
Personally I'd be happier to know that my taxes go towards public services-including 'benefits' and grants for young people to better themselves rather than on paying for the a bunch of inbred parasites who should have been sent to the guillotine along with all their cap-doffing, forelock tugging lackeys long ago. But I resent paying my taxes so that the NHS can treat people who are obese because they eat too much and don't do enough exercise, people who have heart diseases for the same reason and because they become stressed as a result of spending too much time making money for themselves and because they drink too much. I also resent paying taxes so that the BBC can pay vacuous non entities vast sums of money for hosting television programmes which should be banned on the grounds that they turn millions of people into mindless vegetables, and finally I resent paying taxes so that the government can send some of these mindless vegetables off to intervene in countries where yet again one tribe or faction is killing and butchering another tribe or faction.
I am always surprised that some people on housing benefits are treated with so much more respect than others....I mean 38 million to just a handful of already ultra-rich dole scroungers ...it's nothing is it...only 38 million
how many hospital beds is that ??
Hold on is the young royal not marrying into a coal mining family ??? (redistribution if wealth and all that )
Tuts!!!geeezzz you just can`t please some rolleyes

rolleyes

19 Apr 2011

Quote by sexyslut79

I agree, most people don't know anything about the political and economic philosophies of the parties for whom they vote and that is one of the reasons political parties don't tell the whole truth when they canvass for votes. Let me give you an example. Whilst the political philosophers on whom Left parties base their views believe that the lower classes (I,m sorry, but I won't use that ridiculous, hypocritical British euphemism 'working classes-we all work for a living) are lower class because of their NURTURE, ie the economic and social conditions into which they were born, the political philosophers on whom Right parties base their views believe that the lower classes are lower class because of NATURE ie that they are unintelligent and so incapable of rising.
In the past, Right parties did not need to keep their views on this quiet because the lower classes were not allowed to vote. But as a result of the introduction of universal suffrage, the lower classes can vote now, and as they form the biggest section of society, any political party wishing to take power needs to get the support of a substantial section of this class. But they are unlikely to get it if they proclaim that these people are lower class because they are naturally unintelligent and incapable of rising. Some lower class people with a propensity for doffing their caps and tugging their forelocks might accept this, but most would probably feel insulted.
I agree that education is the key and Left parties believe very much in education and were responsible for the introduction of free education for all in every society where it exists. Right parties on the other hand do not attach so much importance to education except for the higher classes. They would rather the lower classes didn't learn too much-particularly about subjects such as political philosophy and history. That way, they won't get any ideas into their heads........
With regard to your comments on 'benefit cheats', firstly, if there wasn't such a huge gap between rich and poor, property and rents weren't so high, and a lot of peoples' wages weren't so low, people wouldn't need to cheat benefits. Secondly, as any economist knows, the 'black economy' in the UK is an integral part of the Friedmanite economy we have, and thirdly, the benefits system is the source of a huge number of peoples' incomes from the civil servants who staff it, to he companies which provide the computers, stationery, furnishings, coffee machines, security guards etc etc etc. Also picking on the few people who cheat the benefit system , whilst far easier than picking on the real cheats in our society is total their cheating amounts to a few million which, to a country like the UK is real cheats, such as the big companies and the royal parasites on the other hand cheat the country of billions and billions of pounds.

So i take it your x was wasted at the last election as not enough agreed with your views
And am i to take it you think the last government did a spiffing job loon

loon

No government under the sun is going to agree with all my views. Personally, I have common ground with every party in the UK from the BNP through the three main parties to the Socialist Alliance, but the common ground varies in extent.I have the least with the BNP and the Conservatives and the most with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Personally, I'd like to see a proper democratic government representing everyones's I had my way, the three biggest parties in government would be the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens in that order. But I'd like to see a few MPs from the smaller parties in government BNP because I think to an extent they do have a point viz immigration, the Socialist Alliance to chivvy for a fairer distribution of wealth, and even a good smattering of Tories to make sure we keep some, though not all of our traditions alive (but not fox hunting, sorry Bluefish lol

lol

)
That is why I favour proprtional representation.

19 Apr 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob

I agree, most people don't know anything about the political and economic philosophies of the parties for whom they vote and that is one of the reasons political parties don't tell the whole truth when they canvass for votes. Let me give you an example. Whilst the political philosophers on whom Left parties base their views believe that the lower classes (I,m sorry, but I won't use that ridiculous, hypocritical British euphemism 'working classes-we all work for a living) are lower class because of their NURTURE, ie the economic and social conditions into which they were born, the political philosophers on whom Right parties base their views believe that the lower classes are lower class because of NATURE ie that they are unintelligent and so incapable of rising.
In the past, Right parties did not need to keep their views on this quiet because the lower classes were not allowed to vote. But as a result of the introduction of universal suffrage, the lower classes can vote now, and as they form the biggest section of society, any political party wishing to take power needs to get the support of a substantial section of this class. But they are unlikely to get it if they proclaim that these people are lower class because they are naturally unintelligent and incapable of rising. Some lower class people with a propensity for doffing their caps and tugging their forelocks might accept this, but most would probably feel insulted.
I agree that education is the key and Left parties believe very much in education and were responsible for the introduction of free education for all in every society where it exists. Right parties on the other hand do not attach so much importance to education except for the higher classes. They would rather the lower classes didn't learn too much-particularly about subjects such as political philosophy and history. That way, they won't get any ideas into their heads........
With regard to your comments on 'benefit cheats', firstly, if there wasn't such a huge gap between rich and poor, property and rents weren't so high, and a lot of peoples' wages weren't so low, people wouldn't need to cheat benefits. Secondly, as any economist knows, the 'black economy' in the UK is an integral part of the Friedmanite economy we have, and thirdly, the benefits system is the source of a huge number of peoples' incomes from the civil servants who staff it, to he companies which provide the computers, stationery, furnishings, coffee machines, security guards etc etc etc. Also picking on the few people who cheat the benefit system , whilst far easier than picking on the real cheats in our society is total their cheating amounts to a few million which, to a country like the UK is real cheats, such as the big companies and the royal parasites on the other hand cheat the country of billions and billions of pounds.

So i take it your x was wasted at the last election as not enough agreed with your views
And am i to take it you think the last government did a spiffing job loon

loon

19 Apr 2011

Quote by essex34m

In total their cheating amounts to a few million which, to a country like the UK is peanuts.

And if we punished those that stole from the system that was set up to help them, if we stopped giving benefits to people who can actually go to work, but choose to completely manipulate and abuse the system (as opposed to those who genuinely can't afford to work), if we reduce the mindset that falling pregnant is a career move, having children knowing the state will pay rather than accepting the responsibilities of having children, if we reduce the lure of the benefit system to foreign nationals that want to milk this soft touch state, if the decision makers actually looked at and improved the bloated system we have, then we would have many more of these millions of peanuts you speak of.
Spot the Protestant work ethic.... There is nothing virtuous about making money for one's self whatever the inhabitants of Protestant countries have come to believe. And if the inhabitants of countries such as the UK spent less time making money for themselves and more time with their children then we might not have so many emotionally and mentally scarred children about-never mind delinquents. And if they spent less time making money for themselves and more time learning about the world they inhabit we might have fewer political, social, economic and enviromental problems. And if they spent less time making money for themselves and more time relaxing or exercising, the NHS would be spared the huge sums of money it spends on people suffering from stress and medical problems such as heart disease.
How do you know that foreign nationals are attracted to the UK by the lure of benefits? Are you privy to the statistics? I am not, so I reserve judgement.
I agree with you on pregnancy though, and on improving the system. As is so often the case I personally believe the Scandinavian countries and Germany have the right ideas.

18 Apr 2011

Quote by HnS
Some confusion here re AV and Proportional Representation ?
Yes we currently have 1st Past the Post elections, the result being on several occasions we'd actually had 'minority' Governments, i.e. a government for which less than half of those people who voted actually voted for.
One long running debate has been Proportial Representation based elections, of which Alternative Vote (AV) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) are just 2 ways of doing it, so as to try and ensure that a government is form for which the majority of voters actually voted for.
(You also have Party Proportionality, Party List and Loser Delegation to name some more)
Sadly what we are being asked to consider in May is a system, or rather version (AV), only used for Parliamentary elections in 3 other countries elsewhere in the world, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Australia (with Fiji planning to scrap it).
It's interesting to note that the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, Green Party of Scotland, English Democrats, and Communist Party (to name but a few) all say that AV is not their prefered way of Voting Reform, most preferring STV.
So basically we are being asked to chose between 1st Past the Post and a version of Proportional Representation that most other countries do not use and which isn't the preference for many political groups in the UK anyway
:doh:
I'm off for a beer :cheers: (perhaps alcohol will help)

The parties in the UK who are voting against AV are the Conservative Party (with the exception of those members aligned to the Conservative Action for Electoral Reform). the NI Democratic Unionists,the BNP, Respect, the Ulster Unionists and the Communist party.
Those voting for are Labour (with the exception of a small grouping), the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru,the Northern Alliance Party, the SDLP, Sinn Feinn, the Greens, UKIP,the Scottish Greens,and the English Democrats. So actually most political groups in the UK do prefer AV to the present system, though like myself, some of them would rather have proper proportional AV is a step in the right direction, at least.

18 Apr 2011

Quote by fem_4_taboo
i have found that single girls on here, meet a single guy and they dont change their profiles but say they only meet with their partner.
I guess if tehy are swinging partners only then maybe they dont want to be considered as a couple, but just play together?
as a single female my self im not sure i would want to give up my personal single identity just because i had met a fb.
i also have at times had on my profile or ads request to meet single bi males, why? because i have actually met 2 single bi males at the same time for a 3 sum, shocking i know but hey it really does happen lol.
also if i happen to meet a single male and it were to progress onto more i would want that male to be bi as thats my biggest thing to be with 2 bi men at the same time.
what really shoudl be outlawed is men who ask to meet gay females FFS they aint bi they are gay why would they want to meet a male??
x fem x

Honesty. Well a lot of people seem to be dishonest with themselves as well as others. 'Straight men who like to suck cock". Er, sorry ,guys, but if you like to suck cock, you're not straight." I am an inteligent, well-educated proffessional". Er, sorry, but if you spell 'intelligent with one 'l' and professional with two 'fs' then you are not well-educated!

18 Apr 2011

Quote by fem_4_taboo
i suspect a large amount of people dont know all that stuff before placing a vote, and to be fair how many people have voted for a party and the party then change its plans?
too many people benefit from the outcomes of the votes but fail to take part, and too many moan but failed to vote in the first place.
maybe if it was made compulsory the schools would ensure pupils took politics seriousely and people would start to feel a part of this county rather than a consequence of it.
so many people i know feel when they are scamming the benefit system etc thats they are screwing those at the top, they dont reaslise its probally their best mate who has worked his/her arse off to pay the taxes so those at the top can pay out that benefit check.
thats just one thing, basically lots of people do not care because they didnt have to.
i also think there should be a option to re elect if they change a policy, you cant buy a hoover and not expect it to work, i dont expect my vote to be watsted on a person who doesnt do what it says either.
x fem x

I agree, most people don't know anything about the political and economic philosophies of the parties for whom they vote and that is one of the reasons political parties don't tell the whole truth when they canvass for votes. Let me give you an example. Whilst the political philosophers on whom Left parties base their views believe that the lower classes (I,m sorry, but I won't use that ridiculous, hypocritical British euphemism 'working classes-we all work for a living) are lower class because of their NURTURE, ie the economic and social conditions into which they were born, the political philosophers on whom Right parties base their views believe that the lower classes are lower class because of NATURE ie that they are unintelligent and so incapable of rising.
In the past, Right parties did not need to keep their views on this quiet because the lower classes were not allowed to vote. But as a result of the introduction of universal suffrage, the lower classes can vote now, and as they form the biggest section of society, any political party wishing to take power needs to get the support of a substantial section of this class. But they are unlikely to get it if they proclaim that these people are lower class because they are naturally unintelligent and incapable of rising. Some lower class people with a propensity for doffing their caps and tugging their forelocks might accept this, but most would probably feel insulted.
I agree that education is the key and Left parties believe very much in education and were responsible for the introduction of free education for all in every society where it exists. Right parties on the other hand do not attach so much importance to education except for the higher classes. They would rather the lower classes didn't learn too much-particularly about subjects such as political philosophy and history. That way, they won't get any ideas into their heads........
With regard to your comments on 'benefit cheats', firstly, if there wasn't such a huge gap between rich and poor, property and rents weren't so high, and a lot of peoples' wages weren't so low, people wouldn't need to cheat benefits. Secondly, as any economist knows, the 'black economy' in the UK is an integral part of the Friedmanite economy we have, and thirdly, the benefits system is the source of a huge number of peoples' incomes from the civil servants who staff it, to he companies which provide the computers, stationery, furnishings, coffee machines, security guards etc etc etc. Also picking on the few people who cheat the benefit system , whilst far easier than picking on the real cheats in our society is total their cheating amounts to a few million which, to a country like the UK is real cheats, such as the big companies and the royal parasites on the other hand cheat the country of billions and billions of pounds.

