28 Dec 05
Originally posted by WajomaIt's called society because it's inclusive of everyone. Personally I'm pretty glad that people in the past set up the systems that are in place in the UK. I know that even if things get tough I won't starve and I won't be homeless. They planned for me, and I feel it's up to our generation to try and improve society for future generations and put systems in place that'll make their world as, or more, comfortable than the one i currently inhabit.
What I would not do is place a claim on the lives of people that are not even born yet....that young people must grow up and supply me with a pension, a health service or...anything at all. They don't owe me anything.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzWouldn't it be great if these systems you speak of were so good that people would participate voluntarily.
It's called society because it's inclusive of everyone. Personally I'm pretty glad that people in the past set up the systems that are in place in the UK. I know that even if things get tough I won't starve and I won't be homeless. They planned for me, and I feel it's up to our generation to try and improve society for future generations and put syst ...[text shortened]... place that'll make their world as, or more, comfortable than the one i currently inhabit.
Wouldn't it be great if people could opt out for what ever reason they chose.
People in the past have acted to improve their own lives. I don't owe any more to the inventer of the light bulb or penicilin than I do to some-one who is not born.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by WajomaAnd wouldn't it be just dandy if all them poor people just ate each other - man that'd solve alot of problems.
Wouldn't it be great if these systems you speak of were so good that people would participate voluntarily.
Wouldn't it be great if people could opt out for what ever reason they chose.
People in the past have acted to improve their own lives. I don't owe any more to the inventer of the light bulb or penicilin than I do to some-one who is not born.
Do you really believe that people [in the numbers and magnitude required] would give to a scheme to help improve the lot of someone else with no personal gain? Man, we're talking about helping the poorest and weakest members of our society. Are you so completely heartless that you'd actively implement systems that would undermine the safty and security of human lifes? You say that you don't owe anything to the people who invested penecilling or the light bulb? Fine. But you do owe something to all the other people in New Zealand, and they owe something to you. When you have a heart attack (although from all signs I don't think you've got too much to worry about) will you not want an ambulance to turn up? All those other people in NZ pay for that ambulance - and so do you. And I'll tell you something else, you wouldn't want to pay it all yourself.
Like I said earlier, it's all good when it's someone elses kid, but not your own.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by WajomaWhy would people rather be jobless than working, do you think?
No need to get theatrical....bad as when I was supposedly commiting suicide lol.
The number of truly helpless people is actually very small and it is not the same number that are claiming the dole.
On the one hand you say there are enough people to vote for this system and then on the other hand you say there are not enough to sustain it voluntarily.
...[text shortened]... l their life. The first question the doctor asks you now is "Do you have insurance?"
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by STANGsuper point moron.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_gas_pri&int=-1&id=OECD
This shows that USA has the 29th cheapest gasoline of the OECD (developed) countries.
Maybe alternative energy sources would be pursued at a faster rate if this was not the case.
Then USA wouldn't need to invade other countries for their oil and the environment would be better off.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenSo you resort to name calling when you don't understand what he is talking about. The US is 62% dependent on foriegn oil. With China now buy up the worlds oil reserves at a record pace it is not such a stretch to believe that the US invaded a country with no connection to terrorism for a foothold in the oil rich middle-east.
super point moron.
As for the environment, he could be referring to the drilling for six months worth of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve.
Think before you insult.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by CliffLandinto think we invaded for oil is moronic. Please give me some proof if that is going to be your point. And to say Iraq had no connection to terrorism when zarqawi was being treated in one of saddam's sons hospitals and terrorist groups were allowed to train in northern iraq shows your ignorance.
So you resort to name calling when you don't understand what he is talking about. The US is 62% dependent on foriegn oil. With China now buy up the worlds oil reserves at a record pace it is not such a stretch to believe that the US invaded a country with no connection to terrorism for a foothold in the oil rich middle-east.
As for the environment, he ...[text shortened]... r six months worth of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve.
Think before you insult.
also, if they have no connection to terrorist why are the terrorists fighting so hard for Iraq?
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenPlease tell me where 11 of 14 9/11 terrorist were from. There is only one answer. We didn't invade them. And in fact the CIA, that most American of American spy groups, says that Saddam was approached by Al Queda for support and that they were rebuffed.
to think we invaded for oil is moronic. Please give me some proof if that is going to be your point. And to say Iraq had no connection to terrorism when zarqawi was being treated in one of saddam's sons hospitals and terrorist groups were allowed to train in northern iraq shows your ignorance.
also, if they have no connection to terrorist why are the terrorists fighting so hard for Iraq?
I'm sorry your nationalism, or in this case, ignorance is showing.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by CliffLandini never said iraq was responsible for 9-11 did I, don't lie. I said that Iraq aided terrorists.
Please tell me where 11 of 14 9/11 terrorist were from. There is only one answer. We didn't invade them. And in fact the CIA, that most American of American spy groups, says that Saddam was approached by Al Queda for support and that they were rebuffed.
I'm sorry your nationalism, or in this case, ignorance is showing.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenIraq aided terrorist. Saudi Arabia funded terrorist. Egypt and Syria aid and fund terrorist. So why didn't we invade any of those countries. If your justification for going to war in Iraq was because they aided terrorist then we have a lot more invading to do. So Saudi Arabia next and the Iran. Then Syria and Palestine. From there it is off to the Sudan and Chad. Let's not forget our ally the Pakistanis. And then it is off to South America.
i never said iraq was responsible for 9-11 did I, don't lie. I said that Iraq aided terrorists.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by WajomaNew Zealand has the lowest unemployment rates of any country in the OECD. I'm sorry, but helping poor people, especially poorer kids to have a decent life is something we should all strive to do. I think the government has a obligation to help the old, infirm, poor and disabled. Sure, it'd be great if people just did it, but they wouldn''t. They never have in the past in any country where that system has been in place. Developed capatalist countries don't seem to do very well in social welfare. The US (no social wefare system) has the second highest rates of child poverty in the world - only Mexico is higher. The UK (social wefare) is fourth, but the difference is that in the UK child poverty is falling (and the UK has lower unemployment than the US, so bang goes your lazyness idea).
No need to get theatrical....bad as when I was supposedly commiting suicide lol.
The number of truly helpless people is actually very small and it is not the same number that are claiming the dole.
On the one hand you say there are enough people to vote for this system and then on the other hand you say there are not enough to sustain it voluntarily.
...[text shortened]... l their life. The first question the doctor asks you now is "Do you have insurance?"
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_chi_pov
see link I posted previously re child poverty
"On the one hand you say there are enough people to vote for this system and then on the other hand you say there are not enough to sustain it voluntarily."
Not everyone votes the same way at election time. The majority typically rules though, and the manifesto of party that they voted in becomes the 'play book' - for everyone. In th last election, less than 2 million voted for labour, but there are about 4 million tax payers. Go do the math.
You're right, I don't know what part you chose to play in society, but i can guess that you recieved an eductation, that you live in a place where there are roads, sewerage systems, police, water supplies, etc. It's statistically unlikely that you want nuclear weapons in NZ waters. No man is an island.
I'm sorry if I came off a little harsh, and I'm sorry about your parents. But you have let that taint your view of the systems that are in place, that tend to work for most people most of the time. Let's make those systems better, not worse.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by CliffLandiniraq violated un resolutions 16 times and violated a cease war agreement giving the U.S authority to invade. We don't have that elsewhere.
Iraq aided terrorist. Saudi Arabia funded terrorist. Egypt and Syria aid and fund terrorist. So why didn't we invade any of those countries. If your justification for going to war in Iraq was because they aided terrorist then we have a lot more invading to do. So Saudi Arabia next and the Iran. Then Syria and Palestine. From there it is off to the Sudan and Chad. Let's not forget our ally the Pakistanis. And then it is off to South America.
28 Dec 05
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenIsrael is in violation of about 60 UN resolutions. We haven't invaded them yet. And the UN whose resolution was violated did not authorize us to invade.
iraq violated un resolutions 16 times and violated a cease war agreement giving the U.S authority to invade. We don't have that elsewhere.
You know what, I had refrained from name calling, but you really are an idiot.
First you say the BBC is an anti-american news source, now you say that no other country is in violation of UN resolutions.
Do your homework or stay home.