These tea party people....

I think there's a fundamental difference in the understanding of the term "fair" between the USA and Western Europe.

"Fair" as claig describes it further up the thread and as expounded by the Tea Party is "If I earn it I should be able to keep it".

"Fair" As I, many others on this thread understand it and as practised in Western Europe is "If you earn more you should contribute more to the upkeep of those less fortunate than you"

While both understandings of the term are technically correct, they are fundamentally at odds with each other. The Tea Party version of the belief in fairness relies on those with more wealth to be philanthropic, the Western Europe understanding of the term requires them to be.

Without wanting to sound patronising, isn't sharing something we teach our toddlers to do? Perhaps this is why the Tea Party version of individualism is so abhorrent to so many in Europe.

ISNT, you obviously think you are "superior" to "repulsive" old me, who doesn't make any sense. You think you are full of "compassion" and that conservative voters aren't. But your "compassion" doesn't extend to courtesy.

It obviously makes you feel good to think that you are "compassionate" and that millions of other people - conservatives, Tea Partyers, Sarah Palin etc. - are all uncompassionate, heartless individuals.

As Litchick says, this is why people in their millions turned away from the Labour Party.
'They are sick of being patronised and ignored with a 'we know best' pat on the head.'

You see, people like me and Sarah Palin and David Cameron and millions of others support Tory policies because we care for the country and the people. We believe that they are the best policies for the country as a whole. We believe that the progressives have the wrong policies and have ideas that will eventually bankrupt and harm the country and its people. We believe in a better future, not in "building a progressive future". We have seen the progressive past and we don't want to go back there. Fortunately, the British people agree.

Thanks for pointing out that teh Saudi regime is appalling. I didn't know that. I don't think that the Saudi regime is particularly unstable, in fact I think theat the West intentionally props up its leaders against the interests of the Saudi people.
I am not back-pedalling, I think teh Saudi regime is appalling, but I don't think it represents any threat to the stability and continuity of our oil supplies.

I am not convinced about nuclear power because of the health risks to people and to future generations. I care about the environment and human beings more than I care about the energy needs of this generation. I care about radioactive waste and the effect on marine life and human life. I sympathise with the Irish government and people who were worried about pollution in the Irish Sea and were worried that increases in childhood leukemia and lymphoma might have something to do with it.

And before you say "I didn't say that"" - you support the conservative party and sarah palin, and approve of the tea party. All low taxation parties = little or no welfare state. There can be no misunderstanding where you stand on these matters.

No it's a case of explaining why the poor of this country, and the wider world, should suffer in order to support the lifestyles of the "deserving" few. It's a case of explaining why beautiful unique landscapes should be ruptured in order to fuel an endless and ever increasing dependence on fossil fuels. It's explaining why people should turn their backs on compassion, and stop looking for ways to build a healthier environment for everyone.

It's a thoroughly uplifting story.

ISNT, to me it is not a case of "superior" debating technique. I am not trying to score points.

Claig when I pointed out that many countries with oil are unstable etc you held up Saudi as a shining beacon in the oil producing world. When I pointed out their regime is appalling you commenced furious back-pedalling.

Why don't you like nuclear power?

Litchick Claig has said that I am deranged. Hardly superior debating technique

I have to go out now.

"you have held the Saudis up as a really good place to buy oil from"

I don't recall saying that it is a "really good place" to buy oil from. It is the world's largest oil producer and I believe that the United Kingdom needs to keep on buying oil, so that is why we buy oil from them.

I don't believe that alternative energy sources (apart from nuclear power as advocated by James Lovelock) can replace oil for our economy. But I am in favour of scientists trying to find other energy sources and if they succeed, then all well and good.

But they don't make sense.

How can trading with a country and giving them money possibly be interpreted as not supporting them?

How can looking after the human race be squared with polluting the environments of the poorest of them?

How can anyone think that it is better to drill for oil in a unique national park, than try to reduce dependence on oil in the first place?

But you have held the Saudis up as a really good place to buy oil from. Trading with a country, giving them money = supporting them.

Why not invest in alternative energy solutions and reduce the need to give money to corrupt, dangerous and unethical regimes, and spend it instead within our own economy, stimulating all sorts of sectors and providing lots of employment.

Claig's posts make perfect sense.
I don't agree with much of it, but saying they don't make sense is patronising.

Which is why so many are turning from the Labour party. They are sick of being patronised and ignored with a 'we know best' pat on the head.

You keep on insulting me and ascribing views to me which I don't hold, such as supporting the Saudi regime. So I can only surmise that you are starting to lose it and your anger is making you irrational.

Yes I want the UK to buy Saudi oil, but that doesn't mean I support what the Saudi regime does. I want us to buy oil to keep our economy moving, to keep our people employed and to pay for our health service and other services that we have. I don't believe in cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I don't feel particularly angry, I feel sad that "every man for himself and fuck everyone else" seems to be such a prevalent view at the moment.

