The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,898544,00.html
Is it any surprise when they elect utter morons who are beholden only to big business and who have absolutely no interest in representing the people of the country they preside over?
There's only a limited amount of time that other nations can be kept poor and dependant before trouble kicks off...
Is it any surprise when they elect utter morons who are beholden only to big business and who have absolutely no interest in representing the people of the country they preside over?
There's only a limited amount of time that other nations can be kept poor and dependant before trouble kicks off...
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> This argument is boring.
>
> You can all get red-faced and try to strut your politrick knowledge,
> but at the end of the day if any of you feel that strongly, then get
> involved in politics instead of trying to prove your knowledge on an
> internet forum.
>
> Passion is nothing without action.
At least someone still has some sense here.
> This argument is boring.
>
> You can all get red-faced and try to strut your politrick knowledge,
> but at the end of the day if any of you feel that strongly, then get
> involved in politics instead of trying to prove your knowledge on an
> internet forum.
>
> Passion is nothing without action.
At least someone still has some sense here.
You make baby jesus cry.
Damn...you guessed my secret! Not only that, but bin Laden is kipping on my sofa right now. Down with the West!!
You love Saddam you do.
You want to rub his EVIL HITLER moustache and touch his bum.
I can tell.
You want to rub his EVIL HITLER moustache and touch his bum.
I can tell.
Goatboy wrote:
> Passion is nothing without action.
Why take action when you can go and write stuff on a webboard that tries to convey the impression that, despite being a University drop out who plies his trade at a well known department store, one has access to extra and secret information that we mere mortals have no access too?
Dunno why I'm writing this actually; all Bell will do is attempt to make a snide comment in order to distract attention from the fact that he does indeed act in the way described and can offer no explaination for his doing so.
> Passion is nothing without action.
Why take action when you can go and write stuff on a webboard that tries to convey the impression that, despite being a University drop out who plies his trade at a well known department store, one has access to extra and secret information that we mere mortals have no access too?
Dunno why I'm writing this actually; all Bell will do is attempt to make a snide comment in order to distract attention from the fact that he does indeed act in the way described and can offer no explaination for his doing so.
>
> Your understanding of America's enemies is woefully inadequate if you
> believe that relaxing drugs patents would make any difference.
Ever heard of "winning the war of hearts and minds"? Or does that fall outside the crux of whatever insider knowledge the staff of Woolies get these days? Could you perhaps give some reasons for the above paragraph rather than falling back on your usual hints that you know more than you're letting on?
>
> And Light, once again you launch into a little tirade, whilst adding
> nothing, great work man.
And Belldandy, once again you avoid addressing the question posed because you know it to be too close to the truth for comfort. Great work pumpkin.
> Your understanding of America's enemies is woefully inadequate if you
> believe that relaxing drugs patents would make any difference.
Ever heard of "winning the war of hearts and minds"? Or does that fall outside the crux of whatever insider knowledge the staff of Woolies get these days? Could you perhaps give some reasons for the above paragraph rather than falling back on your usual hints that you know more than you're letting on?
>
> And Light, once again you launch into a little tirade, whilst adding
> nothing, great work man.
And Belldandy, once again you avoid addressing the question posed because you know it to be too close to the truth for comfort. Great work pumpkin.
This argument is boring.
You can all get red-faced and try to strut your politrick knowledge, but at the end of the day if any of you feel that strongly, then get involved in politics instead of trying to prove your knowledge on an internet forum.
Passion is nothing without action.
You can all get red-faced and try to strut your politrick knowledge, but at the end of the day if any of you feel that strongly, then get involved in politics instead of trying to prove your knowledge on an internet forum.
Passion is nothing without action.
LL CóòL †† wrote:
> Switching topic to say that it is not purely the fault of the clearly
> incompetant American government that this is happening is just
> cowardly in such an important situation.
No, it's a damn good point. Who does nearly everyone look to to sort their problems out, America. It's not cowardly you idiot, it's the truth. Whjy did the USA get concessions from the UN letting US service personnel be exempt from prosecution during peacekeeping ? Because America supplies most of the personnel and equipment.
