Guest 1571- Registered: 24 Aug 2015
- Posts: 71
lol at the person trying to chastise me for playground nicknames and yet people used prick, knobend and they didn't bat an eyelid
youtube.com/chazwoldalmighty
Guest 2060- Registered: 19 Apr 2017
- Posts: 76
You guys haven't changed.LOL
I can see why poor little Mike Eddy has gone to green pastures new
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,256
ChazwoldAlmighty wrote:you used google...go on then explain what snowflake is? Apart from a buzzwords that normies have latched onto and removed it from the original intended usage it had.
Seems you are very easily offended by someone elses slight misinterpretation in the meaning of a word, maybe when the cap fits as they say?
Arte et Marte
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
ChazwoldAlmighty wrote:lol at the person trying to chastise me for playground nicknames and yet people used prick, knobend and they didn't bat an eyelid
The difference is when people post honestly under their real name or cower behind a pseudonym.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
As you say Howard
I dont like those that don't say who they are
I'm quite open and honest
It can sometimes offend often because some don't like the truth
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1571- Registered: 24 Aug 2015
- Posts: 71
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:The difference is when people post honestly under their real name or cower behind a pseudonym.
Yeah, using a well known name I had on the internet that contains my real name.
Going by that logic, you care not for the truth but how it sounds. That is the definition of idiotic.
Reginald Barrington wrote:Seems you are very easily offended by someone elses slight misinterpretation in the meaning of a word, maybe when the cap fits as they say?
You think I was offended? Nope. Pointing out the irony of someones virtue-al signaling is funuy though.
youtube.com/chazwoldalmighty
Guest 1571- Registered: 24 Aug 2015
- Posts: 71
and bob. Yeah that was back from my Youtuber days. I faced off against a troll army by myself and retired half of them. Someone found my video so good they put that together.
Trying to mock me with statue of one of my greatest achievements is a bit of a silly move.
youtube.com/chazwoldalmighty
Bob Whysman
- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,935
ChazwoldAlmighty wrote:and bob. Yeah that was back from my Youtuber days. I faced off against a troll army by myself and retired half of them. Someone found my video so good they put that together.
Trying to mock me with statue of one of my greatest achievements is a bit of a silly move.
Posted in jest ChazwoldAlmighty but with the moderator removing the video it nullified the gist of my post so have deleted it....
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Guest 1571- Registered: 24 Aug 2015
- Posts: 71
you will grow to love me as you get to know me, i promise.
youtube.com/chazwoldalmighty
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,869
It seems that we have a troll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,256
No Jan they're a troll slayer they said so themselves!
Arte et Marte
Weird Granny Slater
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,063
If that's all a troll is, JH, then there are quite a few on here, especially of the digressive or off-topic sort. At least this thread's stayed green, even if that's just the bile talking.
Jan Higgins likes this
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
It's interesting all the different views on why a person who shouted so much about being a socialist
Can overnight become a green party person
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,869
Keith Sansum1 wrote:It's interesting all the different views on why a person who shouted so much about being a socialist
Can overnight become a green party person
Most people I have met that are Green party fans tend to be bit of a socialist so not really surprising if he did not fancy joining the LibDems.
howard mcsweeney1 likes this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Other than the alleged bullying the main reason for switching parties was over universal credit but Labour would scrap it and a large number of Tory MPs would do likewise.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,056
howard mcsweeney1 wrote: Labour would scrap it and a large number of Tory MPs would do likewise.
Yup. But for all the wrong reasons. See Economist's take:-
"THE GULF between principle and practice is often fatal for policies—and for political careers. Britain’s government faces a backlash over universal credit, a reform combining six welfare programmes into one. This was widely seen as a good idea about a decade ago. But a series of administrative failures, a senseless decision to make payments well in arrears and a squeeze on the system’s overall generosity have left many claimants angry. Some are destitute. In places where universal credit replaces legacy benefits, reliance on food handouts rises and more people fall behind with the rent.
This good-idea-turned-disaster has already led the government to delay the reform. Some critics say it should be abandoned altogether (see article). They are wrong. If the government corrects its mistakes—starting by providing a little more money in its budget on October 29th—universal credit could still succeed. In fact, Britain might end up with a world-class welfare system that approximates an idea long advocated by many reformers, including this newspaper: a negative income tax for low earners.
Welfare systems worldwide are plagued by complexity. By one count America has 72 federal anti-poverty programmes providing cash or benefits. France has upwards of 35 state-pension schemes. In Japan welfare recipients must sell items that are deemed—sometimes at the whim of an individual bureaucrat—to be luxuries.
Complexity creates obstacles that prevent the hard-up claiming support that is meant for them. It also leads to haphazard patterns of eligibility and, as a result, poverty traps in which it is more lucrative to earn less in wages. Universal credit is designed to fix both problems. After it is fully implemented, it will cover seven of every ten pounds in the working-age welfare budget. Official forecasts say that as take-up rises another £2.9bn ($3.7bn), or 5% of the programme’s total cost, will be handed out. It will always pay at least a little for recipients to earn more.
Welfare states also have an undesirable tendency to spend ever more on increasingly wealthy and numerous pensioners, leaving an ever skimpier safety-net for those of working age. Britain has recently followed this trend, boosting state pensions by 6% (after adjusting for inflation) since 2010 even as working-age welfare has been cut. Worse, the government has used the launch of universal credit as cover to deepen the cuts.
Nonetheless, among rich countries Britain’s welfare system is one of the more progressive. The last time it was counted, 34% of British welfare spending went to the poorest fifth of the working-age population, compared with an OECD average of 23%. The EU as a whole shells out about 9% of GDP on state pensions; Britain spends only 5%. And even after recent cuts, in 2018 it will still spend more than three times as much as America, as a share of GDP, on wage top-ups for poor workers and parents.
Targeted spending has a cost. Focusing money on the poor means withdrawing it fairly rapidly as people earn more. Universal credit’s withdrawal rate is 63%, meaning claimants lose 63p for every £1 they earn above an allowance. The disincentive to work can be sharper still once payroll and other taxes are taken into account. Amazingly, this is an improvement on the previous system for most claimants. But it is a steeper taper than reformers proposed when they first dreamed up universal credit.
Such a trade-off between generosity and work incentives is inherent in negative income taxes. Proponents often envisage a withdrawal rate comparable to the basic rate of tax. Without a much larger contribution from most workers that is incompatible with a safety-net of today’s strength. Luckily, low earners seem less responsive to high tax rates than other groups, perhaps because they have more need of extra cash. Still, the disincentive to work is too strong. Blunting it would be worth the money.
Make no mistake: universal credit has so far done more harm than good. But it is a policy worth rescuing—and not just because doing so is good politics. Rather than being a national embarrassment, Britain’s welfare reform could eventually become a shining example for others"Ross Miller likes this
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
So really if that's the case he has no reason for leaving
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
58 was an informative read but misses the point about universal credit by advocating more money allocated to it, the whole point is to save money. It also talks about negative income tax but surely working tax credits covers that?
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,063
The Greens have, disappointingly, moved closer to Labour over the years so that there is now quite a policy overlap between the two. They may have a small presence at a local level, but their solutions are no longer small, locally distinctive ones, but rather the traditional big state ones of the other parties. Aside from obvious environmental policy differences, probably the only major point of convergence is PR and, possibly, EU membership (though Labour's fudging this in any case). If any of that's true, then it's not difficult to see how someone can move from Labour to Green, though I doubt it would work the other way.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
all part of uni. credits H.
