Peppino Impastato Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 You've already been asked why yo think it's a bad thing they have a good relationship and can't answer. You were talking utter tripe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) If Trump has any strategy whatsoever it's replacing Nixon's China card with a Russia card. Might be scary to China but also unnerving to the Baltic States that divide the Motherland from its naval base in Kaliningrad. Having the two powers capable of destroying the Earth as buddies might seem safer, but it means there is no balance of power to stop them doing whatever they like to the rest of us. Edited December 31, 2016 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, welshbairn said: If Trump has any strategy whatsoever it's replacing Nixon's China card with a Russia card. Might be scary to China but also unnerving to the Baltic States that divide the Motherland from its naval base in Kaliningrad. Having the two powers capable of destroying the Earth as buddies might seem safer, but it means there is no balance of power to stop them doing whatever they like to the rest of us. But we've got Trident! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 12 minutes ago, Wee Willie said: But we've got Trident! Aye, but Estonia hasn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 It must be bad if GD is telling you that you are an idiot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Forgot this started today http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-baby-boxes-new-year-nicola-sturgeon-2017-a7503731.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergie's no1 fan Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, doulikefish said: Forgot this started today http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-baby-boxes-new-year-nicola-sturgeon-2017-a7503731.html Look at the comments section. Betty Swollocks is seething . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 17 minutes ago, sergie's no1 fan said: Look at the comments section. Betty Swollocks is seething . Oooft some crackers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I just read the comments. Fucking hell man, the sooner we get out the better. Those lunatics could put some of our dear P&B roasters to shame I'd expect that kind of vitriol in the Mail/Express. When it's taking over the independent it's time tae skoosh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I find it bewildering that no matter what the SNP do, even if it is for the benefit of some, people just can't help but criticize. Surely even the most wrapped in the Union Flag unionist can give credit where it's due.Obviously not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 It's only costing £6 million a year, money very well spent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 6 hours ago, doulikefish said: Forgot this started today http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-baby-boxes-new-year-nicola-sturgeon-2017-a7503731.html One of those it's such a good idea, no one else is doing it. Until now. The Äitiyspakkaus has been on the go since 1938 (since 1948 to all regardless of income). Their infant mortality rate tanked as a result (an important factor in a nation with such a small population), & as it went to the rich as well as to the poor it broke the mindset of the "nanny state" being a bad thing amongst the well to do. I'm glad to see that we're doing it, esp. considering the atrocious way some kids are brought into this world up here or their parents/parent getting duped into spending money they can't afford on expensive shyte they don't really need. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I don't really see the problem with it. I get the argument asking why bother sending them to the middle classes, why not just target them towards those who struggle to afford these things, on the other hand history tells us that when things like this aren't universal they suffer in quality and social acceptability. Apart from anything else it's good politics as those who don't receive them will soon forget about them, and those that do will be happy about it, even if they don't necessarily need it themselves. Something straight out the New Labour playbook. I guess I'll be receiving one once baby number 2 arrives and whilst I don't exactly need it, having all the stuff already, it will be a visual reminder of a caring state, meanwhile it costs the government basically nothing. Every other party should be kicking themselves for not thinking of it first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I don't really see the problem with it. I get the argument asking why bother sending them to the middle classes, why not just target them towards those who struggle to afford these things, on the other hand history tells us that when things like this aren't universal they suffer in quality and social acceptability. Apart from anything else it's good politics as those who don't receive them will soon forget about them, and those that do will be happy about it, even if they don't necessarily need it themselves. Something straight out the New Labour playbook. I guess I'll be receiving one once baby number 2 arrives and whilst I don't exactly need it, having all the stuff already, it will be a visual reminder of a caring state, meanwhile it costs the government basically nothing. Every other party should be kicking themselves for not thinking of it first. The Tories did think of it! Decided that helping babies it's not ideologically sound / no money in it for me so they can f**k off, hopefully starve while they're doing it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 1, 2017 Author Share Posted January 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said: The Tories did think of it! Decided that helping babies it's not ideologically sound / no money in it for me so they can f**k off, hopefully starve while they're doing it! I don't get that. Surely it's better to help the indigenous underclass than rely on bloody immigrants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Immigrants (controlled obvs!)=cheaper=more money for me= Tory selfish shitebag 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 It just took Labour a bit longer to draw the same conclusion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 This is what I don't get about the immigration thing. From a right-wing point of view: good for economic reasons. From a left-wing point of view: good for humanitarian and equality reasons. From a liberal point of view: good for freedom of individuals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 1 hour ago, jmothecat said: I don't really see the problem with it. I get the argument asking why bother sending them to the middle classes, why not just target them towards those who struggle to afford these things, on the other hand history tells us that when things like this aren't universal they suffer in quality and social acceptability. Apart from anything else it's good politics as those who don't receive them will soon forget about them, and those that do will be happy about it, even if they don't necessarily need it themselves. Something straight out the New Labour playbook. I guess I'll be receiving one once baby number 2 arrives and whilst I don't exactly need it, having all the stuff already, it will be a visual reminder of a caring state, meanwhile it costs the government basically nothing. Every other party should be kicking themselves for not thinking of it first. The problem is that if you only send it to those who struggle to afford these things, it becomes a badge of poverty & you will get the morons who put pride before practicality. Never underestimate the wilful stupidity of the working classes - for all of the Sun/Daily Mail headlines about "scroungers", I knew of whole generations that proudly boasted about never claiming dole or income support, no matter how many times it was pointed out to them that their taxes & national insurance stamps from doing every dirty shitty job available around before being thrown on the scrapheap at 50 had paid for them. It was the same carry on when the NHS started & you had muppets in mining communities hell bent on dying from lung conditions ("I'll not take 'andouts, like my father & his before him!") until they saw the boss happily collecting free prescriptions for ailments as a result of his self inflicted fatcuntitus. You only have to look at the fiasco of the Queen & Prince Charles claiming old age pensions they promptly donate by DD to charity anyway, all because they've been privately warned by Whitehall if they don't thousands of pensioners will merrily starve or freeze to death than take "charity". If the "posh" people are getting it as well (esp. Her Majesty & All Her Family - "Gawd bless 'em!") they no longer consider it "beneath" them to take it. Crazy, but there you have it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 The problem is that if you only send it to those who struggle to afford these things, it becomes a badge of poverty & you will get the morons who put pride before practicality. Never underestimate the wilful stupidity of the working classes - for all of the Sun/Daily Mail headlines about "scroungers", I knew of whole generations that proudly boasted about never claiming dole or income support, no matter how many times it was pointed out to them that their taxes & national insurance stamps from doing every dirty shitty job available around before being thrown on the scrapheap at 50 had paid for them. It was the same carry on when the NHS started & you had muppets in mining communities hell bent on dying from lung conditions ("I'll not take 'andouts, like my father & his before him!") until they saw the boss happily collecting free prescriptions for ailments as a result of his self inflicted fatcuntitus. You only have to look at the fiasco of the Queen & Prince Charles claiming old age pensions they promptly donate by DD to charity anyway, all because they've been privately warned by Whitehall if they don't thousands of pensioners will merrily starve or freeze to death than take "charity". If the "posh" people are getting it as well (esp. Her Majesty & All Her Family - "Gawd bless 'em!") they no longer consider it "beneath" them to take it. Crazy, but there you have it. Yeo, completely agree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.