Tories soft on immigration

[Pat494]

Poodles ? Poodles? Isn't that what the UK is to the USA - its' Poodle (Tony Benn, "Dare To Be a Daniel" Hutchinson 2004)

We are so low on the pecking order these days it's a toss-up whose b*ckside our lot are currently kissing

 

[Pat494]

TOUGH CHOICES

Oh great I see our do-gooder PM has given more millions away. Just got rid of the pink do-gooders and now lumbered with a Tory half-wit. Not that I don't feel sorry for those starving people but surely it is going to cost more of our people their jobs.

The PM is meant to work for this country, not Somalia etc. Britain shoulders more of the burden of the starving millions than any other country already. Feed the starving today and then there will be even more next time. If they stopped fighting and reproducing so much, they and we would both be better off. We have plenty in need of monetry assistance here.

Charity begins at home

 

[trendie]

Oh great, another kick at those least fortunate, mostly in the midst of horrors not of their making, and least capable of responding.
Certainly millions are sent. Put it into perspective of the billions being sent over to Ireland to shore up their tattered economy. More UK jobs lost over to the Emerald Isle than Somalia.

As to the "stop fighting", that's rich when we encourage "rebels" to continue fighting in places like Libya.
The "reproducing" comment shows a lack of socio-economic understanding that is staggering.

Your last vacuous statement was made a month ago.
If your profile didn't say you were male, one would think you were on some monthly cycle.
Spend some time understanding the macro principles at work, some not necessarily political in nature.
And cut back constant references to money all the time, lest one think you read the Daily Mail.
(something about knowing the price of everything, and the value of nothing.)

 

[Pat494]

Oh great, another kick at those least fortunate, mostly in the midst of horrors not of their making, and least capable of responding.
Certainly millions are sent. Put it into perspective of the billions being sent over to Ireland to shore up their tattered economy. More UK jobs lost over to the Emerald Isle than Somalia.

We have become a nation of do-gooding losers, helping with money we haven't got and does anyone applaud our generosity ? Not that I know of.

As to the "stop fighting", that's rich when we encourage "rebels" to continue fighting in places like Libya.

Again Cameron's initiative. Morally fine to help them gain their freedom from a monster called Gaddafi. But can we afford this as well ? Of course not, the Govt just adds it onto the already outstanding debts. NATO has run out of bombs it seems, which is probably just as well seeing how many civilians they have hit in Tripoli.


The "reproducing" comment shows a lack of socio-economic understanding that is staggering.

The world's population is set to double by 2050. There isn't enough food as it is, but you don't seem concerned. Perhaps you are an anti birth control nut ? The Lord said go forth and reproduce or some such. Well the situation has changed and so should all flat earthists and other dimwits. The land won't increase in size.

Your last vacuous statement was made a month ago.
If your profile didn't say you were male, one would think you were on some monthly cycle.
Spend some time understanding the macro principles at work, some not necessarily political in nature.
And cut back constant references to money all the time, lest one think you read the Daily Mail.

You seem to be an intelligent but misguided product of the British State school system where the children have been brain-washed by bankrupt left wing principles. A product of the hand-out, not my fault society as envisioned by Bevan etc

(something about knowing the price of everything, and the value of nothing.)

I would prefer to think of my philosophy as sensible and geared to survival of the home team, not the starry eyed nonsense from snake-oil salesmen. state spongers and crooked politicians

 

[trendie]

correlating "do-gooding" to "losing" doesn't work.
the corollary would be "evil winners".
there are large companies that give a poxy £2K to a charity, then spend ten times that amount on a PR campaign to promote their generosity. the now dated Red Nose Day or Children in Need show this to be the case.
why would you need any thanks? if you give with the expectation of thanks, then the basis for the generosity is on very shaky ground. you give because you believe in it.

There are bigger and scarier monsters to get. South Korea for example. Nor do we want to upset the monsters in Saudi Arabia. But we seem to want to fight the low-hanging fruit in Libya.

I have not been brain-washed. I am quite capable of assessing information, acquiring info from multiple sources, including foreign sources, to get a multi-dimensional view before deciding. True, I am a state schooler. Your inference I support no-fault, hand-out, left-wing beliefs is a false assumption.
I refuse to be apologetic for considering the human costs above that of abstract policies.

Now, onto the bit that caused my ire; population.
People in developing countries don't have kids because they are sex-mad.
It is because the women are not in control of their own fertility.
Coupled with this is illiteracy, and therefore access to information and resources.
The reason there is such a high number of pregnancies is because they have a high infant mortality.
A very large number of children die before the age of 5 through mostly water-borne diseases.
They have large families because they anticipate many of their kids to die before reaching maturity.
A bit like the typhoid, cholera, diptheria, tuberculosis and polio infested Victorians. Victorians also had large families. Because they experienced a high infant mortality.
Once they could confidently have children, through vaccinations, clean water and better healthcare, knowing their kids would reach adulthood, family sizes fell; to such an extent we now have fewer children than are needed to support the aged.
In light of lack of resources, people become the resource.
There is a whole set of aspects relating to lack of social services and healthcare in developing countries which I wont go into.

