TSR General Election 2005/6 Watch

tobie
Badges: 0
#341
Report 13 years ago
#341
(Original post by Aristogeiton)
Not at all, have you even read where I said, I thought, we'd get the money from?

That money spent here can make a difference.
That money spent in Africa is unlikely to do anything.

--------------



Relatively?

Why should we settle for second best? I don't want 'relatively good' schools,
or 'relatively good' hospitals - I want the best that we can afford to give to this country!
In global terms we already have the best schools and hospitals in the world, in global terms Africa has the worst. The fact is its not fair. They didn't come over to Europe and take us as slaves and they don't sell us arms either. There is far too much of a global inbalance.
0
quote
reply
cosmik_debris
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#342
Report 13 years ago
#342
(Original post by tobie)
In global terms we already have the best schools and hospitals in the world, in global terms Africa has the worst. The fact is its not fair. They didn't come over to Europe and take us as slaves and they don't sell us arms either. There is far too much of a global inbalance.
Communist alert!
quote
reply
Aristogeiton
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#343
Report 13 years ago
#343
(Original post by tobie)
In global terms we already have the best schools and hospitals in the world, in global terms Africa has the worst. The fact is its not fair. They didn't come over to Europe and take us as slaves and they don't sell us arms either. There is far too much of a global inbalance.
It's not fair?!

:rofl:

What an argument! :rolleyes: Are you going to get out the little 'you're a racist' labels next?



No, it's not fair. But life's not fair. Perhaps they should have taken over half the world, perhaps they should have spread their culture and language all over the world? Then, perhaps, they could have better hospitals or schools.

We are not the richest country in the world, by a long way, and yet we still give far more in aid than some who are far richer then us. Why should we? Why is it that Britons should suffer now with second rate schools and hospitals just because all those years ago we were the greatest country in the world! Why? That's like implying that Africans have the right to kick any whites they see because all those years ago we enslaved them. It's a stupid argument that leads nowhere.

And why Africa? Surely there are other LEDC's in the world which need our help too? Maybe we should give them money too? Why don't they get hospitals but the Africans do? Are the Africans more worse off than other equally poor people? Why do we pick them?

We can't help everyone, it's futile to even attempt it and doing so would bring us down too. Our priority should be Britain, British citizens and British services!
0
quote
reply
tobie
Badges: 0
#344
Report 13 years ago
#344
(Original post by cosmik_debris)
Communist alert!
Why do you think Communism was so much more popular and successful than Fascism. Remember who lost the Second World War? And before you say it Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and all the rest of those dictators were not true communists. Its an ideology based on hope, unlike Fascism which is based upon fear and hatred.
0
quote
reply
Aristogeiton
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#345
Report 13 years ago
#345
(Original post by tobie)
Why do you think Communism was so much more popular and successful than Fascism. Remember who lost the Second World War? And before you say it Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and all the rest of those dictators were not true communists. Its an ideology based on hope, unlike Fascism which is based upon fear and hatred.
Let me remind you; communism is responsible for far far more deaths than fascism.

And no, they weren't 'true' commies because true commie societies are against fundamental human nature and impossible. But the idea itself has killed millions.

History is written by the winners - oh don't I know it.
0
quote
reply
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#346
Report 13 years ago
#346
(Original post by tobie)
Why do you think Communism was so much more popular and successful than Fascism. Remember who lost the Second World War? And before you say it Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and all the rest of those dictators were not true communists. Its an ideology based on hope, unlike Fascism which is based upon fear and hatred.
How was communism popular? There's never been a communist state!
0
quote
reply
Aristogeiton
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#347
Report 13 years ago
#347
^ perhaps by 'popular' he means among a 'bunch of marxist students on a mission to try and save the world and defeat the nasty BNP'?
0
quote
reply
tobie
Badges: 0
#348
Report 13 years ago
#348
(Original post by Aristogeiton)
It's not fair?!

:rofl:

What an argument! :rolleyes: Are you going to get out the little 'you're a racist' labels next?



No, it's not fair. But life's not fair. Perhaps they should have taken over half the world, perhaps they should have spread their culture and language all over the world? Then, perhaps, they could have better hospitals or schools.

We are not the richest country in the world, by a long way, and yet we still give far more in aid than some who are far richer then us. Why should we? Why is it that Britons should suffer now with second rate schools and hospitals just because all those years ago we were the greatest country in the world! Why? That's like implying that Africans have the right to kick any whites they see because all those years ago we enslaved them. It's a stupid argument that leads nowhere.

And why Africa? Surely there are other LEDC's in the world which need our help too? Maybe we should give them money too? Why don't they get hospitals but the Africans do? Are the Africans more worse off than other equally poor people? Why do we pick them?

We can't help everyone, it's futile to even attempt it and doing so would bring us down too. Our priority should be Britain, British citizens and British services!
First point we are the fourth richest country in the world. The three richer countries: Japan, Germany and USA all give more money but because they are richer they give a lower percentage of GNP. Second point the aid we do give is a tiny percentage of our own GNP, we spend far more on defence and could afford to give far more. Third point: There are other LEDCs in the world but the fact remains that the 18 poorest are all in Africa. As well as poverty, Africa has the additional problem of AIDs which other LEDCs do not have to nearly such a great extent. Therefore African countries are in more need of aid. Fourth point: half of Africa live on less than a dollar a day. More than half of Africa is illiterate. 30,000 people, half of them under 5 die of poverty in Africa every day. Whilst we go out and buy ipods ,TVs and DVD players and then claim we don't have any spare cash for aid. Fith point: If Africa was more economically developed then we increae trade and investment with them, resulting in more money all round. In the long term it would pay off. Surely you would like to buy cheap sugar from Africa, rather than subsidised and therefore expensive sugar from Europe. Sixth point: you don't realise how lucky you are with health and education in this country. Other nations would kill for the kind of schools and hospitals we have. Most African schools don't even have a computer.

--------------

[QUOTE=Aristogeiton]^ perhaps by 'popular' he means among a 'bunch of marxist students on a mission to try and save the world and defeat the nasty BNP'?[/QUOTE

Northern Spain was a true anarcho-communist state before the Fascists took it over in 1936. Cuba remains a communist state since then 1959 revolution to this day. The ideology of communism is still believed in by millions across the world, especially in South America. Whereas the ideology of Fascism died with Hitler.
0
quote
reply
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#349
Report 13 years ago
#349
(Original post by tobie)
Northern Spain was a true anarcho-communist state before the Fascists took it over in 1936. Cuba remains a communist state since then 1959 revolution to this day. The ideology of communism is still believed in by millions across the world, especially in South America. Whereas the ideology of Fascism died with Hitler.
Cuba is not a communist state. You should brush up on your Marx sonny-Jim.
0
quote
reply
tobie
Badges: 0
#350
Report 13 years ago
#350
(Original post by Aristogeiton)
Let me remind you; communism is responsible for far far more deaths than fascism.

And no, they weren't 'true' commies because true commie societies are against fundamental human nature and impossible. But the idea itself has killed millions.

History is written by the winners - oh don't I know it.
Moaism was not communism, stalinism was not communism. But let's say we add it all up. Stalin killed about 10 million, Mao, about 70 million max. Hitler killed 60 million, seeing as he was responsible for the second world war. Another hundered million or so have died since 1945 as a result of America's recognusably fascist economic policies in south america, the middle east and africa. So let's call it a 160 million. Thats double what communism ever did even if we follow your definition.
0
quote
reply
Aristogeiton
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#351
Report 13 years ago
#351
(Original post by tobie)
First point we are the fourth richest country in the world. The three richer countries: Japan, Germany and USA all give more money but because they are richer they give a lower percentage of GNP. Second point the aid we do give is a tiny percentage of our own GNP, we spend far more on defence and could afford to give far more. Third point: There are other LEDCs in the world but the fact remains that the 18 poorest are all in Africa. As well as poverty, Africa has the additional problem of AIDs which other LEDCs do not have to nearly such a great extent. Therefore African countries are in more need of aid. Fourth point: half of Africa live on less than a dollar a day. More than half of Africa is illiterate. 30,000 people, half of them under 5 die of poverty in Africa every day. Whilst we go out and buy ipods ,TVs and DVD players and then claim we don't have any spare cash for aid. Fith point: If Africa was more economically developed then we increae trade and investment with them, resulting in more money all round. In the long term it would pay off. Surely you would like to buy cheap sugar from Africa, rather than subsidised and therefore expensive sugar from Europe. Sixth point: you don't realise how lucky you are with health and education in this country. Other nations would kill for the kind of schools and hospitals we have. Most African schools don't even have a computer.
1. 4th richest?

http://www.aneki.com/richest.html

2. our soldiers are under equipped out there! They have cheap shoddy equipment that doesn't work properly and puts their brave lives in even more danger. We need more money in the military.

3. So you feel that you can neglect other countries and instead concentrate on Africa? That's an interesting take for a bleeding-heart liberal.

4. Less than a dollar a day? So? I'd imagine that living costs are rather a lot less over there.

Half are illiterate? So? Many are farmers - they don't need to be able to read Plato!
To be honest, I care more about whether teenagers over here can read and write than a farmer in Africa. The standards of literacy here are appalling for such a developed country!

5. yeah! That's exactly what I want! Cheap sugar? YES PLEASE! What about all the Europeans who would become unemployed as a result of moving these jobs to Africa? They obviously don't matter to you though.

6. I bet they would. Shame they didn't take over half the world really, isn't it?



I'm sorry that I have the intelligence to realize we cannot help these people in the way most people want to. I'm sorry that I value my country and its people above those of another which has nothing to do with me. I'm sorry that I want the very best for this great country, and I'm sorry that I'm a realist rather than some bleeding-heart marxist student.

--------------

(Original post by tobie)
Moaism was not communism, stalinism was not communism. But let's say we add it all up. Stalin killed about 10 million, Mao, about 70 million max. Hitler killed 60 million, seeing as he was responsible for the second world war. Another hundered million or so have died since 1945 as a result of America's recognusably fascist economic policies in south america, the middle east and africa. So let's call it a 160 million. Thats double what communism ever did even if we follow your definition.
:eek: WHAT?!

I think you'll find the 'accepted' figure is closer to about 12million for Hitler.

And Stalin would be a lot higher - he murdered 10million innocent Germans after the war alone!
0
quote
reply
tobie
Badges: 0
#352
Report 13 years ago
#352
(Original post by Carl)
Cuba is not a communist state. You should brush up on your Marx sonny-Jim.
Ok let's call it a socialist state. The point is Fidel Castro, the socialist, is who achieved power through popular revolution of the most popular leaders in world history. And look who Cuba has for a neighbour, the USA has done everything in its power to prevent, even socialism in Cuba, for the last 50 years.
0
quote
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#353
Report 13 years ago
#353
(Original post by tobie)
Moaism was not communism, stalinism was not communism. But let's say we add it all up. Stalin killed about 10 million, Mao, about 70 million max. Hitler killed 60 million, seeing as he was responsible for the second world war. Another hundered million or so have died since 1945 as a result of America's recognusably fascist economic policies in south america, the middle east and africa. So let's call it a 160 million. Thats double what communism ever did even if we follow your definition.
Out of curiosity, which party do you support?
0
quote
reply
Aristogeiton
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#354
Report 13 years ago
#354
^ Lib Dem at a guess.
0
quote
reply
tobie
Badges: 0
#355
Report 13 years ago
#355
(Original post by Aristogeiton)
1. 4th richest?

http://www.aneki.com/richest.html

2. our soldiers are under equipped out there! They have cheap shoddy equipment that doesn't work properly and puts their brave lives in even more danger. We need more money in the military.

3. So you feel that you can neglect other countries and instead concentrate on Africa? That's an interesting take for a bleeding-heart liberal.

4. Less than a dollar a day? So? I'd imagine that living costs are rather a lot less over there.

Half are illiterate? So? Many are farmers - they don't need to be able to read Plato!
To be honest, I care more about whether teenagers over here can read and write than a farmer in Africa. The standards of literacy here are appalling for such a developed country!

5. yeah! That's exactly what I want! Cheap sugar? YES PLEASE! What about all the Europeans who would become unemployed as a result of moving these jobs to Africa? They obviously don't matter to you though.

6. I bet they would. Shame they didn't take over half the world really, isn't it?



I'm sorry that I have the intelligence to realize we cannot help these people in the way most people want to. I'm sorry that I value my country and its people above those of another which has nothing to do with me. I'm sorry that I want the very best for this great country, and I'm sorry that I'm a realist rather than some bleeding-heart marxist student.

Fourth richest in terms of economy size not GDP per capita per head.
Every soldier in Iraq is a voluneer, people don't choose to be born in Africa.
Africa is a continent. The 18 poorest countries WITHIN Africa are the countries most in need of aid as they are the pooresr countries in the world.
Living costs are a lot lower. Depending on which country you're in. But that dollar has to feed an entire family. It isn't enough.
Farmers have to be able to read the instructions on the fertilser packet. They also need to be able keep accounts in order to run a business and deal with foreign companies.
Britain has a 99% literacy, that's as high as it gets. Despite what you may read in the Daily Mail. Somalia has a 24% literacy rate.
4% of Europe are employed in Agriculture compared to 50% of Africans. Their need is greater therefore they deserve the trade.
Shame they didn't take over half the world, what is that supposed to mean. The British Empire only covered a quarter of the world at its height anyway.



--------------



:eek: WHAT?!

I think you'll find the 'accepted' figure is closer to about 12million for Hitler.

And Stalin would be a lot higher - he murdered 10million innocent Germans after the war alone!
Hitler started the second world war. He invaded Poland first. Without the invasion of Poland WW2 would not have occurred, therefore every death in the Europe can be attributed to him. Every death in Asia can be attributed to the Fascist Government of Japan. Total casualty figures for WW2: 60 million. Lets nor forget all the other Fascist regimes around the world: Iraq. The Baath party was modelled on the Nazis. British deaths in Iraq are a result of Hitler.

--------------

(Original post by Bismarck)
Out of curiosity, which party do you support?
You're American right? Democrats and Republicans are as bad as each other. The same with New Labour and Conservative. There is no party worth supporting
0
quote
reply
Aristogeiton
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#356
Report 13 years ago
#356
(Original post by tobie)
Hitler started the second world war. He invaded Poland first. Without the invasion of Poland WW2 would not have occurred, therefore every death in the Europe can be attributed to him. Every death in Asia can be attributed to the Fascist Government of Japan. Total casualty figures for WW2: 60 million. Lets nor forget all the other Fascist regimes around the world: Iraq. The Baath party was modelled on the Nazis. British deaths in Iraq are a result of Hitler.
No, he invaded Austria first, then Czechoslovakia, then Poland.

And had Churchill met with Heß the rest of the war could've been avoided, but no. Cheers Churchill!

But if we're playing the 'blame-game' then why not blame the people who gave the prussian land to Poland rather than Germany after WW1? That's why Germany invaded Poland, or even, we can skip forward a bit and blame certain individuals in the Polish government who retracted the Polish gov's original agreement with Germany over the Prussian lands? There's plenty more I could shove some blame onto too, want me to try?

Don't bother trying to outwit me with regards to WW2, you will fail.



you haven't answered points 1-6 either. :rolleyes:


(Original post by tobie)
British deaths in Iraq are a result of Hitler.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Congratulations! You just won the funniest and most ridiculous comment of the day award!!!!

--------------

You can't say fascism is unworkable because of one man, Hitler. And yet claim that communism is perfectly reasonable despite Stalin.

Can you not see the hypocrisy there?
0
quote
reply
tobie
Badges: 0
#357
Report 13 years ago
#357
[QUOTE=Aristogeiton]No, he invaded Austria first, then Czechoslovakia, then Poland.

And had Churchill met with Heß the rest of the war could've been avoided, but no. Cheers Churchill!

But if we're playing the 'blame-game' then why not blame the people who gave the prussian land to Poland rather than Germany after WW1? That's why Germany invaded Poland, or even, we can skip forward a bit and blame certain individuals in the Polish government who retracted the Polish gov's original agreement with Germany over the Prussian lands? There's plenty more I could shove some blame onto too, want me to try?

Don't bother trying to outwit me with regards to WW2, you will fail.



you haven't answered points 1-6 either. :rolleyes:




:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Congratulations! You just won the funniest and most ridiculous comment of the day award!!!![/QUOTE

Prussia was never ethnically German. It was captured by the tuetonic knights in 1238. Germans are central Europeans, Prussia is in Eastern Europe. The Nazi invasion was part of a continious process of trying to subdue the Polish people, which had been going on for hundreds of years. Czechoslovakia never contained a German majority. And Austria was hardly an invasion, more of a parade. But you are ignoring events in China in the 1930s. Fascist Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, eight years before Poland. This was an act of unprovoked aggression. The same is true of Pearl Harbour in 1941, an act which arguably transformed an Asian war and a European war into world war. Doesn't matter how far back you go, Prussia was never truly German.

--------------

Oh yeah and who started WWI, Belgium didn't invade Germany. Territorial confiscation resulting from the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was a direct result of German aggression.
0
quote
reply
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#358
Report 13 years ago
#358
and the GE thread gets completely hijacked....

we're still taking questions on policy if you haven't decided who to vote for yet...
0
quote
reply
tobie
Badges: 0
#359
Report 13 years ago
#359
The Mesopatamian/Iraqi Baath party was inspired by and funded by the Nazis. Saddam Hussein was leader of the Baath party. Why did we invade Iraq again.

--------------

Has the BNP gone to sleep? We'll continue this tomorrow if you want.

--------------

Night night
0
quote
reply
Beekeeper
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#360
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#360
Turnout is good so far, but it could be better.

The bigger the mandates are the better.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (279)
27.51%
No (735)
72.49%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed