Posts by Red Dragon

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    So nothing constructive to say then.


    This is a constructive thread and people just saying no are not welcome


    Paul

    I am not just saying NO, I am saying why it's NO. As others have already pointed out people are generally selfish and so a voluntary system will not work because the majority of people will not volunteer to pay their supposed dues.


    Notwithstanding the usual attitude to anything that isn't critical of any colour other than red when it comes to blaming the "oppressors of the many", I'm not surprised to see that anyone with a contrary view to that majority is being shut down.


    I now consider myself shut down and leave will you all to blame everyone else for the ills of this society as I much prefer to do something about any bad situation that I find myself in rather than just wallow in misery and apathy waiting for someone else to sort things out for me.

    No, whether we like it or not and whether or not we think that the "rich" pay enough tax, the reality of the current tax regime means that 50% of the population are paying 90% of the tax and the top 1% of payers contribute more than 25% - so says the IFS.


    Human nature, across the income spectrum, suggests many would find a reason not to contribute their fair share. After all, there are people at all levels of society doing their best to cheat the country now. Voluntary contribtions would just make it legal for them to do so.

    Credit to Hagrid, at least he tries to explain where he's coming from. Why on earth do you think you can come here and piss on other people's views and troll threads without even saying what your allegiences or politics actually consist of?



    What on earth does my politics have to do with anything? You may not like my views and that's fine and I don't have to like yours and rhythm's either. For the most part, all of your railing about the system is nothing more than that and is largely unsupported by facts and yet you accuse me of writing sound bites.

    However, as a sop to your curiosity, here is the end result of my Political Compass test. Make of it what you will.


    https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-7.25&soc=-2.62


    Why so eager to draw conclusions about my political affiliations, is it because you won't grasp that I am critical of all the half-truths that politicians spout?

    For example, many on here appear to feel that JC is the bee's knees and people get uncomfortable when it's pointed out that he is far too economical with the truth. I would point this out whatever his political affiliation.

    If you wish to label the pointing out of inaccuracies as trolling, I can't stop you but will point out that is a form of censorship.

    Well Chazz and rhythm, you are welcome to draw whatever conclusions you wish about my politics and I shall return the favour. As to coming out of the closet with regard to my political allegiance, I shall let you do what have done so far and jump to your own conclusions based, as you suggest, solely on my sound bites.


    Here's my generalisation for the day.


    Just my sixpence worth but you are living in cloud cuckoo land and, because it's my generalisation, I'm not going to waste my time explaining why. :whistle::)



    :reddevil:

    All of this debate and yet no one has offered a clue as to who is actually funding these terrorists and why.


    Parallel with that aspect, my understanding, perhaps faulty, of why this is happening is because the Koran says that's how True Muslims should treat infidels and the terrorists see themselves as True Muslims.


    Quote

    Dictionary definition = Infidel is a term used in certain religions for those accused of unbelief in the central tenets of their own religion, for members of another religion, or for the irreligious.


    More moderate commentary on the Koran says "However, even during the war, Islam has the highest moral law of war. You don't kill children, women or any one who is not fighting with you."


    Seems to me that like most things in life, things get interpreted to suit a particular point of view.


    p.s. I haven't offered a clue because I haven't a clue who's funding them, well no hard facts.

    Britain First Christian Patrol...



    Not sure that anyone understood this as a truly Christian Patrol, did they? BF appear to have put these patrols together to "offer" a response to the Islam Patrols and then used the cover of being a Christian Patrol to "get in the face of Muslims".


    For those reasons, I don't think it fair to equate something which has tried to give itself a Christian veneer with something that is a true belief, albeit misguided; at least as far as the moderates are concerned.

    Why should they? Nobody calls out for Christians to do something about the KKK or the Army of God etc. They don't take to the streets to distance themselves from Britain First or the EDL, saying that these aren't real christians.


    Just like Christians and Jews, a lot of muslims don't give really observe their religion that closely - they smoke, drink, gamble, work on their holy days and do whatever they need to make a living -- some may go to the mosque, and some observe their prayer times, but generally speaking they're just ordinary people doing their thing.


    If you have the time to check out what Christians have done about the KKK, you will discover the KKK is now a tiny shadow of what it once was. Army of God, not so much as the AoG is an organisation that purports to be pro-life and so many Americans feel, on some level, that they are right; after all they are supposedly a Christian nation (for the moment).


    As to the EDL and BF, I'm not aware that they promote themselves as being Christian, only anti-almost everything that isn't British and I would be very surprised if they didn't have a lot of sympathisers who are not prepared to publically support them.


    Radical Islamists are, supposedly, a small minority abhored by the majority of Muslims and, on that basis alone, I, for one, still want to know why that majority appear to do little about those in the process of being radicalised.


    One thing many seem to ignore as a reason why the Muslim community ought to be more involved is that many of those being radicalised actually live with their moderate Muslims families. I find it difficult to understand how so many of these moderate familes "have no idea that their child(ren) are being got at".


    I would also like to know why, when we are told that there are radical clerics on the Watch List, those clerics are still in this country and why if they are suspected to be radical when applying for entry they are allowed in? If the answer is so the security services can keep a closer eye on them and their followers, I want to know why it seems to be the people they've had on their Watch List who are involved in these acts.

    The Lord's Resistance Army are a christian terrorist group responsible for widespread atrocities.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army


    Strangely we don't see christians being asked to apologise for their actions.


    I am taking a wild guess here as I don't have a definitive answer.


    However, my guess is that, like myself, you have no idea what the reaction is in Africa to the LRA?


    BTW, I don't see how you bringing in the LRA meshes with my response to your

    Quote

    Originally Posted by grumble
    Ever read the Old Testament?

