Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To loathe lefties with a passion?

(363 Posts)
Abitwobblynow Mon 25-Feb-13 12:51:16

Came across this and loved it. Punctures left wing twats right between the eyes!

"The point is that the "hierarchy of victims " is not an accident nor unique to this case. It is the whole basis on which lefties' views and loyalties in any issue are shaped - i.e. not by its rights and wrongs, but by who the protagonists are.

Any group you can think of can be slotted somewhere into the heirarchy of those whom the left either likes - ethnic minorities, Muslims, communists, strikers, the disabled, women, gays, public sector workers, dole claimants, and criminals, for example - or loathes: Americans, Tories, farmers, taxpayers, men generally, bankers and owners of private wealth.

These hatreds instruct the left on any issue. If demonstrating NUM miners are forcibly dispersed by the police, they side with the miners. If the Countryside Alliance are dispersed by the police, however, they side with the police, because they like miners and hate farmers.

If a Tory government withdraws money from pensioners it's the epitome of evil. If an NHS worker leaves the elderly to starve to death in their own excrement, the left couldn't care less. The left isn't pro-elderly unless this means being anti-someone else. If the someone else is the NHS producer, then the left isn't pro-elderly any more. The side they pick is the producer, who matters more than the consumer.

Where it all goes tits up is when two different client groups are at each others' throats. So the leftist sympathises with the criminal in general - unless the crime is domestic violence. Then they sympathise with the woman. Unless, again, the man is a Muslim cleric, in which case the lefty has to look away. Reggae singers going on about shooting gays in the head: this does not compute. Gangs of Muslims threatening gays: does not compute. Black governments victimising their own citizens? Pretend it isn't happening.

The left doesn't really give a toss about miners. What matters is who else is involved. White British police? - side with the miners. Black Communist-controlled police? - side with the police, they're above reproach - or at any rate, above miners [reference to ANC police and black miners at Marikana].

As we've noted before, Lefties reduce every issue to a disgusting form of Top Trumps. They are, quite simply, morally incompetent."

Is it unreasonable to agree that lefties are morally incompetent?

larrygrylls Wed 27-Feb-13 12:59:43

Boulevard,

I don't think "pure" anything works well in politics. I don't think many people would like the idea of people starving while others live the life of our plutocracy, or that there would be no medical care at all if you could not afford it.

On the other hand, I think most people are amazed at some of the things that are currently thought of as reasonable for spending government (i.e our) money on, or some of the lack of controls over how it is spent.

MiniTheMinx Wed 27-Feb-13 13:16:45

ah, so libertarian values and free markets lead to such huge inequality that some couldn't walk on the pavement or have health care.......The freedom to starve or saw your own leg off. Free markets do not equate to free people.

larrygrylls Wed 27-Feb-13 13:26:57

Mini,

But nor do extremes of redistribution. They tend to lead to USSR style states with all powerful governments and corrupt politicians.

As I said, pure ideology rarely works in politics.

MiniTheMinx Wed 27-Feb-13 13:31:49

What would you rather, watch others enjoy freedom to purchase health or experience freedom from unmet health needs?

Its a Q? of freedom for Versus freedom to

I would like freedom from starvation rather than the freedom to spend my greater wealth stuffing my face.

larrygrylls Wed 27-Feb-13 13:36:30

Mini,

But it does not work that way. People need incentives to work hard.

I want everyone to have access to enough food. I want everyone to have access to adequate health care. Optional additional health care or slightly faster access I have no problem with people being able to buy. Ditto eating organic or going out to restaurants.

If people work hard and do well, they SHOULD have more IMO. However there should be a safety net for those who fall on hard times, but a safety net not a top luxury safety cushion.

MiniTheMinx Wed 27-Feb-13 13:40:43

Like dogs, you offer them a reward grin

We don't have a luxury cushion though do we?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Wed 27-Feb-13 13:43:34

The trouble with state-provided safety nets is that while they may be universal in their coverage, they are often not very good. As the parent of a child with a disability I have strained every sinew to avoid entrusting him to state education providers (MS and SN) and I shudder at the thought that he may one day be dependent on state care. State provision in these sectors is all too often merely a job-creation scheme for people who want an easy life. The best quality input DS has had has been privately purchased or accessed via non-state sources (MN SN board, for example, provides far better info about ASD than any health visitor I have ever met).
Where this leaves the size of the state debate I do not know. I just know I don't trust the state to look after DS. So I laugh bitterly when I hear the more fortunate laud state health and education provision and the people who provide it.

DesiderataHollow Wed 27-Feb-13 14:17:04

Is it James Delingpole?

Do I win?

DesiderataHollow Wed 27-Feb-13 14:18:18
slug Wed 27-Feb-13 15:01:13

The problem with not providing state-provided safety nets is people starve to death or die of preventable diseases.

<<just saying>>

NicholasTeakozy Wed 27-Feb-13 15:32:59

Just read that link Desiderata and had a good laugh as after only 8 posts Godwins Law was invoked. Idiots grin

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Wed 27-Feb-13 15:52:57

People do those things with state-provided safety nets too, slug - ask the relatives of the 1200 prematurely dead in Stafford.
It's not enough to say "pay for the big state and it will provide" - sometimes the way the big state operates militates against effective provision for people in need. As those of us with kids with SN find out to our cost.

claig Germany Wed 27-Feb-13 17:47:03

Karlos, it is true that the state health system is not perfect, but that is why we need to keep up the pressure to report where it fails and to hold people to account so that it improves.

Some people are fortunate and can afford to choose whether to have state or privately provided health, but the majority have no choice. We have to improve state health care.

But there are lots of savings to be made in the Big State in other areas.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now