Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A cross party group of MPs is reportedly pushing for Gaza kids to be transported immediately to the UK for medical treatment... wouldn't they be better sorting out the issues of their constituents? Or am I about to get the usual tirade?" Has it occurred to you to wonder whg you're about to get "the usual tirade"? Does it not cause a moment's self reflection, when people tell you it's not okay to fold your arms and say "what about ME" in the face of humanitarian catastrophe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry but charity starts at home Look after our first then others I expect hate from this But I will still sleep sound tonight " It's not really hate, it's more disappointment. Disappointment, because the people who say, in these situations, "help our own first" are always the same people who turn out in droves to vote against helping our own. But as long as you get your eight hours, I guess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gazan kids are at risk from Hamas, their own parents and the IDF, so yes - the more that get out the better. Perhaps the UK's contribution to this could be airlifting to a safe country nearer their home. Long flights are not good for injured children. It may look good to others, but it won't be good for them." Egypt would be the obvious candidate, followed by Turkey. That isn't to say that they should be unwelcome here, but it would be culturally and logistically more sensible to assist (financially and otherwise) them to receive treatment over there. Really, we should outsource much of our own NHS backlog to cheaper but decent quality countries with capacity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sure you’ll get the usual hate from the “Be Kind” Leftists." As above, it's really in these moments that the mask slips. Kindness really bothers you lot, doesn't it? Is it that evidence of kindness highlights, by contrast, how profoundly selfish and grasping the right-wing's outlook is, or is it a more visceral thing where people being nice to each other just offends your natural instincts? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sure you’ll get the usual hate from the “Be Kind” Leftists. As above, it's really in these moments that the mask slips. Kindness really bothers you lot, doesn't it? Is it that evidence of kindness highlights, by contrast, how profoundly selfish and grasping the right-wing's outlook is, or is it a more visceral thing where people being nice to each other just offends your natural instincts?" How do you spot a Leftist? Because they are shouting in your face and smashing things up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sure you’ll get the usual hate from the “Be Kind” Leftists. As above, it's really in these moments that the mask slips. Kindness really bothers you lot, doesn't it? Is it that evidence of kindness highlights, by contrast, how profoundly selfish and grasping the right-wing's outlook is, or is it a more visceral thing where people being nice to each other just offends your natural instincts? How do you spot a Leftist? Because they are shouting in your face and smashing things up. " Am I shouting in your face and smashing things up right now? Do you want to address the question I asked about why you find kindness so unpalatable? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sure you’ll get the usual hate from the “Be Kind” Leftists. As above, it's really in these moments that the mask slips. Kindness really bothers you lot, doesn't it? Is it that evidence of kindness highlights, by contrast, how profoundly selfish and grasping the right-wing's outlook is, or is it a more visceral thing where people being nice to each other just offends your natural instincts? How do you spot a Leftist? Because they are shouting in your face and smashing things up. Am I shouting in your face and smashing things up right now? Do you want to address the question I asked about why you find kindness so unpalatable?" Am I unkind? What do you know about me? Nothing. Again you seem to make all sorts of assumptions about people, which doesn’t seem in line with your professed “values”. That’s the problem with Leftists. It’s all virtue signalling and no substance. Mixed with a massive dose of economic illiteracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Am I unkind? What do you know about me? Nothing. Again you seem to make all sorts of assumptions about people, which doesn’t seem in line with your professed “values”. That’s the problem with Leftists. It’s all virtue signalling and no substance. Mixed with a massive dose of economic illiteracy." I know that a couple of posts ago you were criticising people for having a "be kind" attitude. It's fair to assume from that you see kindness as a character flaw. I get that you want to be able to say what you think without being judged for it, but that's not really how this works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Am I unkind? What do you know about me? Nothing. Again you seem to make all sorts of assumptions about people, which doesn’t seem in line with your professed “values”. That’s the problem with Leftists. It’s all virtue signalling and no substance. Mixed with a massive dose of economic illiteracy. I know that a couple of posts ago you were criticising people for having a "be kind" attitude. It's fair to assume from that you see kindness as a character flaw. I get that you want to be able to say what you think without being judged for it, but that's not really how this works." There’s a very simple solution here. That’s for you and other Leftists of a like mind to pay for their treatment. That way the NHS isn’t impacted and it costs the British taxpayer nothing. They can come in on a temporary basis with one accompanying adult and once the treatment is over they can be returned to Gaza, all at your expense. In reality we know what will happen. As soon as it looks like they will be returned Leftists will start smashing things up until they are permitted to stay. Then another twenty relatives will turn up and we will have a few dozen more people spending their lives on benefits and living in social housing and refusing to integrate. And these are people who will have been brainwashed into hating Jews since birth. There are enough anti Semites on the British Left as it is without inviting more in. There are 193 countries in the UN. The Uk hasn’t had an Empire for some time and needs to stop behaving like it still does. Let the other 192 countries step in: it may surprise you to learn that other countries have hospitals and doctors. I’ve been abroad and have seen it with my own eyes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't they do both?" In these situations the right wing elements of the media have convinced their audience that it's helping them or us. Just look at this example. "wouldn't they be better sorting out the issues of their constituents" If they're not doing this now, what difference would it make to help some children to not die. Also side note: some of the constituents have empathy for other humans. So it is in their interest to help children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"and refusing to integrate. " It's crazy that they refuse to integrate, isn't it, when the people around them as as welcoming, accepting and generous as you are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't they do both? In these situations the right wing elements of the media have convinced their audience that it's helping them or us. " Because the left wing elements pretend like there is infinite money and resources. There isn't. You have to pick and choose. Or... You can put your own money to help them out. Something which the left refuses to do while pretending like they care about those poor Gaza kids. I wonder why 🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't they do both? In these situations the right wing elements of the media have convinced their audience that it's helping them or us. Because the left wing elements pretend like there is infinite money and resources. There isn't. You have to pick and choose. Or... You can put your own money to help them out. Something which the left refuses to do while pretending like they care about those poor Gaza kids. I wonder why 🤔" I love this argument because it's so dumb. There is no organisation other than a national government that has the resources and capability to rescue and repatriate injured children from a de-facto war zone to which even major multinational charities have sketchy at best access. I as a private individual could take every penny I own and put it towards some spontaneous effort to help Gazan kids and it would achieve nothing without government support. If the UK government decides to do this, your tax money would pay for it. I get that you're not happy about that, but all you're really saying is the standard right-wing quasi-libertarian thing, which is that you're happy to drive on public roads, use public utility networks, use public health care when you need to and enjoy all of the benefits of public investment like ease of global trade, safety and peace, but you also want to be able to take your money out of the pot if it looks like it's going to be spent on something you don't like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm all for kids getting treatment but isn't Qatar, UAE ,Egypt,Dubai