Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/25/08 01:38 PM, echo2004 wrote: I agree that the welfare system is completely fucked up to the degree of it needing an entire overhaul and granted the NHS is a economic black hole. But both the NHS and welfare state are key parts of British society. I'm not saying this is a good thing but without them, and i hate to say this, our society would collapse. The lack of health service would cause everyone on welfare to struggle more and if you remove that as well then they would not be able to afford the means to live or keep themselves healthy.

Yeah, the NHS and welfare inextricably go hand in hand and that's part of the problem. If the tories came into power, everything would be so much better. For one, they would encourage individualism meaning lazy people would be less inclined to freeload of the government as a certain amount of benefits from the welfare system would be removed and they'll have no option but to get a job and two, a reduction of taxes would mean people are becoming richer, until they have to pay an unholy amount for an operation or some sort of procedure on the NHS. But that shouldn't matter, David Cameron outlined a while ago that he would only privatise 15% of the NHS and that free healthcare will still be given to those who need it.

At 9/24/08 12:18 PM, echo2004 wrote: Lets hear your thoughts on our new prime minister (if your a uk citizen) or if your another nationality lets hear your thoughts on the UK Government as a whole.

One thing first though no hate speeches please, be negative if you want though i certainly will be.

Alot of people have been bad mouthing Gordon Brown but this whole "conspiracy" to get him out is pretty weak. When you think about it, with all the economic troubles the UK is having and will have in the next few years, isn't the exchancellor of the exchequer a good choice for prime minister?

I'm pretty sure there's been a thread on this before, but whatever. And I wouldn't exactly say he is 'new' either, he's been in power for at least 15 months now. I'm not going to post my thoughts on the UK government because again, I'm sure I've already posted them on here, and you'd probably condemn them as hate speeches. Anyway, I am going to admit that they've had some good policies, like the national minimum wage but on issues like the NHS and the welfare state, they've fucked up big time. The NHS has become a victim of it's own success and the only chance of the problems being solved are if the tories come into power and implement a certain degree of the privatisation (more so than Labour with their PPP's). The welfare state has evolved into a system that doesn't just give welfare to people who need it, but also people who are too lazy to work and this is why Labour are in the shit right now.

Of course having the ex chancellor of exchequer as the prime minister is a good thing in the current economic and financial crisis, but that doesn't mean the crisis is going to be resolved. What we need is a change of government and a complete overhaul of Labour's policies.

At 8/15/08 08:48 AM, HaloKing336 wrote: Why the hell do Israel and palestine care so much about the land that they fight for (gaza strip etc).

I mean, would it not be logical to concede a small area of land to save the deaths of thousands?
It doesn't make any sense.

For this to ever happen, there must be peace first. With the exception of the Fatah party and Israel, achieving peace is near impossible if extremists like Hamas don't recognise Israel as a state and until they do, civil war and war between the two nations will never stop.

At 5/28/08 06:43 PM, LordJaric wrote: After lern about fallacies in school, I see that we like to use that alot on here, maybe we should instead of resorting to name calling and stuff like that, we should actually come up with good counter arguments instead of resorting to name calling when we are backed into corners.

You've compared fallacies and name calling as if they are the same thing.

At 5/5/08 10:59 AM, zoolrule wrote:

At 5/5/08 08:13 AM, SolInvictus wrote: the entire purpose of Nazism was to establish a peaceful and productive aryan nation. sounds like they had peace and harmony at their heart too.

So you truly believe that Communism is worse than Nazism? Or simply you wrote that because think you are such a smooth sarcastic guy?

Hopefully sarcastic, but then again, as I'm sure has already been stated, neither can be worse than the other as both do not work when they are put into practice.

At 4/25/08 07:39 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/25/08 07:35 AM, Hashshashin wrote:

Yes, because this is true for all countres today.

OH WAIT, THERE ARE LOTS OF COUNTRIES WITH MANY RELIGIONS AND LANGUAGES AND A HELL OF LOT OF IDENTITIES, GASP!

Exactly why I said it will spell out more trouble than PRESENT, numbnuts.

It would never work. Religious and cultural differences wouldn't allow it. For it to happen, we would all have to unite under a single religion, a single language and a single identity, and to be honest that will spell out more trouble than the present.

At 4/11/08 11:22 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/11/08 08:57 AM, Hashshashin wrote: Haha, sounds like a lot of my sociology professors. They're a bunch of communist wankers. I get a shit grade for my essays all the time because I write them from a conservative viewpoint.

Yeah, because it can't possible be that your writing just isn't good. ;)

That was what I originally thought, so I formulated a little plan and decided to write one of my essays from a left wing viewpoint and, lo and behold, I passed it. Isn't that funny?

At 4/10/08 10:31 PM, TightRope wrote: So in one of my history classes, a liberal twat of a college professor told us all about "the evil elitist, capitalist, imperialistic AmeriKKKa" that supported the Sanardista's in South America and then showed us pictures.

Haha, sounds like a lot of my sociology professors. They're a bunch of communist wankers. I get a shit grade for my essays all the time because I write them from a conservative viewpoint.

At 11/13/07 02:34 AM, Stellato21 wrote: French ambassador calls Israel 'paranoid' and Sharon 'a lout'

well i guess me and the french ambassador to israel are retarded

Dude that was like 4 years ago, Sharon isn't even in power anymore.

I remember watching ages ago on TV, I think it was the news, and they were doing a report on the BNP and how it is attracting more members and gaining popularity (I think), and there was a black guy and he was like 'yeah man i'm definitely gonna be voting BNP at the general election' and all I could think was jeeez do you even know what the BNP stands for and their policies and thier view towards foreigners and any other race. Maybe he thought it stood for the Black National Party or something I don't know haha.

But back onto topic, I can't honestly think of 10 reasons to vote BNP, not even one reason. I've had plenty discussions on this before and we've always come to the same conclusion that there a bunch of racist assholes with no intentions of improving the country and only intent on getting rid of and preventing non-white immigrants from entering the country.

At 10/15/07 07:44 PM, Fierce-Deity wrote: I believe in the Christian god, but I just don't make religion a huge part of my life.

+1

At 10/14/07 06:19 PM, emmytee wrote:

At 10/14/07 01:42 PM, Hashshashin wrote: NHS = bad

So I suppose, if you had a heart attack tomorrow, your family would have the $75,781 spare change kicking around.

Unless you had health insurance.....which is a lot like..... a tax?

I never said the NHS was bad.

At 10/14/07 01:13 PM, barkskin wrote: This is not flambait. I'm just asking which country would you prefer to live in. The UK has superior health care (because it's free) and socialism is WAY better than capitalism.

Free? Last time I checked the majority of the population of the UK is now having to pay higher taxes because government expenditure on the NHS is way too high, and a small percentage of the NHS is run by Public Private Partnerships.

Nothing comes for free.

At 9/28/07 07:21 PM, emmytee wrote:

At 9/27/07 01:29 PM, Hashshashin wrote: (even though it wouldn't have went against his beliefs).

They did go against his beliefs, because it amounted to giving poor people money. thats not what tories do, tories give rich people tax cuts.

Woops major typo, that is meant to be WOULD have went against his beliefs.

At 9/28/07 01:46 PM, RedGlare wrote:

At 9/24/07 02:34 PM, Hashshashin wrote:

At 9/22/07 10:17 AM, RedGlare wrote:

Hey douchbag, I gave my reasons why i'm voting Boris Johnston, he's the lesser of three evils.

You did't even know who one of them was. Do you even know anything about there plans?

And don't even begin to criticise or lecture me on my politics.

I wouldn't dream of criticising your political views.

As that would imply you actually had some to begin with.

Actually, I believe I said 'Opik I don't know MUCH about'. I never said anything about not knowing who one of them was. Learn to read.

I knew very little about him, being as far detached from the Liberals as possible. I just didn't know enough about him to make an opinion on him.

I know conservatives believe in less government intervention, but I found out in my lecture today that when W. Beveridge produced his report for a welfare state, Churchill tried to bury it and carry on with politics as if it had never been produced. I'm a conservative myself, but after WW2 the country was in ruins and there was mass unemployment and I know for a fact we desperately needed a welfare state and I don't know why Churchill can't have just accepted this (even though it wouldn't have went against his beliefs). It was no wonder they lost the general election in 1945.

At 9/22/07 10:17 AM, RedGlare wrote:

At 9/20/07 03:07 AM, Hashshashin wrote: So my vote would definetly be on Boris.

And as long as it doesn't stop him making guest appearences on Have I Got New For You...

This is precisely why the voting age should have stayed at 21.

Hey douchbag, I gave my reasons why i'm voting Boris Johnston, he's the lesser of three evils. And don't even begin to criticise or lecture me on my politics.

At 9/22/07 01:31 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Lembit Opik in a nutshell: the Lib Dem in charge of hoping we don't get hit by an asteroid, better known for ditching his fiancee (Sian Lloyd, the ITV weathergirl) and shacking up with one of the Cheeky Girls - all while looking like a bit of a tit on HIGNFY when he does appear.

Hahaha, definitely not Opik then.

I think he was a great PM during WW2 because he actually decided to stop Hitler and to fight Germany, instead of Neville Chamberlain's policy of Appeasement, which was disastrous from the off. After that, I don't know his politics well enough to comment on whether he was a good PM, but being a Conservative like myself he can't have been all that bad...

If America starts any shit with Iran it will be the last thing they do, and no doubt Britain will side with America and so again we enter another pointless war which could have been so easily avoided. At the moment Ahmedinijad and Putin are two guys who you don't mess with.

