Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Over flowing with illegal immigrants

135

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    That would be nice. It's wishfull thinking though really isn't it?
    You obviously missed the past two general elections. The toppling of the last Tory government and a significant number of its ministers is a prime example. Shame we have to wait 5 years each time, I quite agree, but enough people share the same dissatisfaction then things to change.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cos they might lose their livelihood if they don't, it being their you know, job?

    What happens to people in the non governmental sector if they do a bad or no job? they get nothing, nil, nada, zero not only that they get nothing in future either as word get round that they aren't any good at what they do.

    Do those in the government get paid whether they do a good or any job or not?

    Why yes, yes they do. Why? because if you don't pay them you go to jail and if they do it badly they get even more resources.

    Which set of people are going to be most accountable and willing to do a good job for the people they serve?
    I don't follow, nor do I see the logic that a wealth redistribution would take place in the absence of governments.

    What stops people from making a business in any field? regulation, licencing h&S law and taxation (which big corporations wriggle out of but small ones can't) which is the primary way that large corporations keep competition out of their fields.

    What stops a set of workers just telling the boss on monday morning that it's timeto sort out the cash? Government again!
    ....because they don't want to share?

    Of course they don't. No one does, according to you. What's in it for the government?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You obviously missed the past two general elections. The toppling of the last Tory government and a significant number of its ministers is a prime example. Shame we have to wait 5 years each time, I quite agree, but enough people share the same dissatisfaction then things to change.

    That isn't all the government. That's just their sales section.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    parties dont win elections, governments lose them
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Government never loses an election.

    Whichever party you vote for, they always get in. And bear in mind that MP's are chosen by the existing system, and are about as likely to rock the boat or not already be bought and sold as something very unlikely indeed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Government never loses an election.

    Whichever party you vote for, they always get in. And bear in mind that MP's are chosen by the existing system, and are about as likely to rock the boat or not already be bought and sold as something very unlikely indeed.


    no matter who you vote for you always get the government



    i watch far too much yes minister :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Which set of people are going to be most accountable and willing to do a good job for the people they serve?
    That isn't the question. Privatisation wouldn't take place if it wasn't more economiclly efficient. That doesn't apply to some services though.
    which big corporations wriggle out of
    QED. Why wouldn't they wriggle out of giving to charity if they currently avoid even compulsory payment to government?
    Of course they don't. No one does, according to you. What's in it for the government?
    Re-election, presumably. And with it, power and money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That isn't the question. Privatisation wouldn't take place if it wasn't more economiclly efficient. That doesn't apply to some services though.

    :confused:

    Privatisation has never ever occured. The government still runs everything through statute law.
    QED. Why wouldn't they wriggle out of giving to charity if they currently avoid even compulsory payment to government?

    They already don't pay. Why does empowering a group of people with the ability to rob you change this one iota? It doesn't.

    So now not only don't they pay, you have to pay their end of the wedge through lower wages, regulation and all the costs of government. If you just paid to charity direct you would have given more money to what you wanted to.
    Re-election, presumably. And with it, power and money.

    What's in it for all the government (i.e. almost all of it) that doesn't change with election?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    There ISN'T a country to be overflowing with Illegals if we take Klints approach.

    Plus, overflowing? Hardly. What a load of toss.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    If you just paid to charity direct you would have given more money to what you wanted to.
    Rubbish. Government infrastructure would become charity infrastructure. In fact, charities have even less accountability than governments.
    What's in it for all the government (i.e. almost all of it) that doesn't change with election?
    Money (a job).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rubbish. Government infrastructure would become charity infrastructure. In fact, charities have even less accountability than governments.

    From who's point of view?

    From mine it looks like I can just not pay them and keep my own money to spend how I like. If they are doing a bad job their donors can stop the cheques overnight until they buck up or take their business elsewhere entirely any time they like.

    How is this unaccountability?
    Money (a job).

    Which is exactly what they get from NOT actually performing. In fact, if anyone in government does a crap job next quarter they can ask for more cash, more people to work under them and a bigger department.

    It's not in the interest of anyone in government to actually provide any solutions because then they would be unemployed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    From who's point of view?

    From mine it looks like I can just not pay them and keep my own money to spend how I like. If they are doing a bad job their donors can stop the cheques overnight until they buck up or take their business elsewhere entirely any time they like.

    How is this unaccountability?

    Which is exactly what they get from NOT actually performing. In fact, if anyone in government does a crap job next quarter they can ask for more cash, more people to work under them and a bigger department.

    It's not in the interest of anyone in government to actually provide any solutions because then they would be unemployed.
    Is it better to run the country through extortion (taxes) or guilt (charity)?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is it better to run the country through extortion (taxes) or guilt (charity)?

    hmmm do you know of any charities that bomb children?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    hmmm do you know of any charities that bomb children?
    Do you know anyone who would be willing to give money to an organisation that was willing to bomb children?

    I'll give you a clue. It begins with I, ends in A and has an R in it somewhere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Do you know anyone who would be willing to give money to an organisation that was willing to bomb children?

    I'll give you a clue. It begins with I, ends in A and has an R in it somewhere.

    That`s a funny way to spell Inland Revenue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I said charity.

    The IRA is a tiny government, or a wanna be government, not a charity. It seeks to be the controlling force within a given area, whether people want it to or not. Not only that but it only exists in order to combat a government that already exists. If that government vanished what would be the point of it?

    There you are, you are free. Now, would you like gang of thugs "a" to come back or gang of thugs "b" to start ruling you?

    What's that Sooty? You don't want either of them?

    After having all your arguments knocked out cold, I am frankly surprised you tried to reframe the debate in such a cackhanded fashion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    That`s a funny way to spell Inland Revenue.
    Make a point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    I said charity.
    After having all your arguments knocked out cold, I am frankly surprised you tried to reframe the debate in such a cackhanded fashion.
    Hang on there cowboy, what is a "charity"? Surely that implies some sort of regulation, perhaps a government register giving benefits of reduced tax liability and general free reign to do what they like?

    If you abolish government (good luck with that by the way), you'd be left with a lot of organisations seeking sponsorship to promote their cause. Some would be beneficent and might provide healthcare, education and policing etc, others might promote other causes. There might be religious charities with agendas or there might be sectarian charities with agendas. You might find that there are charities with opposing viewpoints, maybe an animal rights "charity" and a pro-testing "charity". Do either one of these groups have a reputation for blowing things up?


    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Make a point.

    I was giving you A correct answer to your question
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    I was giving you A correct answer to your question
    But the Inland Revenue is part of the government infrastructure. :confused:

    We already know that governments blow things up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    I was giving you A correct answer to your question
    Not really. Inland Revenue doesn't end in A.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not really. Inland Revenue doesn't end in A.

    True.I tried and I failed
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hang on there cowboy, what is a "charity"? Surely that implies some sort of regulation, perhaps a government register giving benefits of reduced tax liability and general free reign to do what they like?

    Not really. Or even at all. Charity - the act of giving.

    Giving being voluntary. i.e. the total opposite of taxation.
    If you abolish government (good luck with that by the way), you'd be left with a lot of organisations seeking sponsorship to promote their cause. Some would be beneficent and might provide healthcare, education and policing etc, others might promote other causes.

    Ok let's imagine for a moment that the government is out of the way. I agree it seems unlikely at the moment but given the vast expense and need it has to educate all it's citizens from birth I am guessing it could be forgotten soon enough.

    Only those organisations that could get enough voluntary contributions could do anything. All the other organisation would be free to deal or not deal with any other organisation. So all the hospitals would be perfectly free to not treat any IRA member, any Conservative party member or whatever limit they would like to put on their own services.

    There would be no public property either, don't forget.
    There might be religious charities with agendas or there might be sectarian charities with agendas.

    So what? You can have all the agenda you like. Your ability to have an agenda ends where my ability to have my own starts. You want everyone to be catholic? Great. As you can no longer pick up a gun and use violence to make everyone join you, or even pander to your nonsense, best of luck.
    You might find that there are charities with opposing viewpoints, maybe an animal rights "charity" and a pro-testing "charity". Do either one of these groups have a reputation for blowing things up?

    Sure they do. Have governments stopped them? No. So why have one then!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    what is a "charity"?

    It could be YOU. A charitable act isn`t beyond you, is it ? Why all the emphasis on organisations ? And "guilt" for that matter ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    It could be YOU. A charitable act isn`t beyond you, is it ? Why all the emphasis on organisations?
    There would need to be some organisation involved because I cannot educate, cure, police, man the libraries and empty the bins. I cannot light every street and I cannot provide for everyone who is short of cash and going hungry. That's where a charitable organisation is required.
    And "guilt" for that matter ?
    Come now, let's not be naive. Charities are salesmen for good causes, nothing more. One very lucrative tactic is guilt tripping us into giving.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Not really. Or even at all. Charity - the act of giving.

    Giving being voluntary. i.e. the total opposite of taxation.
    I didn't ask you to define charity. What is "a charity"?
    Only those organisations that could get enough voluntary contributions could do anything. All the other organisation would be free to deal or not deal with any other organisation. So all the hospitals would be perfectly free to not treat any IRA member, any Conservative party member or whatever limit they would like to put on their own services.
    I don't disagree...
    So what? You can have all the agenda you like. Your ability to have an agenda ends where my ability to have my own starts. You want everyone to be catholic? Great. As you can no longer pick up a gun and use violence to make everyone join you, or even pander to your nonsense, best of luck.
    But I am running a charity. I'm doing good. Give me your money so I can do more good. Look at all the criminals/starving people/uneducated neanderthals/overflowing rubbish tips/cancer victims/drowning sailors etc ad nauseam that need helping. Are you going to let them die? You've never had it so good. Give me your cash.
    Sure they do. Have governments stopped them? No. So why have one then!
    Why not though? You haven't convinced me that anything would change.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't ask you to define charity. What is "a charity"?

    Theres no such thing. A charty is using a noun form for a verb action. i.e. pretty dim.
    But I am running a charity. I'm doing good. Give me your money so I can do more good.

    Sorry I'll need more details from you before I hand my cash over. You got financial breakdowns, plans of how you help etc to show me?

    What other charities are there I can compare yours too?

    Is it possible to just donate direct?

    No cash til I see some evidence.
    Look at all the criminals/starving people/uneducated neanderthals/overflowing rubbish tips/cancer victims/drowning sailors etc ad nauseam that need helping.

    How do you fill a bottomless pit?
    Are you going to let them die? You've never had it so good. Give me your cash.

    Sorry but some of the cash I would give to people naturally is currently in Iraq shooting kids. Other parts of it are on Lord Irving's walls. Prezza is driving around on some of it. It's paid for Cherie's hairdo. It's being used to buy an ID card system so that even more of it can be collected and then be blown on yet more shite that I wouldn't voluntarily pay for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why not though? You haven't convinced me that anything would change.

    Your having a laugh, right?

    Government is the biggest killer in human history.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    There would need to be some organisation involved because I cannot educate, cure, police, man the libraries and empty the bins. I cannot light every street and I cannot provide for everyone who is short of cash and going hungry. That's where a charitable organisation is required.

    Why do you think SOOOO much charity would be needed ? Look in the mirror. Do YOU need charity ? How many people do YOU know that need charity ?

    Kentish wrote:
    Come now, let's not be naive. Charities are salesmen for good causes, nothing more. One very lucrative tactic is guilt tripping us into giving.

    Do you provide charity/benevolence to people that you judge as needy because of your guilt ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    No cash til I see some evidence.
    Do you currently support a charity?
    Sorry but some of the cash I would give to people naturally is currently in Iraq shooting kids. Other parts of it are on Lord Irving's walls. Prezza is driving around on some of it. It's paid for Cherie's hairdo. It's being used to buy an ID card system so that even more of it can be collected and then be blown on yet more shite that I wouldn't voluntarily pay for.
    Unless you're a paid up Labour party member, you didn't pay for Cherie's hair. But would it make any difference to you that you were paying for the CEO of Oxfam to be driven and flown around or that you paid for a project that conflicted with your own views?
Sign In or Register to comment.