closer and have amazing medical facilities " They're already doing it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't they do both? In these situations the right wing elements of the media have convinced their audience that it's helping them or us. Because the left wing elements pretend like there is infinite money and resources. There isn't. You have to pick and choose. Or... You can put your own money to help them out. Something which the left refuses to do while pretending like they care about those poor Gaza kids. I wonder why 🤔 I love this argument because it's so dumb. " Let me look at the high IQ argument you have come up with " There is no organisation other than a national government that has the resources and capability to rescue and repatriate injured children from a de-facto war zone to which even major multinational charities have sketchy at best access. " You can donate to the United nations find. They have all the resources and capability you are talking about. " I as a private individual could take every penny I own and put it towards some spontaneous effort to help Gazan kids and it would achieve nothing without government support. " Gaza is not the only problem in the world. There are numerous countries where kids suffer. Should the government go and help everyone? Especially when they are already sinking in debt. Even if we did, who should get how much? " If the UK government decides to do this, your tax money would pay for it. I get that you're not happy about that, but all you're really saying is the standard right-wing quasi-libertarian thing, which is that you're happy to drive on public roads, use public utility networks, use public health care when you need to and enjoy all of the benefits of public investment like ease of global trade, safety and peace, but you also want to be able to take your money out of the pot if it looks like it's going to be spent on something you don't like." The tax money should be used for people in this country. People who want to help other countries can donate themselves. This way, I can donate to kids in India who I care more about. You can donate to the Gaza kids who you care more about. Isn't this the fairest way to solve this problem? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't they do both? In these situations the right wing elements of the media have convinced their audience that it's helping them or us. Because the left wing elements pretend like there is infinite money and resources. There isn't. You have to pick and choose. Or... You can put your own money to help them out. Something which the left refuses to do while pretending like they care about those poor Gaza kids. I wonder why 🤔 I love this argument because it's so dumb. Let me look at the high IQ argument you have come up with There is no organisation other than a national government that has the resources and capability to rescue and repatriate injured children from a de-facto war zone to which even major multinational charities have sketchy at best access. You can donate to the United nations find. They have all the resources and capability you are talking about. I as a private individual could take every penny I own and put it towards some spontaneous effort to help Gazan kids and it would achieve nothing without government support. Gaza is not the only problem in the world. There are numerous countries where kids suffer. Should the government go and help everyone? Especially when they are already sinking in debt. Even if we did, who should get how much? If the UK government decides to do this, your tax money would pay for it. I get that you're not happy about that, but all you're really saying is the standard right-wing quasi-libertarian thing, which is that you're happy to drive on public roads, use public utility networks, use public health care when you need to and enjoy all of the benefits of public investment like ease of global trade, safety and peace, but you also want to be able to take your money out of the pot if it looks like it's going to be spent on something you don't like. The tax money should be used for people in this country. People who want to help other countries can donate themselves. This way, I can donate to kids in India who I care more about. You can donate to the Gaza kids who you care more about. Isn't this the fairest way to solve this problem? " Of course that's not the fairest way to solve the problem, and the fact you think it is is concerning. The fact you're comfortable just declaring you care more about one group of kids you don't know than another group of kids you don't know is concerning, too. And the old chestnut of "we can't help everybody so why help anybody" is pretty weak too. Again, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't believe in charity. That's honestly all we need to know about your opinion on the matter. Anything else is just you wondering aloud why other people aren't as selfish as you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Of course that's not the fairest way to solve the problem, and the fact you think it is is concerning. The fact you're comfortable just declaring you care more about one group of kids you don't know than another group of kids you don't know is concerning, too. " Why do you think the starving kids in Gaza are more important than the starving kids elsewhere? " And the old chestnut of "we can't help everybody so why help anybody" is pretty weak too. " Strawman argument. I never said we shouldn't help anybody. I said let the individuals choose who they want to help. What you can't do is force others to help the causes only you care about. " Again, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't believe in charity. " How did you cook this up? If anything, I love charity. But for me, charity is when individuals make sacrifices for the causes they care about. Trying to force the government to spend money isn't charity and doesn't prove anything about your compassion. " That's honestly all we need to know about your opinion on the matter. Anything else is just you wondering aloud why other people aren't as selfish as you." I expected more from a high IQ argument than just a series of strawman comments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Of course that's not the fairest way to solve the problem, and the fact you think it is is concerning. The fact you're comfortable just declaring you care more about one group of kids you don't know than another group of kids you don't know is concerning, too. Why do you think the starving kids in Gaza are more important than the starving kids elsewhere? And the old chestnut of "we can't help everybody so why help anybody" is pretty weak too. Strawman argument. I never said we shouldn't help anybody. I said let the individuals choose who they want to help. What you can't do is force others to help the causes only you care about. Again, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't believe in charity. How did you cook this up? If anything, I love charity. But for me, charity is when individuals make sacrifices for the causes they care about. Trying to force the government to spend money isn't charity and doesn't prove anything about your compassion. That's honestly all we need to know about your opinion on the matter. Anything else is just you wondering aloud why other people aren't as selfish as you. I expected more from a high IQ argument than just a series of strawman comments. " Don't say "high-IQ", it makes you sound like the kind of person who took an online IQ test and is dying to tell people about his score. I don't think the kids in Gaza are more important than any other kids. That's just what we're talking about. You're the one declaring your preferences. I'm not looking to prove anything about my compassion. To the extent the government is complicit in the war in Gaza I believe it should go out of its way to remedy its effects on the innocent people there. You on the other hand are saying "no, don't do that because the only charity I want is where I personally send money to things that interest me" which apart from being a pretty narrow interpretation of "loving" charity, is also nonsensical in terms of an international military crisis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Don't say "high-IQ", it makes you sound like the kind of person who took an online IQ test and is dying to tell people about his score. " As you called my first post dumb, I was expecting a highly intelligent reply from you. Sorry my mistake. Won't do it again. " I don't think the kids in Gaza are more important than any other kids. That's just what we're talking about. You're the one declaring your preferences. " That's exactly what we are talking about. You want the government to use tax money for Gaza. I want to use it for starving children in the other countries. Who should the government use the tax money for? Last I checked, we don't have infinite tax money and the country is knee deep in debts. " I'm not looking to prove anything about my compassion. To the extent the government is complicit in the war in Gaza I believe it should go out of its way to remedy its effects on the innocent people there. " So it's not about compassion now and more about repentance? I could argue that India's poverty is due to imperialism and that's where we should focus on. " You on the other hand are saying "no, don't do that because the only charity I want is where I personally send money to things that interest me" which apart from being a pretty narrow interpretation of "loving" charity, is also nonsensical in terms of an international military crisis." Your views aren't as broad as you pretend like they are. You want to help Gaza because you have seen too many videos about Gaza. There are numerous kids starving and in even worse situations around the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That's exactly what we are talking about. You want the government to use tax money for Gaza. I want to use it for starving children in the other countries. Who should the government use the tax money for? Last I checked, we don't have infinite tax money and the country is knee deep in debts. So it's not about compassion now and more about repentance? I could argue that India's poverty is due to imperialism and that's where we should focus on. Your views aren't as broad as you pretend like they are. You want to help Gaza because you have seen too many videos about Gaza. There are numerous kids starving and in even worse situations around the world. " I don't have a list of who and who not to help because I'm not a maniac. To be fair you don't either because your view is that individuals sending their pocket money to their personal favourite causes should be the whole of charity. And it's not about repentance either. It's about having a responsibility. You are correct that Britain also has a responsibility towards India. But you don't want it to take that responsibility. You want Indian kids to get help only from individuals who personally care about Indian kids. It's true that I want to help Gaza because I'm aware of Gaza. Obviously. And there are arguably kids in even worse situations in other places, but what's your point? Bollocks to the Gazan kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to be the recipient of individual donations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't have a list of who and who not to help because I'm not a maniac. " So helping only the causes you see on news is the solution? And you want other people also to help only the causes YOU watch in the news? Sounds like something a self-centred egomaniac would suggest. " To be fair you don't either because your view is that individuals sending their pocket money to their personal favourite causes should be the whole of charity. " At least I am honest enough to admit that I can't solve all the world problems and put the money where my mouth is, instead of running around on the internet doing mental gymnastics to force other people to spend money on cases I care about and telling myself a sweet story about how somehow that makes me morally superior. " And it's not about repentance either. It's about having a responsibility. You are correct that Britain also has a responsibility towards India. But you don't want it to take that responsibility. You want Indian kids to get help only from individuals who personally care about Indian kids. " Because I understand that there is no rational way to decide that one issue is more important than the other. And I am not arrogant enough to believe everyone should empathise on the same causes I care about. " It's true that I want to help Gaza because I'm aware of Gaza. Obviously. And there are arguably kids in even worse situations in other places, but what's your point? Bollocks to the Gazan kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to be the recipient of individual donations." Let me put your own argument back to you. "what's your point? Bollocks to the Armenian kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to have lot of news coverage." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't have a list of who and who not to help because I'm not a maniac. So helping only the causes you see on news is the solution? And you want other people also to help only the causes YOU watch in the news? Sounds like something a self-centred egomaniac would suggest. To be fair you don't either because your view is that individuals sending their pocket money to their personal favourite causes should be the whole of charity. At least I am honest enough to admit that I can't solve all the world problems and put the money where my mouth is, instead of running around on the internet doing mental gymnastics to force other people to spend money on cases I care about and telling myself a sweet story about how somehow that makes me morally superior. And it's not about repentance either. It's about having a responsibility. You are correct that Britain also has a responsibility towards India. But you don't want it to take that responsibility. You want Indian kids to get help only from individuals who personally care about Indian kids. Because I understand that there is no rational way to decide that one issue is more important than the other. And I am not arrogant enough to believe everyone should empathise on the same causes I care about. It's true that I want to help Gaza because I'm aware of Gaza. Obviously. And there are arguably kids in even worse situations in other places, but what's your point? Bollocks to the Gazan kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to be the recipient of individual donations. Let me put your own argument back to you. "what's your point? Bollocks to the Armenian kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to have lot of news coverage." " You seem under the impression I only want to help people who are on the news. Not the first time you've had to assume something that's incorrect to make your point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't have a list of who and who not to help because I'm not a maniac. So helping only the causes you see on news is the solution? And you want other people also to help only the causes YOU watch in the news? Sounds like something a self-centred egomaniac would suggest. To be fair you don't either because your view is that individuals sending their pocket money to their personal favourite causes should be the whole of charity. At least I am honest enough to admit that I can't solve all the world problems and put the money where my mouth is, instead of running around on the internet doing mental gymnastics to force other people to spend money on cases I care about and telling myself a sweet story about how somehow that makes me morally superior. And it's not about repentance either. It's about having a responsibility. You are correct that Britain also has a responsibility towards India. But you don't want it to take that responsibility. You want Indian kids to get help only from individuals who personally care about Indian kids. Because I understand that there is no rational way to decide that one issue is more important than the other. And I am not arrogant enough to believe everyone should empathise on the same causes I care about. It's true that I want to help Gaza because I'm aware of Gaza. Obviously. And there are arguably kids in even worse situations in other places, but what's your point? Bollocks to the Gazan kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to be the recipient of individual donations. Let me put your own argument back to you. "what's your point? Bollocks to the Armenian kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to have lot of news coverage." You seem under the impression I only want to help people who are on the news. Not the first time you've had to assume something that's incorrect to make your point." We have finite resources. If we are going to use a part of the finite resources to help kids outside the country, we need to pick and choose who needs the help. Your answer to that is Gaza. You haven't explained why other than claiming that UK has "responsibility". I already pointed out that, we can argue UK's responsibility in so many countries. Hell I can claim UK's responsibility on Armenia because we import a lot of oil from Azerbaijan. The only reason you are so emotional about the Gaza situation is because you have read a lot of news about it. That's fair. What's unfair is you asking the rest of the people's tax money to go into a cause outside the country that you personally care about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd say people undergoing a genocide is pretty much at the top of the help list also Sudan what's going there is awful too Who knew helping people being slaughtered was so contentious " Can’t be the cost people are objecting to?, taxpayers have already unknowingly paid tens of millions for RAF surveillance flights over Gaza. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't have a list of who and who not to help because I'm not a maniac. So helping only the causes you see on news is the solution? And you want other people also to help only the causes YOU watch in the news? Sounds like something a self-centred egomaniac would suggest. To be fair you don't either because your view is that individuals sending their pocket money to their personal favourite causes should be the whole of charity. At least I am honest enough to admit that I can't solve all the world problems and put the money where my mouth is, instead of running around on the internet doing mental gymnastics to force other people to spend money on cases I care about and telling myself a sweet story about how somehow that makes me morally superior. And it's not about repentance either. It's about having a responsibility. You are correct that Britain also has a responsibility towards India. But you don't want it to take that responsibility. You want Indian kids to get help only from individuals who personally care about Indian kids. Because I understand that there is no rational way to decide that one issue is more important than the other. And I am not arrogant enough to believe everyone should empathise on the same causes I care about. It's true that I want to help Gaza because I'm aware of Gaza. Obviously. And there are arguably kids in even worse situations in other places, but what's your point? Bollocks to the Gazan kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to be the recipient of individual donations. Let me put your own argument back to you. "what's your point? Bollocks to the Armenian kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to have lot of news coverage." You seem under the impression I only want to help people who are on the news. Not the first time you've had to assume something that's incorrect to make your point. We have finite resources. If we are going to use a part of the finite resources to help kids outside the country, we need to pick and choose who needs the help. Your answer to that is Gaza. You haven't explained why other than claiming that UK has "responsibility". I already pointed out that, we can argue UK's responsibility in so many countries. Hell I can claim UK's responsibility on Armenia because we import a lot of oil from Azerbaijan. The only reason you are so emotional about the Gaza situation is because you have read a lot of news about it. That's fair. What's unfair is you asking the rest of the people's tax money to go into a cause outside the country that you personally care about. " Nhs spends £40bn annually treating salad dodgers, smokers, drug and alcohol self abuse. Maybe some of these people could give up a few McDonalds and getting pissed at spoons to ease the nhs burden. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't have a list of who and who not to help because I'm not a maniac. So helping only the causes you see on news is the solution? And you want other people also to help only the causes YOU watch in the news? Sounds like something a self-centred egomaniac would suggest. To be fair you don't either because your view is that individuals sending their pocket money to their personal favourite causes should be the whole of charity. At least I am honest enough to admit that I can't solve all the world problems and put the money where my mouth is, instead of running around on the internet doing mental gymnastics to force other people to spend money on cases I care about and telling myself a sweet story about how somehow that makes me morally superior. And it's not about repentance either. It's about having a responsibility. You are correct that Britain also has a responsibility towards India. But you don't want it to take that responsibility. You want Indian kids to get help only from individuals who personally care about Indian kids. Because I understand that there is no rational way to decide that one issue is more important than the other. And I am not arrogant enough to believe everyone should empathise on the same causes I care about. It's true that I want to help Gaza because I'm aware of Gaza. Obviously. And there are arguably kids in even worse situations in other places, but what's your point? Bollocks to the Gazan kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to be the recipient of individual donations. Let me put your own argument back to you. "what's your point? Bollocks to the Armenian kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to have lot of news coverage." You seem under the impression I only want to help people who are on the news. Not the first time you've had to assume something that's incorrect to make your point. We have finite resources. If we are going to use a part of the finite resources to help kids outside the country, we need to pick and choose who needs the help. Your answer to that is Gaza. You haven't explained why other than claiming that UK has "responsibility". I already pointed out that, we can argue UK's responsibility in so many countries. Hell I can claim UK's responsibility on Armenia because we import a lot of oil from Azerbaijan. The only reason you are so emotional about the Gaza situation is because you have read a lot of news about it. That's fair. What's unfair is you asking the rest of the people's tax money to go into a cause outside the country that you personally care about. Nhs spends £40bn annually treating salad dodgers, smokers, drug and alcohol self abuse. Maybe some of these people could give up a few McDonalds and getting pissed at spoons to ease the nhs burden. " Sure we could do that. Should we propose that as a policy first, save some money and then think about helping others with the money we saved? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don't have a list of who and who not to help because I'm not a maniac. So helping only the causes you see on news is the solution? And you want other people also to help only the causes YOU watch in the news? Sounds like something a self-centred egomaniac would suggest. To be fair you don't either because your view is that individuals sending their pocket money to their personal favourite causes should be the whole of charity. At least I am honest enough to admit that I can't solve all the world problems and put the money where my mouth is, instead of running around on the internet doing mental gymnastics to force other people to spend money on cases I care about and telling myself a sweet story about how somehow that makes me morally superior. And it's not about repentance either. It's about having a responsibility. You are correct that Britain also has a responsibility towards India. But you don't want it to take that responsibility. You want Indian kids to get help only from individuals who personally care about Indian kids. Because I understand that there is no rational way to decide that one issue is more important than the other. And I am not arrogant enough to believe everyone should empathise on the same causes I care about. It's true that I want to help Gaza because I'm aware of Gaza. Obviously. And there are arguably kids in even worse situations in other places, but what's your point? Bollocks to the Gazan kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to be the recipient of individual donations. Let me put your own argument back to you. "what's your point? Bollocks to the Armenian kids then? Well clearly not, because your point is bollocks to anyone not fortunate enough to have lot of news coverage." You seem under the impression I only want to help people who are on the news. Not the first time you've had to assume something that's incorrect to make your point. We have finite resources. If we are going to use a part of the finite resources to help kids outside the country, we need to pick and choose who needs the help. Your answer to that is Gaza. You haven't explained why other than claiming that UK has "responsibility". I already pointed out that, we can argue UK's responsibility in so many countries. Hell I can claim UK's responsibility on Armenia because we import a lot of oil from Azerbaijan. The only reason you are so emotional about the Gaza situation is because you have read a lot of news about it. That's fair. What's unfair is you asking the rest of the people's tax money to go into a cause outside the country that you personally care about. Nhs spends £40bn annually treating salad dodgers, smokers, drug and alcohol self abuse. Maybe some of these people could give up a few McDonalds and getting pissed at spoons to ease the nhs burden. Sure we could do that. Should we propose that as a policy first, save some money and then think about helping others with the money we saved?" The consequences of war are more expensive than the bombs. The consequences of malnutrition and people poisoning themselves are more than paying farmers to grow healthy food. What a world we live in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry but charity starts at home Look after our first then others I expect hate from this But I will still sleep sound tonight " It always makes me think when people use this quote as they always miss the last part which is “charity begins at home but shouldn’t end there “ I guess the whole qoute wouldn’t serve their purpose | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry but charity starts at home Look after our first then others I expect hate from this But I will still sleep sound tonight It always makes me think when people use this quote as they always miss the last part which is “charity begins at home but shouldn’t end there “ I guess the whole qoute wouldn’t serve their purpose " I doubt many people even know the whole quote let alone live by it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry but charity starts at home Look after our first then others I expect hate from this But I will still sleep sound tonight It always makes me think when people use this quote as they always miss the last part which is “charity begins at home but shouldn’t end there “ I guess the whole qoute wouldn’t serve their purpose I doubt many people even know the whole quote let alone live by it" You’re probably right  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Egypt would be the obvious candidate, followed by Turkey. That isn't to say that they should be unwelcome here, but it would be culturally and logistically more sensible to assist (financially and otherwise) them to receive treatment over there." From the Times of Israel (14th August 2025)... "According to WHO, Egypt has received the most patients to date – 3,995 – followed by the United Arab Emirates with 1,387, Qatar with 970 and Turkey, which has taken in 437 patients." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Egypt would be the obvious candidate, followed by Turkey. That isn't to say that they should be unwelcome here, but it would be culturally and logistically more sensible to assist (financially and otherwise) them to receive treatment over there. From the Times of Israel (14th August 2025)... "According to WHO, Egypt has received the most patients to date – 3,995 – followed by the United Arab Emirates with 1,387, Qatar with 970 and Turkey, which has taken in 437 patients."" And presumably the country the supplied the bombs and the country that dropped them have taken none. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sure we could do that. Should we propose that as a policy first, save some money and then think about helping others with the money we saved?" ... At which point you'll presumably reiterate that you don't want your taxes spent on humanitarian relief and if people give a shit about kids dying in Gaza (or anywhere else you don't happen to want to help) they'll just have to pay for it out of their pockets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Egypt would be the obvious candidate, followed by Turkey. That isn't to say that they should be unwelcome here, but it would be culturally and logistically more sensible to assist (financially and otherwise) them to receive treatment over there. From the Times of Israel (14th August 2025)... "According to WHO, Egypt has received the most patients to date – 3,995 – followed by the United Arab Emirates with 1,387, Qatar with 970 and Turkey, which has taken in 437 patients." And presumably the country the supplied the bombs and the country that dropped them have taken none. " Who supplied the bombs is irrelevant, saving a child's life is. Anyone with a heart can not possibly not shed a tear when we see how the children are dying in these hospitals, and knowing how they could be saved here. It is so easy to blame others in these situations but actions speak louder than words. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Egypt would be the obvious candidate, followed by Turkey. That isn't to say that they should be unwelcome here, but it would be culturally and logistically more sensible to assist (financially and otherwise) them to receive treatment over there. From the Times of Israel (14th August 2025)... "According to WHO, Egypt has received the most patients to date – 3,995 – followed by the United Arab Emirates with 1,387, Qatar with 970 and Turkey, which has taken in 437 patients." And presumably the country the supplied the bombs and the country that dropped them have taken none. Who supplied the bombs is irrelevant, saving a child's life is. Anyone with a heart can not possibly not shed a tear when we see how the children are dying in these hospitals, and knowing how they could be saved here. It is so easy to blame others in these situations but actions speak louder than words." They could be saved elsewhere, or the powers that could stop fighting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There really are some callous people about. " Lots of pragmatic peeps about too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There really are some callous people about. Lots of pragmatic peeps about too" As George Monbiot says, pragmatism is often the last refuge of those who don't want to do anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Egypt would be the obvious candidate, followed by Turkey. That isn't to say that they should be unwelcome here, but it would be culturally and logistically more sensible to assist (financially and otherwise) them to receive treatment over there. From the Times of Israel (14th August 2025)... "According to WHO, Egypt has received the most patients to date – 3,995 – followed by the United Arab Emirates with 1,387, Qatar with 970 and Turkey, which has taken in 437 patients." And presumably the country the supplied the bombs and the country that dropped them have taken none. Who supplied the bombs is irrelevant, saving a child's life is. Anyone with a heart can not possibly not shed a tear when we see how the children are dying in these hospitals, and knowing how they could be saved here. It is so easy to blame others in these situations but actions speak louder than words." I know you’re speaking figuratively, but there’s lots of humanitarian atrocities happening all over the world and innocent child will die in those atrocities. Yes we should provide medical help where possible, but it is true to say that there are better options. Better in many ways, distance, language, culture; and in some cases better facilities. Certainly less pressure of facilities. My step daughter has been in and out of A&E numerous times over the past 2 years for an ongoing medical condition and it’s a zoo at times, people in corridors and waiting rooms waiting days sometimes to get their n an appropriate ward. Our population al has grown significantly over the past 25 years but the medical infrastructure hasn’t. Just saying “yeah bring em all here” is actually not necessarily helping them. They need medical attention, not virtue signals or doctors strikes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Defence Secretary John Healey has confirmed that the hundreds of Royal Air Force surveillance flights over Gaza are operating solely to support hostage rescue. Seems fair the Uk helps victims on the other side as well. " 
It would be decent to get more of them nourished and getting medical treatment,.
The UK should end the near daily flights over Palestine, which is supporting war crimes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we provide care and support closer to their home, say maybe a medical ship in the region?" I think the only medical ships we have are designed for stabilizing battlefield trauma. These patients are more likely to have gotten through that stage of treatment already and be requiring more specialized things like reconstructive surgery - for instance trying to rebuild a child's face that's been half torn away by shrapnel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't we provide care and support closer to their home, say maybe a medical ship in the region?" I agree we should be using facilities closer to Gaza, such as the military hospital in Cyprus, to deal with trauma injuries and anything they are equipped for. That would cut down on unnecessary travel. However some treatments are longterm for complex illnesses like cancers, that will need specialist hospitals here in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There really are some callous people about. Lots of pragmatic peeps about too As George Monbiot says, pragmatism is often the last refuge of those who don't want to do anything." Good old George, and why is he any more right that anyone else? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Egypt would be the obvious candidate, followed by Turkey. That isn't to say that they should be unwelcome here, but it would be culturally and logistically more sensible to assist (financially and otherwise) them to receive treatment over there. From the Times of Israel (14th August 2025)... "According to WHO, Egypt has received the most patients to date – 3,995 – followed by the United Arab Emirates with 1,387, Qatar with 970 and Turkey, which has taken in 437 patients." And presumably the country the supplied the bombs and the country that dropped them have taken none. Who supplied the bombs is irrelevant, saving a child's life is. Anyone with a heart can not possibly not shed a tear when we see how the children are dying in these hospitals, and knowing how they could be saved here. It is so easy to blame others in these situations but actions speak louder than words. I know you’re speaking figuratively, but there’s lots of humanitarian atrocities happening all over the world and innocent child will die in those atrocities. Yes we should provide medical help where possible, but it is true to say that there are better options. Better in many ways, distance, language, culture; and in some cases better facilities. Certainly less pressure of facilities. My step daughter has been in and out of A&E numerous times over the past 2 years for an ongoing medical condition and it’s a zoo at times, people in corridors and waiting rooms waiting days sometimes to get their n an appropriate ward. Our population al has grown significantly over the past 25 years but the medical infrastructure hasn’t. Just saying “yeah bring em all here” is actually not necessarily helping them. They need medical attention, not virtue signals or doctors strikes. " Quite, as if these kids haven’t been through enough the UK now wants to inflict its terrible healthcare on them. The Leftists who want to bring them to the UK for treatment should have a whip round and send them to a country with a functioning health system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
Is time to take care of this country not others
War Vets get nothing.
But i don't hear them crying on social media. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Big change is coming, most of the left have no idea.
"What's the change? " If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
"There's currently no travel allowed into Gaza. And besides, not sure what this would achieve anyway? " Is time to take care of this country not others " Let's be honest, they're not taking care of anyone. Not sure why being more enthusiastic about kids from Gaza dying due to lack of healthcare would effect that in any way. " War Vets get nothing. " There is actually quite a lot available for ex army. But not sure how this is related to children from Gaza? " But i don't hear them crying on social media. " Apart from this obviously. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Big change is coming, most of the left have no idea.
What's the change?
I would suggest that civil unrest and riots are likely
If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
There's currently no travel allowed into Gaza. And besides, not sure what this would achieve anyway?
People can find a way to travel anywhere if they want to. The poster is, I would suggest, hoping you'll relocate
Is time to take care of this country not others
Let's be honest, they're not taking care of anyone. Not sure why being more enthusiastic about kids from Gaza dying due to lack of healthcare would effect that in any way.
Them they should be taking care of everyone in this country before diverting aid elsewhere. Don't think anyone suggested enthusiasm for Gazan kids dying, just that there's more "local" issues to be dealt with first
War Vets get nothing.
There is actually quite a lot available for ex army. But not sure how this is related to children from Gaza?
Quite a lot but clearly not enough or the problem would be minimal. It's about prioritising
But i don't hear them crying on social media.
Apart from this obviously.
"Don't know what your point is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Big change is coming, most of the left have no idea.
What's the change?
I would suggest that civil unrest and riots are likely
If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
There's currently no travel allowed into Gaza. And besides, not sure what this would achieve anyway?
People can find a way to travel anywhere if they want to. The poster is, I would suggest, hoping you'll relocate
Is time to take care of this country not others
Let's be honest, they're not taking care of anyone. Not sure why being more enthusiastic about kids from Gaza dying due to lack of healthcare would effect that in any way.
Them they should be taking care of everyone in this country before diverting aid elsewhere. Don't think anyone suggested enthusiasm for Gazan kids dying, just that there's more "local" issues to be dealt with first
War Vets get nothing.
There is actually quite a lot available for ex army. But not sure how this is related to children from Gaza?
Quite a lot but clearly not enough or the problem would be minimal. It's about prioritising
But i don't hear them crying on social media.
Apart from this obviously.
Don't know what your point is "I asked three questions, and made one point. It's all there spelled out pretty clearly. What part needs additional clarification? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Big change is coming, most of the left have no idea.
What's the change?
I would suggest that civil unrest and riots are likely
If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
There's currently no travel allowed into Gaza. And besides, not sure what this would achieve anyway?
People can find a way to travel anywhere if they want to. The poster is, I would suggest, hoping you'll relocate
Is time to take care of this country not others
Let's be honest, they're not taking care of anyone. Not sure why being more enthusiastic about kids from Gaza dying due to lack of healthcare would effect that in any way.
Them they should be taking care of everyone in this country before diverting aid elsewhere. Don't think anyone suggested enthusiasm for Gazan kids dying, just that there's more "local" issues to be dealt with first
War Vets get nothing.
There is actually quite a lot available for ex army. But not sure how this is related to children from Gaza?
Quite a lot but clearly not enough or the problem would be minimal. It's about prioritising
But i don't hear them crying on social media.
Apart from this obviously.
Don't know what your point is
I asked three questions, and made one point. It's all there spelled out pretty clearly.
What part needs additional clarification?"If you actually read the response, you'll see little bits that aren't yours, they're mine...not in a different colour or font I accept but I'm sure a man of your intellect can find them if you want to look | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Big change is coming, most of the left have no idea.
What's the change?
I would suggest that civil unrest and riots are likely
If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
There's currently no travel allowed into Gaza. And besides, not sure what this would achieve anyway?
People can find a way to travel anywhere if they want to. The poster is, I would suggest, hoping you'll relocate
Is time to take care of this country not others
Let's be honest, they're not taking care of anyone. Not sure why being more enthusiastic about kids from Gaza dying due to lack of healthcare would effect that in any way.
Them they should be taking care of everyone in this country before diverting aid elsewhere. Don't think anyone suggested enthusiasm for Gazan kids dying, just that there's more "local" issues to be dealt with first
War Vets get nothing.
There is actually quite a lot available for ex army. But not sure how this is related to children from Gaza?
Quite a lot but clearly not enough or the problem would be minimal. It's about prioritising
But i don't hear them crying on social media.
Apart from this obviously.
Don't know what your point is
I asked three questions, and made one point. It's all there spelled out pretty clearly.
What part needs additional clarification?
If you actually read the response, you'll see little bits that aren't yours, they're mine...not in a different colour or font I accept but I'm sure a man of your intellect can find them if you want to look "Ah. I see. If you can't be arsed to put a reply that's readable. I can't be arsed to try to decipher it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Big change is coming, most of the left have no idea.
What's the change?
I would suggest that civil unrest and riots are likely
If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
There's currently no travel allowed into Gaza. And besides, not sure what this would achieve anyway?
People can find a way to travel anywhere if they want to. The poster is, I would suggest, hoping you'll relocate
Is time to take care of this country not others
Let's be honest, they're not taking care of anyone. Not sure why being more enthusiastic about kids from Gaza dying due to lack of healthcare would effect that in any way.
Them they should be taking care of everyone in this country before diverting aid elsewhere. Don't think anyone suggested enthusiasm for Gazan kids dying, just that there's more "local" issues to be dealt with first
War Vets get nothing.
There is actually quite a lot available for ex army. But not sure how this is related to children from Gaza?
Quite a lot but clearly not enough or the problem would be minimal. It's about prioritising
But i don't hear them crying on social media.
