No wonder the lefties are distrusted.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
...do you wanna come round and play with my Scalextrix?

World's Longest Scalextric Track

Sadder than hifi? Close call... but the pit babes tip the scale, and not in hifi's favor.

last night's documentary about toy plane flying was pretty sad.

We (model slot car club) built a 100' 4 lane scratch built track.Putting Scalex cars on it was sad amazing 1 second acceleration then they were flat out. Great fun on their own SMALL tracks.
I don't like the red car anyway.

Acad,

A truce, by definition, is a cessation of hostilities. There is no need for any conditions.

I say we have a truce.

Cheers

Don

Okidoki Don

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

If you care to check this thread, you will not find one instance of me passing a view on the aftermath of Katrina, either directly or by inference.

If you can identify such a comment, please flag it up.

Mick, as I said, within the context of your remarks here, you can't expect anyone to believe that you don't agree with your fellow passengers' opinion of the Katrina victims.

The remarks of yours providing that context are these:


[Leftists] show themselve time and time again to be nasty and arrogant tossers who couldn't be trusted to run a corner shop let alone a country. You meet them in real life and you see them on Hifi fora snivelling like the curs that they are.

The major industrial countries are shifting to the right and about time to.

The left wing are just showing themselves for what they are.

The riotors were lefties and low income immigrants.

[Sarkozy] is promoting the Thatcherite maxim of "if you don't work, you don't eat and then you will die" ethic.

Welfare expenditure is out of control

Most American "haves" that I known totally despised the "have-nots" affected by Katrina. Their view was that if they were foolish enough not to be insured then they do not deserve any help from the taxpayer.

I was on a Caribbean cruise after Katrina happened and nearly all of the Americans who sat at the same table for dinner as me had total disrespect for them.

I could not care if the America tax payer bailed out the Katrina victims or not because I am not an American tax payer.


True, you're not an American citizen, but you are a citizen of the world, yes? And you care about victims and the downtrodden anywhere in the world, yes? What if a similar disaster had hit Liverpool?

All of this begs the question: Do you agree with what your fellow passengers said or not?

All best,
Fred

Fred

None of those statements written as I wrote them, imply an opinion. In every case I was repeating someone elses comments and you have taken bits from other threads which distorts the argument.

This is an American problem so it is up to America to sort it out.

My own view ( for what it is worth)is that if the tax payer bails them out, then it is grossly unfair on people who actually insured. Why insure yourself if the tax payer will come to your rescue.

You have to teach people to stand on their own two feet and the tax payers coffers are not bottomless. Yes there should be help in the early days but after a while, they have to move somewhere else and get on with their life.

It is ludicrous to expect the taxpayer to fund housing etc, they can rent in another town or whatever.

However if the American taxpayer is prepared by concensus to fund a full recovery plan then so be it.

It is your problem and you solve it in accordance with how your democratically elected government sees fit.

I suspect that your governments views will be broadly in line with mine, help them for a month or two to get sorted and then it is up to them to sort themselves out.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
Oh by the way, how is your small arms interest going? Only good for one thing and you know what it is.

Better small arms than small brain.

How very.

You have again demonstrated your inability to debate.

You have been "out brained"

Good bye

wellsyder

A soundbite is more effective than waffle.

Mike was far from being out brained.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
wellsyder

A soundbite is more effective than waffle.

Mike was far from being out brained.

Regards

Mick

You are so out of touch with reality, is it laughable! Go amuse yourself with yourself.

wellsyder

You are a typical bum, you get spiteful when outclassed.

quote:

You are a typical bum, you get spiteful when outclassed.

Oooh that was spiteful!

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

None of those statements written as I wrote them, imply an opinion. In every case I was repeating someone elses comments and you have taken bits from other threads which distorts the argument.

No, the quotes of your words I cited were all from this thread. And I don't understand how you can possibly claim that you were just "repeating someone else's comments" when you say The major industrial countries are shifting to the right and about time to or Welfare expenditure is out of control. Whose comments were you repeating there? And you somehow think that all these remarks don't add up to a very clearly stated opinion?

And it seems that, after all, you do agree with your shipmates' comments which you were "only" repeating. The majority of those who are uninsured are uninsured because they can't afford insurance. Simple as that. They're lucky to have enough for food, water, electricity (maybe), and shelter. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Not to mention, as someone else here pointed out, even many of those who were insured were screwed out of compensation by the insurance companies, who claimed that the flooding wasn't caused by the hurricane (covered) but by the storm surge (not covered) which was caused, of course, by the hurricane. Again, I urge you to watch the documentary When the Levees Broke for the real story.

In any case, like I said before, it all comes back to that sad old cliché "Why don't these people just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps?" You've bought the myth that the majority of those on welfare are just lazy and don't really need help. Look into the facts. And then thank your lucky stars that you don't have to spend a minute in their shoes.

All best,
Fred

Well said Fred. I think you stated that same thing quite clearly earlier as well. A comprehension failure on some peoples part I believe.

Howard

quote:

You've bought the myth that the majority of those on welfare are just lazy and don't really need help.

Sorry Fred but 15-ish years ago I used to do some benevolent work for a charity organisation which distributed free food to people in 'need'. My job was to deliver the boxes to their homes. I didn't earn a penny during that time and I even had to pay the fuel myself, so I had the best intentions.

Some of those people did live in decidedly poor conditions, but that was a small minority (they were also the ones who distinguished themselves by saying a lovely thank you). But believe it or not - I had never seen such an array of useless gadgets before in my life. TV sets of an impressive size, costing half the price of a car. Many people had cell phones at a time when they were still very expensive. One guy even had nine cell phones, each with a separate subscription of course. One of those 'people in need' I delivered food to (I guess she was by far the worst of all) even found a way to publish a book about the misfortune she encountered throughout her life with all her violent and criminal husbands etc., and to have her bloody book advertised on the front page of the local paper. When I arrived there she looked at me, we talked a little and then she asked me 'What ? You don't know me ?'. In my opinion she deserved a proper slap in the face but I'm sure she would have known how to make money out of it.

Later I talked to a guy whose job was to open closed doors, be it cars or houses, by any means available. He ran his own business and occasionally worked for the police, so he had a fairly accurate view on the way some people lived. Since he described me the standards of living of some families he had met and who were really in need, I have changed my mind on people who live on social welfare.

While working for an out-of-hours emergency service, I did a home visit to see a sick infant. The parents and child were living in a high-rise one-bedroom council flat in a grim area. The total furnishings of the flat comprised a double mattress and a blankets on the vinyl-tiled floor, a babies carry-cot, and a top of range Linn hi-fi (can't remember the name, but the new very tall speakers which cost more than my car). They weren't very friendly types so I didn't manage to establish sufficient rapport to ask about the hifi.

The problem with coming across instances of this is that it is easy to make a generalised judgement and end up being cynical. Much better to remember your own principles and act upon them, and do not allow yourself to lose sight of what you believe to be right. You shouldn't allow yourself to be disillusioned by those that abuse the good in others, because if you do, if you lose those principles, you have nothing left.
You can call it naive, and maybe it is, but just because some people don't seem very bright, it doesn't necessarily make them bad people.
As long as you can look back and respect yourself and your own actions, then that's all that matters. You'll be a happier person for it too.

quote:

I have changed my mind on people who live on social welfare.

So, a few people at the bottom of the heap work out a few scams, so what, big deal. As has been observed, the Right extrapolates these few examples and presents ALL those on benefits as useless scroungers.
Why do we not hear the Right bleating about fat cats such as Rupert Murdoch who, through 'creative accounting', dodge billions in tax each year? Corporate tax scams V's someone on the dole with a flat screen telly, you decide.

quote:

You shouldn't allow yourself to be disillusioned by those that abuse the good in others, because if you do, if you lose those principles, you have nothing left.

A sad prospect indeed, that's why I did live on such a cloud for many years. Here in Switzy we currently have a problem with the insurance for the invalids (or whatever it shall be called) as much of the money is pumped out by well-informed foreigners who, after a few years, manage to return to their homeland with a lifelong pension. To continue dreaming is not a solution as it downright encourages the small bad minority to become the ruling majority. A part of my salary wanders every month into the pockets of perfectly healthy guys who laugh their arses off and boast in front of their friends about the pension they get through said insurance. This bothers me and the present mess has come about because of naive guys like me who preferred to follow their nice principles instead of preserving actual justice.

quote:

Corporate tax scams V's someone on the dole with a flat screen telly, you decide.

Good point, but guys like Murdoch are apparently still able to fool the entire world. On the other hand, the guy who is smart enough to overthrow him would possibly take his chair and enjoy the advantages rather than save the world.

The insurance issue has been raised again by Mick.

In the US, flood insurance is a perfect example of how the haves write some laws only for their own benefit.

Uncounted miles of shoreline in the US have been turned from public to private property. Most of those miles are subject to hurricanes.

Since the land was pristine and is beautiful and very pleasant (when the weather is clear, that is), it's very pricey, so only the wealthiest of the haves can buy the land and build on it. But building is only feasible if the buildings are insured...and the insurance is subsidized by all taxpayers.

In other words, the haves are against welfare for the poor, but they seek it for themselves.

I guess it's different in the UK.

Regards.

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

Actually, in the most recent polls, Obama is nearly even with Clinton among Democrats.

Not according to Gallup:



That's roughly 40% difference, by my count.

I guess at this still-early stage of the game one can find polls supporting any possible trend one wants.

From this week's Rasmussen Reports:

For the fourth time in five weeks, a national Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Democratic Primary Voters shows Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama within two points of each other. This week, it’s Clinton 35% Obama 33%.

All best,
Fred

Those two might make a powerful team (as in pres and VP candidates against the Republicans) if they don't beat each other to death during the primary race.
David

quote:

That's roughly 40% difference, by my count.

I'll treble check if you give me change 38-23 = 15

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:

quote:

That's roughly 40% difference, by my count.

I'll treble check if you give me change 38-23 = 15

Just another way of looking at it. Say, to make it easy, the numbers were 40% for Clinton, 20% for Obama. That would make support for Obama exactly half that for Clinton:

(20/40)x100=50%

By doing the same for the numbers shown, one gets:

(23/38)x100=60%

i.e., Obama's support level is 60% of that of Clinton, putting him 40% behind her.

Just normalizing the two pieces of data relative to each other.