The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Take all the tax you pay in a year and add it up. Tax you directly pay from your wages, then tax you pay on things like food, petrol, cds, etc. All the tax you will pay this year and add it up.
This figure, along with your annual salary figure, can calculate the Tax freedom day. The day after Jan 1st that you stop earning money to pay taxes and start earning for yourself.
This year, the Tax Freedom day was 12th June. Predicted at the 7th at the start of the year, through changes by Brown the figure has rose.
This means that the first 164 days of this year you earned nothing, and instead gave all your money to the government.
Great huh?
(www.taxfreedomday.co.uk - a website I maintain).
This figure, along with your annual salary figure, can calculate the Tax freedom day. The day after Jan 1st that you stop earning money to pay taxes and start earning for yourself.
This year, the Tax Freedom day was 12th June. Predicted at the 7th at the start of the year, through changes by Brown the figure has rose.
This means that the first 164 days of this year you earned nothing, and instead gave all your money to the government.
Great huh?
(www.taxfreedomday.co.uk - a website I maintain).
Page:
unknown kernel wrote:
> You're buying two Noam Chomsky books? Great! See you at the next
> anti-war demo!
When hell freezes over maybe - or whichever religious imagery you want to use :)
That bit from Chasing Amy was great BTW, my semiunar thing was a surreal replay kinda thing of that, scarily.
And Mr Happy, the only people who have said that the war against terror is against muslims is the anti war groups themselves, many of which have *cough* suspect motives....obviously not the larger ones, but the newer smaller ones, many of which have been shut down post 9/11 when evidence proved they were funnelling cash to the terrorists themselves. Very much like the protests against the trident submarines in the Cold War Days - which were largely started and instigated by Soviet agents.
Anyway, must go, I'm sure we could both go at this for ages, and neither will change what we think !
~~Belldandy~~
> You're buying two Noam Chomsky books? Great! See you at the next
> anti-war demo!
When hell freezes over maybe - or whichever religious imagery you want to use :)
That bit from Chasing Amy was great BTW, my semiunar thing was a surreal replay kinda thing of that, scarily.
And Mr Happy, the only people who have said that the war against terror is against muslims is the anti war groups themselves, many of which have *cough* suspect motives....obviously not the larger ones, but the newer smaller ones, many of which have been shut down post 9/11 when evidence proved they were funnelling cash to the terrorists themselves. Very much like the protests against the trident submarines in the Cold War Days - which were largely started and instigated by Soviet agents.
Anyway, must go, I'm sure we could both go at this for ages, and neither will change what we think !
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
"Yes, both countries (US and UK) have made past mistakes and misjudgements (i.e. selling weapons to Iraq), but just because we did doesn't mean we will continue to do the same does it?"
I'd like to forward this for most naive statement of the year.
"Yes, both countries (US and UK) have made past mistakes and misjudgements (i.e. selling weapons to Iraq), but just because we did doesn't mean we will continue to do the same does it?"
I'd like to forward this for most naive statement of the year.
You're buying two Noam Chomsky books? Great! See you at the next anti-war demo!
Belldandy wrote:
> I'm not going to reply to the other s**tuff becuase we both know that'll
> Then it went on to Star Wars, sugges**ted by someone else in the class,
> yknow the Dogma inspired "Darth Vader evil black guy" thing.
The bes**t bit in Chasing Amy:
Hooper: For years in this indus**try, whenever an African American character, hero or villain, is introduced USUALLY by my white artis**t names. They got SLAPPED with racis**t names that singled them out as Negros! Now--my book, "White-Hating Coon", don't have any of that bull. The hero's name is Maleequa and he's descended from the black tribe that es**tablished the firs**t society on the planet while all you European *ahem-ers* were all hiding out in caves n's**tuff, terrified of the sun. He's a s**trong role-model that a young black reader can look up to. 'Cause I'm here to tell ya: the chickens are coming home to roos**t, y'all. The black man is no longer going to be playing the mins**trel in the medium of comics and sci-fi fantasy. We're keeping it real! And we're going to get respect by any means necessary.
Holden: Ah, c'mon! Lando Calrissian was a black guy, y'know, he got to fly the Millenium Falcon! What's the matter with you?!
