Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Role of Government..

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
What do people see as the real role of their Government, how far should government intervention go?

I'd be particularly interested to hear the US approach because we seem to accept greater input over here...
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The government is exactly that. An institution that governs our lives and our nation.
    Without guidance and regulation we would have anarchy.
    Some governments have very little input, whilst others take it to extremes.

    However I think a governments main role after governing us, is to care for us/provide for us. because without us there is no government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Curious, Whowhere.

    Would you consider yourself a socialist?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>I'd be particularly interested to hear the US approach because we seem to accept greater input over here...</STRONG>

    im from the US... the government is too big and needs a bit of the old revolution
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Sean_K:
    <STRONG>Curious, Whowhere.

    Would you consider yourself a socialist?</STRONG>

    I wouldn't say socialist, I'm more right wing myself. However I think there are advantages and disadvantages to any form of government.
    But I do believe that a state's primary role is to provide for the citizens of its nation. The citizens are, after all the ones who put the government in power, so the government should do all it can to make those people happy. Don't you agree?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>
    Without guidance and regulation we would have anarchy.

    </STRONG>

    However, anarchy wouldn't neccersarily be such a bad thing.

    I think that government would work a lot better if its main intent wasn't to get voted in again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by custo:
    <STRONG>

    im from the US... the government is too big and needs a bit of the old revolution</STRONG>

    But what do you mean by too big - in what way is it too big, and where would you make the reductions?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The role of our government is to do whatever we bloody well tell it to.

    It really is that simple. If they start getting above their station then, as custo said, its time for a little bit of revolution.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>

    I wouldn't say socialist, I'm more right wing myself. However I think there are advantages and disadvantages to any form of government.
    But I do believe that a state's primary role is to provide for the citizens of its nation. The citizens are, after all the ones who put the government in power, so the government should do all it can to make those people happy. Don't you agree?</STRONG>


    No, I don't agree. Seems to me to be the recipe for "bread and circuses". It also sounds strikingly socialist, interesting that you consider yourself "right-wing"...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>

    But I do believe that a state's primary role is to provide for the citizens of its nation...</STRONG>
    Originally posted by Sean_K:
    <STRONG>
    No, I don't agree. Seems to me to be the recipe for "bread and circuses". It also sounds strikingly socialist, interesting that you consider yourself "right-wing"...</STRONG>

    Either a disparate definition of terms... or the socialist sheep is in utter denial about what it is. <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> Anyone who believes that it is the JOB of government to provide for its people is DEFINITIVELY socialist. Job of the government should be only that which is required to prevent total anarchy from rending the nation...

    definition of terms: "Sheep"...
    Someone who would stand pathetically bleating until its death unless cared for and catered to... unable to find its own way and support itself in this world, TOTALLY lost without its sheepherder to care for it; must be protected from its own ignorance, stupidity, and incompetence... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">

    Perhaps there was some "social engineering" afoot when so many of the men were shipped off to Australia? Made the flock soooo much easier to contend with... <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">

    Australia Refugees on Hunger Strike
    By MIKE CORDER

    WOOMERA, Australia (AP) - Behind the razor wire at Woomera's detention center, illegal immigrants are referred to by number, not name.

    In the baking heat of the Australian Outback, they huddle under the few shady areas of the camp or under blankets strung between huts, lawyers who regularly visit the refugees said Saturday.

    ``It's dehumanizing,'' said Tirana Hassan, one of a group of lawyers representing about half the 800 illegal immigrants currently being held at Woomera, a former missile testing range. ``They say, 'This is a big cage and we're treated like animals.'''

    Nearly 200 inmates - including children - are on a hunger strike, in its 12th day Sunday, to protest conditions at the camp and the time taken to process their asylum applications. Dozens have sewn their lips together to symbolize their view that authorities do not listen to their appeals. Some have attempted suicide.

    Three more children involved in the hunger strike were hospitalized overnight Saturday, an Immigration Department spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity. The children's conditions were not disclosed.

    The refugees are demanding the government process their applications faster and want to move away from the isolation of Woomera, Hassan said.

    All five Australian illegal immigration detention centers - which together now hold about 3,000 refugees from the Middle East and South and Central Asia - have similar conditions, but none is as remote as Woomera, built on a desolate plain 1,120 miles west of Sydney.

