Chach Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 5 hours ago, Palfy said: The government said that the biggest problem for the country in the coming year’s, was finding the budget to look after the needs of the elderly and infirm, they have now found the solution let them die. Its can't be good for your mental health to go around thinking half of the population have a psychopathology that results in them being indifferent to the death of their elder relatives, Palfy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 36 minutes ago, Chach said: Its can't be good for your mental health to go around thinking half of the population have a psychopathology that results in them being indifferent to the death of their elder relatives, Palfy. Some of those elder were lambs who voted for the slaughter. People are easily brain washed but they should still be held accountable. Half a country is no better than the Germans of 1940. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 6 hours ago, Chach said: Its can't be good for your mental health to go around thinking half of the population have a psychopathology that results in them being indifferent to the death of their elder relatives, Palfy. There’s a lot going on around in this world that isn’t good for a lot of people’s mental health, children being blown up in senseless wars that suits countries far away, children dying from starvation when there’s enough food in the world to feed them, do you think that people who have the powers to stop this really care about a few hundred thousand old people who can be taken off the social care program if they die. And it’s not half the population that are making the decisions on what is or isn’t done anywhere that I know of, so how did you come up with half the population? And it would only be detrimental to my health physical or mental if I just ignored it, but as Pete mentioned I’m not a lamb which gives me a conscience to see the mismanagement of what’s happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 37 minutes ago, Palfy said: do you think that people who have the powers to stop this really care about a few hundred thousand old people who can be taken off the social care program if they die. Given our entire financial system is pretty much geared up to the passing of wealth from the younger generations to the older generations, who are probably the richest generation who have ever lived on this planet, I am thinking all evidence points to them caring. So as a thought experiment lay it out for me, if our strategy is that we should stop at nothing to save every single life no matter what the cost, what does it look like assuming a vaccine is 1 year away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 10 minutes ago, Chach said: Given our entire financial system is pretty much geared up to the passing of wealth from the younger generations to the older generations, who are probably the richest generation who have ever lived on this planet, I am thinking all evidence points to them caring. So as a thought experiment lay it out for me, if our strategy is that we should stop at nothing to save every single life no matter what the cost, what does it look like assuming a vaccine is 1 year away. Are you advocating letting people die until a vaccine is found because that is the cheaper option, and in this country my friend there are more pensioners living below or just above the poverty line that don’t form part of your so called richest generation. Obviously this may not be the case in Australia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Palfy said: Are you advocating letting people die until a vaccine is found because that is the cheaper option, and in this country my friend there are more pensioners living below or just above the poverty line that don’t form part of your so called richest generation. Obviously this may not be the case in Australia. How many times are you going to dodge the question Palfy,? Lay off the emotional mind reading and lay it out: If our strategy is that we should stop at nothing to save every single life no matter what the cost, what does it look like assuming a vaccine is 1 year away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 20 minutes ago, Chach said: How many times are you going to dodge the question Palfy,? Lay off the emotional mind reading and lay it out: If our strategy is that we should stop at nothing to save every single life no matter what the cost, what does it look like assuming a vaccine is 1 year away. I don’t have a magic ball and I couldn’t tell you what the world would look like in a years time even if there was no virus. But I will say every life is worth fighting for and the money is there, but instead we live in a society were we think it’s more acceptable to spend billions upon billions to leave the EU than save as many life’s as possible. So are you still advocating letting people die until such time as a vaccine is found, the good old Tory mantra of profits before life’s. So taking the emotional aspect out of it why would you let people die, because that’s where the clever money is, I don’t know you tell me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 46 minutes ago, Palfy said: what the world would look like in a years time This is what I am interested in, I am not advocating for anything except what the best solution for everyone might look like. What I do know is that our economies and financial systems have been evolving for about 10k years since the discovery of agriculture, there's certain things we need to sustain life and we have a monetary system whereby we exchange labour/time/products to get the money to buy the things we need to sustain life for ourselves and our loved ones. It's not a perfect system because it's human but it's the one we have. Out of that system the government takes a share redistributes it to where they think its best used to maintain things, provide a welfare safety net for people who can't get money to buy things that sustain life and to provide public services. The thing about money is that it's not a real thing, it's a social construct and it's only worth something if you have a good system where people think your money's worth something, see Zimbabwe* for what happens when people think it's not. If we were to stop all non essential economic activity (food and medicine) for a year the governments revenue will be decimated, governments raise money other than from tax through the issuing of debt, who would buy the debt of a country with no economy*? People will definitely die under that scenario also. We currently have a pandemic and a GFC 2.0 and currently we're staying at home, it's a good idea to slow the spread of the virus because sick people are unproductive anyway but what is the actual plan? I don't think we can hide from it for a year without social unrest the likes of which we have never seen before, change my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 42 minutes ago, Chach said: This is what I am interested in, I am not advocating for anything except what the best solution for everyone might look like. What I do know is that our economies and financial systems have been evolving for about 10k years since the discovery of agriculture, there's certain things we need to sustain life and we have a monetary system whereby we exchange labour/time/products to get the money to buy the things we need to sustain life for ourselves and our loved ones. It's not a perfect system because it's human but it's the one we have. Out of that system the government takes a share redistributes it to where they think its best used to maintain things, provide a welfare safety net for people who can't get money to buy things that sustain life and to provide public services. The thing about money is that it's not a real thing, it's a social construct and it's only worth something if you have a good system where people think your money's worth something, see Zimbabwe* for what happens when people think it's not. If we were to stop all non essential economic activity (food and medicine) for a year the governments revenue will be decimated, governments raise money other than from tax through the issuing of debt, who would buy the debt of a country with no economy*? People will definitely die under that scenario also. We currently have a pandemic and a GFC 2.0 and currently we're staying at home, it's a good idea to slow the spread of the virus because sick people are unproductive anyway but what is the actual plan? I don't think we can hide from it for a year without social unrest the likes of which we have never seen before, change my mind. Well you haven’t changed mine, and the world working together can achieve more than you give it credit for. Food and medicine are essential making cars and building houses aren’t for a year, along with many other activities which are still happening. What a pointless comparison in Zimbabwe how is there any comparison to what Zimbabwe did to itself unilaterally, to what’s happening now globally, the world can help each other financially to get over this, people’s lives will be effected financially, but ask anyone who loses a family member or a good friend what’s more important saving life’s or saving a life style, you seem to think that by stopping non essential companies and trying to save every life possible the world is going to end, well don’t worry it won’t you’re taxes may go up for a number of years, you’re pension will most definitely take a big hit, but you and your family will stand a better chance to survive this which is a bonus better than being the richest man in the graveyard, because you were scared to take the tough decisions because they may or may not impact on you in a years time. My belief is you do what’s right now even if it has financial implications, and if that causes problems further down the line you cross them bridges when you get to them, but you don’t leave people behind to die to pay for your future And I don’t want try to change your mind if you can live with your decision not try and save everyone possible because of costs, then we are poles apart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 14 minutes ago, Palfy said: Well you haven’t changed mine, and the world working together can achieve more than you give it credit for. Food and medicine are essential making cars and building houses aren’t for a year, along with many other activities which are still happening. What a pointless comparison in Zimbabwe how is there any comparison to what Zimbabwe did to itself unilaterally, to what’s happening now globally, the world can help each other financially to get over this, people’s lives will be effected financially, but ask anyone who loses a family member or a good friend what’s more important saving life’s or saving a life style, you seem to think that by stopping non essential companies and trying to save every life possible the world is going to end, well don’t worry it won’t you’re taxes may go up for a number of years, you’re pension will most definitely take a big hit, but you and your family will stand a better chance to survive this which is a bonus better than being the richest man in the graveyard, because you were scared to take the tough decisions because they may or may not impact on you in a years time. My belief is you do what’s right now even if it has financial implications, and if that causes problems further down the line you cross them bridges when you get to them, but you don’t leave people behind to die to pay for your future And I don’t want try to change your mind if you can live with your decision not try and save everyone possible because of costs, then we are poles apart Honestly Palfy, you've said absolutely fuck all there. The world will not run on platitudes. Google the word "dialectic" then have a good hard look at yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 19 minutes ago, Chach said: Honestly Palfy, you've said absolutely fuck all there. The world will not run on platitudes. Google the word "dialectic" then have a good hard look at yourself. I didn’t change your mind then to be expected really, you need to simplify things it’s not as hard as you think, you stop putting money before lives and yourself and the options become far clearer, that doing what ever it takes to stop people dying is the most important thing. The world and their economies will change with a changing economic situation, they always have and always will don’t panic about money it won’t be the end of us, but be concerned about this virus and try to make sure you’re government take every precaution even the hard ones that you don’t like to stop it spreading and killing more people than necessary, we may regret it if we don’t. pete0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 On 27/03/2020 at 15:57, Matt said: I usually agree with you, but half of not most of them have been part of the problem over the past decade. Yes I agree; May especially was a disaster but I think she would do a better job on Corona. Johnson is just a really low bar. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/opinion/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson.html Britain needs a leader, not a joker. Palfy, pete0 and Romey 1878 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 8 minutes ago, holystove said: Yes I agree; May especially was a disaster but I think she would do a better job on Corona. Johnson is just a really low bar. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/opinion/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson.html Britain needs a leader, not a joker. At a minimum he should be in cell come the end of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 12 minutes ago, holystove said: Yes I agree; May especially was a disaster but I think she would do a better job on Corona. Johnson is just a really low bar. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/opinion/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson.html Britain needs a leader, not a joker. That article is correct in every statement it makes, I urge all who believe BJ is the right person to steer us through this to please read the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 41 minutes ago, holystove said: Yes I agree; May especially was a disaster but I think she would do a better job on Corona. Johnson is just a really low bar. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/opinion/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson.html Britain needs a leader, not a joker. I don’t think she, or anyone else would, for reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. Curious why you think she would though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted March 28, 2020 Report Share Posted March 28, 2020 29 minutes ago, holystove said: Yes I agree; May especially was a disaster but I think she would do a better job on Corona. Johnson is just a really low bar. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/opinion/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson.html Britain needs a leader, not a joker. Being picky the Falstaff/Henry V analogy doesn't work because Henry V was (if we're referencing Shakespeare which I'm sure the writer is) an indolent drunk and Falstaff's great mate when Prince of Wales; then he stepped up. I'd still rather have him in charge than Trump though, like I'd rather Erich Honecker over Pol Pot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted March 29, 2020 Report Share Posted March 29, 2020 11 hours ago, Matt said: I don’t think she, or anyone else would, for reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. Curious why you think she would though? As mentioned in the article, he wasn't serious about the severity of the virus. As late as March he was talking about shaking hands in hospitals with Corona patients. May wouldn't have done that, she certainly wouldn't have boasted about it. He sent out all the wrong signals when it was clear countries with as good or better health care services as the UK were already failing. May didn't surround herselves with exceptionalists like Cummings who pushed for a different approach (herd immunity) to the rest of the world as they assumed to be smarter. There are times when it is not relevant to push people to think outside the box. May would have put fighting Corona first, Boris always weighs up if it doesn't hurt brexit. Mike is right, he's better than Trump.. but that's about it. pete0, Romey 1878 and MikeO 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 29, 2020 Report Share Posted March 29, 2020 18 minutes ago, holystove said: As mentioned in the article, he wasn't serious about the severity of the virus. As late as March he was talking about shaking hands in hospitals with Corona patients. May wouldn't have done that, she certainly wouldn't have boasted about it. He sent out all the wrong signals when it was clear countries with as good or better health care services as the UK were already failing. May didn't surround herselves with exceptionalists like Cummings who pushed for a different approach (herd immunity) to the rest of the world as they assumed to be smarter. There are times when it is not relevant to push people to think outside the box. May would have put fighting Corona first, Boris always weighs up if it doesn't hurt brexit. Mike is right, he's better than Trump.. but that's about it. She might’ve said she’d put it first, but would’ve dilly-dallied just as long whilst surrounding herself with incompetents rather than exceptionalists. The message that we can do it better than anyone was sent out years ago with the referendum. I think Boris was using the “keep calm and carry on” approach to buy time because it was the only tool he had available. He fucked up just as pretty much any politician would’ve considering the mess the Tory’s have created over a decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted March 29, 2020 Report Share Posted March 29, 2020 12 minutes ago, holystove said: May would have put fighting Corona first, Boris always weighs up if it doesn't hurt brexit. Your right and on here it is the hardened Brexiteers who are backing him to the hilt, and if to prove my point brought Brexit into the argument in the first place. I think it was you that put forward a host of names that could do a better job than him, which in all honesty wasn’t hard for you to do, then straight away you were attacked on the Brexit issue, when we are talking about trying to lead the country in a responsible way against the virus, Brexiteers or more concerned it doesn’t effect Brexit in anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted March 29, 2020 Report Share Posted March 29, 2020 32 minutes ago, Matt said: She might’ve said she’d put it first, but would’ve dilly-dallied just as long whilst surrounding herself with incompetents rather than exceptionalists. The message that we can do it better than anyone was sent out years ago with the referendum. I think Boris was using the “keep calm and carry on” approach to buy time because it was the only tool he had available. He fucked up just as pretty much any politician would’ve considering the mess the Tory’s have created over a decade. "Virus means Virus!" would have been better than "Get Virus Done!" to be fair. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 29, 2020 Report Share Posted March 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Chach said: "Virus means Virus!" would have been better than "Get Virus Done!" to be fair. At least there’s a clear definition behind “virus means virus”! I guess “strong and stable” would’ve just become more inappropriate and ironic... Chach 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted April 24, 2020 Report Share Posted April 24, 2020 https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brexit-transition-period-extension-barnier-113347045.html No surprise here. Tories being difficult and not putting anything concrete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted April 25, 2020 Report Share Posted April 25, 2020 19 hours ago, pete0 said: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brexit-transition-period-extension-barnier-113347045.html No surprise here. Tories being difficult and not putting anything concrete. I think you mean that Barnier got the hump because we didn't accept everything he demanded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted April 25, 2020 Report Share Posted April 25, 2020 3 hours ago, johnh said: I think you mean that Barnier got the hump because we didn't accept everything he demanded. the UK refuses to provide firm guarantees rather than vague principles on fundamental rights and individual freedoms.” This is very much tory 101. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted April 29, 2020 Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52463698 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted April 29, 2020 Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 2 hours ago, Matt said: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52463698 So pretty much nothing will change then. The bigger clubs will still get round the the system as they do for non-EU players currently, and the 'smaller' clubs will have to work harder. markjazzbassist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 16, 2020 Report Share Posted May 16, 2020 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52686959 no surprise here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted May 16, 2020 Report Share Posted May 16, 2020 6 hours ago, Matt said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52686959 no surprise here. We should rename Brexit as Broken, because with the Covid and the governments in ability to see that there should be an extension in the negotiations, the prospect of a no deal looming and combined with the Covid, loses to the ordinary family could spell disaster for many financially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 16, 2020 Report Share Posted May 16, 2020 9 minutes ago, Palfy said: We should rename Brexit as Broken, because with the Covid and the governments in ability to see that there should be an extension in the negotiations, the prospect of a no deal looming and combined with the Covid, loses to the ordinary family could spell disaster for many financially. Since that was always going to be the case it’s going to work as intended Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted May 16, 2020 Report Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Matt said: Since that was always going to be the case it’s going to work as intended Still it’s sad that those who can ride out a broken economy would heap more pain on those who cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.