But you just suggested that we buy lots of lovely oil from the Saudis. I'm sure I read that

"'You say you want a strong wealthy Britain, but you want us to retain our dependence on the often corrupt and unstable oil producing countries around the world.'
we have no threat from Saudis over oil etc. There is a potential problem with superpowers like Russia, but it is in their interests to sell us fuel and we need to maintain good relations with these countries."

"I think the Saudis have always been in the West's sphere of influence. I can't see it ever being in their interests to refuse to sell us oil. "

Sounds to me very much like you want to buy their oil

I'm sorry if you are struggling to understand my posts, I think they seems quite logical. I have never been called deranged before Are you suggesting that I have mental health problems? And you say that you never resort to insults

'This is a regime that you approve of and want to support with your money?'

I think you want to read things into what I am saying. I do not approve of the Saudi regime. I said they are not a threat to the United Kingdom, they won't stop us getting access to oil. Your outrage at the Saudi regime is shared by me. I don't want to throw money at anyone. I believe in Tory fiscal rectitude, I am not a progressive.

Are you a relation of Mr. Angry from Tunbridge Wells, perchance? I find your posts increasingly deranged TBH.

You approve of us pouring our money into Saudi?

Surely better to circulate our money in our own economy and those more local to us, and not throw it all at regimes like Saudi? Where they stone women to death, they aren't allowed to drive, and religious police are on the streets to administer beatings to women who are not dressed exactly to their standards? Where the religious police prevent firefighters rescuing schoolgirls from a burning school because the girls do not have their faces covered? This is a regime that you approve of and want to support with your money?

Again, right wing philosophy to a tee. Everyone for their own self interest and no compassion. You say that human beings are the most important thing on the planet, but clearly this concern only extends to you and yours.

I find your posts increasingly repulsive TBH.

thanks complimentary, yes you are right, I do care about the environment and not shooting tigers and rhinos and I am against companies that throw toxic waste into rivers etc. I am all for human health and am against genetically modified food and the harm that GM crops do in their contamination of non-GM crops and the potential harm to human health and to bees and other wildlife. I think the global warming brigade are lying and doing it for political ends and that the end result of their policies is to harm human life on earth and as Jonathon Porritt advocates to restrict the size of families because they pretend that humans are a virus on earth causing global warming which will destroy the planet. I agree with Sir David Bellamy and Sarah Palin and many others in their opposition to the elites who push the global warming agenda.

I think the Saudis have always been in the West's sphere of influence. I can't see it ever being in their interests to refuse to sell us oil. I know that they did quadruple the price with OPEC once, and that harmed our economies, but who knows what other private interests it really benefitted?

Claig I enjoyed reading your posts, it's late now ( well for me) all I can say is you never resort to any insults, even when others say things that are not true about you and your postings. Am I right in thinking that you do, care about the environment, but think that the global warming and green issues have been overplayed. You hate the nanny state, and the resulting bullying of the people of this country by bureaucrats and the political elite, and admire the outspoken freshness of Sarah Palin. I read your link to the Times article on her and it was of course interesting. I'm not to sure if she would become President of the USA, but I'm sure she will at least be at the top of her game in politics in the USA. If I'm wrong about you please say, I feel that you are saying that if you are not with the global warming brigade, people automatically think you agree with shooting tigers or running a high speed train trough vast acres of meadows, and I'm sure you do not. Goodnight

Hmmm. I think 'no threat' from Saudi might be over stating it.

Yes I don't make sense, please explain things to me, you are so knowledgeable.

'Explain how your nationalised private industries are going to work?'
I think you are deliberately trying to misunderstand me. We can have both natioanlised industries and private enterprise side by side, just as we used to have when BT and the railways were under public ownership.

'You say that humans are important, and you agree with reducing pollution.... But you support drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and lambast Green ideas for alternative, less polluting energy sources.'
yes i say all of those things. I don't care if greens want to search for less polluting energy sources, I object to them taxing companies and people for their carbon footprint, and harming business and the jobs that people depend on.

'You say you want a strong wealthy Britain, but you want us to retain our dependence on the often corrupt and unstable oil producing countries around the world.'
we have no threat from Saudis over oil etc. There is a potential problem with superpowers like Russia, but it is in their interests to sell us fuel and we need to maintain good relations with these countries.

Well you don't make sense.

Explain how your nationalised private industries are going to work?

I can't get to grips with a lot of what you say, in order to discuss it with you.

You say that humans are important, and you agree with reducing pollution.... But you support drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and lambast Green ideas for alternative, less polluting energy sources.

You say you want a strong wealthy Britain, but you want us to retain our dependence on the often corrupt and unstable oil producing countries around the world.

It all seems contradictory to me.

We haven't got renewable fuel sources that can replace fossil fuels. We can't run our economy and thrive and prosper and pay for our health service with renewable fuel sources. There is an answer to our energy needs, and it is the answer that Sir James Lovelock advocates - nuclear energy.

Yes my posting style is very strange, and I am very strange and I don't make sense. Am I a 'bigoted petrolhead as well?'