    ``They have virtually no books,'' said Paul Boylan, another lawyer. ``They have television but many of them do not speak English.''

    The Australian government bars reporters from entering the centers except on rare stage-managed tours, but statements by the lawyers about the conditions are supported by accounts from refugees who have spent time in them.

    The Woomera detention center is made up of one- and two-story buildings laid out in a rectangle and surrounded by a high chain link fence topped with razor wire. On Saturday a refugee was hospitalized with lacerations after falling or jumping into a roll of the wire during a protest.

    ``There are dads in there with wives and kids thinking 'What have I done? This was going to be our escape and we have come to a place just as bad as the place we have run from,''' Boylan said. ``People regularly come to us and say '``I'm going mad.'''

    The government makes no apologies for conditions or for the fact that all illegal immigrants are forced to stay at the centers while their asylum applications are being processed, which can take up to three years.

    Prime Minister John Howard said last week that the system is designed to act as a deterrent to prevent other illegal immigrants coming to Australia.

    Lawyers say the policy unfairly punishes the men, women and children in the camps to send a message to others abroad who are considering trying to get to Australia.

    [ 27-01-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN:
    Either a disparate definition of terms... or the socialist sheep is in utter denial about what it is. <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> Anyone who believes that it is the JOB of government to provide for its people is DEFINITIVELY socialist.
    So everyone else believes that the government should not provide for the people? Get real. He's not talking about communism.
    Job of the government should be only that which is required to prevent total anarchy from rending the nation...
    Providing peace then? And stability. And control. <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="tongue.gif" border="0">
    sheepherder
    Shepherd? <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
    Whatever, the sheep comments have become boring. Find another insult Thanatos.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>The role of our government is to do whatever we bloody well tell it to.

    It really is that simple. If they start getting above their station then, as custo said, its time for a little bit of revolution.</STRONG>

    The question was about your opinion, at what point does the Govt pass that point?

    Did we ask for an NHS? What about Health and Safety legislation? What about preventing business from being sued (Texan related law)?

    When does Govt intervention actually become interference?

    and Thanatos, its easy to insult people for their beliefs but at least they managed to provide some sort of answer to the thread...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought that was my opinion. Thats what I believe the governments role should be. They should enact what we, the voters, tell them to.

    Did we ask for the health service? I dont know. Im not aware of how it was set up.

    The government is very much out of contact with the normal voting public here in the UK. They are forced to rely on lobby groups which tell them what the rest of us apparently think. The government sees the very vocal minority as being representative of the rest of us, the silent majority. Because most of us are so silent, the government can get away with calling themselves a democracy.

    Thats why they fuck up so much.

    Personally I believe that the government already interferes in our lives to an amazing degree. We cant do anything without asking permission from the government anymore. Unfortunately most people in this country just want the government to look after them and do everything for them. These people outnumber people like me who want less government interference and they are louder so they get their way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN:
    <STRONG>

    Anyone who believes that it is the JOB of government to provide for its people is DEFINITIVELY socialist.</STRONG>


    Quick question: Does the US government provide some form of recompense for the families or dependants of those US service men injured or killed in combat?

    Don't know the situation in the US, but it is the case in the UK. I would be interested in the facts - different countries, different expectations from one's government. <IMG alt="image" SRC="cool.gif" border="0">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    Whatever, the sheep comments have become boring. Find another insult Thanatos.</STRONG>

    Too apropos in your vernacular translates as "boring"? <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0"> I gave you the definition of "sheep" which we refer to, and it is not intended as an insult, but merely acknowledging the obvious which the lot of you verify with your every post... Balddog being somewhat an exception:
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>

    Personally I believe that the government already interferes in our lives to an amazing degree. We cant do anything without asking permission from the government anymore. Unfortunately most people in this country just want the government to look after them and do everything for them. These people outnumber people like me who want less government interference and they are louder so they get their way.</STRONG>
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>
    ...and Thanatos, its easy to insult people for their beliefs but at least they managed to provide some sort of answer to the thread...</STRONG>

    When a people are too inept to make their way in the world without dependency upon the generocity of others, what do YOU refer to them as? Parasites? Leeches? Spineless little worms? Sheep? Brits?

