poltitical forum

[Baley]

Hmmm..not bad

 

I think I might visit Edinburgh

 

Q: Do Scots still wear kilts on special ocasions?

[Darth Flatus]

only in adverts for scottish porridge

 

 

eidt: you want to visit a lot of places baley " time to start saving now, or sell you computer and all the games

[Reveilled]

Kilts are strictly weddings, dances, and christenings only. And porridge adverts, as Darth said.

[Baley]

Damn...you do wear underwear right?

 

As for Glasgow...go Rangers

[Reveilled]

Damn...you do wear underwear right?

 

That depends on whether or not you're a true Scotsman or not. The only thing under a true Scotsman's kilt is his socks and shoes. :ph34r:

 

As for Glasgow...go Rangers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bluenoses are evil, Baley. Your duties as a paladin require you to support Celtic.

[Baley]

That depends on whether or not you're a true Scotsman or not. The only thing under a true Scotsman's kilt is his socks and shoes.

 

Even in the winter? :ph34r:

 

Bluenoses are evil, Baley. Your duties as a paladin require you to support Celtic.

 

Yeah but my duties are also to help everyone and Rangers can change

[Reveilled]

That depends on whether or not you're a true Scotsman or not. The only thing under a true Scotsman's kilt is his socks and shoes.

 

Even in the winter? :ph34r:

 

Even in winter. Even in blowing wind.

 

Bluenoses are evil, Baley. Your duties as a paladin require you to support Celtic.

 

Yeah but my duties are also to help everyone and Rangers can change

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but if you become a ranger, you'll have to multiclass, thus losing the ability to gain any more levels in Paladin.

[Baley]

Even in winter. Even in blowing wind.

 

:ph34r: ...damn...it must really be cold...I wonder how they did it in the middle-ages :ph34r:

 

Ah, but if you become a ranger, you'll have to multiclass, thus losing the ability to gain any more levels in Paladin.

 

A paladin must do all it takes to protect others

[FaramirK]

pro-seperation of church and state

 

Good Thing.

 

social security

 

Good Thing.

 

narcotics.

 

Bad Thing.

[Reveilled]

pro-seperation of church and state

 

Good Thing.

 

Good thing.

 

social security

 

Good Thing.

 

Bad Thing.

 

narcotics.

 

Bad Thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bad thing, but none of the Government's business.

[Darth Flatus]

Social security is not bad, the govt has a social responsibilty to make sure nobody goes without food or shelter.

This has been abused by benefit fraudsters and the like but this isnt a good reason for abolition of social security, rather for the tightening of rules of eligibility.

 

If a person would like to dabble in narcotics in a manner that does not affect those around them (is this even possible?) then let them do what they want. However if a govt were to condone such actions by legalising all narcotics they would be in effect saying that healthwise its ok to take them.

[Reveilled]

Social security is not bad, the govt has a social responsibilty to make sure nobody goes without food or shelter.

This has been abused by benefit fraudsters and the like but this isnt a good reason for abolition of social security, rather for the tightening of rules of eligibility.

No, no it doesn't. The individual has a responsibility to make sure they don't go without food or shelter. If they fail, then no one should be forced to give them money.

 

If a person would like to dabble in narcotics in a manner that does not affect those around them (is this even possible?) then let them do what they want. However if a govt were to condone such actions by legalising all narcotics they would be in effect saying that healthwise its ok to take them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it wouldn't, it would be saying "It's your body, but don't come crying to us if you get yourself killed on them." People's health is their own responsibility. If you don't take care of yourself (as opposed to being unable to take care of yourself), then that's your problem.

 

 

In my not-so-humble opinion, anyway.

[Darth Flatus]

What about when people become unemployed or are made redundant, people who for whatever reason are genuinely unable to work. Would you deny them aid?

 

As for the drugs my caveat was "in a manner that does not affect those around them" when in reality it has a huge effect.

 

And in reality the healthcare burden for treating such addicts would increase.

 

I personally think you are giving too much credit to the individual's understanding of what they are doing to their body by using narcotics. There is a surfeit of information available detailing the ill effects of drugs yet people still use them often in ignorance or disbelief of this info.

[FaramirK]

No, no it doesn't.  The individual has a responsibility to make sure they don't go without food or shelter.  If they fail, then no one should be forced to give them money.

 

Very law of the Jungle-ish, but I see what you are saying. I personally believe that the government should cover military, public transportation, Hosptials and Crime. Thats it.

[Reveilled]

What about when people become unemployed or are made redundant, people who for whatever reason are genuinely unable to work. Would you deny them aid?

They should have been planning for that possibility. If I become unemployed, that is not the fault of some random person down the street, so why should said person have to give me money?

 

As for the drugs my caveat was "in a manner that does not affect those around them" when in reality it has a huge effect.

How? Are the addicts commiting other crimes? Then they should be locked up for those crimes. But if you could buy bottles of morphine at the chemists for

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Reveilled: what do you think about society? What is it's purpose, in your opinion? What your talking about sounds awfully lot like "every man for himself", and I'm not quite sure it goes along with the idea of society so I'd like to get your views on this.

[Oerwinde]

And in reality the healthcare burden for treating such addicts would increase.

Are you speaking of the burden on the NHS? Well, much as I see no reson for Joe Blow to pay for my unemployment, I see no reason why anyone but me should pay for my healthcare.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Health costs are the #1 cause of Bankruptcy in America. 80% of bankruptcies due to health costs are people with health insurance. Socialised health care IMO is the only way to go. It works pretty well in every country that has socialised health care.

 

As for unemployment, the way Canada handles it is you pay into it on every paycheck, the government invests that money so you gain interest for it as well, then if you happened to get laid off, or can't work due to injury(If you quit or are fired, you're inelligible) then you get a weekly income based on how much you paid into the unemployment fund. When you run out of money in the fund, you're **** out of luck. I think this is a much better way than trying to save money yourself, because 80%(number pulled out of ass) of people are incompetent when it comes to money, and thats not a good reason for them to be screwed over if they happen to get laid off.

 

As for Narcotics, you can't win the fight against drugs. All that money going into prohibition of drugs should go into harm reduction instead, such as safe injection sites, needle exchange, and drug education. Marijuana on the other hand should just be legalized and taxed like tobacco is.

[B5C]

Health costs are the #1 cause of Bankruptcy in America. 80% of bankruptcies due to health costs are people with health insurance. Socialised health care IMO is the only way to go. It works pretty well in every country that has socialised health care.

 

Im sorry, but I dont feel like waiting in line just have my leg check. If I have the money I can go to my own doctor.

 

As for unemployment, the way Canada handles it is you pay into it on every paycheck, the government invests that money so you gain interest for it as well, then if you happened to get laid off, or can't work due to injury(If you quit or are fired, you're inelligible) then you get a weekly income based on how much you paid into the unemployment fund. When you run out of money in the fund, you're **** out of luck. I think this is a much better way than trying to save money yourself, because 80%(number pulled out of ass) of people are incompetent when it comes to money, and thats not a good reason for them to be screwed over if they happen to get laid off.

 

There trying to do that in my state, but im sorry Social Secuirty, Medic care, and other taxes on my paycheck is too much.

 

As for Narcotics, you can't win the fight against drugs. All that money going into prohibition of drugs should go into harm reduction instead, such as safe injection sites, needle exchange, and drug education. Marijuana on the other hand should just be legalized and taxed like tobacco is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes lets make drugs legal so we wont have a problem sending addicts and sellers to prision.

 

Why dont we let murder legal because it will lower prison population and lower the murder rate?

[Darth Flatus]

for those that can afford medical insurance - great go for it, but i still think their should be a state funded option.

[B5C]

for those that can afford medical insurance - great go for it, but i still think their should be a state funded option.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I dont want to pay some else's medical bills. I have my own bills to take care of.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Im sorry, but I dont feel like waiting in line just have my leg check. If I have the money I can go to my own doctor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you happy to pay money and see the doctor quickly when others don't? It's a very unambitious view of society. I aspire to a world where everyone can get good treatment quickly, and am willing to pay to make it a reality.

[Darth Flatus]

i am suprised some ppl are so self centred.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

You are?

[Revan_2005]

i live in america.and if u ask me the liberals over here suck!.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah those damn liberals. If it wasn't for them you'd still have slavery! And no social security! Or Public schools! I mean, America is just better off without them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh please!!! if those liberals hadnt come in and screwed up everything we might not have the problems we do today.

[SteveThaiBinh]

oh please!!! if those liberals hadnt come in and screwed up everything we might not have the problems we do today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"come in"? Now that's interesting. Where do you think they came from? Were you there first? Was there anyone there before you, perchance?