xbl Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 She certainly isn't as good at debating as Salmond, then again I don't believe any other politician in the UK is. I actually think thats a bit of a myth. Salmond is excellent at sheer bombast and overwhelming people, but as a debater, I don't think he's all that. He can be wrongfooted, and gets out of it by verbally flattening his opponents, which can make him look like a bit of a b*****d to undecided types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I honestly struggle to think of three things that Ad Lib thinks we do better in Scotland than down south. I'm afraid that Libby is just a Unionist Tannoy. He can't think beyond what he gets told by The Rt Hon. Michael Moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 People should really learn to read my posts instead of responding based on things completely unrelated to them and points not argued by me. Maybe you should really learn to make interesting points in a style suitable for your audience so that you can communicate your points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 can you define "rich people"??? thats quite a generalisation your using there Happy to horsetrade over precise boundaries, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable ballpark figure to say that anyone paying the 40% rate of income tax or of net worth greater than £500k probably doesn't need the state to pay the full cost of their prescriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 1. I am not championing the English system. Yes you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Maybe you should really learn to make interesting points in a style suitable for your audience so that you can communicate your points? The points are readily communicated. It's not my fault if people ignore fucking basic things like unequivocal statements categorically stating the opposite of what they go on to accuse me of saying (see also Swampy saying that I think people should be deprived of free stuff even if it's more expensive to deprive them of it, when I specifically said that universal benefits were defensible from a pragmatic perspective when they are cheaper than means testing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Yes you are. No. I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Thought he was ok, bit of a cheap stunt with the bill signing gesture but find it hard to judge when you've got someone on the other side talking over someone all the time. Would like to see more of him before passing judgement. http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/sturgeonsarwar-scotnight-5sep13.mp3 How about now? This was supposed to be Sturgeon's question, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 No. I'm not. Then it's difficult to understand what the f**k you think you're doing. On the face of it you've spent a long time doing what you say you are not doing. It's a bit like you pretending that you're going to vote for independence in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 The points are readily communicated. It's not my fault if people ignore fucking basic things like unequivocal statements categorically stating the opposite of what they go on to accuse me of saying (see also Swampy saying that I think people should be deprived of free stuff even if it's more expensive to deprive them of it, when I specifically said that universal benefits were defensible from a pragmatic perspective when they are cheaper than means testing). Your posts read like a research paper. Its not a style conducive to actually reading, rather than skimming. Even I have found myself skimming your posts in recent months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Then it's difficult to understand what the f**k you think you're doing. On the face of it you've spent a long time doing what you say you are not doing. It's a bit like you pretending that you're going to vote for independence in that way. I don't cater for the lowest common denominator. Speaking to you is like trying to communicate gravity to someone living in a two-dimensional universe. Your posts read like a research paper. Its not a style conducive to actually reading, rather than skimming. Even I have found myself skimming your posts in recent months. 1. Your loss. 2. All posts should read like research papers. It weeds out the forum's lesser beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 She did it on question time also, dimbleby had to tell her to stop several times. The way I remember it is that she attempted to continue her answer over many interruptions, perception's a funny thing, innit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I don't cater for the lowest common denominator. Speaking to you is like trying to communicate gravity to someone living in a two-dimensional universe. Does that mean you can't find any evidence for what you've been claiming for the best part of a day? Because that's how it comes across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assasinach Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 A No vote will be a yes vote for the least democratic n oldest system going. snot the worst vote anyone who's never voted for Thatcher has done. we will find you and deal with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Happy to horsetrade over precise boundaries, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable ballpark figure to say that anyone paying the 40% rate of income tax or of net worth greater than £500k probably doesn't need the state to pay the full cost of their prescriptions. You mean people who probably already have private insurance and probably won't take advantage of free prescriptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Happy to horsetrade over precise boundaries, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable ballpark figure to say that anyone paying the 40% rate of income tax or of net worth greater than £500k probably doesn't need the state to pay the full cost of their prescriptions. ahhh, so a single parent with 5 kids earning 35k a year should pay for their prescriptions, but a single person earning 34k should get free prescriptions...the wonderfull world of Ad Lib edited to use current figures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Does that mean you can't find any evidence for what you've been claiming for the best part of a day? Because that's how it comes across. I gave you evidence and I directed you to a source. You ignored it. Not my problem. You mean people who probably already have private insurance and probably won't take advantage of free prescriptions? You do realise that the proportion of the UK population with PHI is something like 10-12%, right? And that when their doctor, NHS or private, writes them a prescription, it's the pharmecist that gets paid by the government, not the doctor, right? People with PHI take advantage of state funded prescriptions in the same way as they take advantage of A&E even though they carry a BUPA membership card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I gave you evidence and I directed you to a source. You ignored it. Not my problem. No you didn't and yes it is. Just say if you can't provide evidence, it'll save us all a lot of effort. As you have said many, many times yourself, it's up to the poster to provide evidence. If you cannot, just recant your pish and we'll all forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 ahhh, so a single parent with 5 kids earning 35k a year should pay for their prescriptions, but a single person earning 34k should get free prescriptions...the wonderfull world of Ad Lib edited to use current figures You've forgotten the personal allowance. The 40p rate of tax kicks in for those earning in the region of £41k if my memory serves. You'll recall of course that such a figure represents approximately twice the median wage for this country. Which is slightly besides the point as I wasn't advocating those being the thresholds. I said that we could horsetrade on that, to account for whatever specific boundaries we want to draw. I merely suggested that the overwhelming majority of people in those categories can afford to make a contribution towards their own prescription costs, so they should, if it would save the NHS money that could be spent on other more useful things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 No you didn't and yes it is. Just say if you can't provide evidence, it'll save us all a lot of effort. As you have said many, many times yourself, it's up to the poster to provide evidence. If you cannot, just recant your pish and we'll all forget it. Putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala not listening" doesn't alter the reality that I provided you with evidence of the broader range of drugs available through the NHS in England in relation to cancer treatment than is available in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.