    Perhaps the testosterone HAS been bred out of you ~ for the MOST part ~ or those with any spine have been expelled from your little island (exiled to Australia). Perhaps for a populace such as yours, bereft of any ambition other than drugging or drinking yourself into a deeper delusion of your (lost) grandeur. Perhaps for YOUR lot, Orwell's "Big Brother" is the only hope you have for survival. I STAND amongst those who find it beyond simply pathetic and toward repugnant and revulsive your dependence upon the government to allow you your existence by their leave!

    If this forum is a demonstration of the Brit mindset as a whole, then there is no wonder as to how you have bungled away a global empire.

    PRIDE is the quality that gets you up off your shoulder blades when you have gotten knocked flat, and compels you to do the hard thing because it is the right thing. Arrogance is hollow pride without the substance within it, that places itself on a higher plane without demonstrating ANY quality which would make it deserving of that acknowledgment. Pride is what compels me to invite you to come and "get some" should you attempt to subjugate me to your will or whim; arrogance is that which deludes you to think that you should be tended to, fed, clothed, sheltered, cared for, supported, and protected.

    Deny who you have allowed yourselves to become, and feel good about what you delude yourselves to be... all that we see is a group of greedy and contentious beggers too lazy to provide for themselves... and THUS require the grace of a "Big Brother" benefactor to care for you.

    Perhaps for your little island, you require an all-invasive government to provide for you. MEN demand to be left the f#ck alone, to live their lives as THEY choose... and THAT is the way that REALITY has always been!

    NATURE is about the survival of the fittest, and those who are unfit are culled by Nature, as they are nothing more than parasites to the whole of the creature. Too many parasites allowed to live, supported artificially (and unchecked), and the creature is bled to death. The over-population and MOST of the other ills of this world are created by the "feel-gooders" who would artificially sustain those unfit to survive. THAT is what your ilk has attempted to transform government into, rather than simply putting a check on the most outlandish abuses of those too incompetent and unfit to survive.

    F#ck with Nature, and Nature will f#ck you up. Look around, and WITNESS what f#cking with Nature has wrought upon you... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Squinty:
    <STRONG>


    Quick question: Does the US government provide some form of recompense for the families or dependants of those US service men injured or killed in combat?

    Don't know the situation in the US, but it is the case in the UK. I would be interested in the facts - different countries, different expectations from one's government. <IMG alt="image" SRC="cool.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

    Affirmative. Such is what should be. If a man (or woman) should trade his (or her) life for the collective protection of the group, then the group should contribute toward the care of the survivors.

    However, that is a RADICALLY disparate situation from the government supporting those who choose not to support themselves... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">

    btw ~ your presence is acknowledged and appreciated, at least from this corner... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    First of all thanks for giving an answer...

    So, is your point that there should be zero Govt? That each man should be responsible for themselves (and family) and no-one else?

    <STRONG>MEN demand to be left the f#ck alone, to live their lives as THEY choose... and THAT is the way that REALITY has always been!</STRONG>

    Are you sure about that? What about hunting groups, defense in numbers? How do you think we got to the point of tribes, villages and cities? Was this forced upon us by a central Govt, or did 'man' evolve to this point?

    Does it take a 'spine' to watch your neighbour starve whilst you throw food away?

    Is the world really over populated, or is it that although we can produce enough, we do not sell it to those in need - we'd rather destroy it just too keep prices higher at home..

    <STRONG>F#ck with Nature, and Nature will f#ck you up. Look around, and WITNESS what f#cking with Nature has wrought upon you... </STRONG>

    Do you mean, as in genetic modified foods?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MOK is right Thanatos.
    If a government isn't there to provide for it's people, then please enlighten us to its real purpose?
    People obviously do want a government in the USA Thanatos or wouldn't they break out that age old constitutional right to rise up against it???

    Your argument is full of crap because you can't think of anything better than the current system.
    If it wasn't for government there would be no food supplies, why would there be. No government means no healthcare, free or not. No government means no large scale protection from external invaders.
    Without government there would be no research into anything, no industry, no mass production, no weaponry. In your world Thanatos we would be sitting in trees flinging shit at each other.

    If a government's job is not to provide for its people, then why do we have one at all?
    Oh wait, you can't think of an answer, what does that make you? A sheep like the rest of us.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN:
    <STRONG>

    Affirmative. Such is what should be. If a man (or woman) should trade his (or her) life for the collective protection of the group, then the group should contribute toward the care of the survivors.

    However, that is a RADICALLY disparate situation from the government supporting those who choose not to support themselves... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0">

    btw ~ your presence is acknowledged and appreciated, at least from this corner... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

    But wait Thanatos. Surely it should be left up to the family of the deceased bully to fend for themselves??? Without our precious government who would give them the money? Again you contradict yourself and your argument falls apart.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>MOK is right Thanatos.
    If a government isn't there to provide for it's people, then please enlighten us to its real purpose?</STRONG>

    Ooops, may have given you the wrong impression. I believe that it is the Govt role to support its populous, not provide for it.

    The Govt doesn't PROVIDE us with anything, we provide it ourselves, they facilliate the exchange. As has been said here before, the tax rebate you get is your own money being haded back to you, not a gift from the Govt.

    We pay them, by means of taxation, to ensure that certain needs - the needs of the many - are taken care of and 'managed'. This means that we can be sure that our children will recieve an 'education', that our army will defend us and that should we fall ill, then we will recieve healthcare.

    But there is also an element of culture in this country for looking after you 'neighbour'. But then I guess this is a 'christian' society and that is a christian ethic. I am staggered that a god-fearing country like the US doesn't appreciate many of the lessons - especially the one about not passing on the other side.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What have we here... a sheep stampede??? Afraid of feeding or caring for yourself?
    Afraid of defending yourself?
    Afraid of the consequences of living a life without a "safety net"?

    Get in the way of your mass genuflection to Karl Marx?

    The role of government is at its best where limited. An all-powerful government, as in your idealistic socialist/welfare state, what you clammor for so that you do not have to worry about being productive, but just feeding your drunken stupor and drug addled oblivion, IS the antithesis of what any FREE man would want. You rail on that the government should tend to all of your wants and needs, and would give up any and all semblance of responsibility for your own lives, so that the ever more powerful government might control all of your functions. In your nirvana, you would need a permit issued to allow you to defecate, and another to allow you to wipe your ass...

    Evolved? Rather sounds like devolution to me, or ANYONE else with a spine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thanatos none of your arguments against government provision/support are consistent. You say we should all stand on our own two feet (fair enough), but as MoK mentions, you make an exception for military personnel - or rather their families - that are KIA.

    And there's another inconsistency: the armed forces. Surely the ultimate in government provision. The armed forces provide defence for the country. Without government there is no police, no army etc. Perhaps that's what you actually want: the right to carry a gun around the streets and shoot at anyone you don't like the look of.

    And your complaints about drinking and drug use don't add up either. You witter on about the 'Big Brother' government thing but then complain about drug use. Think about it, if there were no police then there would be a lot more of the above, and surely that's not what you wanted?

    MoK & Whowhere defeated most of your arguments above but I must reiterate what they said. The government only has money through taxation. That's my money being taken away from me, in order that my bin is emptied, and my university has books, and my local hospital has enough nurses and bandages, and my local police force has batons to beat bad people with etc...

    I don't care if you happen to agree with the welfare state or not. Personally, I think we should be decent enough to provide for those who do not have as much as we do. It works on a worldwide scale as much as a local one. And it's something the UK does better than the USofA.

    So government isn't perfect. What's new? It's about time you started to analyse your own life and decide whether you'd rather die with a fat belly and a big 4WD in the garage, or with the knowledge that you weren't directly responsible for someone's death through poverty or whatever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>
    Surely it should be left up to the family of the deceased bully to fend for themselves??? .</STRONG>

    So EVERYONE who serves in the armed forces is a "bully"? About the perspective I would expect from a neutered sheep...
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    And your complaints about drinking and drug use don't add up either. You witter on about the 'Big Brother' government thing but then complain about drug use. Think about it, if there were no police then there would be a lot more of the above, and surely that's not what you wanted?...</STRONG>
    Let them suffer the consequences of their addictions, rather than reward them for their lack of moral integrity by taxing the general population. Go back and hide in the pub. May ALL of the drunks and addicts die their chosen death, rather than those WILLING and able to work being forced to pay the tab for those who prefer their avoidance of reality. If you let the druggies and drunks kill themselves off with their willful self-abuse and self-abasement, then there are that many less parasites upon those who DO work.

    MoK & Whowhere defeated most of your arguments ... [
    Only to those in agreement with the perspective that the government should prop up those who choose not to support themselves...
    It's about time you started to analyse your own life and decide whether you'd rather die with a fat belly and a big 4WD in the garage, or with the knowledge that you weren't directly responsible for someone's death through poverty or whatever.
    I HAVE "analyzed" my own life, and have supported myself WITHOUT an assist by government welfare since I was 18. I am responsible for ME, and if you choose to stick a needle in your arm and wrap yourself in that little warm blankie, that's YOUR choice, NOT MY responsibility. I DON'T GIVE A DAMN, as long as I don't have to pay for it.
    Neither do I give a damn if you starve to death, if your government welfare check was cut off. <IMG alt="image" src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/stick.gif"&gt;

    There is no "inconsistency"... there ARE essential services, but there is also a rampant government welfare system which requires that 85% of my earnings go to support some lazy lout that demands that "Big Brother" provide him with a life that he is too lazy to earn for himself. <IMG alt="image" src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/stick.gif"&gt;

    You want me to be ashamed of what I have accomplished in my life? Big f#cking chance! <IMG alt="image" src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/stick.gif"&gt;

    You want to support countries that breed themselves into oblivion? That's YOUR choice, but you are NOT going to stuff it down my throat.
    Nature has a way of dealing with over-population, and it is called FAMINE. F#ck with Nature, reap the reward.... <IMG alt="image" src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/stick.gif"&gt;
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>

    I don't care if you happen to agree with the welfare state or not..</STRONG>

    Awfully easy to spend someone else's money, when at your age, you have not have the experience of actually providing for others... And I DON'T CARE that a self styled supremist/elitest teenie bopper thinks he understands the world around him, he still is NOT going to dictate how I live the rest of MY life.
    Wait until you dry off a little behind the ears before you proselytize on "morality"...

    [ 28-01-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    CLARIFICATION ~ In the US, in the 60's and 70's, there was a HUGE push toward higher education, and massive amounts of government loans were granted to little pizzants to study basket-weaving, philosophy, history, and other areas essential to the "private sector". Upon graduation, they were not employable... the educated illiterates. Because the government had such HUGE funds expended upon their education, and needing to demonstrate some return upon the investment, HUGE boondoggles were implimented, known as BUREAUCRACIES. Also known as sucking at the public teat, 'cause they're too damn lazy and stupid to get a REAL job. THAT is the reason that my taxes are so damned high... supporting the unemployable in the "public sector"... bureaucratic welfare. Because you are likely to fit within THAT description, and have a vested interest in preserving the public teat, I can understand your necessity in defending the welfare system. Otherwise, you might actually be forced into learning a marketable skill to feed yourself, instead of being another ward of The State, or Big Brother...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Right, here's what I think:

    Yes we need a government to protect us (i.e. raise an army) and to keep law and order. Things like health & safety laws are there to stop people getting hurt. Weights and measures regs are there so we don't get ripped off.

    However if a government interferes too much, it can be a bad thing. Too much red tape can stifle business. High taxation can reduce profits. Socialists argue that we need to "redistribute wealth" to the poor. I think if I have worked to earn money, why should I then give that money to some layabout who doesn't have the drive to hold down a job? If I want to be charitable thats fine, but I shouldn't be forced into it.

    I think minimal government is the term I'm looking for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thanatos, you still don't explain or offer an alternative to what the role of a government should be.

    Please, in simple English, tell us what a government's purpose is?

    Our welfare state does indeed provide for other people, however it also provides for us. Our medecines are heavily subsidised because we pay for them through tax. Our visits to hospital are free.
    From your rants Thanatos, you say that nobody should be given any help, except military personnel.
    What would happen if you found yourself in the situation where you needed a heart bypass, but you had missed an insurance payment? In your "ideal" world you would be dead, and nobody would care. If you campaigned for a free heart bypass "god forbid" then some crazy redneck would protest because you are spending his taxes.

    Our welfare system is a safety net for everybody. The resources are there that should anyone sink below a certain level they can get money and help in order to raise them back up again.
    The money only goes to those who need it, and I am quite happy that any money I am taxed will go to helping pay for a small child's operation. Happy in the knowledge that sometime in the future that same child who survived will be contributing to my life in some way.

