Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Oh, and most recent would have included Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Il .
.

These three? I thought they were your left-leaning heroes!!!

Chavez is hardly evil, even for a socialist.

Neither is Castro, really. Communist, fascist dictator, perhaps, but most of his population have food and I did not hear of too many death camps and mass graves.

Jong Il, well yes, perhaps we should add him to the list. Make it 5.

But hold on a minute here, you don't just want to add Jong Il because he is a half-pint, slitty-eyed yellow man - do you? You are not being racist again here, are you??

I know how you think.


.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Oh, and if I were racist, I wouldn't try and hide. I may be an unpopular twunt, but at least I have the integrity to say what I mean.

You are racist Bazzihno. Profoundly so.
You are the reason I bowed out of this debate and deleted some of my responses to you, you cannot see beyond your own pathological desire to label everyone who dissents from your view of the world as stupid and/or racist.

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Originally Posted by ottar

I shall write it again: It is the private sector that pays for government.
Which bit of that sentence is factually incorrect?

Only because you've chosen a definition of 'pays' that fits that particular conclusion.

To take just one example, how could businesses turn a profit if every one of their employees needed to own a car to get to work instead of taking far cheaper public transport? How could they operate if they had to train their own staff with basic common skills instead of relying on the state to carry out education?

The definition I've used is the one from the dictionary:

pay 1 (p)
v. paid (pd), pay·ing, pays
v.tr.
1. To give money to in return for goods or services rendered.
2. To give (money) in exchange for goods or services.

And where do you think the government gets the money from to pay for these things?
Public transport is mostly private sector. State education is paid for by the private sector. Roads are paid for by the private sector. State subsidies are paid for by the private sector. The private sector - about 25m people - pay the government in return for goods and services.

Government subsidises business in all kinds of ways the business community doesn't care to admit. Government workers are essential to the private sector because they are a subsidy for costs the private sector would otherwise have to bear themselves. 'Value' does not mean the same as 'money'.

The private sector is bearing the cost of these things. The private sector pays the government to supply infrastructure.
I'll ask again: where do you think the government gets the money from to pay for these 'subsidies'?

No private sector=no roads, no schools, no Armed Forces, no NHS...unless we decide to fly some shade of red flag.

Originally Posted by tekirdag

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

You really are a brain dead fcuk aren't you? Two minor points with your charge of racist:

1) I am asking you to explain why those 4 and not the ones I have mentioned - not assuming. Is there a reason you can't answer?

2) If you check my list it contains leaders of erm, all different 'tans'.

Oh, and most recent would have included (depending on your political ilk) Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Il . You rely are a slimy little fcukwit.

Oh, and if I were racist, I wouldn't try and hide. I may be an unpopular twunt, but at least I have the integrity to say what I mean.

Spot the Zanu Labour-supporting raving liberal. They like to bandy terms like 'racist' and 'thug' like confetti, but when caught out being racist themselves they come on all-over hurt and offended, and start laying on the expletives for good measure.

Why not just admit that you see everything in terms of racism, and ARE therefore racist.


Is there a reason for my choice of 4 worst leaders?? Well yes, AND I WILL REPEAT IT AGAIN FOR YOU.

""Actually, I was choosing the most recent (and current) world's worst leaders.""


But you see everything in terms of race and colour. We could do with all liberal racists being forced to live in Riyadh for ten years, for 'education'.


.

Apart from not calling you a racist thug. Therefore not bandying anything around. I am happy for you to point out anywhere on this thread I have called you a racist or a thug.

You have really shown yourself to be a very dimwitted little specimen, in that not only do none of your arguments hold up, but all you have done is repeatedly called me a racist in the hope of turning the point.

You haven't held the worst four leaders currently, not by any measure. You have chosen leaders you don't like. Just admit it mate - you will feel better.

I understand your desire to make this thread about race - in the hope that your stupidity and inane mutterings get hidden by the MODs closing it down under the forum rules. It ain't going to happen.

You have nothing more to say on the matter - you have been found wanting. If you have anything new / different to add that WONT get you laughed at by everyone else, I would suggest you post it now and save your blushes.

(PS - If I saw everything in terms of racism and colour, that would make me a racialist, not a racist, I believe).

Originally Posted by jagman

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Oh, and if I were racist, I wouldn't try and hide. I may be an unpopular twunt, but at least I have the integrity to say what I mean.

You are racist Bazzihno. Profoundly so.
You are the reason I bowed out of this debate and deleted some of my responses to you, you cannot see beyond your own pathological desire to label everyone who dissents from your view of the world as stupid and/or racist.

See, funny thing is mate, that I have called nobody racist. Have a look back. I have on other threads, but not this thread. I have been called racist. And I have shown it.

You do know that people are able to go back and read what has been written don't you? They will therefore judge for themselves.

Originally Posted by ottar

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Originally Posted by ottar

I shall write it again: It is the private sector that pays for government.
Which bit of that sentence is factually incorrect?

Only because you've chosen a definition of 'pays' that fits that particular conclusion.

