See my previous post about my tenuous grip on reality.
I live in a dimension where you’ve had your arse handed to you on two separate Saints forums this week.
Like I said before, it’s my problem.
What, the irony that you’re the one calling me a moron?
Because I’m a moron, a half breed, not the
full shilling, you rival me hence the irony in me calling you one.
What weird dimension am I in here? We’ve got Pap admitting that he may have a very different grip on reality to others, and Barry has insulted everyone so much and so often he’s got bored and turned on himself. It’s like an implosion of Sotonians. What we going have next, Lou moving to a right wing, sexist, gun toting city? Fatso not following me around? Bletch writing short, concise posts?
It’s as if me returning has upset the cosmos.
1 Like
You certainly have a unique place in that cosmos, Cherts. You’re like a tennis ball being used on a court where each half is a Southampton forum. You land and bounce about wildly before getting whacked back over to the other side by one of the more skilful players. Occassionally, an umpire will call you OUT when you make remarks likening sexual assault to taking out a bank loan.
It’s rally volley good.
This topic is temporarily closed for 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
Very much like he did with the economic growth points. There must a theme here.
Originally posted by @Bucks
Very much like he did with the economic growth points. There must a theme here.
Our resident Tories ignoring every poster except the one they feel they can compete with?
That’s fine, you misunderstood my point, it’s just whether you did this (as I suspect) willfully to prove a point or not.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
That’s fine, you misunderstood my point, it’s just whether you did this (as I suspect) willfully to prove a point or not.
I must have missed the point part. Which bit was salient? The part where you were redundantly summarising Barry’s content or the part where you claim Fatso is stalking you.
I am working around to replying to your wholly inaccurate attack on me. But in the meantime, just because I am not as blinkered as you, does not mean you know how I vote.
In fact, again drawing on personal experience, I know (as in I could prove it) that politicians from all parties are liars and I told Teresa May that to her face. I had cause to deal with about 100 MPs through a work matter and I ended up meeting with a cross-party group of about 15 MPs at the house of commons. All the traditional big 3 parties were represented, plus the DUP and the Greens. Only 1 of the 15 emerged with any sort of credibility and the rest of them were like the worst cheating scumbags both at the meeting and subsequently. Teresa May is unfortunately my local scumbag and campaigned by knocking my door. She did not remember me but I told her firmly she was talking shit.
This is getting surreal 
The analogy of the decision on whether to do something when allegedly encouraged (ie, you’re not actually encouraged but in your own mind you are)? You were the one that brought it back up, so I thought you’d realise that.
And as above, the point was Fatso is no longer stalking me, hence the shift in the cosmos. You’re an intelligent guy Pap, why am I explaining this to you?
She is a massive dick, dislike her and her policies.
Originally posted by @Bucks
I am working around to replying to your wholly inaccurate attack on me.
Blimey, if that came across as an attack, I’m almost afraid to actually attack anyone now
But in the meantime, just because I am not as blinkered as you, does not mean you know how I vote.
This is true, but one can make assertions from the comments you made and the slavish defence of a system which failed us all. The instinct to blame those at the bottom normally correlates with the rhetoric of the Conservatives, or other right leaning parties.
In fact, again drawing on personal experience, I know (as in I could prove it) that politicians from all parties are liars and I told Teresa May that to her face. I had cause to deal with about 100 MPs through a work matter and I ended up meeting with a cross-party group of about 15 MPs at the house of commons. All the traditional big 3 parties were represented, plus the DUP and the Greens. Only 1 of the 15 emerged with any sort of credibility and the rest of them were like the worst cheating scumbags both at the meeting and subsequently. Teresa May is unfortunately my local scumbag and campaigned by knocking my door. She did not remember me but I told her firmly she was talking shit.
A step above the usual team-based politics, probably. If you really want a handle on what your MP’s are up to, and why they’re so ineffective, check out Owen Jones’ The Establishment. It may be a difficult read, given that it spends the vast majority of its musings attacking the instiutions you’re lining up to defend, but it provided me with a lot of insight.
I haven’t seen anywhere that Bucks is actually defending the banks, but what he is saying (and correct me if I’m wrong here Bucks), is that peoples personal financial profligation contributed to the banking situation, and resulted in a worse situation than if the banks had just fallen over by themselves.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
I haven’t seen anywhere that Bucks is actually defending the banks, but what he is saying (and correct me if I’m wrong here Bucks), is that peoples personal financial profligation contributed to the banking situation, and resulted in a worse situation than if the banks had just fallen over by themselves.
If that’s his and your point, it’s a load of shit. Let me tell you why. It’s all predicated on the notion that anyone borrowing money is doing it for frivolous reasons, such as a new fucking yacht or something.
The biggest loan anyone will take out is for property, a home being a basic human right. The pair of you are attempting to paint a picture of feckless fuckers perpetually living beyond their means because they want an undeserved good life, largely by defending the interests of those who are actually fucking feckless, who spend most of their time making money from the people you’re blaming.
1 Like
No, again stop implying things that aren’t there, I’ve asked you to stop doing that before. People can spend beyond their means and stretch themselves without them being feckless, just fiscally irresponsible. As Bucks has said, many of the defaulters came from a varied fiscal and societal status.
1 Like
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @Bucks
Cherts, valiant, but do remember that it was on this thread that we were told the economy definitely is not growing. And then, that if there is any growth, it is only in low paid, unskilled, zero hour contract work. So now its the case that anyone defaulting on their loan or credit card was uneducated, desperate and blatantly taken advantage of. Never mind that I dealt with hundreds of such defaults personally and they could not have involved a more diverse range of circumstances and backgrounds.
IIRC, you had one person telling you that we weren’t growing. I made the point that growth isn’t inherently a good thing, as everything is included, good and bad. That point was ignored.
I said it was on this thread, I did not say it was lots of people. Cherts was replying to Baz, which was the link, but I was trying not to personalise it. I did reply to your “growth isnt inherently a good thing” point. I asked if this thread had an anti-growth agenda now, remember? You also suggested that much of the growth was down to privatisation but I let that go and just posted the 10 sectors with the largest growth.
You glossed over the most intelligent post on the thread, possibly the site (bletch’s breakdown of the financial crisis) to spin back onto something that was discussed weeks ago. You’ve had the purpose, existence and efficacy of the credit system explained three times (please God, don’t let us get to six - special Corbyn rules kick in then ).
I acknowledged that most of what Bletch wrote was spot on. Thanks for the condescending “you’ve had it explained” but I was already familiar with it. I did reply to Bletch he liked my replies to him but you carry on slating me if you like.
**That translates to “anyone defaulting on their loan or credit card was uneducated, desperate and blatantly taken advantage of” No-one said that. The fact that you’ve tried to make out that someone has demonstrates the fragility of your argument. **
Baz pitched in halfway through the discussion about whether individuals had some blame for contributing to the banks’ losses. He brought these points up in relation to sub prime mortgages as some half cocked response to the debate.
Some very decent points were put to you and I had some reasonably high hopes that we were going to see, for perhaps the first time ever, a cogent defence of the right. That did not happen.
Instead, it’s the same ol’ blame the poor rhetoric, coupled with “I worked as a debt collector so I know what it’s like”. For Sotonians next trick, perhaps we should solicit the views of coppers on criminals or screws on inmates. We’d end up with a similar result.
Blame the poor? WTF are you on about, I am doing the opposite but you continue to demonstrate how little you know about people who default on loans and credit cards. A huge number of such defaulters are intelligent, educated people who are absolutely not historically poor. They are people who misjudge a situation, or fail to anticipate a change in their circumstances, or get too ambitious, or are greedy. Some are just bloody unlucky. Yes of course some defaulters are poor and are trying to simply make ends meet, but it is bollocks to say no one has any personal responsibility for their decisions.
Again, you resort to condescending crap like calling me a debt collector. As well as six months at a Bank’s debt recovery team, I spent 15 years as an insolvency practitioner advising people on their financial issues. I have stood in court with many individuals trying to keep them out of bankruptcy. It means I have first hand knowledge, sorry you find that difficult to accept.
Do remember that when you try to misrepresent people’s views so wholly, you’ll probably get called up on it
3 Likes
Originally posted by @Bucks
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @Bucks
Cherts, valiant, but do remember that it was on this thread that we were told the economy definitely is not growing. And then, that if there is any growth, it is only in low paid, unskilled, zero hour contract work. So now its the case that anyone defaulting on their loan or credit card was uneducated, desperate and blatantly taken advantage of. Never mind that I dealt with hundreds of such defaults personally and they could not have involved a more diverse range of circumstances and backgrounds.
IIRC, you had one person telling you that we weren’t growing. I made the point that growth isn’t inherently a good thing, as everything is included, good and bad. That point was ignored.
I said it was on this thread, I did not say it was lots of people. Cherts was replying to Baz, which was the link, but I was trying not to personalise it. I did reply to your “growth isnt inherently a good thing” point. I asked if this thread had an anti-growth agenda now, remember? You also suggested that much of the growth was down to privatisation but I let that go and just posted the 10 sectors with the largest growth.
You glossed over the most intelligent post on the thread, possibly the site (bletch’s breakdown of the financial crisis) to spin back onto something that was discussed weeks ago. You’ve had the purpose, existence and efficacy of the credit system explained three times (please God, don’t let us get to six - special Corbyn rules kick in then ).
I acknowledged that most of what Bletch wrote was spot on. Thanks for the condescending “you’ve had it explained” but I was already familiar with it. I did reply to Bletch he liked my replies to him but you carry on slating me if you like.
**That translates to “anyone defaulting on their loan or credit card was uneducated, desperate and blatantly taken advantage of” No-one said that. The fact that you’ve tried to make out that someone has demonstrates the fragility of your argument. **
Baz pitched in halfway through the discussion about whether individuals had some blame for contributing to the banks’ losses. He brought these points up in relation to sub prime mortgages as some half cocked response to the debate.
Some very decent points were put to you and I had some reasonably high hopes that we were going to see, for perhaps the first time ever, a cogent defence of the right. That did not happen.
Instead, it’s the same ol’ blame the poor rhetoric, coupled with “I worked as a debt collector so I know what it’s like”. For Sotonians next trick, perhaps we should solicit the views of coppers on criminals or screws on inmates. We’d end up with a similar result.
Blame the poor? WTF are you on about, I am doing the opposite but you continue to demonstrate how little you know about people who default on loans and credit cards. A huge number of such defaulters are intelligent, educated people who are absolutely not historically poor. They are people who misjudge a situation, or fail to anticipate a change in their circumstances, or get too ambitious, or are greedy. Some are just bloody unlucky. Yes of course some defaulters are poor and are trying to simply make ends meet, but it is bollocks to say no one has any personal responsibility for their decisions.
Again, you resort to condescending crap like calling me a debt collector. As well as six months at a Bank’s debt recovery team, I spent 15 years as an insolvency practitioner advising people on their financial issues. I have stood in court with many individuals trying to keep them out of bankruptcy. It means I have first hand knowledge, sorry you find that difficult to accept.
Do remember that when you try to misrepresent people’s views so wholly, you’ll probably get called up on it
Owned.