    I sincerely hope Thanatos that someday you find yourself need a leg to stand on, only to find that through lack of insurance to pay your premiums you are royally fucked. Then you will see where we are coming from.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>
    What would happen if you found yourself in the situation where you needed a heart bypass, but you had missed an insurance payment? In your "ideal" world you would be dead, and nobody would care... </STRONG>

    ...AND, I would HAVE what I deserved.

    I am NOT some whiney-ass little sheep who looks to others to provide for me because I am too pathetic to make my own way in the world... That shoe CERTAINLY fits some here. Neither am I wealthy. I work 60+ hours every week, and have done so for the last nine years, with only one week off during that time for "vacation", seven years ago.

    You forget where I have walked. My college education was interrupted by the draft. I served my time, and never got back to college because the real world had intruded, and I had RESPONSIBILITIES (a word most likely foreign to your comprehension). I made a living at racing motorcycles, until age and injury "retired" me. I have owned businesses, and lost EVERYTHING in life.

    You believe in your "entitlement"...

    The TRUTH concerning the "Facts of Life": IT ENDS! It is ONLY what you make of it, for the time allotted to you. I am not so cowardly as to cling tenaciously to life. I have walked through life WITHOUT a safety net, and the alternative to "walking the wire without a net" DISGUSTS ME, as YOU disgust me.

    SO MUCH about life, you do NOT comprehend, little grasshopper. <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

    The ONLY thing which you are "entitled to" is DEATH!

    Your professed individual cowardice disgusts me. You self-possessed supremist/elitest attitude disgusts me. Your belief in your entitlement disgusts me. Your need for someone to protect you from yourself disgusts me.

    YOU are one that Mother Nature would cull from the herd... too weak to stand on its own.

    I SAY AGAIN: If YOU represent the norm for Brit youth, NO WONDER your country is in the deplorable condition you find yourself... You have inbred the spine out of yourselves...

    btw ~ This STILL is NOT a rant... as stated previously, I have NOT come to the point of anger on this BBS. There IS a difference between anger and disgust.

    Most of the places I have traveled in this world would have INSTANTLY chewed up a little effeminate pizzant as you. From what you present of yourself, I doubt you might even COMPREHEND what it is to not cower, but to stand AS A MAN, and face the violent world around you, ON YOUR OWN MERIT! THAT is the reality of the most of this world, outside of the little cocoon of delusion and cowardice within which you hide seek to hide from REALITY.

    I am DONE with you. Cannot blame a worm for being a worm, but neither should you concern yourself with its plight in the world...


    Edited gender-biased comments.

    [ 28-01-2002: Message edited by: Squinty ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere:
    <STRONG>Our welfare state does indeed provide for other people, however it also provides for us. Our medecines are heavily subsidised because we pay for them through tax. Our visits to hospital are free.
    </STRONG>

    TANSTAAFL

    There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Some basic economics might be in order.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN:
    ...AND, I would HAVE what I deserved.
    Death?
    Thanatos, just because we choose not to live our lives on a tightrope between life and death. We perhaps prefer some stability and have expectations of a full life.

    Granted, we could all be run over by a bus tomorrow, but that's no excuse for irresponsibility today. Just because someone happens to be unemployed at a point in time doesn't mean they should be abandoned and left to rot by the rest of society. Or maybe they should? Because that seems to be what you are suggesting.

    And Sean, if you really think we are so stupid that we think the government plucks its money off trees in order to treat us to free healthcare then you underestimate our intelligence. Of course we know there is no such thing as a free lunch. We pay for the NHS, we pay for the schools, we pay for disability benefit. And most of us accept the responsibility graciously.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where am."

    The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

    She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."

    "I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

    "Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

    The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."

    "I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

    "Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect ME to solve your problem. You're in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow now, it's MY fault.

    Could substitute liberal for democrat, conservative for republican.

    "Redistribution of wealth" is simply theft by another name, stealing from them that have by them too lazy to earn it on their own. You want the "free lunch", and have someone else pay for the bulk of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thantos, just an observation, but as a serving Marine, who provides for you?

    Throughout your military career I assume that you have NEVER taken advantage of the subsidised food on base, I assume that you have never eaten a MRE, nor have you ever visited the on base physician. I presume that you have never lived in barracks, but rather built your own accomodation.

    Of course, I could be wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.