    Ever read the Old Testament?


    Yes and it espouses many currently unacceptable practices and I am not aware of anyone carrying out any of them - or did I miss something?


    What I am aware of is the radical Jews in Israel doing their "best" to regain the whole land of Israel. What I am not aware of is them having suicide bombers that they send out to other parts of the world to make their point.

    Whilst on the subject of the radical interpretation of Islam, the life of Mohammed is a jaw dropping and The Koran does actually have many things contained within it that support the radical versions of Islamic behaviour; it also has, of course, lots of contradictory far more positive bits. As to the Ahadith, they confuse the issues still further.


    Like so many things in this world, it all depends on where you stand as to the "view" that you get.


    Not that I, in any way, support what these radicals are up to. However I do have a phrase that I very strongly believe in and have found largely to be true - Violence is the last resort of a defeated mind.


    Paragraph 1 + 3 = 100% agree :thumbup:


    Paragraph 2 = It's a question I've been asking for years but I've still seen no evidence that the Muslim communities are doing anything about it and I continue to ask myself and them why not.


    Paragraph 4 = Please don't mix up what these terrorists are doing with racism. The religious undertones of these acts have nothing to do with racism. These terrorists come from many different nations, including white skinned Brits, and what they espouse has nothing to do with anything other than their radicalised interpretation of their religious book of instructions = The Koran.


    No option to vote none of the above but people can make exactly that point by drawing a line through their ballot paper. If people don't do that, how will anyone know that someone despises all the candidates rather than them just being too lazy to vote?


    p.s. wonder if folk can guess the way that I am likely to vote? No, NOT Tory. :whistle:

    just wondered if your statements highlighted above in red have been thoroughly tested, costed, proven ? they look like sweeping generalisations as theoretical as my own really :angel: hugs and kisses tho


    Here we go, taking the total wealth of $75,000,000,000,000 and dividing it between the 6,800,000,000 people on the planet works out as a one-off payment for every man, woman and child of $11,000 and that's the end of that. :pp:whistle::eek::reddevil:


    Quote

    That figure is around $60 trillion. And the last figure, the $75 trillion M3, is much more abstract and not often cited in official figures. It includes institutional money market funds, long term deposits, and other stuff rich people possess that can somehow be spent but confuses the rest of us.


    Hug Sheep-100x97.gif 

    "cash" is just "cash" a man made up way of barter,there is riches enough for everyone,but first we MUST look after everyone,no exclusions,no excuses.


    :peace:


    Not afraid of the odd (or the even) four letter word and so I will watch it later. ;)


    Whilst your sentiments are noble, I need to see at least some theoretical proof as even I appreciate empirical proof is impossible. There have been an awful lot of uplifting sentiments expressed on here but nothing approaching realism.


    Aha, I'm with you now but not with you now. :insane:


    As I suggested, I agree with your points about exploitation but nowhere in there is a sign that people should be doing what's best for them within their personal capabilities. For example, no one says that people must buy convenience foods or eat fast foods but far too many people choose to do both and, as a result, often become obese and with obesity, amongst many possible side-effects, comes the possibility of developing diabetes. I might even suggest that these folk are actually being selfish and greedy.


    Back to my affordability question. As far as I am concerned, even if we could remove all of the exploitation from the world, there would still not be enough "cash" to provide all of the services and support that people either need or feel that they need. That's why I asked - Without infinite resources, how big do we make the safety net?


    Lagom is a great concept and the thought that "happy with less, there is enough for everyone" might work is very tempting just not realistic. Having said that, any movement towards that goal is a step in the right direction but who and what gets priority whilst we are on the road less travelled?


    Taking just one aspect, the NHS carried out 150 heart transplants last audit at a cost, excluding pre and post op care costs, that would have allowed them to do an additional 15,000 hip replacements. Given that it is not possible to do all of those operations, how many of each should the NHS do and how do you choose who dies? Moving to the silly end of the scale, 1 hip operation or 100 ingrowing toenails?


    However much you rein in the greedy people and redistribute the money, the pot is still finite and my question rears its ugly head - Without infinite resources, how big do we make the safety net?

    Historically it's right wing governments that create higher deficits. See during Reagan's, Thatcher's era. More recently the Tories have doubled public debt that took 15 years for Labour to create. Not to defend Labour, because they're dead, but just to clarify the point.


    A bit of context might show the real reasons for the ups and downs of our deficit since WWII


    I think Vertical is just angry.. and passionate .. When you get backed into a corner and all you get is pushed farther and farther into that corner until you cant breath anymore and what is expected of you is unrealistic and how the powers that be give you options to make your life better or unrealistic ways out of the cuts they are making.. its like one foot is nailed to the floor and you just go round and round in a little circle with no way of breaking that cycle.. and believe me I have looked at every aspect of my life and tried to fathom a way out and under the tories, there is no way out.. not a realistic way, not an ideal way .. for me.. and I put me before anyone else these days.. am not doing it, if its not right for me..


    So I can understand why Vertical is perhaps coming across this way..


    Small point CT but that post of mine that you replied to was my reply to RoadAngel, not verticalis48.

    Ah I am not sweetness and light indeed. I believe that fighting must be done - not to mame or injure but to enable retreat and reflection. Careful warrior-ing.


    Whatever your party allegiance, where does "Careful warrior-ing" cross the line into hate and/or violence and how does anyone decide where to draw that line?


    To my jaundiced view, all the posts in this thread show a tendency towards the belief that "my party will lead us to salvation". Reality suggests to me that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, particularly when hypocricy and obfuscation is alive and well across all the parties.