17 Apr 2011

Quote by fem_4_taboo
i think they should make it that everyone has to vote. Not on this subject but in the GE.
x fem x

No Way!!! If anything, people shouldn't be allowed to vote unless they can show, by means of a test, that they understand the political and economic philosophies of the parties standing in the elections and the implications of those philosophies for society and the economy. How many people voted for Thatcher and then complained about the prices of travel on trains after they had been privatised, or about the state of public services after she had been in power for a few years? If they had understood Conservative Party political philosophy and the Friedmanite economic philosophy then they would have known what was going to happen. In any case, no political party would make voting compulsory in the knowledge that all those who don't want to vote would vote against them in retalliation.

17 Apr 2011

Quote by flower411
The sooner people wise up and realise that full employment is an impossible dream, the better !!
We need to work out how to reduce the population and still pay for the increased costs of the ever ageing retired population.
Refusal to confront the real problems and continuing to allow the population to increase in the eronious assumption that the employed will allow themselves to be taxed to pay for the retired while the casino bankers are bailed out every time they fuck up is a recipe for disaster.

Well said, but have you read John Gray, "Straw Dogs"? If he is right then the population will decrease and there are some encouraging signs that it will. Erectile dysfunction is becoming more and more common (though predictably most of the men who suffer from it reportedly deny that they have a problem) and the sperm count among young males is getting lower and lower.

17 Apr 2011

Quote by I_am_joy
Having not played for a while I now find myself in an unfamiliar place, my confidence has disappeared, one of the fab things that I found about swinging before was that boost in confidence that you get primarily from finding that you are attractive to other people. Now I am no larger or smaller that I was previously. I acknowledge that I am a single rather than a couple which should in some ways make things a little easier in the swinging stakes but it appears to have gone........vamoosed, left the building leaving me trailing behind. So cmon folks a little help required here and this isn't a cry for look at my pics n say "pat on the back to ya" I genuinely feel perplexed at how I feel..

You're either born with it or you aren't and those who aren't born with it but try and learn it through, for example 'assertiveness training" usually go too far and thus reveal themselves as actually NOT confident as well as frequently pains in the you aren't confident by nature don't try to be-just be yourself. One of our mmf regulars is not a confident person by nature, and told us so. His lack of confidence didn't affect our decision to go with him but his honesty and his being himself did and we're very glad we made the decision we did.

31 Mar 2011

Quote by MidsCouple24
We shouldn't let them have such roll models, poofy prima donna's. perhaps. or maybe workers who do a good job for the multi million pound company they work for and earn a decent wage from it.
Thier legs are thier liveliehood, should we call them poofs because they don't want them damaged, should we throw away the health and safety rules for miners and dock workers ?
Perhaps we should use politicians and fund managers as roll models, people who take just as much in salary as footballers including bonuses paid if they do a good job or a terrible job.
Are they any different to the incredibly high paid rap singers or Kylie Mynogue, the Pussycat dolls, do they do any less of a job ?
Are they not as entitled to earn what they can for doing a good job as actors, actors who can earn £30 million for one movie ?
Why is always footballers that are picked on, what about Golfers, Tennis Players and the like.
Methinks jealousy doth prevail.

No, none of these people should earn as much money as they do whilst there are people who earn as little as the minimum wage.

26 Mar 2011

Quote by GnV
So then, the World Police set weapons of mass destruction on the Libyan regime whilst they control people in their own Country in order to resist an uprising yet the London Metropolitan Police won't arrest people breaking into banks and trashing shops stealing their contents because it might cause a riot
They stand idly by (as witnessed on SkyNews) whilst people fling ammonia filled light bulbs at them, spray paint all over their vehicles, throw smoke bombs and use sticks to break windows!
What's wrong with getting the biggest ugliest Officers available with big night sticks beating the crap out of these people, pulling off their masks and then breaking their legs?
When they complain that the need an ambulance, tell them it's too dangerous to put Health Service staff at risk and leave them to bleed to death or in agony on the pavement till it all calms down.
Why is it that we can go in hard with Gaddifi but we pussy around with our own version of non-peaceful anarchist demonstrators?
Wouldn't happen in Paris! The CRS would have beating the crap out of them as soon as they left the official route!!

Having taken part in many demonstrations all over Europe during the 70s, I can confirm that the CRS, like most policemen are bullies and cowards and not very bright, and when they are confronted by people who are better trained, fitter and brighter than they are, they break down and run for cover. I am proud that on two occasions I was one of those who made them do so.