Defunct Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Correct. First they came for the unemployed and I did not stand up for them because I was not unemployed.... Martin Niemoller!.....don't know how to do the dot things though! Then they came for the the disabled and I did not stand up for them because I was not disabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 And here is me thinking that the lack of affordable housing was due to Maggie selling off all the council houses. Silly me! Yes I agree, its silly to think that selling an house at an affordable price to a tenant that lives in the house could somehow cause prices to become unaffordable. I would think that prices are unaffordable because of an unsustainable property bubble which was caused because of the availability of very cheap easy credit, a willingness of people to pay sill money for an house, the destruction of thousands of affordable houses under pathfinder and an increase in the population of 2.5 million people without building the houses to accommodate them. These all happened over the past decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defunct Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Yes I agree, its silly to think that selling an house at an affordable price to a tenant that lives in the house could somehow cause prices to become unaffordable. I would think that prices are unaffordable because of an unsustainable property bubble which was caused because of the availability of very cheap easy credit, a willingness of people to pay sill money for an house, the destruction of thousands of affordable houses under pathfinder and an increase in the population of 2.5 million people without building the houses to accommodate them. These all happened over the past decade. I would like to respond to your post but unfortunately it is far too grammatically incorrect to be understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I would like to respond to your post but unfortunately it is far too grammatically incorrect to be understood. In other words you can't construct an inelegant argument to counter what I typed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defunct Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Correct. First they came for the unemployed and I did not stand up for them because I was not unemployed.... Then they came for the disabled and I did not stand up for them because I was not disabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defunct Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 In other words you can't construct an inelegant argument to counter what I typed. Why would I wish to construct an inelegant argument?:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Why would I wish to construct an inelegant argument?:huh: Because you can’t construct an intelligent or elegant argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.