Hooper: Who said that?
Holden: [s**tanding up] I did. Lando Calrissian is a positive role-model in the realm of science fiction fantasy.
Hooper: Hey, *ahem* Lando Calrissian! [Holden shrugs and sits down] Uncle-Tom n*gger, heh. It's always some white boy got to invoke the holy trinity. Bus**t this! Those movies are about how the white man keeps the brother-man down--even in a galaxy far far away. Check this sh*t. You got cracker farmboy Luke Skywalker, Nazi pos**ter boy; blond hair, blue eyes. Then you got Darth Vader, blackes**t brother in the galaxy. Nubian god!
Banky: [s**tanding up] What's a nubian?
Hooper: Shut the *ahem* up! [Banky sits down] Now. Vader, he's a spiritual brother, down with the force and all that good sh*t. Then this cracker Skywalker gets his hands on a lightsaber, and the boy decides HE'S gonna run the whole *ahem-ing* universe! Gets a whole KLAN of whites together and they go bus**t up Vader's hood, the Death Star! Now what the *ahem* do you call that
Banky: Intergalatic civil war?
Hooper: Gentrification!! They gonna drive out the black element to make the galaxy quote-unquote safe for white folks! In "Jedi," the mos**t insulting ins**tallment when Vader's beautiful black visage is SULLIED when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crus**ty old white man! They trying to tell us that deep inside, we all want to be WHITE!!!
> I'm not going to reply to the other s**tuff becuase we both know that'll
> Then it went on to Star Wars, sugges**ted by someone else in the class,
> yknow the Dogma inspired "Darth Vader evil black guy" thing.
The bes**t bit in Chasing Amy:
Hooper: For years in this indus**try, whenever an African American character, hero or villain, is introduced USUALLY by my white artis**t names. They got SLAPPED with racis**t names that singled them out as Negros! Now--my book, "White-Hating Coon", don't have any of that bull. The hero's name is Maleequa and he's descended from the black tribe that es**tablished the firs**t society on the planet while all you European *ahem-ers* were all hiding out in caves n's**tuff, terrified of the sun. He's a s**trong role-model that a young black reader can look up to. 'Cause I'm here to tell ya: the chickens are coming home to roos**t, y'all. The black man is no longer going to be playing the mins**trel in the medium of comics and sci-fi fantasy. We're keeping it real! And we're going to get respect by any means necessary.
Holden: Ah, c'mon! Lando Calrissian was a black guy, y'know, he got to fly the Millenium Falcon! What's the matter with you?!
Hooper: Who said that?
Holden: [s**tanding up] I did. Lando Calrissian is a positive role-model in the realm of science fiction fantasy.
Hooper: Hey, *ahem* Lando Calrissian! [Holden shrugs and sits down] Uncle-Tom n*gger, heh. It's always some white boy got to invoke the holy trinity. Bus**t this! Those movies are about how the white man keeps the brother-man down--even in a galaxy far far away. Check this sh*t. You got cracker farmboy Luke Skywalker, Nazi pos**ter boy; blond hair, blue eyes. Then you got Darth Vader, blackes**t brother in the galaxy. Nubian god!
Banky: [s**tanding up] What's a nubian?
Hooper: Shut the *ahem* up! [Banky sits down] Now. Vader, he's a spiritual brother, down with the force and all that good sh*t. Then this cracker Skywalker gets his hands on a lightsaber, and the boy decides HE'S gonna run the whole *ahem-ing* universe! Gets a whole KLAN of whites together and they go bus**t up Vader's hood, the Death Star! Now what the *ahem* do you call that
Banky: Intergalatic civil war?
Hooper: Gentrification!! They gonna drive out the black element to make the galaxy quote-unquote safe for white folks! In "Jedi," the mos**t insulting ins**tallment when Vader's beautiful black visage is SULLIED when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crus**ty old white man! They trying to tell us that deep inside, we all want to be WHITE!!!
Belldandy wrote:
> 1) Just what do you suggest for dealing with a force that will not
> negotiate ? Surrender to them ?
No, you encourage each country to help you root out terrorists and make the terrorists the common enemy. You distinguish your actions from any notion of religion and you convince foreign nations that it is a global effort to eliminate terrorism. Attacking Iraq does not do that. Iraq is a country not a terrorist.
> 2) The difference between an Iraqi hospital being hit, and terrorists
> flying planes into buildings is intent. No one on the allied side
> intends to bomb Iraqi hospitals - though the image is a nice one for
> the anti war lobby isn't it ? All those helpless innocents being
> killed by the big bad american bombs.... *yawns* The 9/11 hijackers
> did what they did on purpose. That is one big difference.
Yes it is intent. It's called oblique intent. You are aware that your actions are virtually certain of causing a result. When America carpet bombs Baghdad it knows that civilians will die. Sure they get labelled as collateral damage but that's deemed as acceptable for the greater good. It's even factored in to calaculations.
You beat terrorism by convincing the whole world that terrorism is bad. If you go to war with Iraq then you just pander to the stereotype that the terrorists proclaim you as - an anti-muslim warmonger. If you act positively (in my opinion war is a negative action) then you can persuade people that you are being targetted by ruthless terrorists. If you act negatively then you persuade people that freedom fighters are defending them against you.
> 1) Just what do you suggest for dealing with a force that will not
> negotiate ? Surrender to them ?
No, you encourage each country to help you root out terrorists and make the terrorists the common enemy. You distinguish your actions from any notion of religion and you convince foreign nations that it is a global effort to eliminate terrorism. Attacking Iraq does not do that. Iraq is a country not a terrorist.
> 2) The difference between an Iraqi hospital being hit, and terrorists
> flying planes into buildings is intent. No one on the allied side
> intends to bomb Iraqi hospitals - though the image is a nice one for
> the anti war lobby isn't it ? All those helpless innocents being
> killed by the big bad american bombs.... *yawns* The 9/11 hijackers
> did what they did on purpose. That is one big difference.
Yes it is intent. It's called oblique intent. You are aware that your actions are virtually certain of causing a result. When America carpet bombs Baghdad it knows that civilians will die. Sure they get labelled as collateral damage but that's deemed as acceptable for the greater good. It's even factored in to calaculations.
You beat terrorism by convincing the whole world that terrorism is bad. If you go to war with Iraq then you just pander to the stereotype that the terrorists proclaim you as - an anti-muslim warmonger. If you act positively (in my opinion war is a negative action) then you can persuade people that you are being targetted by ruthless terrorists. If you act negatively then you persuade people that freedom fighters are defending them against you.
I'm not going to reply to the other stuff becuase we both know that'll end in many many posts until one of us gets bored and the rest of the people just give up long before that...
unknown kernel wrote:
> You should have a look at 'Manufacturing Consent'. He talks about the
> political bias in the media, too, but specifically about the
> respectable western sources that are supposed to be bastions of
> impartiality. It turns out that CNN is putting a political spin on
> the news just as much as John Pilger does. It's worth reading whether
> you agree with Chomsky's politics or not, I think.
That was what the video was about, what interested me, obviously :) , was this Reed Irvine (might be Irving, havent got notes with me) guy claimed that Chomsky was part of the system he claimed to be free from. I think we all acknowledge that there is no such thing as impartiality, but I disagree with Chomsky's idea about 20% of people mattering whilst 80% do not, and that sports, music e.t.c are of no use but to distract the 80% of people from what is happening in the world.
However, I will, when I get paid in two weeks, be getting Manufacturing Consent and Deterring Democracy from Amazon because, whilst I don't agree wiht most of his ideas I've heard so far, at least if I know what they are I'll know what I'm disagreeing with :)
BTW, in this same seminar was the idea that Lord Of The Rings is a racialised film, based on the flimsy facts that the bad guys wear black or are dark skinned, and that the film is about, and I quote from the lecturer "a film where a bunch of pasty skinned guys go off to hack up the dark evil people". And the Riders of Rohan have blond hair. And the Uruk Hai have dreadlocks, apparently.
I pointed out;
*The Uruk Hai and the orcs of Isengrad are led by Saruman the White who is not dressed in black, nor anything but white skinned.
*The film is actually about the fellowship trying to destroy the One Ring before Sauron, who wears armour so we cannot see his skin colour - and it was shiny armour too :P - gets it and rule Middle Earth.