EDIT: In light of lack of resources, people become the resource.
The world population may well double. But not in the western nations. Only in developing countries.
Give them clean water, vaccinations, and healthcare, equal rights giving women the rights over their bodies, those countries might slow up.
Take India as a microcosm for example.
The rural regions still have large families, high infant mortality, and population growth puts stress on the land.
The urban areas of educated Indians with better health access etc, the "new middle class", have smaller families.

 

[trendie]

and by the way, Pat494, some of my earlier remarks were unnecessarily personal and uncalled for.

for those remarks, I apologise.

 

[neil]

correlating "do-gooding" to "losing" doesn't work.
the corollary would be "evil winners".
there are large companies that give a poxy £2K to a charity, then spend ten times that amount on a PR campaign to promote their generosity. the now dated Red Nose Day or Children in Need show this to be the case.
why would you need any thanks? if you give with the expectation of thanks, then the basis for the generosity is on very shaky ground. you give because you believe in it.

There are bigger and scarier monsters to get. South Korea for example. Nor do we want to upset the monsters in Saudi Arabia. But we seem to want to fight the low-hanging fruit in Libya.

I have not been brain-washed. I am quite capable of assessing information, acquiring info from multiple sources, including foreign sources, to get a multi-dimensional view before deciding. True, I am a state schooler. Your inference I support no-fault, hand-out, left-wing beliefs is a false assumption.
I refuse to be apologetic for considering the human costs above that of abstract policies.

Now, onto the bit that caused my ire; population.
People in developing countries don't have kids because they are sex-mad.
It is because the women are not in control of their own fertility.
Coupled with this is illiteracy, and therefore access to information and resources.
The reason there is such a high number of pregnancies is because they have a high infant mortality.
A very large number of children die before the age of 5 through mostly water-borne diseases.
They have large families because they anticipate many of their kids to die before reaching maturity.
A bit like the typhoid, cholera, diptheria, tuberculosis and polio infested Victorians. Victorians also had large families. Because they experienced a high infant mortality.
Once they could confidently have children, through vaccinations, clean water and better healthcare, knowing their kids would reach adulthood, family sizes fell; to such an extent we now have fewer children than are needed to support the aged.
In light of lack of resources, people become the resource.
There is a whole set of aspects relating to lack of social services and healthcare in developing countries which I wont go into.

EDIT: In light of lack of resources, people become the resource.
The world population may well double. But not in the western nations. Only in developing countries.
Give them clean water, vaccinations, and healthcare, equal rights giving women the rights over their bodies, those countries might slow up.
Take India as a microcosm for example.
The rural regions still have large families, high infant mortality, and population growth puts stress on the land.
The urban areas of educated Indians with better health access etc, the "new middle class", have smaller families.

Add on the wars that affect most of these regions and you quickly learn that famine usually follows war - the big cause of much death in these countries

 

[Vorbis]

...geared to survival of the home team

Isn't the definition of the 'home team' somewhat fluid, artificial and subjective? The more exclusive it becomes, the greater the apparent threat from 'outside'. Survival may benefit more from co-operation than competition.

South Korea for example.

Sure you don't mean North? Always thought the South Koreans were reasonably inoffensive.

 

[Pat494]

Isn't the definition of the 'home team' somewhat fluid, artificial and subjective? The more exclusive it becomes, the greater the apparent threat from 'outside'. Survival may benefit more from co-operation than competition.

Survival means surviving and if this involves more cooperation with outsiders then that's the way to go. Successful groups have much more leeway and better choices. imho

Sure you don't mean North? Always thought the South Koreans were reasonably inoffensive.

I think he probably means North K

 

[Pat494]

There is a growing movement in Europe called " The Freedom Party "

Not sure what their policies are but they don't like the idea of lots of muslims moving into Vienna, Cologne etc. building mosques.

There is a dark side undercurrent still alive in Europe from which the Nazis drew a lot of support. Hopefully they aren't in to the same genocide, starting wars, persecution etc.

Immigration should be limited to guest workers who go home after their visas expire and then the nasty Nationalists won't get so much support. imho.

 

[Atilla]

There is a growing movement in Europe called " The Freedom Party "

Not sure what their policies are but they don't like the idea of lots of muslims moving into Vienna, Cologne etc. building mosques.

There is a dark side undercurrent still alive in Europe from which the Nazis drew a lot of support. Hopefully they aren't in to the same genocide, starting wars, persecution etc.

Immigration should be limited to guest workers who go home after their visas expire and then the nasty Nationalists won't get so much support. imho.

This is really silly.

All these countries could stop the immigration influx at the drop of a hat if they really wanted too.

Truth of the matter is - pretty much all advanced countries have declining popullation growth and impending pension crises. They are also lazy gits who need foreigners to do the dirty work.

Churning the same ol ****. One only has to look at the public services to see who work there for peanuts.

Foreigners are the hardest work bread and butter of our core services. The black economy also contributes far more than it consumes. Fat cat and endegenous popullation are the biggest scroungers being paid stupid sums of money for FA work.


Are here any elections near by... :whistling