Apart from this obviously.
Don't know what your point is
I asked three questions, and made one point. It's all there spelled out pretty clearly.
What part needs additional clarification?
If you actually read the response, you'll see little bits that aren't yours, they're mine...not in a different colour or font I accept but I'm sure a man of your intellect can find them if you want to look
Ah. I see. If you can't be arsed to put a reply that's readable. I can't be arsed to try to decipher it."Pretty poor excuse but if that's all you've got, so be it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Big change is coming, most of the left have no idea.
What's the change?
I would suggest that civil unrest and riots are likely
If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
There's currently no travel allowed into Gaza. And besides, not sure what this would achieve anyway?
People can find a way to travel anywhere if they want to. The poster is, I would suggest, hoping you'll relocate
Is time to take care of this country not others
Let's be honest, they're not taking care of anyone. Not sure why being more enthusiastic about kids from Gaza dying due to lack of healthcare would effect that in any way.
Them they should be taking care of everyone in this country before diverting aid elsewhere. Don't think anyone suggested enthusiasm for Gazan kids dying, just that there's more "local" issues to be dealt with first
War Vets get nothing.
There is actually quite a lot available for ex army. But not sure how this is related to children from Gaza?
Quite a lot but clearly not enough or the problem would be minimal. It's about prioritising
But i don't hear them crying on social media.
Apart from this obviously.
Don't know what your point is
I asked three questions, and made one point. It's all there spelled out pretty clearly.
What part needs additional clarification?
If you actually read the response, you'll see little bits that aren't yours, they're mine...not in a different colour or font I accept but I'm sure a man of your intellect can find them if you want to look
Ah. I see. If you can't be arsed to put a reply that's readable. I can't be arsed to try to decipher it.
Pretty poor excuse but if that's all you've got, so be it"I agree. Next time put the effort in to make your post readable. It's very easy. But I can guess what you said, "blah blah, personal attack, blah blah, no reference to the points being made". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Big change is coming, most of the left have no idea.
What's the change?
I would suggest that civil unrest and riots are likely
If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
There's currently no travel allowed into Gaza. And besides, not sure what this would achieve anyway?
People can find a way to travel anywhere if they want to. The poster is, I would suggest, hoping you'll relocate
Is time to take care of this country not others
Let's be honest, they're not taking care of anyone. Not sure why being more enthusiastic about kids from Gaza dying due to lack of healthcare would effect that in any way.
Them they should be taking care of everyone in this country before diverting aid elsewhere. Don't think anyone suggested enthusiasm for Gazan kids dying, just that there's more "local" issues to be dealt with first
War Vets get nothing.
There is actually quite a lot available for ex army. But not sure how this is related to children from Gaza?
Quite a lot but clearly not enough or the problem would be minimal. It's about prioritising
But i don't hear them crying on social media.
Apart from this obviously.
Don't know what your point is
I asked three questions, and made one point. It's all there spelled out pretty clearly.
What part needs additional clarification?
If you actually read the response, you'll see little bits that aren't yours, they're mine...not in a different colour or font I accept but I'm sure a man of your intellect can find them if you want to look
Ah. I see. If you can't be arsed to put a reply that's readable. I can't be arsed to try to decipher it.
Pretty poor excuse but if that's all you've got, so be it
I agree. Next time put the effort in to make your post readable. It's very easy.
But I can guess what you said, "blah blah, personal attack, blah blah, no reference to the points being made"."Johnny boy, I understand, you don't have answers so don't worry your little head about it, you just have a nice bank holiday | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Helping other countries is also soft power, the people who were treated well here or educated and enjoyed themselves here will have a fondness for Britain. If those people were ever to get to power they'd be less likely to pick a war with a country they're fond of. But the right can't see that influence payes dividends in other ways not cheques in the bank " So how is this “soft power” working out for Britain exactly? Why should we care if foreigners are “fond of Britain”? Which countries has it stopped from launching a military attack on Britain? Given the economic stagnation of the British economy and dismal state of the government’s finances, where precisely do you see the benefits evidencing themselves? Your actual belief is that the UK should borrow money and give it away to foreigners. Mainly that’s because you are economically illiterate. But if that’s your view why not simply say so? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So how is this “soft power” working out for Britain exactly? Why should we care if foreigners are “fond of Britain”?" Because having allies is better than not having allies. "Which countries has it stopped from launching a military attack on Britain?" Our allies, and quite a few of our non-allies too. "Given the economic stagnation of the British economy and dismal state of the government’s finances, where precisely do you see the benefits evidencing themselves?" That assumes firstly that the only benefits are fiscal, and secondly that Britain's fiscal woes are caused by having foreign allies. "Your actual belief is that the UK should borrow money and give it away to foreigners. Mainly that’s because you are economically illiterate. But if that’s your view why not simply say so?" That may not be his view, but either way "to borrow money" is redundant because to the extent we're in debt we borrow money to pay for any public expenditure. Your opinion is, clearly, that British money should only be spent on British people. But that's not how any developed country works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Big change is coming, most of the left have no idea.
What's the change?
I would suggest that civil unrest and riots are likely
If you feel so compelled about Gaza, pack your bags and go. Let's see what happens too you.
There's currently no travel allowed into Gaza. And besides, not sure what this would achieve anyway?
People can find a way to travel anywhere if they want to. The poster is, I would suggest, hoping you'll relocate
Is time to take care of this country not others
Let's be honest, they're not taking care of anyone. Not sure why being more enthusiastic about kids from Gaza dying due to lack of healthcare would effect that in any way.
Them they should be taking care of everyone in this country before diverting aid elsewhere. Don't think anyone suggested enthusiasm for Gazan kids dying, just that there's more "local" issues to be dealt with first
War Vets get nothing.
There is actually quite a lot available for ex army. But not sure how this is related to children from Gaza?
Quite a lot but clearly not enough or the problem would be minimal. It's about prioritising
But i don't hear them crying on social media.
Apart from this obviously.
Don't know what your point is
I asked three questions, and made one point. It's all there spelled out pretty clearly.
What part needs additional clarification?
If you actually read the response, you'll see little bits that aren't yours, they're mine...not in a different colour or font I accept but I'm sure a man of your intellect can find them if you want to look
Ah. I see. If you can't be arsed to put a reply that's readable. I can't be arsed to try to decipher it.
Pretty poor excuse but if that's all you've got, so be it
I agree. Next time put the effort in to make your post readable. It's very easy.
But I can guess what you said, "blah blah, personal attack, blah blah, no reference to the points being made".
Johnny boy, I understand, you don't have answers so don't worry your little head about it, you just have a nice bank holiday "Lol, so your answer to being accused of personal attacks and not referencing the point is to give me a personal jibe and not reference the point. Solid work.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your comments are bordering on satire, but I'll bite anyway. So how is this “soft power” working out for Britain exactly? Why should we care if foreigners are “fond of Britain”? Because having allies is better than not having allies. Which countries has it stopped from launching a military attack on Britain? Our allies, and quite a few of our non-allies too. Given the economic stagnation of the British economy and dismal state of the government’s finances, where precisely do you see the benefits evidencing themselves? That assumes firstly that the only benefits are fiscal, and secondly that Britain's fiscal woes are caused by having foreign allies. Your actual belief is that the UK should borrow money and give it away to foreigners. Mainly that’s because you are economically illiterate. But if that’s your view why not simply say so? That may not be his view, but either way "to borrow money" is redundant because to the extent we're in debt we borrow money to pay for any public expenditure. Your opinion is, clearly, that British money should only be spent on British people. But that's not how any developed country works." How is "to borrow money" redundant when the government are obliged to make repayments at the prevailing borrowing rate? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your comments are bordering on satire, but I'll bite anyway. So how is this “soft power” working out for Britain exactly? Why should we care if foreigners are “fond of Britain”? Because having allies is better than not having allies. Which countries has it stopped from launching a military attack on Britain? Our allies, and quite a few of our non-allies too. Given the economic stagnation of the British economy and dismal state of the government’s finances, where precisely do you see the benefits evidencing themselves? That assumes firstly that the only benefits are fiscal, and secondly that Britain's fiscal woes are caused by having foreign allies. Your actual belief is that the UK should borrow money and give it away to foreigners. Mainly that’s because you are economically illiterate. But if that’s your view why not simply say so? That may not be his view, but either way "to borrow money" is redundant because to the extent we're in debt we borrow money to pay for any public expenditure. Your opinion is, clearly, that British money should only be spent on British people. But that's not how any developed country works. How is "to borrow money" redundant when the government are obliged to make repayments at the prevailing borrowing rate?" Because the money we spend is necessarily borrowed. The question is whether we should spend it on what we're discussing, but if the answer is yes it can only be on credit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your comments are bordering on satire, but I'll bite anyway. So how is this “soft power” working out for Britain exactly? Why should we care if foreigners are “fond of Britain”? Because having allies is better than not having allies. Which countries has it stopped from launching a military attack on Britain? Our allies, and quite a few of our non-allies too. Given the economic stagnation of the British economy and dismal state of the government’s finances, where precisely do you see the benefits evidencing themselves? That assumes firstly that the only benefits are fiscal, and secondly that Britain's fiscal woes are caused by having foreign allies. Your actual belief is that the UK should borrow money and give it away to foreigners. Mainly that’s because you are economically illiterate. But if that’s your view why not simply say so? That may not be his view, but either way "to borrow money" is redundant because to the extent we're in debt we borrow money to pay for any public expenditure. Your opinion is, clearly, that British money should only be spent on British people. But that's not how any developed country works. How is "to borrow money" redundant when the government are obliged to make repayments at the prevailing borrowing rate? Because the money we spend is necessarily borrowed. The question is whether we should spend it on what we're discussing, but if the answer is yes it can only be on credit." The money we spend isn’t “necessarily borrowed”. It comes from taxation and borrowing. Government expenditure is a choice, not a requirement. Plenty of countries manage their finances without borrowing as much proportionately as the UK does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your comments are bordering on satire, but I'll bite anyway. So how is this “soft power” working out for Britain exactly? Why should we care if foreigners are “fond of Britain”? Because having allies is better than not having allies. Which countries has it stopped from launching a military attack on Britain? Our allies, and quite a few of our non-allies too. Given the economic stagnation of the British economy and dismal state of the government’s finances, where precisely do you see the benefits evidencing themselves? That assumes firstly that the only benefits are fiscal, and secondly that Britain's fiscal woes are caused by having foreign allies. Your actual belief is that the UK should borrow money and give it away to foreigners. Mainly that’s because you are economically illiterate. But if that’s your view why not simply say so? That may not be his view, but either way "to borrow money" is redundant because to the extent we're in debt we borrow money to pay for any public expenditure. Your opinion is, clearly, that British money should only be spent on British people. But that's not how any developed country works. How is "to borrow money" redundant when the government are obliged to make repayments at the prevailing borrowing rate?" The cost of feeding and giving healthcare to a small number of malnourished children is miniscule, compared with UK expenditure - a teeny fraction of 0.1% and probably less than we've spent flying over Palestine, every week gathering intelligence. We should take some responsibility for the horrors that we've been partly responsible for causing there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The money we spend isn’t “necessarily borrowed”. It comes from taxation and borrowing. Government expenditure is a choice, not a requirement. Plenty of countries manage their finances without borrowing as much proportionately as the UK does. " Necessarily borrowed as in it can only (in this case) come from borrowing, not as in we are required to borrow it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your comments are bordering on satire, but I'll bite anyway. So how is this “soft power” working out for Britain exactly? Why should we care if foreigners are “fond of Britain”? Because having allies is better than not having allies. Which countries has it stopped from launching a military attack on Britain? Our allies, and quite a few of our non-allies too. Given the economic stagnation of the British economy and dismal state of the government’s finances, where precisely do you see the benefits evidencing themselves? That assumes firstly that the only benefits are fiscal, and secondly that Britain's fiscal woes are caused by having foreign allies. Your actual belief is that the UK should borrow money and give it away to foreigners. Mainly that’s because you are economically illiterate. But if that’s your view why not simply say so? That may not be his view, but either way "to borrow money" is redundant because to the extent we're in debt we borrow money to pay for any public expenditure. Your opinion is, clearly, that British money should only be spent on British people. But that's not how any developed country works. How is "to borrow money" redundant when the government are obliged to make repayments at the prevailing borrowing rate? The cost of feeding and giving healthcare to a small number of malnourished children is miniscule, compared with UK expenditure - a teeny fraction of 0.1% and probably less than we've spent flying over Palestine, every week gathering intelligence. We should take some responsibility for the horrors that we've been partly responsible for causing there. " It’s a shame that the Uk government has so mismanaged its finances over many decades. If the public purse wasn’t in such dire straits perhaps I would agree. But regrettably given the mess the government has made difficult choices need to be made. Some other country with better finances will need to step up. Maybe the UAE or Saudi. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