Then it went on to Star Wars, suggested by someone else in the class, yknow the Dogma inspired "Darth Vader evil black guy" thing. I pointed out that the Storm Troopers are coloured white anyway, the the Death Star was a rather light grey, and that the ewoks, a star wars ethnic minority apparently, were postively shown. Yes, it was a weird seminar...also icluded rants about Black Hawk Down - innocent RPG wielding Somali's defending their homes by swarming around injured pilots - Enemy At The Gates, and anything else that popped into people's heads.
~~Belldandy~~
unknown kernel wrote:
> You should have a look at 'Manufacturing Consent'. He talks about the
> political bias in the media, too, but specifically about the
> respectable western sources that are supposed to be bastions of
> impartiality. It turns out that CNN is putting a political spin on
> the news just as much as John Pilger does. It's worth reading whether
> you agree with Chomsky's politics or not, I think.
That was what the video was about, what interested me, obviously :) , was this Reed Irvine (might be Irving, havent got notes with me) guy claimed that Chomsky was part of the system he claimed to be free from. I think we all acknowledge that there is no such thing as impartiality, but I disagree with Chomsky's idea about 20% of people mattering whilst 80% do not, and that sports, music e.t.c are of no use but to distract the 80% of people from what is happening in the world.
However, I will, when I get paid in two weeks, be getting Manufacturing Consent and Deterring Democracy from Amazon because, whilst I don't agree wiht most of his ideas I've heard so far, at least if I know what they are I'll know what I'm disagreeing with :)
BTW, in this same seminar was the idea that Lord Of The Rings is a racialised film, based on the flimsy facts that the bad guys wear black or are dark skinned, and that the film is about, and I quote from the lecturer "a film where a bunch of pasty skinned guys go off to hack up the dark evil people". And the Riders of Rohan have blond hair. And the Uruk Hai have dreadlocks, apparently.
I pointed out;
*The Uruk Hai and the orcs of Isengrad are led by Saruman the White who is not dressed in black, nor anything but white skinned.
*The film is actually about the fellowship trying to destroy the One Ring before Sauron, who wears armour so we cannot see his skin colour - and it was shiny armour too :P - gets it and rule Middle Earth.
Then it went on to Star Wars, suggested by someone else in the class, yknow the Dogma inspired "Darth Vader evil black guy" thing. I pointed out that the Storm Troopers are coloured white anyway, the the Death Star was a rather light grey, and that the ewoks, a star wars ethnic minority apparently, were postively shown. Yes, it was a weird seminar...also icluded rants about Black Hawk Down - innocent RPG wielding Somali's defending their homes by swarming around injured pilots - Enemy At The Gates, and anything else that popped into people's heads.
~~Belldandy~~
I think what annoys people about this sudden interest in human rights is that it is so inconsistent. The US/UK governments are up in arms over human rights abuses in Iraq - as they should be - but are still willing to strike arms and trade deals with other nations with similar track records: Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, Columbia. If there *was* a genuine desire to stamp out human rights abuses then I think everyone would support it: all we have at the moment is a cynical ploy to garner support for war, and a blind eye being turned to equally brutal client regimes.
Belldandy wrote:
> All those helpless innocents being
> killed by the big bad american bombs.... *yawns*
Try replacing 'big bad american bombs' with 'big bad al queda suicide bombers' to see why some people might find this offensive.
> And on a related subject, watched a video and was in a lecture about
> Noam Chomsky today, and it was interesting, kinda, not that I agree
> with everything he says - especialy the 80% of the population are
> stupid bit... - and also this Reed Irvine guy, kinda an anti Chomsky
> thing....
You should have a look at 'Manufacturing Consent'. He talks about the political bias in the media, too, but specifically about the respectable western sources that are supposed to be bastions of impartiality. It turns out that CNN is putting a political spin on the news just as much as John Pilger does. It's worth reading whether you agree with Chomsky's politics or not, I think.
Belldandy wrote:
> All those helpless innocents being
> killed by the big bad american bombs.... *yawns*
Try replacing 'big bad american bombs' with 'big bad al queda suicide bombers' to see why some people might find this offensive.
