Guest The Doctor Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 (edited) Well, its your country, so make it happen. Since it happened exactly opposite way, I suppose the real majority of your population thinks that "helpless should be helped" and "successfull asses should be penalized". When lazy people make majority of the population, the status quo will be automatically supported by them. And that's the difficult bit... showing people that successful people are generally only there because they've worked for it and the 'helpless' can't really be bothered. What amazes me is that most of the lazy majority of people have jobs and are willing to work to support people who in turn can't be bothered. Alas, there is only so much a 17 year old can do to reshape the benefit system, hey i don't even have a VOTE yet!.... if only....... Phil Edited October 7, 2006 by The Doctor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 See?? And there it goes again .. this assumption that there is a huge number of "lazy" people sapping money directly out of hard working tax payers pockets!!?? Where does anybody get this information from?? I'm sorry, but if you are simply regurgitating things that you hear/see in the media then it's time to get real - the tabloid newspapers do NOT report the truth you know, they report opinion. The media are presenting a myriad of excuses as to why taxation is so high, why the government doesn't have enough money to spend on public services etc etc - but they are ALL excuses. "Lazy" people who "cannot be bothered to work" may well exist in very small numbers here & there, but like I said before, if anyone believes that putting an end to the welfare state is going to result in reduced taxation for the average working person, then think again. It's a distraction policy ... the government is saying "look at all the efforts we are making to help these people", all the while allowing the media to present the information in biased terms like "look at all these lazy people sponging off the state", or "look at all these immigrants coming here just to claim benefits" - don't be fooled, look around yourself at your society ... how many immigrants do you know that do not work? Do you personally know anyone who does not work at all because they can get benefits? Have any of you ever been on benefits (it's not much of a life living on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner (MVP) Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Do you personally know anyone who does not work at all because they can get benefits? Yes quite a few actually. Have any of you ever been on benefits (it's not much of a life living on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Doctor Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 (edited) See?? And there it goes again .. this assumption that there is a huge number of "lazy" people sapping money directly out of hard working tax payers pockets!!?? Where does anybody get this information from?? I'm sorry, but if you are simply regurgitating things that you hear/see in the media then it's time to get real - the tabloid newspapers do NOT report the truth you know, they report opinion. The media are presenting a myriad of excuses as to why taxation is so high, why the government doesn't have enough money to spend on public services etc etc - but they are ALL excuses. "Lazy" people who "cannot be bothered to work" may well exist in very small numbers here & there, but like I said before, if anyone believes that putting an end to the welfare state is going to result in reduced taxation for the average working person, then think again. It's a distraction policy ... the government is saying "look at all the efforts we are making to help these people", all the while allowing the media to present the information in biased terms like "look at all these lazy people sponging off the state", or "look at all these immigrants coming here just to claim benefits" - don't be fooled, look around yourself at your society ... how many immigrants do you know that do not work? Do you personally know anyone who does not work at all because they can get benefits? Have any of you ever been on benefits (it's not much of a life living on Edited October 7, 2006 by The Doctor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mcwarre Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 (edited) "Lazy" people who "cannot be bothered to work" may well exist in very small numbers here & there, I am sorry but that is an absolute joke!!! UK has the highest numbers of single parent sl*ppers, sorry single mothers, in the developed world. Why? Welfare state. Why? Because we pay for it. As we have no choice. Drblow, firstly, are you UK? Secondly, do you pay tax? I fear the answer is no (on both counts). Do as I say not as I do..... That's why this country is in such a state that all those with any sense (awarner :rolleyes: ) leave it. When we are all gone let the bleeding scroungers pay for themselves........................................ Edited October 7, 2006 by mcwarre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Doctor Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 (edited) UK has the highest numbers of single parent sl*ppers, sorry single mothers, in the developed world. :rolleyes: :( :) I've lost count of the number of pink clad, pram pushing 16 year old's (younger and older too) i've seen getting in everyones way and scrounging from the government and us! Proof the system is FAILING! Why? Welfare state. Why? Because we pay for it. As we have no choice. And isn't that a killer....... When we are all gone let the bleeding scroungers pay for themselves........................................ HEAR HEAR! *bangs table* Phil Edited October 7, 2006 by The Doctor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner (MVP) Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 The I believe the tax system in this country is wrong, I would prefer a more basic system. For example, I do not believe in things like inheritance tax or capital gains. Why should you get taxed on money that has already been taxed when it was initially earnt. By all means increase the income tax but at least the money you have at the end would be yours and your family. With the ever increasing house prices most people will now have to pay this tax hike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 All I'm trying to say is that the picture is much bigger & more complex than these simple sound bites about 'lazy' people or whatever. The problem is that very many people pick up on things like the first post here, and then start to regurgitate it to others ... before you know it theres a whole bunch of people talking about "this thing I read" .. and take it all as fact without really questioning what is going on. This only serves to perpetuate the governments disinformation policy. Make no mistake, they are relying on you all to succumb to the media driven cynicism, without ever questioning or researching for yourself. Again, I'm not advocating a society that taxes the better off in order to feed & cloth the "lazy" - but let's face it, they will always be there & what I'm saying is that it is not acceptable that people's attitudes be hardened to the plight of people in genuine need of help by media reports of abuses of the system. A caring society is the right thing to do, not the easy thing to do, or the cheap thing to do. Oh & by the way, the first page I googled about the smoking thing said that smoking costs the NHS approx. 1.7 billion per year, the revenue raised from smoking is 8.9 billion. That was in 1998, when I think a packet of 20 cigarettes cost around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mcwarre Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Don't smoke then.... :( A lot of 16 year olds here schmoke blokes. Which leads to problems. So do the girls :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Smoking makes you look cool ... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner (MVP) Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Nope smoking makes you anti-social and causes passive smoking. Nothing cool about trying to kill yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mcwarre Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Smoking makes you look cool ... :rolleyes: ??? What colour is the sky on your planet???? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Nope smoking makes you anti-social and causes passive smoking. Nothing cool about trying to kill yourself. More government disinformation! :rolleyes: I don't want to go completely off topic (especially not in the off topic forum), but what real proof is there of passive smoking related illness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner (MVP) Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 The late great Roy Castle. How can you deny passive smoking when the people breathing in your waste do not have the advantage of a filter that you use so they breath in more crap. Smoking is proven to cause cancer and so breathing it in passivly must obviously do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mcwarre Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 More government disinformation! :rolleyes: I don't want to go completely off topic (especially not in the off topic forum), but what real proof is there of passive smoking related illness? Look in the dictionary under lung cancer............................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 But Roy Castle is the ONLY example anybody ever knows!! :rolleyes: I don't think that 1 person who CLAIMS the effects of passive smoking to have caused cancer is what one can call proof. I just did a quick google & immediately found 2 conflicting reports (both from the bbc) on the effects of passive smoking. nOne says that it creates a 25% increase in the risk of cancer, while another refutes this & states that in a majority of test cases there is no ill-effect in the long term. I'm sure it's not good for you ... but I tend to stay away from statements like Smoking is proven to cause cancer and so breathing it in passivly must obviously do the same.. It's not actually obvious at all - in fact the current scientific research into it cannot even agree with itself. See, I was worried about going off topic, but it all comes down to the same thing for me here ... people are all too willing to accept stuff they hear once in the media. The smoking thing ... first of all let me just say that as a smoker I would never smoke inside in the presence of someone who really objected. I don't like it ... but I do believe that passive smoking is at least irritating for some people, and may well have ill effects on children and possibly adults - so I don't do it around anyone who is really opposed to it, or obviously in bars etc because it is now completely banned in Scotland where I live. So at the moment I do not expose anyone to passive smoke at all, mainly due to government legislation. So ... what about car exhaust fumes? What about industrial air pollution? Is that not a cause of disease - does anybody actually know how much illness is caused by pollution? Is there any research into the risk of lung cancer caused by exposure to car exhaust fumes in the air we all breath? I have tried looking into that one, and it seems to be hard to find any info from a quick google. Or do non-smokers simply accept these things as being natural consequences of the world we live in, but that passive smoking is bad because it is commited by individuals or something? Now, I don't know about you, but if it's "obvious" that passive smoking causes illness, then it must be "obvious" that air pollution also causes illness. So ... why is it more difficult to find information on the uk air pollution levels & the amount of illness caused by that, but it is easier to find info on the effects of passive smoking??? It couldn't be that the media is controlled by oil company money/large industrial corporations could it??? But look, forget conspiracy theories ... :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mcwarre Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 What has all this to do with Grasshoppers :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Doctor Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Oh come of it drblow...... smoking in any form, passive or whether your doing it yourself is bad for you! END OF! Your breathing in over 100 KNOWN cancer causing chemicals to your lungs then blowing it out into the air which other people have to breathe :rolleyes: A 15 year old bus for example will produce more CO2 and so called greenhouse gases yes but LESS cancer causing chemicals and crap thats in cigarette smoke and its not spraying them in other people faces :( Anyway... back to the topic of benefit scroungers :) Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 and what is your source for that information? if we are dealing in opinions then i do think that a 15 year old bus is pumping harmful chemicals in my face! my point is that there are plenty of things in the world that expel harmful chemicals into the air, but smoking is just the one that is currently in the media - thats why we are going off topic talking about that rather than anything else. its just the only thing the media feed you, but there is more information available that provides differing points of view for the open-minded with an inclination to think things through in more detail, rather than just accept what you are told. dont take my word for it, use the web, go to a library, read some journals ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest goochy1 Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Brilliant!! Absoluely Brilliant!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Doctor Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 (edited) drblow, i'm not going to argue with you over the harmful effect of smoking and fumes from a bus diesel engine. A bus however, is not antisocial, smoking is and most certainly is NOT COOL! has anybody ever tried kissing a smoker? worse experience of my life, i almost gagged. Also it turns your teeth yellow from all that lovely tar :rolleyes: NOW can we get back on topic? Phil Edited October 7, 2006 by The Doctor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted October 8, 2006 Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 :rolleyes: It's my fault ... I can't help but rise to the 'smoking' gauntlet when it is laid, so to speak! Ok, no more about smoking (well, here anyways) ... so back to the grasshoppers ... y'all gotta chill out (or so I believe the 'kids' would say!) It is clearly quite an emotive issue to create a vibrant debate like above. People do seem to need a focus for their anger ... which I think is one of the things the media depends upon in it's manipulation of public opinion. Even in the original text of the first post, there is an undelying anger that to me comes across as essentially British. I have many friends from Europe, Asia, even the US who do not seem to view scoiety in the same way as the British - there is the great sarcastic wit and humour about it, but underpinned by a deeply insular & ultimately prejudiced viewpoint ... it's that "I'm alright Jack, I don't care about you" kind of attitude. I don't mean that no one shoudl get p**sed off about stuff ... but the focus of that anger should not be directed at other members of society (no matter how lazy or irritating they may be). My own feeling is that if society actually rallied together for once (instead of allowing media manipulation to get the better of you) then we could maybe actually focus our anger at the people who are REALLY causing it. Look at what's happening in the world around us today ... the media fuels the fear that the government wants us to feel. A nation that is scared of terrorist attack, or of losing your job to an 'immigrant' worker, or of increases in taxation to pay for 'lazy' people who don't want to work, is a nation that will increasing allow the deterioration of their civil liberties (look at the comparison between the current debate on detaining suspects for 90 days and 'internment' in Northern Ireland in the 1970's - and internment did nothing to further the cause of the British there) ... it's all fear tactics. Its all designed to make you focus your anger & disatisfaction in your life against your fellow man, it's a distraction tactic to keep you from focusing on the real problems, and the real source of those problems. Its all designed to make you hate the people around you as much as possible, to foster prejudices against other people based on their colour, creed, status ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now