It's not going to affect me who wins, but I'd prefer if Boris won. Ken Livingstone is a cock, quite frankly, and have hated him ever since he's been Mayor. Opik I don't know much about. So my vote would definetly be on Boris.

And as long as it doesn't stop him making guest appearences on Have I Got New For You...

Ohhh, I wonder what Ahmadinejad thinks of this.

At 9/18/07 04:18 PM, jakdaman wrote: theres alot of writing there and i really cant pay attention that long so ill say that if a god wanted its pressence know it would come and tell you if not then we should get on with our lives as if it were no even there...

What an incredibly narrow-minded viewpoint. He did tell us, he told us in the Bible.

Anything that possesses higher powers and is Immortal is what I regard as a god, be it the ancient Greek and Roman gods/goddesses or the Abrahamic God. Anything that is mortal such as Roman Emperors being made into gods is not a real god in my opinion, no matter how much power or influence they had when they were alive, e.g Emperor Augustus.

Exactly. But the Holocaust was the catalyst for the Jews moving back to Israel, Ahmadinejad should at least realise that. True that they haven been coming in since the start of the 20th century, but the biggest influx was after the war. Of course he'll be bitter that fellow Arabs were kicked out thier country and probably forced to move to his and other neighbouring Arab countries, but there is still no need to deny the Holocaust happened when he totally knows it did just to show the Jews as liars and the Arabs as victims.

Holocaust - Jews leave Germany and other countries - Kick Palestinians out.

Is that not enough evidence that the Holocaust happened? Yet he still denies it. If there was no holocaust like he says, the Palestinians wouldn't have been kicked out by the Jews as they would still be living in their former countries.

Anyone?

At 9/12/07 12:04 AM, stybayo wrote: It's cool. I mean, if i was lying in a bed unmovile and in pain with no chance of getting my life back, well then FUCKING LET ME DIE! what do u guys say? i think its the moral and religious way to go

^ That's what he said actually.

He never just said 'It's cool.'

Why the hell does every topic matter in some way have to be linked to religion?

Anyway, I don't really see what is wrong with it. To deny the right to die is denying one of the biggest human rights, and if the person is suffering, then we can't strip them off this right. It is their own choice after all.

My dad has practically told me that he is going to commit Euthanasia if he ever gets put into a nursing home, at first I was shocked but i'd probably do the same. Unless of course he, or I, are not suffering and are in no pain.

At 7/23/07 12:22 AM, ThorKingOfTheVikings wrote: Over the last couple of years I've heard from several different sources (such as the general news) that by sometime near the year 2050 the population of the planet will have grown to over 9 billion. I do not know if this is true but i believe that i have a very logical reason for why this forecast could be very incorrect. From what i here most of these studies revolve around examine the rise form somewhere around 2 billion (i think) to over 6 billion people on the planet from about the 50's to the present. This has just got me thinking about what has happened in between this time to the planet in general. There was of course the baby boom and several other wars but mostly its been technological advancement. I could see how if the rate of birth had be constant since this point in time how the population could keep growing but when i look into my family history i can see that during the early 20th century we had ancestors with about 10 children. This was of course because they lived on a farm and had a need for a large family but then the next generation only had about 5 children (grandparents) and then 4 (parents) and now 2 (myself and brother). When i look around at my friends almost none of them have more than 2 siblings.

I don't understand how even with how fast the human population has grown in the past could yield a steady increase with the noticeable change in lifestyle and family values ( I mean # of children here). Big families are quite rare around where i live and i just cant understand how the population could grow to 9 billion. Wouldn't we eventually wise up and figure out we have to stop having so many children if the outcome of more and more people could only be harmful?

In the end i just want to know if this logic stands up to the theories or if im missing something.

Haha, how narrow-minded. You have not taken into account other countries. Yes, China has the 'one child' policy but many can apply for more if they wish, and even having one child for each family is still fatal to the population and economy of China. My geography teacher told me that if population continues as it is, then there will surely be mass famine and a high number of deaths by at least 2050.
And then theres India, which is industrialising and its population has already exceeded the 1 billion mark. It is okay for developed countries to criticise and dictate that less developed countries should 'wise up' and stop having less children, but it is not that easy. A dicline in population would surely stunt economic growth and contraception is always not readily available in less developed countries.
And yes, moving on from less developed countries contribution to a predicted 9 billion mark by 2050, developed countries are also to blame. Elderly people have never had it better. There has been such a big advancement in medicine and it is more readily available. Take my countries health system for example; the NHS. Free and universal healthcare for everyone. Elderly people can now get all the treatment they need free of the NHS and they will live for longer, which backs up the old saying "The NHS is a victim of it's own success." So nearly all developed health systems will have the same problem. You've only got to look at recent population pyramids to see this (I can't be bothered showing any).
So yes, I do have reasons to believe that the population will surely reach the 9 billion mark, if not exceed it.