Because he's a typical leftie, all mouth and trousers

 

Corrected for you!

 

Ok, you said it

: : ALL MOUTH AND TROUSERS - "adj. British. Blustering and boastful, showing off without having the qualities to justify it.There is a suggestion that this is a corruption of a more logical, but rarely heard expression, 'all mouth and no trousers'. meaning full of talk but deficient in the sexual area. A less racy version is 'all talk and no action'. ." From the "Dictionary of Contemporary Slang" by Tony Thorne (Pantheon Books, New York, 1990).

 

You're using a US source to define English? Are you mad!?

Of course, it's all mouth and NO trousers, it doesn't make sense otherwise! What the hell does all mouth and trousers mean!

 

Of course you are absolutely correct, it must be the Welsh interpretation although the originla meaning explains it as being a pairing of mouth, cheek or insolence, with trousers, a pushy sexual bravado, a fine double example of metonymy (“a container for the thing contained”)

 

What about the purchase price of the house? It isn't free! The way you describe it is as if someone is just automatically in the 'privileged' position of being a landlord. You forget that a lot of wealth is required to actually buy the property in the first place.

 

Only when it comes to sheep!

 

Don't waste your breath, he'll give you some gibberish about 'the counterfactual' (his most recent fave term) and enclosure acts.

 

I'm not entirely clear what all this crap has to do with Heartless Tories

dl

 

Exactly

 

More common sense if you ask me

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24369514

 

Oh yes

 

load of nads imho the world we live in now is just to mechanized, machines that can do the work of ten or more people, where bought years ago by most manufacturing firms in the knowledge that it was capital investment, so could therefore come straight off thier tax bill,and who allowed all this, the greedy politicians who probably have shares in said companies,it's all about comercial greed and profit and it's not profitable to have staff when you can have a machine that never takes a holiday or sicky, face fact we will allways have unemployment on a large scale, it's a bit like collatoral damage in a war

 

yes, there is an element of "quid pro quo" in all this

if you are going to demand jobless people "earn" their benefits - which on the face of it seems reasonable

then a governmental aspiration for full (or as near too) employment should be the flip side to the social contract we must all surely have

but it isn't - unemployment has been used as an lever of economic policy since the 80's

 

Maybe everyone should be employed by the government - that would solve a lot of problems.

 

I think that was Labour's plan wasn't it? Seemed that way anyway

 

Wealth was required to buy slaves. The anti-abolishionists considered the abolishionists cause to be unjust for the reason you mention. Slaves were property that they had rightfully purchased.

 

 

And then I'm accused of being a cyber bully when I question this sort of tripe

 

Sorry, not sure I really get this. You're saying that governments will at times deliberately encourage unemployment to rise, if they think it'll achieve a desired correction in some other economic criterion (inflation, for example)? Or just that moderate to high unemployment rates are considered an acceptable consequence of maintaining those other criteria within a desired range?

 

Nope I'm sorry, I've read that post several times and I still don't get what you're trying to say.

 

Let me translate. TDW believes that purchasing a property (or even inheriting one from your dear old granny) and then renting it out is exactly the same as.......

Purchasing another human being (who has been abducted from another country in chains), forcing them into unpaid labour, beating them and perhaps even raping them.

 

Now you aren't reading what I write. I was countering Glesgakiss's point that the ownership of something can be justified because the owner purchased it...i.e, may have worked for it. Clearly this isn't justified for slavery.

Anyway to own property and live off its rent is substantively to live off the surplus another human being produces. Rent is like a right to tax. The only difference is that the slave can't cancel their 'contact' of slavery, the tenent can move out. However the owner of property does exactly the same thing for their money as the slave owner, i.e, nothing.

 

3.......2........1.........*click* you are now back in the room.....

 

The same could be said for any agent taking a percentage

,

 

Agents do things.

 

You as well say the same for anyone or business offering a service. What else are you going to do with your 'surplus' if not to provide a shelter over your head?

 

Tony, I worked hard to be able to afford my property, it wasn't just handed to me on a plate. I could of course just sat back and done nothing with my money but didn't. I spent many 1000's buying and furnishing it thus putting m,money back into the local economy. I also gave someone who doesn't want to buy a house (by choice) a lovely place to live.

Chip

 

I'm sorry Tony, you clearly didn't pick your parents wisely