bridge too far Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 The Sidney Webb 1917 original clause? Compulsory nationalisation. Suits me. Yep - the bit that says: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." Still makes sense to me
Robsk II Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 I'm liking where this is going. Schwarzwald, you say?
South City Si Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 Yep - the bit that says: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." Still makes sense to me Companeros, only if we allow for Workplace Democracy via worker's councils to administer the newly Nationalised means of production can you count on my arm!
Saint George Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 This guy's right on the button...http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494 Thats been prety much my take on it for a long long time ....Good to see confirmation from a highly qualified and experienced psychiatrist This bit, sums things up nicely.........."Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave." Couldnt have said it better myself
Robsk II Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 Haha, that's an opinion, one I find laughable, and hardly one that is "confirmation". I'm sure there are others within the field who would support the view that you are nuts, but it doesn't make it so (even though it is). Idiot. "Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder."
View From The Top Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 This guy's right on the button...http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494 Thats been prety much my take on it for a long long time ....Good to see confirmation from a highly qualified and experienced psychiatrist This bit, sums things up nicely.........."Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave." Couldnt have said it better myself Scooby was a good troll, you're world class. 'kin mong.
Dicko Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 People should listen to Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' before they criticise certain members and their right-wing views He was correct on many counts
Dicko Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 He was sacked for a reason, now let it go. He was sacked because it was deemed racist 40 years on, if people listen to the speech with an open mind, he was proven to be correct on many counts
Ponty Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 He was sacked because it was deemed racist 40 years on, if people listen to the speech with an open mind, he was proven to be correct on many counts You make it sound like one person deemed it to be racist.
Dicko Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 You make it sound like one person deemed it to be racist. The history books show he had more supporters than opponents. My mum lived in Wolverhampton from 68-70 He was considered 'a god' in those parts With hindsight, he was proven correct Have you read or listened to 'Rivers of Blood' Ponty?
Thedelldays Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 You make it sound like one person deemed it to be racist. just think...if he never made that speech on that day..he was on course to win the tory leadership...who then in turn, came to power...wonder what he would have done if he was PM...???
Ponty Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 The history books show he had more supporters than opponents. My mum lived in Wolverhampton from 68-70 He was considered 'a god' in those parts With hindsight, he was proven correct Have you read or listened to 'Rivers of Blood' Ponty? No. I prefer to base my arguments on ignorance.
Thedelldays Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 No. I prefer to base my arguments on ignorance. it is not ignorance ponty...read into it..what life was like back then..the hardships etc....he was well ahead in the tory leadership race and was on course to lead the party (who were on course to take over like labour did in 97)....it was that speech and the reporting of it that gave his opponents ammo to use against him....he could well have kept quiet and very easily got to power...and would be interesting either way to wonder where we would be today... we will never know.. but to dismiss it as ignorance is being ingorant of history itself....
Ponty Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 I think you missed my point TDD. I was merely implying that to argue against Powell without reading the speech in question would be ridiculous.
Thedelldays Posted 17 December, 2008 Posted 17 December, 2008 I think you missed my point TDD. I was merely implying that to argue against Powell without reading the speech in question would be ridiculous. if you do read the speech and what he stood for...he predicted (SOME) of the things we see in society today..those things are what his opponents used against him to get him out of the way...of course, he got things wrong (doesnt everyone) and his speech was lot more than "rivers of blood"..and that very line was taken way way out of context by hysteria... im not saying i support him and what came of his followers..but I like to look at all angles and make an opinion... no doubt robsk and co will call me a thicko and a rabid racist right wing mail reader for giving his views/speech the time of day...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 18 December, 2008 Posted 18 December, 2008 if you do read the speech and what he stood for...he predicted (SOME) of the things we see in society today..those things are what his opponents used against him to get him out of the way...of course, he got things wrong (doesnt everyone) and his speech was lot more than "rivers of blood"..and that very line was taken way way out of context by hysteria... im not saying i support him and what came of his followers..but I like to look at all angles and make an opinion... no doubt robsk and co will call me a thicko and a rabid racist right wing mail reader for giving his views/speech the time of day... I just read his speech and a lot of what he spoke about has unfolded over the years.
revolution saint Posted 18 December, 2008 Posted 18 December, 2008 I just read his speech and a lot of what he spoke about has unfolded over the years. I've just re-read his speech too. I'm not going to call him a racist - he's careful enough to argue against all immigration. I would call his argument fundamentally flawed though but that's with the benefit of hindsight. I guess Michael Howard and Portillo would also disagree on the benefits of allowing immigration too.....
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now