>The fact of the matter is
> that America has these drugs which to certainly help to solve some of
> the problems Africa is facing at the moment, and it refuses to give
> them to the people who need them most. You are sentencing people to
> death meerly because they don't have money - a typically American
> stance.
Well I'm British so better change that stance thing eh ? Anyhow, it is not refusing to give them the drugs, it is simply saying that governments must be able to buy what they want. Many of the countries requiring these drugs seem to have money to spare for their own leaders and military, yet want aid for the 'people'. In addition, in the case of AIDS/HIV, many nations in Africa have failed to implement the kind of controls and public health education programs needed to halt the spread of the disease - as the report out this morning highlights flawed medical practices.
> Hey, if you want to blame the problem on factors elsewhere, how about
> the American government who deny to sufficiently fund these companies?
> America clearly has more money than it can handle; not necessarily
> more than it needs, but it is now wasting it on a war that many of
> it's people do not want to go to. Instead of doing this, the British
> government could easily fund every child going to university, and the
> American government could financially compensate the drugs companies
> for any money they lost in giving these drugs to the Africans who are
> suffering an epidemic.
Money to spare ? There is not a nation on this earth not in debt or which has significant budget deficits. And why, proving my earlier point, does the American government have to fund those companies ? The whole point of drugs companies being privately owned is to let them compete and get on with their tasks, you start puring government money in and the whole competition angle dies. Money is not wasted on a war, in a sense that war is always the last option and has specific objective in mind. Neither government could afford to do what you say, you're pretty clueless on the sums that would involve.
> Let's say that Al-Qa'eda do get their hands on something like the
> bubonic plague. Al-Qa'eda somehow release this plague into London,
> and it's quickly spreading. The police tell those people who are
> suffering that they have a cure for this plague, but it's going to
> cost you each £1,000,000. It's ridiculous, but hey, the
> government can profit from it so they figure that they might as well
> take as much money from these dying people as possible. As it turns
> out, just about no-one has the money to pay for this cure, so they all
> die. Trouble is, this disease is quickly spreading throughout the
> country; people are dying all over the place. The government have
> enough of the cure to go round, but they'd rather make a bit of cash
> and get the hell out of the country, and stay away from the problem -
> they aren't diseased, so it's not their problem, right?
Here you actually have the crux of the whole problem, the British government would not withhold such a thing from it's own people because to do so would mean an end to that government. As it is the MOD is still just testing the vaccine for bubonic plague and hasn't even let its own soldiers have it, it still is not a cure for those infected by it anyway... In other words it is the primary responsibility of a country's government to provide for it's citizens, if it can't then it can get help at the cost of sticking to IMF / WB conformities like SAP's.
> Wrong. They would have the power to stop the situation, instead of
> making a few quick bucks. This is the position the American
> government finds itself in right now. It's got the cash it needs to
> fund the drugs companies, allowing the drugs companies to give the
> drugs to the African people suffering from AIDS. We don't exactly
> want to go to the Americans every time we find ourself in a sticky
> spot, but where else are we likely to find the money needed to stop
> this huge epidemic?
But the problem is not America's, either you want America to be akin to the UN, or you want America to stop being an intefering capitalist aggressor....
>The problem's solution has to be found somewhere,
> and the start could easily come from America. Y'know (to use a
> terribly American sort of phrase), perhaps it's time for America to
> finally take charge in a situation that there can be no denying that
> needs to be done. If it provides the money to start some sort of
> global campaign, then it wouldn't have to fund the entire thing, as
> you suggest that it might.
At one point in time, America could have done this, but now, with rising anti-western, anti-american feeling, you can forget it, It's not interested and neither are most of its allies. any attempt by any western coountry to intervene where they should, simply provokes angered responses in their own country, in other countries, and from the place itself. Too many nations and people have spent the past 50 years telling America and many others where to get off, so guess what ? Their wish is our command. A strong UN could have prented this, instead you have a talking shop with no real power or will.
> Good ol' Uncle Sam finally has the perfect opportunity to get some
> respect back from his enemies, but it looks as though he's going to go
> right ahead and blow it. Woeful.
Your understanding of America's enemies is woefully inadequate if you believe that relaxing drugs patents would make any difference.
And Light, once again you launch into a little tirade, whilst adding nothing, great work man.
~~Belldandy~~
> Switching topic to say that it is not purely the fault of the clearly
> incompetant American government that this is happening is just
> cowardly in such an important situation.
No, it's a damn good point. Who does nearly everyone look to to sort their problems out, America. It's not cowardly you idiot, it's the truth. Whjy did the USA get concessions from the UN letting US service personnel be exempt from prosecution during peacekeeping ? Because America supplies most of the personnel and equipment.
>The fact of the matter is
> that America has these drugs which to certainly help to solve some of
> the problems Africa is facing at the moment, and it refuses to give
> them to the people who need them most. You are sentencing people to
> death meerly because they don't have money - a typically American
> stance.
Well I'm British so better change that stance thing eh ? Anyhow, it is not refusing to give them the drugs, it is simply saying that governments must be able to buy what they want. Many of the countries requiring these drugs seem to have money to spare for their own leaders and military, yet want aid for the 'people'. In addition, in the case of AIDS/HIV, many nations in Africa have failed to implement the kind of controls and public health education programs needed to halt the spread of the disease - as the report out this morning highlights flawed medical practices.
> Hey, if you want to blame the problem on factors elsewhere, how about
> the American government who deny to sufficiently fund these companies?
> America clearly has more money than it can handle; not necessarily
> more than it needs, but it is now wasting it on a war that many of
> it's people do not want to go to. Instead of doing this, the British
> government could easily fund every child going to university, and the
> American government could financially compensate the drugs companies
> for any money they lost in giving these drugs to the Africans who are
> suffering an epidemic.
Money to spare ? There is not a nation on this earth not in debt or which has significant budget deficits. And why, proving my earlier point, does the American government have to fund those companies ? The whole point of drugs companies being privately owned is to let them compete and get on with their tasks, you start puring government money in and the whole competition angle dies. Money is not wasted on a war, in a sense that war is always the last option and has specific objective in mind. Neither government could afford to do what you say, you're pretty clueless on the sums that would involve.
> Let's say that Al-Qa'eda do get their hands on something like the
> bubonic plague. Al-Qa'eda somehow release this plague into London,
> and it's quickly spreading. The police tell those people who are
> suffering that they have a cure for this plague, but it's going to
> cost you each £1,000,000. It's ridiculous, but hey, the
> government can profit from it so they figure that they might as well
> take as much money from these dying people as possible. As it turns
> out, just about no-one has the money to pay for this cure, so they all
> die. Trouble is, this disease is quickly spreading throughout the
> country; people are dying all over the place. The government have
> enough of the cure to go round, but they'd rather make a bit of cash
> and get the hell out of the country, and stay away from the problem -
> they aren't diseased, so it's not their problem, right?
Here you actually have the crux of the whole problem, the British government would not withhold such a thing from it's own people because to do so would mean an end to that government. As it is the MOD is still just testing the vaccine for bubonic plague and hasn't even let its own soldiers have it, it still is not a cure for those infected by it anyway... In other words it is the primary responsibility of a country's government to provide for it's citizens, if it can't then it can get help at the cost of sticking to IMF / WB conformities like SAP's.
> Wrong. They would have the power to stop the situation, instead of
> making a few quick bucks. This is the position the American
> government finds itself in right now. It's got the cash it needs to
> fund the drugs companies, allowing the drugs companies to give the
> drugs to the African people suffering from AIDS. We don't exactly
> want to go to the Americans every time we find ourself in a sticky
> spot, but where else are we likely to find the money needed to stop
> this huge epidemic?
But the problem is not America's, either you want America to be akin to the UN, or you want America to stop being an intefering capitalist aggressor....
>The problem's solution has to be found somewhere,
> and the start could easily come from America. Y'know (to use a
> terribly American sort of phrase), perhaps it's time for America to
> finally take charge in a situation that there can be no denying that
> needs to be done. If it provides the money to start some sort of
> global campaign, then it wouldn't have to fund the entire thing, as
> you suggest that it might.
At one point in time, America could have done this, but now, with rising anti-western, anti-american feeling, you can forget it, It's not interested and neither are most of its allies. any attempt by any western coountry to intervene where they should, simply provokes angered responses in their own country, in other countries, and from the place itself. Too many nations and people have spent the past 50 years telling America and many others where to get off, so guess what ? Their wish is our command. A strong UN could have prented this, instead you have a talking shop with no real power or will.
> Good ol' Uncle Sam finally has the perfect opportunity to get some
> respect back from his enemies, but it looks as though he's going to go
> right ahead and blow it. Woeful.
Your understanding of America's enemies is woefully inadequate if you believe that relaxing drugs patents would make any difference.
And Light, once again you launch into a little tirade, whilst adding nothing, great work man.
~~Belldandy~~
Hey Belldandy, are you actually remotely capable of arguing a topic without insisting that any morality or concerns that differ from your own must therefore be false? I've lost count of the number of times that you've said "(you) don't REALLY care for them" or "...false moral high ground".
Once again, your egocentricity (your arguments are clearly constructed along the lines of "I believe this so therefore every right thinking person must think the same. Anyone who comes up with reasons why they don't agree with me must be wrong. If they have reasons that support that view, and I can't point out any flaws in those arguments, it therefore follows that they must be lying about those reasons.) comes to the fore. As I said, you reach your opinion and then look for supporting evidence rather than examining the evidence available before reaching your opinion.
Seriously, it's only one step from that to clamping your hands over your ears and chanting "Lalalalalala I can't hear you" whenever people disagree with you.
Once again, your egocentricity (your arguments are clearly constructed along the lines of "I believe this so therefore every right thinking person must think the same. Anyone who comes up with reasons why they don't agree with me must be wrong. If they have reasons that support that view, and I can't point out any flaws in those arguments, it therefore follows that they must be lying about those reasons.) comes to the fore. As I said, you reach your opinion and then look for supporting evidence rather than examining the evidence available before reaching your opinion.
Seriously, it's only one step from that to clamping your hands over your ears and chanting "Lalalalalala I can't hear you" whenever people disagree with you.
Belldandy wrote:
> Okay, fine, say that, but how does it change anything other than to
> give you a false moral high ground for yourself ?
>
> To a lot of people the death of nearly 3000 odd people on 9/11 seemed
> to have really good reasons, in fact a fair few people suggested it
> was almost deserved.
>
> No one deserves to die, but they will continue to do so, because no
> one has the will to step in when they should. This isn't just about
> America and drugs, it's about every single government there is, and
> the other regimes doing what they have to, instead of what is morally
> right. The problem is that the one organisation that could have made
> so much difference to the world, the United Nations, has become a
> joke, used for the ends of competing nations to barter for power and
> concessions, because to make it anything else scares people.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Switching topic to say that it is not purely the fault of the clearly incompetant American government that this is happening is just cowardly in such an important situation. The fact of the matter is that America has these drugs which to certainly help to solve some of the problems Africa is facing at the moment, and it refuses to give them to the people who need them most. You are sentencing people to death meerly because they don't have money - a typically American stance.
Hey, if you want to blame the problem on factors elsewhere, how about the American government who deny to sufficiently fund these companies? America clearly has more money than it can handle; not necessarily more than it needs, but it is now wasting it on a war that many of it's people do not want to go to. Instead of doing this, the British government could easily fund every child going to university, and the American government could financially compensate the drugs companies for any money they lost in giving these drugs to the Africans who are suffering an epidemic.
Let's put this into a Western context:
Let's say that Al-Qa'eda do get their hands on something like the bubonic plague. Al-Qa'eda somehow release this plague into London, and it's quickly spreading. The police tell those people who are suffering that they have a cure for this plague, but it's going to cost you each £1,000,000. It's ridiculous, but hey, the government can profit from it so they figure that they might as well take as much money from these dying people as possible. As it turns out, just about no-one has the money to pay for this cure, so they all die. Trouble is, this disease is quickly spreading throughout the country; people are dying all over the place. The government have enough of the cure to go round, but they'd rather make a bit of cash and get the hell out of the country, and stay away from the problem - they aren't diseased, so it's not their problem, right?
Wrong. They would have the power to stop the situation, instead of making a few quick bucks. This is the position the American government finds itself in right now. It's got the cash it needs to fund the drugs companies, allowing the drugs companies to give the drugs to the African people suffering from AIDS. We don't exactly want to go to the Americans every time we find ourself in a sticky spot, but where else are we likely to find the money needed to stop this huge epidemic? The problem's solution has to be found somewhere, and the start could easily come from America. Y'know (to use a terribly American sort of phrase), perhaps it's time for America to finally take charge in a situation that there can be no denying that needs to be done. If it provides the money to start some sort of global campaign, then it wouldn't have to fund the entire thing, as you suggest that it might.
Good ol' Uncle Sam finally has the perfect opportunity to get some respect back from his enemies, but it looks as though he's going to go right ahead and blow it. Woeful.
--bWo--
> Okay, fine, say that, but how does it change anything other than to
> give you a false moral high ground for yourself ?
>
> To a lot of people the death of nearly 3000 odd people on 9/11 seemed
> to have really good reasons, in fact a fair few people suggested it
> was almost deserved.
>
> No one deserves to die, but they will continue to do so, because no
> one has the will to step in when they should. This isn't just about
> America and drugs, it's about every single government there is, and
> the other regimes doing what they have to, instead of what is morally
> right. The problem is that the one organisation that could have made
> so much difference to the world, the United Nations, has become a
> joke, used for the ends of competing nations to barter for power and
> concessions, because to make it anything else scares people.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Switching topic to say that it is not purely the fault of the clearly incompetant American government that this is happening is just cowardly in such an important situation. The fact of the matter is that America has these drugs which to certainly help to solve some of the problems Africa is facing at the moment, and it refuses to give them to the people who need them most. You are sentencing people to death meerly because they don't have money - a typically American stance.
Hey, if you want to blame the problem on factors elsewhere, how about the American government who deny to sufficiently fund these companies? America clearly has more money than it can handle; not necessarily more than it needs, but it is now wasting it on a war that many of it's people do not want to go to. Instead of doing this, the British government could easily fund every child going to university, and the American government could financially compensate the drugs companies for any money they lost in giving these drugs to the Africans who are suffering an epidemic.
Let's put this into a Western context:
Let's say that Al-Qa'eda do get their hands on something like the bubonic plague. Al-Qa'eda somehow release this plague into London, and it's quickly spreading. The police tell those people who are suffering that they have a cure for this plague, but it's going to cost you each £1,000,000. It's ridiculous, but hey, the government can profit from it so they figure that they might as well take as much money from these dying people as possible. As it turns out, just about no-one has the money to pay for this cure, so they all die. Trouble is, this disease is quickly spreading throughout the country; people are dying all over the place. The government have enough of the cure to go round, but they'd rather make a bit of cash and get the hell out of the country, and stay away from the problem - they aren't diseased, so it's not their problem, right?
Wrong. They would have the power to stop the situation, instead of making a few quick bucks. This is the position the American government finds itself in right now. It's got the cash it needs to fund the drugs companies, allowing the drugs companies to give the drugs to the African people suffering from AIDS. We don't exactly want to go to the Americans every time we find ourself in a sticky spot, but where else are we likely to find the money needed to stop this huge epidemic? The problem's solution has to be found somewhere, and the start could easily come from America. Y'know (to use a terribly American sort of phrase), perhaps it's time for America to finally take charge in a situation that there can be no denying that needs to be done. If it provides the money to start some sort of global campaign, then it wouldn't have to fund the entire thing, as you suggest that it might.
Good ol' Uncle Sam finally has the perfect opportunity to get some respect back from his enemies, but it looks as though he's going to go right ahead and blow it. Woeful.
--bWo--
Page: