Oh, come on. you've been on urban75 long enough to know that people say this sort of thing all the time.
I've never thought it was Urban's most endearing trait, to be honest.
Oh, come on. you've been on urban75 long enough to know that people say this sort of thing all the time.
I've never thought it was Urban's most endearing trait, to be honest.
you really are a complete fucking tory bellend, ain'tcha? I f you had any idea what life is like at the bottom of the heap, you'd realise the consequences, in real day to day terms, of the fact that these cuts fall disproportionately on the poorest, and that this goes way, way beyond what you suggest. In fact, this post alone actually justifies all the verbal violence heaped on you (and prolly r/l equivalent asd well!). Let me spell this out you tory twat; Y.O.U. A.R.E. T.E.A.R.I.N.G. T.H.E. L.I.V.E.S. O.F. T.H.E. P.O.O.R. A.P.A.R.T.Real violence & destruction is obviously worse than words, the fact you have to place an emphasis that the violence & destruction is 'real' probably suggests it's an hysterically hyperbolic term for describing a return in public spending to 2006 levels as a percentage of GDP.
Perhaps not but you should know that it shouldn't be taken seriously. It's not as though he said "AT 1PM THIS AFTERNOON I WILL GO TO YOUR HOUSE AND STAB YOU UP" is it?
They certainly do deserve that, and more besides.The suggestion was made that LibDems deserve to have their heads trampled on. That might not be against any law, but the threat is clearly implicit.
Of course it's not. But it does seem to me to be so un-nessessary and never leads to improved debate.
They certainly do deserve that, and more besides.
Of course it's not. But it does seem to me to be so un-nessessary and never leads to improved debate.
Perhaps not but you should know that it shouldn't be taken seriously. It's not as though he said "AT 1PM THIS AFTERNOON I WILL GO TO YOUR HOUSE AND STAB YOU UP" is it?
It was offensive, threatening and of a menacing manner. It crossed the line, and I don't hold that 'It's what urban is like' as being good enough.
I agree. but politics is, and always should be, a passionate business, especially when - as is the case right now - the policies being proposed/implemented will have such a dramatic, and destructive effect on the quality of people's lives, so it's not surprising when it occasionally boils over. And speaking for myself, I'd rather have that passion than the cold-blooded desiccated callousness which informs the politics of those on the right.Of course it's not. But it does seem to me to be so un-nessessary and never leads to improved debate.
Tough shit, you deserve it for your revolting apologism for this all-out attack on the workers, and for daring to suggest that all that your poilitical overlords are doing isn't really causing that much pain. You have no idea of working class lives, or needs.It was offensive, threatening and of a menacing manner. It crossed the line, and I don't hold that 'It's what urban is like' as being good enough.
It was offensive, threatening and of a menacing manner. It crossed the line, and I don't hold that 'It's what urban is like' as being good enough.
in terms of economic policy, you couldn't fit a rollie paper between the tories and the mob currently i'c libdems; they are both neoliberals."Why? And what on earth gives you the impression that the lib-dems are acting as brake rather than a accelerator? It's quite clear that the lib-dems are acting as the hard right of the coalition - exactly as Cameron wants them to. "
That's not as I see it.
"Why? And what on earth gives you the impression that the lib-dems are acting as brake rather than a accelerator? It's quite clear that the lib-dems are acting as the hard right of the coalition - exactly as Cameron wants them to. "
That's not as I see it.
So they're not acting as brakes then are they? You've just undermined your earlier post.
isn't that really all crystal ball territory, though? you may have been proved right, but equally you may have been proved wrong.I'm convinced that had the Tories formed a minority government before the summer, there would have been a new general election in October, and, having enjoyed a few months in government, with all the advantages that provides, a majority Tory government would now be in power, with no brakes attached whatsoever.
if they thought the tories would really be that bad why the hell did clegg and co go into gov't with them in the first place??
isn't that really all crystal ball territory, though? you may have been proved right, but equally you may have been proved wrong.
(In other words, I can't see much value in hypothetical conjecture).