To take just one example, how could businesses turn a profit if every one of their employees needed to own a car to get to work instead of taking far cheaper public transport? How could they operate if they had to train their own staff with basic common skills instead of relying on the state to carry out education?

The definition I've used is the one from the dictionary:

pay 1 (p)
v. paid (pd), pay·ing, pays
v.tr.
1. To give money to in return for goods or services rendered.
2. To give (money) in exchange for goods or services.

And where do you think the government gets the money from to pay for these things?
Public transport is mostly private sector. State education is paid for by the private sector. Roads are paid for by the private sector. State subsidies are paid for by the private sector. The private sector - about 25m people - pay the government in return for goods and services.

Government subsidises business in all kinds of ways the business community doesn't care to admit. Government workers are essential to the private sector because they are a subsidy for costs the private sector would otherwise have to bear themselves. 'Value' does not mean the same as 'money'.

The private sector is bearing the cost of these things. The private sector pays the government to supply infrastructure.
I'll ask again: where do you think the government gets the money from to pay for these 'subsidies'?

No private sector=no roads, no schools, no Armed Forces, no NHS...unless we decide to fly some shade of red flag.

They are mutually supportive. Without the rule of law and international trade agreements, the private sector could not carry on. But without taxes, the government could not carry on. It is a big circle, and has been since the development of cash (money).

So, you are both right.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by jagman

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Oh, and if I were racist, I wouldn't try and hide. I may be an unpopular twunt, but at least I have the integrity to say what I mean.

You are racist Bazzihno. Profoundly so.
You are the reason I bowed out of this debate and deleted some of my responses to you, you cannot see beyond your own pathological desire to label everyone who dissents from your view of the world as stupid and/or racist.

See, funny thing is mate, that I have called nobody racist. Have a look back. I have on other threads, but not this thread. I have been called racist. And I have shown it.

You do know that people are able to go back and read what has been written don't you? They will therefore judge for themselves.

Muppet. Before you preach at me about reading the thread and the posts in it kindly read what I wrote.

No private sector=no roads, no schools, no Armed Forces, no NHS...

No roads (to get to work), no schools (to educate the workers) no armed forces (to keep the workers safe), no NHS (to keep the workers well) = No private sector...

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

They are mutually supportive. Without the rule of law and international trade agreements, the private sector could not carry on. But without taxes, the government could not carry on. It is a big circle, and has been since the development of cash (money).

So, you are both right.

They're mutually supportive because that is the society and form of governance we have chosen to take (or stumbled in to, if you prefer).
There is nothing to say we couldn't be communist/state capitalist, with little or no private sector; or go the other way, toward libertarianism/night-watchman, with little or no government, and still function as a nation.

As it is, we have a government to provide certain services, and a private sector to fund that government.

Originally Posted by parapauk

No roads (to get to work), no schools (to educate the workers) no armed forces (to keep the workers safe), no NHS (to keep the workers well) = No private sector...

We didn't have a national government to provide these things in the past, but the private sector still existed. It just paid for them (or some form of them) directly.

Originally Posted by ottar

The definition I've used is the one from the dictionary:

pay 1 (p)
v. paid (pd), pay•ing, pays
v.tr.
1. To give money to in return for goods or services rendered.
2. To give (money) in exchange for goods or services.

And where do you think the government gets the money from to pay for these things?

Where in the definition of ‘pay’ that you’ve quoted above is the source of the money used mentioned? The source is key to your arguments: state = bad, private = good.

Originally Posted by ottar

Public transport is mostly private sector. State education is paid for by the private sector. Roads are paid for by the private sector. State subsidies are paid for by the private sector. The private sector - about 25m people - pay the government in return for goods and services.

No they aren’t and no it doesn’t. Government organises these things and pays for them. The source of the revenue used to pay has no more bearing on the fact than if it were the other way round. Would you argue that a Public Sector employee or organisation buying goods and services in the private sector means that the state pays for business? Oh, wait – can I hear a ‘But that’s different’ disappearing across the horizon with its arrse on fire?

Originally Posted by ottar

The private sector is bearing the cost of these things. The private sector pays the government to supply infrastructure.

No, the private sector pay taxes. That’s not a purchase transaction. It’s the electorate that tell governments (with varying degrees of success) what to spend its revenue on. The electorate is made up of individuals and the private sector made up of organisations. They are two completely different things.

Originally Posted by ottar

I'll ask again: where do you think the government gets the money from to pay for these 'subsidies'?

From, amongst other sources, taxation, earnings on the currency market (when these happen), earnings from Crown property (physical, intellectual), inward investment or grants, public sector borrowing, etc… Where do you get the money to buy your things with and does that mean that it’s your employer paying for your mortgage, food, clothing, kids, etc.?

Originally Posted by ottar

No private sector=no roads, no schools, no Armed Forces, no NHS...unless we decide to fly some shade of red flag.

Would the private sector pay for these things off their own backs? Thought not. Government pays for these as part of collective governance. No government = no roads, no schools, no armed forces, etc.

There is no private sector in DPRK but last I heard they have a pretty big army and even one or two roads. It’s not the absolute equation you’re making it out to be.

Edited to correct quotes. And to stop spelling like a flid.