> And on a related subject, watched a video and was in a lecture about
> Noam Chomsky today, and it was interesting, kinda, not that I agree
> with everything he says - especialy the 80% of the population are
> stupid bit... - and also this Reed Irvine guy, kinda an anti Chomsky
> thing....
You should have a look at 'Manufacturing Consent'. He talks about the political bias in the media, too, but specifically about the respectable western sources that are supposed to be bastions of impartiality. It turns out that CNN is putting a political spin on the news just as much as John Pilger does. It's worth reading whether you agree with Chomsky's politics or not, I think.
unknown kernel wrote:
>And we shouldn't forget that, after Halabja, Donald
> Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to sell Saddam arms; and the Tory government
> told people who protested that Britain was supporting Iraq in its war
> with Iran, and then gave Saddam millions of pounds worth of credit.
Yes, both countries have made past mistakes and misjudgements, but just because we did doesn't mean we will continue to do the same does it ? Whilst programs inevitably do just use evidence they want, Panorama tries to present itself as balanced and fair high quality journalism, which it isn't.
Same goes for Amnesty, first report by them pre Gulf War was ignored. Well now America and Britain are interested in that - it may be for their own ends but the desire to end the treatment that report mentions is their now. Does criticising it serve anyone other than Amnesty ? No, it simply makes the NGO look good in the eyes of it's donors by not bowing to several governments. Why can't Amnesty say "yeah, we'll work with you on this". What it comes down to is does Amnesty want the suffering to end in Iraq, or does Amnesty want to see it continue ?
And Mr Happy, two points;
1) Just what do you suggest for dealing with a force that will not negotiate ? Surrender to them ?
2) The difference between an Iraqi hospital being hit, and terrorists flying planes into buildings is intent. No one on the allied side intends to bomb Iraqi hospitals - though the image is a nice one for the anti war lobby isn't it ? All those helpless innocents being killed by the big bad american bombs.... *yawns* The 9/11 hijackers did what they did on purpose. That is one big difference.
And on a related subject, watched a video and was in a lecture about Noam Chomsky today, and it was interesting, kinda, not that I agree with everything he says - especialy the 80% of the population are stupid bit... - and also this Reed Irvine guy, kinda an anti Chomsky thing....
*Waits for Goatboy to yawn/interject/something* :)
~~Belldandy~~
>And we shouldn't forget that, after Halabja, Donald
> Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to sell Saddam arms; and the Tory government
> told people who protested that Britain was supporting Iraq in its war
> with Iran, and then gave Saddam millions of pounds worth of credit.
Yes, both countries have made past mistakes and misjudgements, but just because we did doesn't mean we will continue to do the same does it ? Whilst programs inevitably do just use evidence they want, Panorama tries to present itself as balanced and fair high quality journalism, which it isn't.
Same goes for Amnesty, first report by them pre Gulf War was ignored. Well now America and Britain are interested in that - it may be for their own ends but the desire to end the treatment that report mentions is their now. Does criticising it serve anyone other than Amnesty ? No, it simply makes the NGO look good in the eyes of it's donors by not bowing to several governments. Why can't Amnesty say "yeah, we'll work with you on this". What it comes down to is does Amnesty want the suffering to end in Iraq, or does Amnesty want to see it continue ?
And Mr Happy, two points;
1) Just what do you suggest for dealing with a force that will not negotiate ? Surrender to them ?
2) The difference between an Iraqi hospital being hit, and terrorists flying planes into buildings is intent. No one on the allied side intends to bomb Iraqi hospitals - though the image is a nice one for the anti war lobby isn't it ? All those helpless innocents being killed by the big bad american bombs.... *yawns* The 9/11 hijackers did what they did on purpose. That is one big difference.
And on a related subject, watched a video and was in a lecture about Noam Chomsky today, and it was interesting, kinda, not that I agree with everything he says - especialy the 80% of the population are stupid bit... - and also this Reed Irvine guy, kinda an anti Chomsky thing....
*Waits for Goatboy to yawn/interject/something* :)
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy@Uni wrote:
> Indeed, you find him, and all who feel the way to express their anger
> is not through negotiation but by terrorist attacks, and you hunt them
> down, and capture or kill them. and you don't give in, you do not
> stop, you do not surrender, until they are destroyed.
How can you be so blind and deluded?
Do you see America trying diplomacy and negotiation? No, but you see that as okay because you have this blinkered perception of international politics.
So what if you kill a terrorist? All you do is anger his family and his friends and make them hate the West more than they did before. There will then be more to take his place. The root of the problem is hatred. And you cannot remove hatred with bombs and bullets.
Everyone is as bad as each other. Is there really any difference between flying a plane into an American building and bombing an Iraqi hospital? Civilians die in both circumstances, but one is state terrorism, sorry, war and the other is plain old terrorism.
> Indeed, you find him, and all who feel the way to express their anger
> is not through negotiation but by terrorist attacks, and you hunt them
> down, and capture or kill them. and you don't give in, you do not
> stop, you do not surrender, until they are destroyed.
How can you be so blind and deluded?
Do you see America trying diplomacy and negotiation? No, but you see that as okay because you have this blinkered perception of international politics.
So what if you kill a terrorist? All you do is anger his family and his friends and make them hate the West more than they did before. There will then be more to take his place. The root of the problem is hatred. And you cannot remove hatred with bombs and bullets.
Everyone is as bad as each other. Is there really any difference between flying a plane into an American building and bombing an Iraqi hospital? Civilians die in both circumstances, but one is state terrorism, sorry, war and the other is plain old terrorism.
Belldandy wrote:
> Exactly, if Panorama was tried in some countries the whole crew would
> be dead after one program. They intentionally set out to show only the
> evidence they want to find to prove their own point - which has been
> decided on long before any investigation starts for real. News
> discussions are blatant fixes, as IB points out anyone can easily fix
> the type of person in them with ease.
This is true, of course, but it's also true of anyone who has ever tried to make an argument ever. It doesn't matter what your politics are, this is how people argue. The government is doing it right now with Iraq: only presenting the facts(?) that back the argument for war. And the anti-war movement is doing the opposite. I don't think you can condemn one side without condemning the other. And just saying 'You're only saying that because it backs up your opinion' doesn't really settle anything: it's just a way of avoiding the issues.
> And BTW (sorry to go off topic) did anyone else think it was politics
> gone mad when Amnesty criticised the document detailing abuses in Iraq
> on the basis that no one listened to Amnesty back in the 80's ?
I don't think this was politics gone mad: Amnesty were merely pointing the hypocrisy of the situation. It seems strange that a - presumably expensive, to get back on topic - document was released during the build up to war. This information was nothing new: Amnesty and others have been reporting these abuses for years. Strange how concern for the welfare of Iraqis only blossoms when Blair and Bush are searching for casus belli. And we shouldn't forget that, after Halabja, Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to sell Saddam arms; and the Tory government told people who protested that Britain was supporting Iraq in its war with Iran, and then gave Saddam millions of pounds worth of credit.
> Exactly, if Panorama was tried in some countries the whole crew would
> be dead after one program. They intentionally set out to show only the
> evidence they want to find to prove their own point - which has been
> decided on long before any investigation starts for real. News
> discussions are blatant fixes, as IB points out anyone can easily fix
> the type of person in them with ease.
This is true, of course, but it's also true of anyone who has ever tried to make an argument ever. It doesn't matter what your politics are, this is how people argue. The government is doing it right now with Iraq: only presenting the facts(?) that back the argument for war. And the anti-war movement is doing the opposite. I don't think you can condemn one side without condemning the other. And just saying 'You're only saying that because it backs up your opinion' doesn't really settle anything: it's just a way of avoiding the issues.
> And BTW (sorry to go off topic) did anyone else think it was politics
> gone mad when Amnesty criticised the document detailing abuses in Iraq
> on the basis that no one listened to Amnesty back in the 80's ?
I don't think this was politics gone mad: Amnesty were merely pointing the hypocrisy of the situation. It seems strange that a - presumably expensive, to get back on topic - document was released during the build up to war. This information was nothing new: Amnesty and others have been reporting these abuses for years. Strange how concern for the welfare of Iraqis only blossoms when Blair and Bush are searching for casus belli. And we shouldn't forget that, after Halabja, Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to sell Saddam arms; and the Tory government told people who protested that Britain was supporting Iraq in its war with Iran, and then gave Saddam millions of pounds worth of credit.
Page: