What's the point? The last one was just as bad in different ways, the most recent ones running against them were losers. Unless you see something different on the horizon, what would be the point?

They all Bitch but none can come up with better solutions,

---

What's the point? The last one was just as bad in different ways, the most recent ones running against them were losers. Unless you see something different on the horizon, what would be the point?

They all Bitch but none can come up with better solutions,

That is the truest statement ever made! It matters not the Country ... each country has their own share of bad Government.
Here in UK, there has NEVER been a worse or more corrupt Government. Yet they get away with it ...
This lot are STILL complaining about the mess that the last lot left behind ... in 1997 !!!
And the other lot will do the same when THERY get in!!
A POX ON ALL OF THEM ... !!!!!

That is the truest statement ever made! It matters not the Country ... each country has their own share of bad Government.
Here in UK, there has NEVER been a worse or more corrupt Government. Yet they get away with it ...
This lot are STILL complaining about the mess that the last lot left behind ... in 1997 !!!
And the other lot will do the same when THERY get in!!
A POX ON ALL OF THEM ... !!!!!

You're kidding right? Have you forgotten the Thatcher years where she sold off all the publicly owned utilities and rail services and put her friends on the board of executives? What a rip off that was. Where she destroyed the coal industry just to cripple the Unions? When we had the worst unemployment this country's ever seen?

Much as I think Blair is a power crazed lunatic with a god complex, this government has done more for the people that really need it. Under the Tory government the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Labour has actually done a lot to tackle poverty.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Much as I think Blair is a power crazed lunatic with a god complex, this government has done more for the people that really need it. Under the Tory government the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Labour has actually done a lot to tackle poverty.

Well Es, we must be living in different countries. This Government is one of the most corrupt ever.
Maybe closing down the coal production was a good thing if you are a green.
The selling of Honours for cash is blatant hypocrisy. At least Thatcher's Government was not corrupt AND incompetent! I hope and pray that you are safe from the Rapists and Murderers that this Government has allowed to walk free.
This lot are not Qualified to Govern. Not in any sphere. Not NHS, not Schools, not Armed services, not Immigration .... the list goes on. There is NOT ONE sphere of life that this Government has not made a total mess of!

Yet my point was that the other side is - and has been no better.
Blair was handed a Country with the best books of account in recent history ... yet Brown has delivered the country into penury. The biggest black hole in finances EVER! Not one Government department capable of doing its job.
But that is politics.
;-)))))

Labour has actually done a lot to tackle poverty.

Heh heh. That's what alleviates poverty, gov't intervention.

Es, do you think Red Ken's Congestion Charge affects rich people or poor people most? What about the TV tax? You think that helps the poor or hurts them?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Labour has actually done a lot to tackle poverty.

Heh heh. That's what alleviates poverty, gov't intervention.

Es, do you think Red Ken's Congestion Charge affects rich people or poor people most? What about the TV tax? You think that helps the poor or hurts them?

The congestion charge affects the rich the most as they are more likely to be car owners and drive into the congestion zone. Remember, before the congestion charge there was still no free parking up in the congestion zone...and of course most of the areas in the congestion zone are the wealthier boroughs.

When you add Red Ken's other transport policies like more bus lanes, cheaper bus fares, free travel for pensioners and children and other discounts I have personally have noticed that it is a lot cheaper and easier for me to travel into the zone.

The TV tax is controversial, but I approve of it because it ensures that we don't have to sit through hours of crap advertising just to watch some crappy imported American TV. There is always the option taken by most poor people, deny you have a TV and don't pay the bloody thing.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The TV tax is controversial, but I approve of it because it ensures that we don't have to sit through hours of crap advertising just to watch some crappy imported American TV. There is always the option taken by most poor people, deny you have a TV and don't pay the bloody thing.

If the tax only becomes fair by certain people breaking the law, it indicates a bad system. I don't suppose "TV tax forgiveness for the poor" would play well with the public for the simple reason that it is a luxury tax.

This is pretty much the exact same argument that some in the US use regarding immigration problems... they literally advocate breaking the immigration laws rather than fixing any perceived problems with them.

I am for the consistent application of laws. If the law, when applied consistently, becomes burdensome then it is a clear sign that it is a bad law as written. It is simply unfair for most citizens to pay their taxes while a few for whatever reason are allowed not to pay. If the government intends not to enforce a law on a group, it should be forthright about it and write that into the legal code and let the electoral process decide the merits of it.

There was a recent case in Pennsylvania where a white couple was denied adoption of a black child that they'd had in foster care for the past two years because of an incredibly strict application of obscure rules that are seldom applied to anyone else. The local government promptly removed the child from where he called home for no reason whatsoever (this couple was suddenly unfit as foster parents???). Unfortunately, the rule has been on the books for decades and the couple was unable to prove in court that "race" was the motivating factor in applying the rule so harshly, even though it is patently obvious to all observers.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

The congestion charge affects the rich the most as they are more likely to be car owners and drive into the congestion zone. Remember, before the congestion charge there was still no free parking up in the congestion zone...and of course most of the areas in the congestion zone are the wealthier boroughs.

I would suggest that the opposite is the case. The rich that live in that zone can afford the charge (especially the reduced amount they pay for living there) and they gain enormously--the traffic is reduced, significantly. Why is it reduced? Because the reason it is reduced is that overwhelmingly, people cannot afford to travel into the zone as they used to. That is why the charge works.

When you add Red Ken's other transport policies like more bus lanes, cheaper bus fares, free travel for pensioners and children and other discounts I have personally have noticed that it is a lot cheaper and easier for me to travel into the zone.

Sure, reduced congestion gives everyone some benefit. But the charge makes the trip unaffordable to those that can afford it the least. Again, that's why the charge works.

The TV tax is controversial, but I approve of it because it ensures that we don't have to sit through hours of crap advertising just to watch some crappy imported American TV. There is always the option taken by most poor people, deny you have a TV and don't pay the bloody thing.

While it is open to interpretation what comprises "crappy TV," we certainly don't want to get into a discussion about the relative merits of British TV as compared to American TV. It's TV. And actually, you get plenty of advertising over there, an American hour-long show is only 47 minutes long. They have to fill that time with something, and it's advertising.

Besides, if it's OK for people to break the law to avoid the TV tax, it's OK for the rich to break the law and avoid taxes with offshore accounts. That isn't a consistent position.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yep, the tank is full!

Iran raises stakes in nuclear dispute
Threats: hiding program, giving technology to Sudan

By Ali Akbar Dareini
ASSOCIATED PRESS

April 26, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran ratcheted up its defiance ahead of a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, threatening yesterday to hide its program if the West takes “harsh measures” and to transfer nuclear technology to chaos-ridden Sudan.

Ali Larijani, the top Iranian nuclear negotiator, also renewed a vow to end cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency and said increasing pressure on Iran would only stiffen its resolve.

“If you take harsh measures, we will hide this program. If you use the language of force, you should not expect us to act transparently,” Larijani said, adding that Western nations “have to understand they cannot resolve this issue through force.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fired back almost immediately, saying, “Iranians can threaten, but they are deepening their own isolation.”

Top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made the offer to transfer nuclear technology at a meeting yesterday with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

“Iran's nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country. . . . The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists,” Khamenei told al-Bashir.

Al-Bashir said last month that his impoverished, violence-ridden country was considering a nuclear program to generate electricity.

Such a technology transfer would be legal as long as it is between signatory states to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency is informed.

We “have to be concerned when there are statements from Iran that Iran would not only have this technology, but would share it, share technology and expertise,” Rice said during a visit to Ankara, Turkey.

Russia, meanwhile, launched a satellite yesterday for Israel that the Israelis say will be used to spy on Iran's nuclear program. The satellite is designed to see small images on the ground and would allow Israel to monitor Iran's nuclear program and long-range missiles, an Israel defense official said.

With Friday's U.N. deadline approaching, Iran has become more defiant almost daily.

“If U.N. Security Council sanctions are to be imposed on Iran, we will definitely suspend our cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Larijani said, echoing the words of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a day earlier.

Iran's stance appeared to stem in part from opposition to sanctions by Russia and China, both veto-holding members of the Security Council.

“We see no alternative to the negotiations process,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang urged all parties “to show flexibility.”

The United States has not openly threatened military action and says it wants a diplomatic solution. But President Bush has said all options, including military force, remain on the table.

Britain also warned Iran against misjudging the situation.

“The Iranians, in my judgment, would miscalculate if they believed Russia or China would block appropriate and effective sanctions, which targeted the regime, not the ordinary population,” Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said.

Iran's tough talk appeared to be the strongest public show so far ahead of the Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or for warheads.

---

me@rescam.org

The congestion charge affects the rich the most as they are more likely to be car owners and drive into the congestion zone. Remember, before the congestion charge there was still no free parking up in the congestion zone...and of course most of the areas in the congestion zone are the wealthier boroughs.

I would suggest that the opposite is the case. The rich that live in that zone can afford the charge (especially the reduced amount they pay for living there) and they gain enormously--the traffic is reduced, significantly. Why is it reduced? Because the reason it is reduced is that overwhelmingly, people cannot afford to travel into the zone as they used to. That is why the charge works.

They cannot afford to travel in by car, but now it is easier and cheaper to travel into the zone by other means. I never used to travel in to the zone much before because there was never anywhere to park, the parking that there is is very expensive and the public transport was too expensive. Since the congestion charge I actually can afford to travel into town more and so I do. The only ohter journeys I used to make where cutting through the congestion zone, but it is easy enough to drive around it.

I do not have a lot of money, but I do not consider myself poor. Poor people have benefitted from the congestion charge by having cheaper public transport. Poor people in London do not generally have cars.

When you add Red Ken's other transport policies like more bus lanes, cheaper bus fares, free travel for pensioners and children and other discounts I have personally have noticed that it is a lot cheaper and easier for me to travel into the zone.

Sure, reduced congestion gives everyone some benefit. But the charge makes the trip unaffordable to those that can afford it the least. Again, that's why the charge works.

I reapeat, those that can afford it the least do not have cars. They travel by bus.

The TV tax is controversial, but I approve of it because it ensures that we don't have to sit through hours of crap advertising just to watch some crappy imported American TV. There is always the option taken by most poor people, deny you have a TV and don't pay the bloody thing.

While it is open to interpretation what comprises "crappy TV," we certainly don't want to get into a discussion about the relative merits of British TV as compared to American TV. It's TV. And actually, you get plenty of advertising over there, an American hour-long show is only 47 minutes long. They have to fill that time with something, and it's advertising.

On the BBC we watch your shows and they only last 45 minutes. I always enjoyed watching Buffy without having to sit through the relentless adverts.

Besides, if it's OK for people to break the law to avoid the TV tax, it's OK for the rich to break the law and avoid taxes with offshore accounts. That isn't a consistent position.

A poor person might consider breaking the law when they have a choice between buying food for their children or paying the TV license. The rich might break the law when faced with the horror of losing that extra holiday home down in Malibu. Can you rally compare the two?
I do think the rich should be taxed more than the poor. There should be breaks given on tax to those that can least afford it, and so there should be discounts available for the TV license.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Iran threatens to strike at US targets if attacked

---

me@rescam.org

---

Account frozen...

They cannot afford to travel in by car, but now it is easier and cheaper to travel into the zone by other means. I never used to travel in to the zone much before because there was never anywhere to park, the parking that there is is very expensive and the public transport was too expensive. Since the congestion charge I actually can afford to travel into town more and so I do. The only ohter journeys I used to make where cutting through the congestion zone, but it is easy enough to drive around it.

You're missing the point. If it were "easier and cheaper" there would be MORE people using/going into the zone, not LESS. There are less, because people simply cannot afford the costs. It may be now be cheaper to ride said bus, but again, that clearly hasn't brought MORE people into the zone than there were before. Given my experience, I would never use buses in London again. Or Chicago for that matter.

A poor person might consider breaking the law when they have a choice between buying food for their children or paying the TV license. The rich might break the law when faced with the horror of losing that extra holiday home down in Malibu. Can you rally compare the two?

Of course, the law is the law. If it's OK for the poor to break it in what they see as their own best interests, it's OK for the rich to break the law in what they see as their own best interests. If you take the position that gov't meddling, in this case the TV tax, is good, then it is good for everyone and everyone has to pay. You know, to get that "free" health care.

I do think the rich should be taxed more than the poor. There should be breaks given on tax to those that can least afford it, and so there should be discounts available for the TV license.

Did it ever cross your mind that that this philosophy is why the rich send their money offshore? Who do you think benefits from that arrangement?

The point of all this was that they gov't does not do anything to "tackle" poverty. They tax the hell out of people and that impacts those that can afford it least, the most.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

They cannot afford to travel in by car, but now it is easier and cheaper to travel into the zone by other means. I never used to travel in to the zone much before because there was never anywhere to park, the parking that there is is very expensive and the public transport was too expensive. Since the congestion charge I actually can afford to travel into town more and so I do.

Dear Es ... I admire you. You are one of the people here whose posts I REALLY enjoy.
But I cannot allow you to get away with that broad-brush and WRONG statement (Blair Spin, I call it! - I make a statement and if I am not challenged on it, then not only have I gotten away with it, I can repeat it and repeat it, until people will say .... oh! ... yep! ... It must be right !!!)

From where I live, I have 1 bus to take me to Victoria. It used to cost - BEFORE the congestion charge - £1.00. today (AFTER the Congestion Charge) ... it is £1.50!!!!! A 50% increase! Is that what you mean by " ... cheaper to travel into the zone by other means ... "
In fact ... it could be FREE ... !!! - just put your walking shoes on ... . As I said ... much as I respect your views and am LMAO at some of your responses here ... this time youm am on reel thin ice ... !!!

... Poor people have benefitted from the congestion charge by having cheaper public transport.

ROTFLMAO ... are we on the same Planet? ... see my answer above ...

But nice try Es ... can I nominate you as Press Officer of the Year ...
You might even find an excuse for that horrid little man Clarke (someone buy the bas***d a razor, for G*d's sake) and in retrospect for that apology for a Government Minister, Blunkett, who was in the job before him ... he was not, obviously looking in the right direction when 788 prisoners were released. And you might have something to say to save the NHS and Patricia Hodge ...
Well I wish you luck!
None of that spin gets past the people with more than an IQ of 3.
The REAL problem is, that all of this will deliver the UK into the hands of Gordon Brown .... so until the Conservatives find a proper leader and kick Cameron in the nuts ... I will albeit reluctantly ... hope that Blair can stay there ...
BTW, Es, please take none of this as a personal attack. I am still (after Misfit) your most devoted admirer on these boards!!!!!!!!!
;-)))))

You're missing the point. If it were "easier and cheaper" there would be MORE people using/going into the zone, not LESS. There are less, because people simply cannot afford the costs. It may be now be cheaper to ride said bus, but again, that clearly hasn't brought MORE people into the zone than there were before. Given my experience, I would never use buses in London again. Or Chicago for that matter.

The buses here are fine, I don't know what they are like in Chicago. But since Red Ken became Mayor the bus system has really improved. You seem to be missing my point. Can you tell me where you get the figures from that less people are travelling into Central London? And if they are, is it because of the congestion charge or the July 7th bombings?

Of course, the law is the law. If it's OK for the poor to break it in what they see as their own best interests, it's OK for the rich to break the law in what they see as their own best interests. If you take the position that gov't meddling, in this case the TV tax, is good, then it is good for everyone and everyone has to pay. You know, to get that "free" health care.

