Popular Post mjmooney Posted June 20, 2015 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted June 20, 2015 Charlotte Church is ok by me. Me too. I've never bought into this idea that you can only express left wing views if you're poor. If that were the case, the poor would never be heard, as they don't have access to the mass media. If she has earned fame and wealth, and uses that fame and wealth to speak out for change, good for her. Better than sitting back and being smug. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROTTERDAM1982 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Charlotte Church who said that she didn't believe in paying the full amount of tax, because she didn't like the Tories, on an anti-austerity march? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Charlotte Church. Would bang. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I bet she's filth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Church is your typical champagne socialist. However, I'd bang her harder than a flimsy barn door in a hurricane. I do find the Welsh accent sexy* * on women, not bearded ex miners 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Church is your typical champagne socialist. However, I'd bang her harder than a flimsy barn door in a hurricane. I do find the Welsh accent sexy* * on women, not bearded ex miners She shops in the same Waitrose as me (waitrose champagne £19.99), would you like me to pass on the message? If you don't ask you don't get. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Tell her its my birthday and see if that swings it? p.s please don't tell her I voted tory. Thanks x 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 If I was rich and Welsh, and wanted to establish a bit of cred with my homies, I would definitely go on austerity marches and do it large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Charlotte Church is ok by me.Me too. I've never bought into this idea that you can only express left wing views if you're poor. If that were the case, the poor would never be heard, as they don't have access to the mass media. If she has earned fame and wealth, and uses that fame and wealth to speak out for change, good for her. Better than sitting back and being smug. She could of course sit back and give her £11m away and then I'd be more impressed with what she had to say There is no problem with her being rich or joining a march ... But her remarks as quoted here show a Marlene Glass level of removal from the real world (Glass's VT crime of course was that she came out against a bonkers left wing idiological policy ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post mjmooney Posted June 20, 2015 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted June 20, 2015 That's what the truly, disgustingly rich want - for the ones who have a few million to give it away to the poor. It looks good, it reinforces the idea that charity is the answer, when in fact it will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the underlying problem. In fact it will perpetuate it. I'd far rather the likes of Charlotte Church - who on the truly rich scale is very small potatoes - do what she's doing. It's not people like her who are running the world for their own disgusting ends. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 That's what the truly, disgustingly rich want - for the ones who have a few million to give it away to the poor. It looks good, it reinforces the idea that charity is the answer, when in fact it will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the underlying problem. In fact it will perpetuate it. I'd far rather the likes of Charlotte Church - who on the truly rich scale is very small potatoes - do what she's doing. It's not people like her who are running the world for their own disgusting ends. Which is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 20, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 20, 2015 That's what the truly, disgustingly rich want - for the ones who have a few million to give it away to the poor. It looks good, it reinforces the idea that charity is the answer, when in fact it will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the underlying problem. In fact it will perpetuate it. I'd far rather the likes of Charlotte Church - who on the truly rich scale is very small potatoes - do what she's doing. It's not people like her who are running the world for their own disgusting ends. Which is? Unrestrained free market capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Condimentalist Posted June 20, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted June 20, 2015 Church is your typical champagne socialist. However, I'd bang her harder than a flimsy barn door in a hurricane. I do find the Welsh accent sexy* * on women, not bearded ex miners I've never quite understood why 'champagne socialist' is a pejorative term. People who want to do well for themselves and also live in a society in which other people have a better opportunity to do well too. Sounds good to me. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted June 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 20, 2015 That's what the truly, disgustingly rich want - for the ones who have a few million to give it away to the poor. It looks good, it reinforces the idea that charity is the answer, when in fact it will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the underlying problem. In fact it will perpetuate it. I'd far rather the likes of Charlotte Church - who on the truly rich scale is very small potatoes - do what she's doing. It's not people like her who are running the world for their own disgusting ends. Which is? Unrestrained free market capitalism. It's not, it's capitalism to a certain level - at the top, they want welfare. If you mess up your life, try asking a bank to bail you out. This isn't a free market, there is state support behind just about every top company in the world, subsidies, tax breaks, that sort of thing - our money. It's nothing like a free market, and that's the last thing that our corporate power structure wants. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PongRiddims Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I'm neither for or against Austerity but if I see Russel Brand spouting again I'm gonna cut his dick off and smack him to shit with it whilst dumping in his Bacon's winklepickers the big infested ring piece 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Back in the day, when I knew everything and still had teenage spots, I had a badge on my two tone harrington jacket that read 'Ferrari's for everyone.' The put down 'Champagne socialism' just isn't thinking hard enough. Champagne for everyone is a perfectly decent goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROTTERDAM1982 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 "Free market Capitalistic companies" need customers, and as many as possible, and as well off as possible.So if anyone is giving a free, cheap Ferrari away, then i'm there. VOTE FOR CHRISP65. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Back in the day, when I knew everything and still had teenage spots, I had a badge on my two tone harrington jacket that read 'Ferrari's for everyone.' The put down 'Champagne socialism' just isn't thinking hard enough. Champagne for everyone is a perfectly decent goal. The problem is that Marx's labour theory of value predicts that it would not be possible and not even desirable. The reason Champagne is expensive is that the traditional method of making it is very labour-intensive, especially the remuage process where each bottle is turned a minute amount by hand and le dosage where wine and sugar are added for secondary fermentation. Under a socialist system, wasting precious man-hours on such a decadent and frivolous product, when the manpower could be used to produce essential goods, would be total anathema. If you want Champaign for everyone, you need a capitalist system where large amounts of capital is invested to automate the process, which would lower the price, and make it accessible to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted June 21, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 21, 2015 Back in the day, when I knew everything and still had teenage spots, I had a badge on my two tone harrington jacket that read 'Ferrari's for everyone.' The put down 'Champagne socialism' just isn't thinking hard enough. Champagne for everyone is a perfectly decent goal. The problem is that Marx's labour theory of value predicts that it would not be possible and not even desirable. The reason Champagne is expensive is that the traditional method of making it is very labour-intensive, especially the remuage process where each bottle is turned a minute amount by hand and le dosage where wine and sugar are added for secondary fermentation. Under a socialist system, wasting precious man-hours on such a decadent and frivolous product, when the manpower could be used to produce essential goods, would be total anathema. If you want Champaign for everyone, you need a capitalist system where large amounts of capital is invested to automate the process, which would lower the price, and make it accessible to all. Reading that back this image kept popping into my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Back in the day, when I knew everything and still had teenage spots, I had a badge on my two tone harrington jacket that read 'Ferrari's for everyone.' The put down 'Champagne socialism' just isn't thinking hard enough. Champagne for everyone is a perfectly decent goal. The problem is that Marx's labour theory of value predicts that it would not be possible and not even desirable. The reason Champagne is expensive is that the traditional method of making it is very labour-intensive, especially the remuage process where each bottle is turned a minute amount by hand and le dosage where wine and sugar are added for secondary fermentation. Under a socialist system, wasting precious man-hours on such a decadent and frivolous product, when the manpower could be used to produce essential goods, would be total anathema. If you want Champaign for everyone, you need a capitalist system where large amounts of capital is invested to automate the process, which would lower the price, and make it accessible to all. Reading that back this image kept popping into my head What has capitalism ever done for us? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts