Styxx wrote:Sorry for the massive post, I do love political discussions. I'm quite into (sensible) religious ones too, for some reason, if anyone fancies starting one.

That would be here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2864

What does everyone think about the Get Out Of My Country You Don't Have Enough Points scheme?


Rather grand if you ask me.

Holy Crap! Lions! wrote:

MartinC wrote:There's so many things that are right with this country. Off the top of my head - the NHS.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*gasp*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Idiot.

Bad-mouthing the NHS is an offence that I tend to punish with a punch in the mouth. Mainly because, unlike most people, I need it... a lot. Having had a liver transplant, I need to take pricey drugs that basically only the mega-rich can afford (Mycophenolate Mofetil cost £15 per pill when it came out) . Instead of paying the best part of £30, 000 per annum, I pay £100.

My wallet and I rather enjoy that fact.

I'm assuming your response to Martin's pro-NHS rhetoric stems from the fact that you think watching a Tonight With Trevor McDonald on MRSA makes you knowledgable on the matter. It doesn't and you come off as a complete tit.

Sort your life out.

Harry should be doing things retro.

Get on a horse.Grab a sword. And lead his men into battle.

The enemy wont know what hit them!

CHARGEEEEEEEE!

But other then that, I couldnt care less what he does over there. This must be a bigger thrill then doing drugs... being in danger every second.

Holy Crap! Lions! wrote:

Dian Wei wrote:Yeah don't actually attempt to explain yourself in any sense, just make annoying and mocking posts. That will ender you to our hearts and we shall hold parades honouring your superior wisdom.

As for the NHS? The organisation that had hundreds of billions pumped into it to make it more efficient (with efficiency declining by 2/3rds as a result), with no future and a whole myriad of deep, serious problems? I mock anybody who cites it as an example of why this country is good.

The UK is in the top 8 richest countries in the world, yet our standard of living is among the worst in the West. Explain to me what makes this country a better place to live in than France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Austria or Denmark?

Stop being a fucking fanny.

'Boo hoo! I'm seventeen and have seen Bowling for Columbine. I want to highlight the ills of society because I've nothing better to complain about.'

Do you think Britain would be any better off today had the NHS not been created?

The reason our standard of living is supposedly the worst in Western Europe is that we're all pie-munching lard-arses. France and Germany aside, none of the countries you list there have a modicum of sway in international relations vis-a-vis the UK. Sure, the UK isn't perfect, but we have Emmerdale and The Smiths.

What has Belgium ever given the world? The First World War? New Zealand? Lord of the Rings? Australia?

Chocolate.

And they have really nice cakes!

Belgium buns and belguim waffles.. WIN!

i failed this first post, damn new forum

Styxx wrote:Generally I don't really see what difference having a monarch has to any of our lives directly. The way I see it is it's nice to have a figurehead for the country, something to be proud and patriotic about. A lot of countries have this. Statue of Liberty anyone? Yes the British conquered weaker countries unfairly and made the British Empire, but that was centuries ago, and it was at a time when that was basically the way things went. Had Britain not done that, some other country would almost definately have. Many advancements were made in technology and philosophy and various other subject areas in the British Empire, although probably not as many/large as those of the Roman Empire. Plus the British Empire basically freed all the countries and turned them into the British Commonwelth. Again, I'm not certain if I have the right handle on this, but the way I understand it is that we still have some presence over these countries, but with a MUCH looser grip on them, basically letting them get on with their own stuff. I know we seem to meddle with other countries' politics, which I personally have a basic disagreement with, but the way I see it is that the British govenment does this with good intentions to help.

Sorry for the massive post, I do love political discussions. I'm quite into (sensible) religious ones too, for some reason, if anyone fancies starting one.

The British government will only help as long as there is little chance it could impact badly on them. Huge tariffs are placed on processed raw materials, in order to protect Britains secondary employment sector, which at the same time keeps former colonies from developing.

I just experienced my first teething problem with the new forum (it logged me out).

Lions! your point on the NHS seriously demanded better elaboration that caps-locked lols. The NHS is deteriorating alarmingly and the bulk of the problems is due to government tampering and poor funding. I think Martin mentioned the NHS as a British tradition and was referring to it in general terms and not specifically about the here and now.

Whoever said Michael Moore is a fat, bullshitting cuntbag is right. Over-sentimentalising and condescending. Bastard. Also, his bias is so stupid - he's far too anti-Republican that he hardly touches the Democrats. Supporting John Kerry, what a nob.

Styxx. Bad take on the class system, in my opinion. I speak as a middle class man and it appears to me the most anti-class come from a similar background ie, educated, reasonably well-off and socially critical people (though not necessarily intelligent). Also, if looking at the class system politically, rather than socially, the problems become more apparent or debatable.

Regarding your position on the 'privilege' issue, I have to say I somewhat agree with you. There is little difference between the fortunate position of Richard Branson's children and royalty. However, one issue is to do with capitalism and the other is to do with a more disagreeable form of elitism. While I may disagree with the mechanics of the system that allow the wealthy to perpetuate wealth while the poor have to persevere to achieve any form of economic well-being (whilst needing an awful lot of luck on their side), it can be at least argued that Richard Branson and his relations 'earned' their position of privilege.
By contrast, the position of Royalty is based solely on tradition and is automatic rather than earned. While a wealthy family may become poor, such an idea regarding the royals is inconceivable. Regardless of who you are, I think most can see why this can be seen, in this day and age, an unjust part of our society.

James: I feel you have a fairly romantic view of anything British. The royalty are harmless and are pleasant piece of nostalgic culture. The Empire was inevitable and the Brits can't really be blamed for slaughtering a whole bucket-load of people and exploiting their lands and resources. I do agree that we cannot really moralise that era by our modern standards but I think we should try and correct what can now be seen as exploitative measures rather than looking at this time with any form of romanticism. EVEN religion doesn't suffer your criticisms.

I'm pretty sure I had other points to make but I'll leave it there.

I don't think my summary of the Empire reads as romantic at all - I acknowledged there was considerable suffering at the receiving end of empire, but simply pointed out that to represent it as some racist conquest from the outset is just plain wrong, and is in fact guilty of "anti-romance", for want of a better term.

A historian whose name I really, REALLY should remember has written that the empire was acquired in "a fit of absence of mind", through the pursuit of scattered trade interests. Trying to paint the entirety of imperial history as one big juggernought of oppression and deliberate tyranny just smacks of sensationalist leftism.

James wrote:

William Morton wrote:Fuck the Royal Family. CUNTS.

You're the cunt mate. Fuck off.

I started this topic and it's gone red hot with like 7 pages in two days. You yourself are writing novels on this thread and you tell me to 'fuck off'. Your the cunt mate. Do you want people to feel like they can enter this forum of yours and have a bash or would you rather have a dick sucking club?

How can you be such an idiot.

I'm responding with intelligent answers to the very topic you began; you are making worthless and obscene comments in your own thread.

Feel free to 'have a bash' you tosser, but try doing so with more words than I can count on one hand, not including "fuck off" and "cunt".

Right on James, William Morton, you talk the talk, you do not talk the talk vis a vis, you are not properly qualified to post on ukthrash.co.uk.