It's not ok for a person to be put in the position where they need to break the law to survive. Where that is the case, the law needs to be re-examined. I'm also pretty sure that Health Care is not paid for by the TV license. As for our health service, we have one of the best in the world and it is free to everyone at the point of delivery. I never have to worry that I will end up massively in debt because one of my children falls ill if I have been out of work for a while. I never have to be in the situation my sister found herself in where she was unable to get her daughter vaccinated because she could not afford it. She wasn't living in a 3rd world country. She was living in America, and when she told be that I was appalled. It is totally short sighted and ridiculous that your health policy means that 3rd world deseases that are under control in civilised countries still claim lives in the USA.

Did it ever cross your mind that that this philosophy is why the rich send their money offshore? Who do you think benefits from that arrangement?

You are right in a sense in that the rich don't get rich by paying their taxes. But why should the poorer majority support society by paying more tax than the rich? You are of course suggesting the myth of the 'trickle down' effect that we've all heard so much about. Call it what you want, but the rich get their wealth from somewhere, I think the 'trickle up' effect should be a better name for it.

The point of all this was that they gov't does not do anything to "tackle" poverty. They tax the hell out of people and that impacts those that can afford it least, the most.

Yet the reality show that those less well off in society are doing better under our current government. I remember what it was like to be poor under the Tory government. I would never want to go back to that.

---

Reality Internet Personality

ROTFLMAO ... are we on the same Planet? ... see my answer above ...

But nice try Es ... can I nominate you as Press Officer of the Year ...
You might even find an excuse for that horrid little man Clarke (someone buy the bas***d a razor, for G*d's sake) and in retrospect for that apology for a Government Minister, Blunkett, who was in the job before him ... he was not, obviously looking in the right direction when 788 prisoners were released. And you might have something to say to save the NHS and Patricia Hodge ...
Well I wish you luck!
None of that spin gets past the people with more than an IQ of 3.
The REAL problem is, that all of this will deliver the UK into the hands of Gordon Brown .... so until the Conservatives find a proper leader and kick Cameron in the nuts ... I will albeit reluctantly ... hope that Blair can stay there ...
BTW, Es, please take none of this as a personal attack. I am still (after Misfit) your most devoted admirer on these boards!!!!!!!!! ;-)))))

Bodley, don't get me wrong, having worked for and met some of these people I am well aware of what reptiles they are. I do however take issue with your statement that they are the worse government we have ever had. Worse for the minority of people like you perhaps, but there are some very good things they have done that have certainly made my life significantly better than it would be otherwise.

I agree they have done some bloody awful things too. Taking us into a war no one in this county wanted was just one of them.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Did it ever cross your mind that that this philosophy is why the rich send their money offshore? Who do you think benefits from that arrangement?

You are right in a sense in that the rich don't get rich by paying their taxes. But why should the poorer majority support society by paying more tax than the rich? You are of course suggesting the myth of the 'trickle down' effect that we've all heard so much about. Call it what you want, but the rich get their wealth from somewhere, I think the 'trickle up' effect should be a better name for it.

The point of all this was that they gov't does not do anything to "tackle" poverty. They tax the hell out of people and that impacts those that can afford it least, the most.

Yet the reality show that those less well off in society are doing better under our current government. I remember what it was like to be poor under the Tory government. I would never want to go back to that.

Is all this why Blair has suddenly entered the BIG league in home ownership?
Is this why 2 Jags and 5 houses (and 2 birds) Prescott has made a million out of being an MP
Is this why Blunkett has had Government (i.e.you, through your taxes) pay for his country retreat so that he could 'entertain' his friend Kimberley?
At least the Conservatives HAD the money in the first place.
;-)))

BTW bodley, if you get an Oyster card it only costs 80p to travel on the bus. ;-)
That's how much it cost back in 1985 I think.

My children now travel free. So a journey that used to cost me £2.50 now costs me 80p. That seems a lot cheaper to me.


Still waiting for Bodleys's apology.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Nothings changed, now it's just semi-offical.

---

Account frozen...