Heartless Tories?
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Ok, you said it ![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
: : ALL MOUTH AND TROUSERS - "adj. British. Blustering and boastful, showing off without having the qualities to justify it.There is a suggestion that this is a corruption of a more logical, but rarely heard expression, 'all mouth and no trousers'. meaning full of talk but deficient in the sexual area. A less racy version is 'all talk and no action'. ." From the "Dictionary of Contemporary Slang" by Tony Thorne (Pantheon Books, New York, 1990).
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
: : ALL MOUTH AND TROUSERS - "adj. British. Blustering and boastful, showing off without having the qualities to justify it.There is a suggestion that this is a corruption of a more logical, but rarely heard expression, 'all mouth and no trousers'. meaning full of talk but deficient in the sexual area. A less racy version is 'all talk and no action'. ." From the "Dictionary of Contemporary Slang" by Tony Thorne (Pantheon Books, New York, 1990).
#64
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
You're using a US source to define English? Are you mad!?
Of course, it's all mouth and NO trousers, it doesn't make sense otherwise! What the hell does all mouth and trousers mean!
Of course, it's all mouth and NO trousers, it doesn't make sense otherwise! What the hell does all mouth and trousers mean!
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Wink](images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#66
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
What's the point? You're going to show me how hard you work managing your properties? My issue isn't with managing it's the income from just owning! Your welcome to income from painting the odd window frame and fixing plumbing problems but it's only worth a fraction of what your tenents pay in rent.
#68
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Don't waste your breath, he'll give you some gibberish about 'the counterfactual' (his most recent fave term) and enclosure acts.
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#71
Scooby Regular
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Thumb](images/smilies/thumb.gif)
#73
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
load of nads imho the world we live in now is just to mechanized, machines that can do the work of ten or more people, where bought years ago by most manufacturing firms in the knowledge that it was capital investment, so could therefore come straight off thier tax bill,and who allowed all this, the greedy politicians who probably have shares in said companies,it's all about comercial greed and profit and it's not profitable to have staff when you can have a machine that never takes a holiday or sicky, face fact we will allways have unemployment on a large scale, it's a bit like collatoral damage in a war
#74
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
yes, there is an element of "quid pro quo" in all this
if you are going to demand jobless people "earn" their benefits - which on the face of it seems reasonable
then a governmental aspiration for full (or as near too) employment should be the flip side to the social contract we must all surely have
but it isn't - unemployment has been used as an lever of economic policy since the 80's
if you are going to demand jobless people "earn" their benefits - which on the face of it seems reasonable
then a governmental aspiration for full (or as near too) employment should be the flip side to the social contract we must all surely have
but it isn't - unemployment has been used as an lever of economic policy since the 80's
#77
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Wealth was required to buy slaves. The anti-abolishionists considered the abolishionists cause to be unjust for the reason you mention. Slaves were property that they had rightfully purchased.
#79
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
And then I'm accused of being a cyber bully when I question this sort of tripe
![Lol1](images/smilies/lol1.gif)
#80
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
yes, there is an element of "quid pro quo" in all this
if you are going to demand jobless people "earn" their benefits - which on the face of it seems reasonable
then a governmental aspiration for full (or as near too) employment should be the flip side to the social contract we must all surely have
but it isn't - unemployment has been used as an lever of economic policy since the 80's
if you are going to demand jobless people "earn" their benefits - which on the face of it seems reasonable
then a governmental aspiration for full (or as near too) employment should be the flip side to the social contract we must all surely have
but it isn't - unemployment has been used as an lever of economic policy since the 80's
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Nope I'm sorry, I've read that post several times and I still don't get what you're trying to say.
#82
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Let me translate. TDW believes that purchasing a property (or even inheriting one from your dear old granny) and then renting it out is exactly the same as.......
Purchasing another human being (who has been abducted from another country in chains), forcing them into unpaid labour, beating them and perhaps even raping them.
#83
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Let me translate. TDW believes that purchasing a property (or even inheriting one from your dear old granny) and then renting it out is exactly the same as.......
Purchasing another human being (who has been abducted from another country in chains), forcing them into unpaid labour, beating them and perhaps even raping them.
Purchasing another human being (who has been abducted from another country in chains), forcing them into unpaid labour, beating them and perhaps even raping them.
Anyway to own property and live off its rent is substantively to live off the surplus another human being produces. Rent is like a right to tax. The only difference is that the slave can't cancel their 'contact' of slavery, the tenent can move out. However the owner of property does exactly the same thing for their money as the slave owner, i.e, nothing.
#84
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
3.......2........1.........*click* you are now back in the room.....
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Now you aren't reading what I write. I was countering Glesgakiss's point that the ownership of something can be justified because the owner purchased it...i.e, may have worked for it. Clearly this isn't justified for slavery.
Anyway to own property and live off its rent is substantively to live off the surplus another human being produces. Rent is like a right to tax. The only difference is that the slave can't cancel their 'contact' of slavery, the tenent can move out. However the owner of property does exactly the same thing for their money as the slave owner, i.e, nothing.
Anyway to own property and live off its rent is substantively to live off the surplus another human being produces. Rent is like a right to tax. The only difference is that the slave can't cancel their 'contact' of slavery, the tenent can move out. However the owner of property does exactly the same thing for their money as the slave owner, i.e, nothing.
,
#87
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Now you aren't reading what I write. I was countering Glesgakiss's point that the ownership of something can be justified because the owner purchased it...i.e, may have worked for it. Clearly this isn't justified for slavery.
Anyway to own property and live off its rent is substantively to live off the surplus another human being produces. Rent is like a right to tax. The only difference is that the slave can't cancel their 'contact' of slavery, the tenent can move out. However the owner of property does exactly the same thing for their money as the slave owner, i.e, nothing.
Anyway to own property and live off its rent is substantively to live off the surplus another human being produces. Rent is like a right to tax. The only difference is that the slave can't cancel their 'contact' of slavery, the tenent can move out. However the owner of property does exactly the same thing for their money as the slave owner, i.e, nothing.
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Chip