The real Threat to American safety?

[Spider AL]

I picked you up on your poor grammatical technique

The only thing you managed to "pick up on" was the fact that like most of those who feel the need to stoop to petty insults, you couldn't tell good grammar from bad.

 

You made yourself look like a fool by asserting that a phrase which was perfectly acceptable grammatically was in some way flawed, showing only your own failings in a glaringly unflattering light.

 

You continued in the same debased fashion, trying to pick me up on grammar no less than twice, and you finally put the last nail in the coffin of your own credibility by directly calling me stupid.

 

Well done you. You're a BIG man.

 

please re-read and reply.

I've replied to your historical points already, and to your specific quote twice at least. Now if you want me to put myself out and REPEAT myself AGAIN, you're going to have to give me some incentive, like providing us with some actual, current differences between the two major US parties, something you've NEVER done throughout this thread.

 

But of course you won't, because you can't. There is no major difference between the two parties in either of our countries. That's one of the reasons why voting in major elections is a futile endeavour.

 

What is that, 13-0 now? I'd tell you to give up while you still had some credibility, but as I've stated earlier, you don't. You've been nothing but immature in this debate, and you deserve nothing more than what you currently possess: chunks and chunks of abject failure.

[iamtrip]

At least this frees me to remark- on a personal level- that your attempts to debate are poor in the extreme IMHO.

 

It would seem you began the personal insults.

You were and still are losing terribly and resorted to a personal comment.

 

and while not publicly sinking to your level

 

tut tut Spiddy. Shouldn't lie. Haven't been lying about anything else have you?

 

directly calling me stupid.

 

If you want to interpret that the possession of a (perhaps one) stupid idea automatically means a person is stupid, be my guest. I really don't mind if you want to believe you're stupid.

 

At least this frees me to remark- on a personal level- that your attempts to debate are poor in the extreme IMHO.

 

I've responded with multiple factual examples.

You've merely retyped your same old opinion over and over, with the occasional ambiguous suggestion that you possess some kind of knowledge.

Simply typing and retyping your opinion enough times won't prove your argument, nor make it any stronger.

 

 

This has to be the 6th time of asking. Your comments on both Atlee's reforms (which are irrelevant) and your reply to the formation of the foundations of the welfare state are flawed and sketchy at best.

 

If you're referring to Lloyd George and his pensions on the other hand, it was a change of chancellor, not government. And it STILL wasn't the true root of the British welfare state. That was a natural progression over time and successive governments, not one huge all-in-one reform

This is simply ridiculous.

Firstly, the creation of the welfare state was not a natural progression. During 1905-14 the state was created. Founded. Formed. Concocted. The acts passed during this period can be regarded as the foundations of the welfare state. After WW1 and up to the present day, the welfare state has been reformed and improved. The development of the welfare state may be regarded as a gradual progression, however its foundations most certainly cannot.

 

Secondly, the idea that such changes were brought about by Lloyd George are preposterous. If you ever wanted a good example to back up your argument, Lloyd George would be your man. He was definitely not a "hooker with a heart of gold" as you so expertly put it.

 

So yet again, the issues you dismally fail to address. If the Liberals were self serving (apart from Lloyd George, who you regard

Why did the Liberals support Home Rule? Why was the act passed pre-war?

Why did the Liberals support such a forward thinking welfare system? Why did the Liberals give women suffrage? (Read above).

 

None were in the Liberal's interests (theory of self service). All seemed preposterous to the Unionists.

 

Surely you can do better than that Spiddy?

Or are you going to continue to dodge the questions raised?

[Spider AL]

It would seem you began the personal insults.

Is that feeble attempt at an accusation the best you can do? The words "this frees me" are the clue to the fact that that was a very restrained response to one of YOUR first insulting paragraphs, namely:

 

Your suggestions did summon the image of a toddler jumping up and down and throwing his teddy out of the cot.

14-0...

 

tut tut Spiddy. Shouldn't lie. Haven't been lying about anything else have you?

Ah, accusing your opposition of lying, the last desperate act of a loser. No, I have never sunk to your level. Your level is the level of ignoring the content of a debate and merely levelling personal, direct insults at your opponents. I have not done so. QED.

 

If you want to interpret that the possession of a (perhaps one) stupid idea automatically means a person is stupid, be my guest.

Oh you said nothing about "one stupid idea" my inaccurate friend. You said this:

 

The fact that you have the stupidity to disagree

Clearly calling me stupid. So regrettable. So unneccesary. So immature.

 

I've responded with multiple factual examples.

Your historical (hysterical?) points I've answered as a personal kindness, even though they were irrelevant to the current political climate. I'm not going to repeat those answers just because you've decided to insult said answers. You haven't disputed them in any logical fashion, you haven't queried them, you haven't set out any counter-points to them. You've just said "UR RONG!!!11" so frankly, you can read up. I'm not going to do all your legwork for you.

 

But I've been asking for differences between the major parties in both of our countries for a long time now. A long time. You've not provided any. You haven't got any. Your argument is nothing without them, and since they don't exist, neither does your argument.

 

Never did really. I've done you a favour by showing you exactly why. Maybe once you get past your defensive ire you'll realise this:

 

Voting makes no difference.

 

Of course, I vote, as I've said before. Why? That was what you were never able to figure out. There is one reason to vote. One reason only...

 

I grow tired now, I shall sleep. Good night iamtrip.

[iamtrip]

Your suggestions did summon the image of a toddler jumping up and down and throwing his teddy out of the cot.

How is this personal to you? You've already stated that your argument for the reasons why people may abstain does not reflect the fact that you, personally will abstain.

 

At least this frees me to remark- on a personal level-

Admittance of guilt?

 

This is besides the point, as I said, if you want to believe your stupid, it's fine by me!

 

The elected officials would still be self-serving however, because we all are.

Your argument also stated that within the political climate, all parties are self-serving.

Therefore, disproving this myth is vital in proving that all parties in today's political scene are not intrinsicly similar (due to the fact that not all parties are essentially self-serving).

 

The points below are very, very relevant in proving your theory wholly untrue.

Yet you STILL have not answered the points raised.

 

If you're referring to Lloyd George and his pensions on the other hand, it was a change of chancellor, not government. And it STILL wasn't the true root of the British welfare state. That was a natural progression over time and successive governments, not one huge all-in-one reform

 

 

This is simply ridiculous.

Firstly, the creation of the welfare state was not a natural progression. During 1905-14 the state was created. Founded. Formed. Concocted. The acts passed during this period can be regarded as the foundations of the welfare state. After WW1 and up to the present day, the welfare state has been reformed and improved. The development of the welfare state may be regarded as a gradual progression, however its foundations most certainly cannot.

 

Secondly, the idea that such changes were brought about by Lloyd George are preposterous. If you ever wanted a good example to back up your argument, Lloyd George would be your man. He was definitely not a "hooker with a heart of gold" as you so expertly put it.

 

So yet again, the issues you dismally fail to address. If the Liberals were self serving (apart from Lloyd George, who you regard

Why did the Liberals support Home Rule? Why was the act passed pre-war?

Why did the Liberals support such a forward thinking welfare system? Why did the Liberals give women suffrage? (Read above).

 

None were in the Liberal's interests (theory of self service). All seemed preposterous to the Unionists.

 

 

Where exactly is your argument? All I've read is your personal opinion, with no factual basis or evidence.

If the single, flawed and sketchy paragraph aforementioned is the very best you can summon, then I think you are best to concede that your argument is inherently untrue.

 

Are you really conceding that you are wrong Spiddy?

[Spider AL]

How is this personal to you?

Because you prefaced it with "Your suggestions", referring- one would hope- to me, Spider AL, and not the little man in your head. Of course it was directed at me.

 

This is besides the point, as I said, if you want to believe your stupid, it's fine by me

Oh I'm biased, I can't say whether I'm st00pid or not. I KNOW that you CALLED me stupid however, because this is what you said:

 

The fact that you have the stupidity to disagree

And I shall continue to quote your personal attack with glee, exposing you for the immaturely insulting person that you are each time that I do.

 

Your argument also stated that within the political climate, all parties are self-serving.

Of course the parties are self-serving. The primary goal of both the Republicans and the Democrats and the Labour lads and Conservatives, is to get into power, and thereby possess power.

 

This is axiomatic since those who desire such power will naturally wish to be elected as officials. From the other side: those who wish to be elected to official posts, all desire the power of the position they wish to be elected to.

 

Naturally there will be the occasional crackpot who actually wants to be elected to office to do some selfless "good", but when such a one becomes a member of a shambolic entity like a political party, the interests of the party will subsume and therefore lessen the well-meant interests of that lone individual. I'm sure for instance that there are one or two decent men in the Labour party in England. But their individual goodness does not affect the path of the party in any meaningful sense because they are merely cells in the structure of a giant organism and their impact upon the whole is negligible. Party whips are the organism's immune system, and the dogma of traditional policy its genetic code. But what drives a party? Self-interest. The desire... for control. For power. And what is the brain of the creature? Why, established business interests of course.

 

Where exactly is your argument? All I've read is your personal opinion, with no factual basis or evidence.

THIS is all you've said throughout the debate. You haven't put forward any counterpoints, you haven't discussed anything I've said directly, you haven't queried a single point. Ask a question on something I've written, for a change, rather than merely declaring that I've written nothing. Okay, you've declared it "flawed"... but you need to qualify that statement to make it remotely believable. I can say "This cheesecake... is flawed", but unless I back it up by explaining that its flaws lie in the lack of icing, or the lack of flavour, I might as well be whistling in the wind, which is what you've been doing.

 

You have merely screamed "UR RONG!!!1" at the top of your voice over and over. That doesn't make for a good debate, Trippy old son.

 

And where are your examples of the differences between the sides in the current race? Still not here eh. Why am I not surprised?

 

Are you really conceding that you are wrong Spiddy?

Is this what you call a good and mature argument? Oh. My. God. I'm not even going to dignify it. You should forfeit just for daring to utter such a thing, as if the personal attacks weren't enough.

[iamtrip]

Ok, so you again reiterate your argument that parties are self serving.

Now back to one of many examples I have given where this is not the case.

 

If you're referring to Lloyd George and his pensions on the other hand, it was a change of chancellor, not government. And it STILL wasn't the true root of the British welfare state. That was a natural progression over time and successive governments, not one huge all-in-one reform

 

 

 

 

This is simply ridiculous.

Firstly, the creation of the welfare state was not a natural progression. During 1905-14 the state was created. Founded. Formed. Concocted. The acts passed during this period can be regarded as the foundations of the welfare state. After WW1 and up to the present day, the welfare state has been reformed and improved. The development of the welfare state may be regarded as a gradual progression, however its foundations most certainly cannot.

 

Secondly, the idea that such changes were brought about by Lloyd George are preposterous. If you ever wanted a good example to back up your argument, Lloyd George would be your man. He was definitely not a "hooker with a heart of gold" as you so expertly put it.

 

So yet again, the issues you dismally fail to address. If the Liberals were self serving (apart from Lloyd George, who you regard

Why did the Liberals support Home Rule? Why was the act passed pre-war?

Why did the Liberals support such a forward thinking welfare system? Why did the Liberals give women suffrage? (Read above).

 

None were in the Liberal's interests (theory of self service). All seemed preposterous to the Unionists.

 

Read the quote yet again.

The Liberals had a very generous and unselfish policy.

Which occasional crackpot was it within the Liberals who managed to create their selfless policies? You've already attempted to implicate Lloyd George, whom can be discredited (see quote). Perhaps someone else?

You also stated:

 

...the interests of the party will subsume and therefore lessen the well-meant interests of that lone individual. I'm sure for instance that there are one or two decent men in the Labour party in England. But their individual goodness does not affect the path of the party in any meaningful sense...

 

Implying that a party's policy cannot by altered by an occasional crackpot. (Which contradicts your comments on Lloyd George (see embedded quote).

 

Nevermind

Perhaps the Liberals' altruistic policies were a result of the entire government's Home Policy. This would therefore suggest that the Liberal party as a whole was not self-serving.

 

Will you be settling on an argument, or do you want to flip-flop some more?

[Kain]

Eh, I'm going to request an end to this. If you guys want to start another thread about whatever you're talking about knock yourselves out.

 

This is soooooooo off topic.

[SkinWalker]

Can has a point. This discussion has gotten WAYYY of topic and I'm not convinced anyone is following the argument between you two.

 

If Spidey and iamatrip would like me to split off the discussion to a new thread, I'm more than happy.