The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Now, I'm not even going to pretend that I know a great deal about this party, who recently took their fifth seat after a recount. But reading a little on the BBC, I come across this:
"Among the BNP's policies are "resettlement" of black and Asian people to their lands of ethnic origin."
Now, what sort of sick individual a) bases a political party on that sort of facist agenda and b) actually goes out and votes for the sick fools?
Surely people who vote for such a party are immediately racist, and the entire towns harbouring such individuals should be shut off and sifted through like gutter scum.
I just can't believe this.
"Among the BNP's policies are "resettlement" of black and Asian people to their lands of ethnic origin."
Now, what sort of sick individual a) bases a political party on that sort of facist agenda and b) actually goes out and votes for the sick fools?
Surely people who vote for such a party are immediately racist, and the entire towns harbouring such individuals should be shut off and sifted through like gutter scum.
I just can't believe this.
Page:
Ah, is that it?
Ok.
Ok.
No, that's just your head. It's not right you know.
Fair enough.
You know, I almost actually enjoyed being on these forums again during that discussion...
You know, I almost actually enjoyed being on these forums again during that discussion...
They aren't all going to die, otherwise they'd be barricaded off and ignored by all but the samaritans.
And unless we keep on trying to save them now, by the time Firefighters have fair wages, and the NHS is the most smoothly run health service in the world, there may be very little left over for us to save.
And unless we keep on trying to save them now, by the time Firefighters have fair wages, and the NHS is the most smoothly run health service in the world, there may be very little left over for us to save.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> You go to some disease ridden country and tell someone that they
> cannot be treated because we're saving up for the day when we can cure
> everyone at once.
I didn't say wait until we can cure everyone at once. I said wait until we can afford to put more resources behind it.
What would be worse to say to a person who has a life threatening disease:
"Sorry, we're saving up for the day when we can treat more people"
Or
"Sorry, we don't have enough money to treat you, but we'll treat that person over there instead."
It doesn't matter, they going to die either way, and they will continue to die until the developed world can afford to put some serious money and resources behind helping them.
> You go to some disease ridden country and tell someone that they
> cannot be treated because we're saving up for the day when we can cure
> everyone at once.
I didn't say wait until we can cure everyone at once. I said wait until we can afford to put more resources behind it.
What would be worse to say to a person who has a life threatening disease:
"Sorry, we're saving up for the day when we can treat more people"
Or
"Sorry, we don't have enough money to treat you, but we'll treat that person over there instead."
It doesn't matter, they going to die either way, and they will continue to die until the developed world can afford to put some serious money and resources behind helping them.
BigNeilStinkyPants wrote:
> Dont get me started on the fire 'fighters'. They used to be the fire
> brigade, or firemen. One day some clever fellow must have came up with
> "hey, we fight fires, therefore we should call ourselves fire
> fighters", or maybe one day 4 planes were hijacked and 3 crashed
> into buildings and the fire fighters of new york were made out to be
> heros and the uk fire 'men' changed there name to fire fighters.
They'e been called firefighters for decades. Only programmes like "Fireman Sam" which is funnilly enough produced by the Welsh for the Welsh, promote any thinking to the contrary.
Which begs the question of how old you are.
> Dont get me started on the fire 'fighters'. They used to be the fire
> brigade, or firemen. One day some clever fellow must have came up with
> "hey, we fight fires, therefore we should call ourselves fire
> fighters", or maybe one day 4 planes were hijacked and 3 crashed
> into buildings and the fire fighters of new york were made out to be
> heros and the uk fire 'men' changed there name to fire fighters.
They'e been called firefighters for decades. Only programmes like "Fireman Sam" which is funnilly enough produced by the Welsh for the Welsh, promote any thinking to the contrary.
Which begs the question of how old you are.
It's not just about the saving of x many lives.
You go to some disease ridden country and tell someone that they cannot be treated because we're saving up for the day when we can cure everyone at once.
A day which may of course never happen.
You go to some disease ridden country and tell someone that they cannot be treated because we're saving up for the day when we can cure everyone at once.
A day which may of course never happen.
Dont get me started on the fire 'fighters'. They used to be the fire brigade, or firemen. One day some clever fellow must have came up with "hey, we fight fires, therefore we should call ourselves fire fighters", or maybe one day 4 planes were hijacked and 3 crashed into buildings and the fire fighters of new york were made out to be heros and the uk fire 'men' changed there name to fire fighters. While were at it lets go for an extra 40 % I sure could do with an upstairs bathroom. this climbing up and down stairs to go to the toilet is ridiculous. I get enough of climbing at work, like climbing out my chair to answer a 911..sorry.. a 999 to climb up a tree and rescue granny smiths cat.
I see your point completely.
I guess it depends on whether more lives would be saved in the future by balancing budgets, or whether its a good idea to keep dribbling money to the problems, and people still die.
How many people die each at the moment, with the amount of money we put in?
How many people would die for the year or two when less money was put in?
How many would die per year after the money thing has been sorted?
All you need to do is answer those questions and work the figures out, if you're being purely objective about it. IF you just want to save lives, you may have to lose some in the short term, to help save millions more in the long run.
I don't see that as dubious morals, I see that as pure common sense. If you can end up saving many more per year than you can at the moment, surely it's worth going for it?
I guess it depends on whether more lives would be saved in the future by balancing budgets, or whether its a good idea to keep dribbling money to the problems, and people still die.
How many people die each at the moment, with the amount of money we put in?
How many people would die for the year or two when less money was put in?
How many would die per year after the money thing has been sorted?
All you need to do is answer those questions and work the figures out, if you're being purely objective about it. IF you just want to save lives, you may have to lose some in the short term, to help save millions more in the long run.
I don't see that as dubious morals, I see that as pure common sense. If you can end up saving many more per year than you can at the moment, surely it's worth going for it?
Your Honour wrote:
> I know that I haven;t explained that too well, but hopefully you get
> my drift?
I fully understand your thinking, and it amounts to standard public ignorance. I don't mean ignorance offensively, before you get all huffy about it.
By the same logic as your argument, surely it would also be wise to just pump your billion into the NHS, and leave everything else to stew for a year. Then the NHS would be sorted, and next year you can concentrate on something else.
Can you see why it wouldn't work? Because in the year you ignore everyone bar the NHS, there are no police, firecrews or even military.
I'm sure you can see that, but why can't you see that by doing it your way, you're also allowing people to die the world over that you could have otherwise saved?
> I know that I haven;t explained that too well, but hopefully you get
> my drift?
I fully understand your thinking, and it amounts to standard public ignorance. I don't mean ignorance offensively, before you get all huffy about it.
By the same logic as your argument, surely it would also be wise to just pump your billion into the NHS, and leave everything else to stew for a year. Then the NHS would be sorted, and next year you can concentrate on something else.
Can you see why it wouldn't work? Because in the year you ignore everyone bar the NHS, there are no police, firecrews or even military.
I'm sure you can see that, but why can't you see that by doing it your way, you're also allowing people to die the world over that you could have otherwise saved?
Page: