He'd be making frequent trips to the A+E department if he did.
He'd be making frequent trips to the A+E department if he did.
I reckon he's actually a dreadlocked hippy and has been playing Devil's Advocate with us all along 
The biggest problem with having Intrepid a part of our community is that it tramples genuine debate and discussion. Far too many debates which would otherwise be interesting become about the ****ing BBC or in some other way the same old hardline "i'm right I double condascend condascend at you thickies and i'll use bold text".
I'm quite sick of it. Sometimes it would be nice to have an actual debate, to put views up against other views and test them out - but it's impossible to converse with anyone on the forum about any subject without Intrepid stepping in and telling us his views, in a hardline way, and telling as we're all
I'm quite sick of it. Sometimes it would be nice to have an actual debate, to put views up against other views and test them out - but it's impossible to converse with anyone on the forum about any subject without Intrepid stepping in and telling us his views, in a hardline way, and telling as we're all
- wrong
- stupid
- miss-informed
- are going to die unless we listen
I am right... I even put my money where my mouth when this all started (and did quite well
). All about the fundamentals!Anyway.... check this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t ... litics/article7120738.ece
lol
TBh I don't know why you dont add him to the Ignore list, sure you miss half of the posts in the forum but also the lunacy is reduced by half at the same time.
Yes, it is lunacy to look at the fundamentals, make wise investments, and find out a few years later that that 'lunacy' was correct.
Unlike some of you guys who live in this stupid la la land where you think the last 13 years was actual real economic growth and stability, some very wise people are actually warning you LOUD and CLEAR, and yet you ignore them!
And who would that be?
Marc Faber
Jim Rogers
Peter Schiff (more US based but based on same fundamentals)
etc...
etc...
Intrepid. We all know the economy is ****ed why are you trying to preach at us like we're stupid ?
OK then. What are we supposed to do?
A desperate attempt to make himself feel superior, obviously you can't get away with acting like that in real life so he resorts to internet forums instead.
I understand and even relate to this fundamental ego centric notion, but there are better ways to express narcasism than by disrupting an intenet forum. Personaly I've taken a leaf out of Arnold Rimmers book and build my own Beckyworld
(link in sig), maybe I should build Intrepid his own Alanworld. Although I'm not sure I'd enjoy building a capitalist refuge of histrionic tendancies 
More to the point economic growth as a concept (and indeed precondition) is fundamentally flawed and impossible to maintain anyway, regardless of who you vote for. You can't magic something out of nothing.
We'd all be better off if we weren't supporting the concept to the benefit of the few who are getting rich in the mean time (mostly Tories and their small, inbred Tory families).
But by all means concentrate myopically on filling up some chinless ****'s Range Rover if that's what gives you a boner.
(DarkTimes)
DELETED
by DarkTimes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_ ... election_2010/8672859.stm
= Lib-Lab coalition
= another un-elected PM probably Milliband
= ffs
lol Say what you want about Cameron... but he was right pre-election... this hung parliament stuff is full of back-room dealings and other nonsense. So much for 'new progressive politics'.
= Lib-Lab coalition
= another un-elected PM probably Milliband
= ffs
lol Say what you want about Cameron... but he was right pre-election... this hung parliament stuff is full of back-room dealings and other nonsense. So much for 'new progressive politics'.
Well even if it is does end up as a lab/lib coalition at least it wont be brown at the helm!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8673634.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8673634.stm
Brown looks decidedly nobel and proper compared to Milliband or any other Labour slimeball.
I was just looking at the "contenders" for leader on the BBC website. Brown looks like a great leader compared to most of them :hide:
I just think, and this is only a personal opinion here, i think that brown just looks too washed out and done in to be able to cope with anything these days, a knackered guy who has just had enough now.
As bad as Brown is could the country really digest having a second... a SECOND un-elected Prime Minister? Added to that he/she would be leading a party that finished 2nd in the polls. And then the two losing parties would finally install a stitch up electoral system.
Cameron was right in the end... this mess is making a mockery of us all!
Cameron was right in the end... this mess is making a mockery of us all!
If you ever needed to know anything about the nature of the Tory party you've only got to look at the way they're treating the issue of electoral reform. They might actually fail to form a government here because they won't budge on it.
To them it's a party political issue, to the rest of the country it's an issue of democracy. According to the proportion of the vote, the Tories should have 254 seats, Labour 204 and the Lib Dems 162. So why do the Lib Dems only have 57 seats in the commons and Con/Lab each have an extra fifty?
But then I suppose if the Tories can't win a parliamentary majority after 13 years in opposition, two unpopular wars, a huge parliamentary expenses scandal and the economy disappearing down the toilet, then what chance will they have during the good times, and especially if we had a functioning democracy that didn't massively favour the big two parties?
Good luck to Clegg, I hope if nothing else we can finally get serious democratic reform out of this parliament, and I don't care which parties have to work together to do it. If it means the Tories are marginalised because they're too backward to do it, tough.
Ruling parties select prime ministers, we elect ruling parties (or not!). We don't have a president, we have a prime minister, look up the difference. We've never had an elected prime minister because that's not how our system of government works.
To them it's a party political issue, to the rest of the country it's an issue of democracy. According to the proportion of the vote, the Tories should have 254 seats, Labour 204 and the Lib Dems 162. So why do the Lib Dems only have 57 seats in the commons and Con/Lab each have an extra fifty?
But then I suppose if the Tories can't win a parliamentary majority after 13 years in opposition, two unpopular wars, a huge parliamentary expenses scandal and the economy disappearing down the toilet, then what chance will they have during the good times, and especially if we had a functioning democracy that didn't massively favour the big two parties?
Good luck to Clegg, I hope if nothing else we can finally get serious democratic reform out of this parliament, and I don't care which parties have to work together to do it. If it means the Tories are marginalised because they're too backward to do it, tough.
Ruling parties select prime ministers, we elect ruling parties (or not!). We don't have a president, we have a prime minister, look up the difference. We've never had an elected prime minister because that's not how our system of government works.
I do agree the electoral system is skewed and needs changing. What I am also convinced of is that any more years of Labour in power will ensure the economy is 100% going down the pan.
The Tories lost out big time in the election because quite frankly they didn't have the balls to come out with what they really think. That tried to go all nicey nicey lefty lefty when in fact they should have absolutely destroyed Labour. They needed a new-Thatcher and they didn't get it!
Though it was very difficult to highlight the flaws when Labour were printing money giving the illusion of economic recovery, People don't look much further than there own job.
Also, on one hand you attack the electoral system because it's favours 2 parties, and then defend the fact we have a party voting system because that's 'just the way it is'?
Doesn't matter which way you look at it having two Prime Ministers who've not faced a public vote is just plain wrong, as is the electoral system! The three parties all went along with the 'Prime Ministerial Debates'. If we truly had a party system we wouldn't have had the debates.
And one last thing. Electoral reform was not high on the agenda of most voters... we have an economic mess getting worse and we have three political parties playing games... it's a mess... one big mess!
Most voters don't even have an agenda.
What makes you think the Tories are solely capable of resolving the economic crisis? They're not. Here's why:
1) Vince Cable is a brilliant economist.
2) George Osborne is a crook.
3) Gordon Brown was a talented chancellor and while many aspects of his leadership were weak, in economics he was a supreme talent and his confidence worked wonders for the country and the markets.
4) Most importantly: The economic crisis isn't British, it's global. Putting George Osborne behind the desk at the treasury isn't going to fix anything. Even if he was any good for anything. Which he isn't.
The options were to attempt to stimulate the economy or to let it fall into a black hole and slowly crawl back out again. Are you saying they should've done the latter?
They're unrelated points. Would you prefer to have a president? Regardless of who becomes the head of state, it's got nothing to do with whether our system is democratic or not. Which it isn't. If people don't understand that they're voting for policy and not personality, then that is the fault of the public.
But it's important. We can't be blundering into Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and insisting that they operate democratic elections when our own version of democracy is so completely ****ed that a party winning 23% of the popular vote is only represented by 8% of the members in the house. That's not democracy, it's an elitist stitch-up.
Put your John Maynard Keynes books away please. Stimulate the economy? All we have done is print 200bn pounds and support a system that's built on weak foundations. WIth all the fiscal stimulus and new money we've had 0.2 of GDP growth! Factor in the real numbers and we are probably still in recession. We haven't stimulated shit. We've just made sure hat our children and grandchildren will have to pay of this unholy mess for MANY years to come.
It was the Ludviq Von Mises crew that saw this mess coming for many years now so I know which side of the 'intellectual' fence I fall on.
Gordon Brown sold all of our gold racking up a loss of around 7 Billion and counting.... economic genius my arse! oh have you not noticed the 160Bn budget deficit and the projected 1.4 TRILLION debt mountain? Global crisis... lol yhh... OK mate... whatever you say!
Go Kev!
2010 British General Election
(370 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG