View Full Version : This has got to be remedied!
weezer 316
30-Aug-11, 12:55
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031543/UK-government-spending-Scots-1-600-year-spent-English.html
crustyroll
30-Aug-11, 13:42
What exactly has to be remedied? Do you mean that we the 'Scots' shouldn't get the extra funding?
weezer 316
30-Aug-11, 13:48
Yes.
It begins alright. Can you justify that spending???????????????????? I know I cant! Absurd isnt the word.
crustyroll
30-Aug-11, 13:57
lol... its always the same, word it right and you get a reaction.
There are loads of folk out there that will feel the same but not say it.... as much as we are a mixed society there are still the old feelings that the 'English' get, or should I say 'take' everything and it's about time we got something back.
I personally believe that we get penalised because we don't have the head of population to support ourselves like our English counterparts can. So, where do we go from there? Why should we be penalised because we want to live here and it's not our fault that there isn't the population to sustain some of the costs. We also don't have the level of wages that a lot of the south have and I also included southern Scotland in that equation.
Well should we give the money to foreign Country's instead, to feed there population so they are healthy enough to kill each other.
People in the south get more money for housing benefit, maybe that should change so we can spread the money more evenly throughout the UK.
You can go on and on for ever. The elected politicians make the decisions if you dont like what they do vote for someone else simple.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess... basically I'm not engaging and was hoping others wouldn't also but it seems they are. Somehow the Daily Mail managed to work in a picture of an attractive girl that passed her exams into that, I didn't think it was possible but that's the dedication they have.
Iain Banks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/aug/28/scottish-independence-snp-iain-banks) has some rather insightful points on the whole situation.
I suppose I'd would ask that if we actually cost so much why do they want to keep the Union intact.
Yes.
It begins alright. Can you justify that spending???????????????????? I know I cant! Absurd isnt the word.
Can you justify giving billions of pounds to Pakistan to educated children when our own kids cant spell Pakistan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031543/UK-government-spending-Scots-1-600-year-spent-English.html
Why????
C3.............;)
weezer 316
30-Aug-11, 14:12
Who would that be then Maccy? pretty sure pakistan doesnt get billions from us at all, never mind their rich!
Who would that be then Maccy? pretty sure pakistan doesnt get billions from us at all, never mind their rich!
£350 million for the next 4 years............sounds like a lot of dosh to me.
C3.............:roll:;)
weezer 316
30-Aug-11, 14:30
£350 million for the next 4 years............sounds like a lot of dosh to me.
C3.............:roll:;)
Sound like alot of dosh.....but not billions. 80 odd million a year. My point exactly.
Still, can you justify the Scotland getting 10% of the cash with 8.5% of the population and 8.1% of the gdp?
When the Daily Mail has nothing else to report it likes nothing better than to stir up national animosities. They often refer to the Barnett formula and its supposed inequalities and the controversy it causes. These inequalities in funding are particularly marked in England – nothing to do with Barnett but regions/counties in England get different funding and there are some startling inequalities there that papers like the DM never discuss. There are areas of East London where general funding is greater than the Scottish average and there are areas of the East Midland where funding is very low. It would make a nice change if the tabloid press were to explore some of those inequalities too.
Sound like alot of dosh.....but not billions. 80 odd million a year. My point exactly.
Still, can you justify the Scotland getting 10% of the cash with 8.5% of the population and 8.1% of the gdp?
Sorry weezer, its £350 million PER YEAR for the next 4 years = £1.4 billion....
Yes I can justify that spending. When you take the size of London and the size of Caithness they are very near in size but population is a different story just like jobs and wages, we need to be subsidised up here by the ones who have the jobs and good wages. The only alternative is to close Caithness down and we all go and live in London which wont happen will it?
C3............:roll:;)
weezer 316
30-Aug-11, 14:47
Corrie,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8430980/Britain-triples-aid-for-Pakistans-schools.html
Inventing figures again are we!?! Bad boy!
We dont need to be subsidised at all! We need to attract mroe work is what we need to do!
Could you please explain also how you would expect this subsidising to take place upon independence without Londons massive financial might, which is far bigger then the scottish economy?
We also don't have the level of wages that a lot of the south have and I also included southern Scotland in that equation.
We dont get the wages here that the south get. My take home pay for a time served tradesman is pathetic and I still have to pay for prescriptions, water rates, uni loans etc........
Sound like alot of dosh.....but not billions. 80 odd million a year. My point exactly.
Still, can you justify the Scotland getting 10% of the cash with 8.5% of the population and 8.1% of the gdp?
Just goes to show what the education system is like. I CANT COUNT lol
Why are we all having this big debate again about north and south, Scotland and England and who gets what.
Would we not all be better off sorting out the postcode lottery on NHS treatments by re distribution of funds.
Surely it is more important so get life saving medicines for all cancer patients not just the one that live in in right place at the right time.
Corrie,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8430980/Britain-triples-aid-for-Pakistans-schools.html
Inventing figures again are we!?! Bad boy!
We dont need to be subsidised at all! We need to attract mroe work is what we need to do!
Could you please explain also how you would expect this subsidising to take place upon independence without Londons massive financial might, which is far bigger then the scottish economy?http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pakistan
I would sooner believe DFID's figures than the Torygraphs Weezer, apology accepted, thanks!!!
C3...............:roll:[disgust]
Side note: My problem with aid to places like Pakistan or India is that they don't tax their own population, if they did just tax their top earners a bit they could cover what they receive in aid. That and the fact that a lot of the aid goes to the government and thus corruption instead of to the people that need it. I'd be much happier if the aid went to things like micro-loans.
Side note: My problem with aid to places like Pakistan or India is that they don't tax their own population, if they did just tax their top earners a bit they could cover what they receive in aid. That and the fact that a lot of the aid goes to the government and thus corruption instead of to the people that need it. I'd be much happier if the aid went to things like micro-loans.
Apparently "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RecQuery again."
John Little
30-Aug-11, 17:58
When we married, my wife and I closed our bank accounts in favour of a joint account. She spends what she needs to and so do I.
In a union such as ours the relationship is the same and I would not grudge a penny of it - it's what the union is about and I like being British.
I think perhaps the question here should not be about Scotland getting a bigger 'share'. It's about what the money is spent on.
Scottish politicians spend money on stuff that English people would like to have.
Why can they not have it?
Because the spending priorities of the UK government as regards England are different to those of the Scottish government. The people of Scotland vote in large numbers for the SNP because they put people before cash.
In England it is the other way about. The money that could provide the benefits for England that Scotland has, appear to be spent on missiles in Afghanistan and Libya, and on tax write-offs for those who already have more than enough.
I keep saying this - and echoing Lloyd George in 1906- There is plenty of money in this country. What is wrong is the distribution of it.
John Little
30-Aug-11, 18:02
Here's a taster of something which is as true today as it was then;
"There are so many in the country blessed by Providence with great wealth, and if there are amongst them men who grudge out of their riches a fair contribution towards the less fortunate of their fellow-countrymen they are very shabby rich men. We propose to do more by means of the Budget. We are raising money to provide against the evils and the sufferings that follow from unemployment. We are raising money for the purpose of assisting our great friendly societies to provide for the sick and the widows and orphans. We are providing money to enable us to develop the resources of our own land. I do not believe any fair-minded man would challenge the justice and the fairness of the objects which we have in view in raising this money."
It's actually worth reading the speech...
http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=47&item=history
Because the spending priorities of the UK government as regards England are different to those of the Scottish government. The people of Scotland vote in large numbers for the SNP because they put people before cash.
In England it is the other way about. The money that could provide the benefits for England that Scotland has, appear to be spent on missiles in Afghanistan and Libya, and on tax write-offs for those who already have more than enough.
I keep saying this - and echoing Lloyd George in 1906- There is plenty of money in this country. What is wrong is the distribution of it.[/QUOTE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really mean that, or are you just repeating what LG said.....
I dunno where all this money is>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't think many Countries have 'any' money!
And if Scotland gets more money why do people 'slag' Alex S?
John Little
30-Aug-11, 18:24
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/business-comment/2011/06/06/fairer-distribution-of-wealth-is-needed-now-51140-28826648/
Ty......There will always be Rich and Poor and people in between.
In addition people should live within their means....A quote from your artice....Unsustainable rise in personal Debt.
Also mentioned is the TUC's leaning towards Communism!
Perhaps the aforementioned few who get the 'big bucks' do so as those professions have become more and more complicated......
I know a 777 Aircraft Captain who gets big money/ and I have 'flown' with him as First Officer' by simulator from Toronto to LHR....He deserves his pay!
And a Heart Surgeon......yes I would like the best....
Of course just my thoughts..............
John Little
30-Aug-11, 19:19
The trouble with LeFebrve's ideas on Mentalite as essential to understand the causes of changes in society, is that sometimes it is impossible.
I have no words....
Still, can you justify the Scotland getting 10% of the cash with 8.5% of the population and 8.1% of the gdp?
I am sure that one of our top-notch researchers out there will be able to give us a ball-park figure for the revenue which has flowed into the Treasury's coffers from Scotland's oil and gas.
That may bring some perspective....
I am sure that one of our top-notch researchers out there will be able to give us a ball-park figure for the revenue which has flowed into the Treasury's coffers from Scotland's oil and gas.
That may bring some perspective....
I think the oil and gas is British and not Scottish, if we gain independance then England
, Ireland and Wales will take a cut of the oil and gas revenue.
Also if Scotland gain independance, Shetland intend to go for independance also and they have shedloads of oil that would possibly become theirs.
Pouleriscaig
30-Aug-11, 20:05
It's worth pointing out that Scotland contributed 9.4% of UK public-sector revenue in the last financial year while receiving only 9.3% of total expenditure, so I would balance that against the figures given by the Daily Mail.
It also highlights that the argument that Scotland takes more than it contributes is a fallacy.
I guess we just leave the sour grapes to the Daily Mail and those who choose to read its parochial, bigoted and right wing propoganda. Each to their own.
The trouble with LeFebrve's ideas on Mentalite as essential to understand the causes of changes in society, is that sometimes it is
impossible.
I have no words....
You commented that there was lots of money 'in this Country'... really....... and now you are quoting the above? Perhaps you could join these two together!!
I think the oil and gas is British and not Scottish, if we gain independance then England
, Ireland and Wales will take a cut of the oil and gas revenue.
Also if Scotland gain independance, Shetland intend to go for independance also and they have shedloads of oil that would possibly become theirs.
The figure often quoted is that Scotland will retain 81-85% of the oil and gas fields. I suppose in that same vein what share of other 'British' resources will Scotland receive? *yawn* Oh look it's that old reductio ad absurdum stray-man argument about Shetland going independent. I should really breakout my Unionist argument bingo card if it's coming up.
weezer 316
31-Aug-11, 08:12
I am sure that one of our top-notch researchers out there will be able to give us a ball-park figure for the revenue which has flowed into the Treasury's coffers from Scotland's oil and gas.
That may bring some perspective....
Around £12bn at its height. Thats £12bn, about enough to keep the NHS going for 6 weeks. At its height.
forget oil and gas, we never had hat much and what we did is getting smaller.
This post was quite simply to show how many natioalists are happy to receive more than they pay, but are not happy to pay more than they receive.
Why should scotland not be granted independance from UK if Scotland are.
If Shetland were independant they could be a rich wee country with all the black gold on their coastline not to mention Sullum Voe and the busy wee heliport. Then there is the fishing which seems to do quite well up there also.
Why do you say that Shetland independance is absurd or untenable? If the Shetland folk want it then why not?
John Little
31-Aug-11, 08:17
Because if LeFebrve had come across the mentalite involved in some posts he'd have thrown up his hands in horror, given up arguing with it and gone to have a drink.
Which is what I did.
If I were you I'd ask Heidi.
Why should scotland not be granted independance from UK if Scotland are.
If Shetland were independant they could be a rich wee country with all the black gold on their coastline not to mention Sullum Voe and the busy wee heliport. Then there is the fishing which seems to do quite well up there also.
Why do you say that Shetland independance is absurd or untenable? If the Shetland folk want it then why not?
I didn't say it was either, I said it was an argument comprising two logical fallacies, designed to steer the argument away on a tangent. If they want it then say should get a vote, just give an independent Scotland a couple of hundred years to import some settlers, take all their resources claiming they're ours and setup a hostile media then we can have that vote.
I didn't say it was either, I said it was an argument comprising two logical fallacies, designed to steer the argument away on a tangent. If they want it then say should get a vote, just give an independent Scotland a couple of hundred years to import some settlers, take all their resources claiming they're ours and setup a hostile media then we can have that vote.
The figure often quoted is that Scotland will retain 81-85% of the oil and gas fields. I suppose in that same vein what share of other 'British' resources will Scotland receive? *yawn* Oh look it's that old reductio ad absurdum stray-man argument about Shetland going independent. I should really breakout my Unionist argument bingo card if it's coming up.
I think you will find RecQuery that you did state that is was absurd or attenable!!
An independant Shetland isles is every bit as realistic as an independant Scotland, I also think that an independant Scotland is a very bad idea.
Anatomy of a Unionist discussion:
Unionist uses a stray-man argument (arguing independence for an island instead of the main point Scottish independence) and simultaneously reduces a premise (Scottish independence) to a logically absurd conclusion.
Unionist continues to ignore the main point of discussion and becomes pedantic with context and semantics.
Person 1 has position X. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Textbook fallacy.
Basically you using the argument in this context was absurd not the premise itself (independence for Shetland or another region). And this is why I was hoping people would ignore this thread because stuff like this happens and has happened with every similar thread here.
Anatomy of a Unionist discussion:
Unionist uses a stray-man argument (arguing independence for an island instead of the main point Scottish independence) and simultaneously reduces a premise (Scottish independence) to a logically absurd conclusion.
Unionist continues to ignore the main point of discussion and becomes pedantic with context and semantics.
Person 1 has position X. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Textbook fallacy.
Basically you using the argument in this context was absurd not the premise itself (independence for Shetland or another region). And this is why I was hoping people would ignore this thread because stuff like this happens and has happened with every similar thread here.
Ok so let me get this right, because I said that should Scotland gain independance Shetland will also go fro independance then that is absurd?
Nowhere did I argue that Shetland should go for independance in fact I am totally against the UK being broken up at all.
I am a Brit first and foremost.
Ok so let me get this right, because I said that should Scotland gain independance Shetland will also go fro independance then that is absurd?
Nowhere did I argue that Shetland should go for independance in fact I am totally against the UK being broken up at all.
I am a Brit first and foremost.
All I can say is... Woosh...
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0TG_spj0JjevN0WAD7Yz7avXtOcMBS XYDMro64oLK0HVywG5VbSE1IQi3 (http://forum.caithness.org/imgres?imgurl=http://i401.photobucket.com/albums/pp91/donnieschinalatina21/tumbleweed.jpg%3Ft%3D1242078855&imgrefurl=http://s401.photobucket.com/albums/pp91/donnieschinalatina21/%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3Dtumbleweed.jpg%26newe st%3D1&usg=__Ldi0H6zcoPVr9-UUhPflbtAnaIs=&h=808&w=1017&sz=208&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=lDb0J2oY-KDzqM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=150&ei=TzJeTuC7Oou38gOm7ISgAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtumbleweed%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm% 3Disch&itbs=1)
Because if LeFebrve had come across the mentalite involved in some posts he'd have thrown up his hands in horror, given up arguing with it and gone to have a drink.
Which is what I did.
If I were you I'd ask Heidi.
But your man is not around....and his research was involved with Peasantry during the French Revolution.
Now if I read this at all in seriousness, as he was supposedly a 'man of knowledge' and you are equating yourself with him, then the rest of us sad beings, are the peasants. Actually most of us methinks do not have letters fore and/or aft of our names, or at least we don't use them to like some, but we, and I know you will find this difficult to believe, know what works and doesn't.
Sometimes these......I don't know what to call them......did not forge a good and stalwart direction for the modern World.
And this independence thing should questioned....United we stand....Divided we Fall/Fail!
Going off-topic here but it seems like the best place to ask: I have a question to unionists, why are you opposed to a federal Europe or unified European state? Surely by all your arguments it would be the best deal.
weezer 316
31-Aug-11, 16:42
Im certainly not against a federal Europe. My main concern is the large wealth gap between us, Germany etc and the like of Bulgaria. It would take a generation at least to close the gap. Furthermore, the implications of running a single fiscal policy across something like 600m people with an effective government with dozens of languages spoken is enough to cause chaos. I think it will happen eventually, but it will take the form of an ever increasing shift of power to brussels over the course of like 25 years.
W316....
I think you are correct. It is an array of disorder in the United States, and with us in Canada to a lesser degree.
There are Municipal, Provincial/State and Federal Govt's. e.g. in Canada. We have 2 official languages and that causes a problem/ everything that is done is problematic....
A local issue was the Regionalization of small independant Communities/Boroughs...The object of the exercise was to lump them together to make for a more cohesive Gov't of approx 500,000 people.....and it was supposed to save money....Yes perhaps people got together but the costs increased dramatically...
The the arguements began/ court challenges on issues of representation and the list goes on....Then we had to deal with the Province of Ontario/ same thing and then the final Level was the Feds...and included are all the Courts of these Jurisdictions and their costs and then disputing each other's issues/decrees.
I attended some of these amalgamated meetings and very little was ever achieved...Put it off and form / strike a committe to study it.
On more than one occasion the word Dictator was brought up! What an idea!
Yes it will likely happen for you, but it is a nightmare and your costs are going to increase.
Best wishes.........................
orkneycadian
31-Aug-11, 17:52
:roll: Hmmm, wonder how much of this extra cash is attributable to Northlink's handsome subsidy?
weezer 316
31-Aug-11, 18:30
W316....
I think you are correct. It is an array of disorder in the United States, and with us in Canada to a lesser degree.
There are Municipal, Provincial/State and Federal Govt's. e.g. in Canada. We have 2 official languages and that causes a problem/ everything that is done is problematic....
A local issue was the Regionalization of small independant Communities/Boroughs...The object of the exercise was to lump them together to make for a more cohesive Gov't of approx 500,000 people.....and it was supposed to save money....Yes perhaps people got together but the costs increased dramatically...
The the arguements began/ court challenges on issues of representation and the list goes on....Then we had to deal with the Province of Ontario/ same thing and then the final Level was the Feds...and included are all the Courts of these Jurisdictions and their costs and then disputing each other's issues/decrees.
I attended some of these amalgamated meetings and very little was ever achieved...Put it off and form / strike a committe to study it.
On more than one occasion the word Dictator was brought up! What an idea!
Yes it will likely happen for you, but it is a nightmare and your costs are going to increase.
Best wishes.........................
Well there you go! it will happen I am sure, and it wont be that bad a thing, but the language and wealth gaps are utterly huge and I am not sure how long it will take to close them.
I like to think of it as something akin to south korea and the dprk re-uniting. Although the language is the same, the economic disparity is so absolute it would completly destroy any peices of north korean society that survived a collapse, and the reulstn would be 30 years at elast of stagnation as they worked to bring the north up top southern standards.
The same applies to the EU. Why would a bulgarian sit in a field when he can move west in the same country and enjoy a standard of living he can only dream of? the reuslt would be the poorer areas becoming even poorer and then eventually everyone suffering. The EU at present will need to work to even it all out.
The language barrier is also an issue. English is clearly the most widely spoken langauge but i dont think people could just say goodbye to theri own languages and all learn english. How you remedy this I am not sure tbh.
Ironically it could possibly raise the threat of a civil war that the EU has been spectacularly successful in preventing!
Wont be happening anytime soon
I am not sure that the Poor will get poorer/ I think they call it 'Spreading the Wealth!
With us Quebec is French....and Ontario is English...predominantly, but we have had French thrust upon us, but you don't have to be bi-lingual in Quebec! It will be interesting. Equitable it is called!
You are talking about a lot of diverse languages in Europe though.
John Little
31-Aug-11, 18:48
But your man is not around....and his research was involved with Peasantry during the French Revolution.
Now if I read this at all in seriousness, as he was supposedly a 'man of knowledge' and you are equating yourself with him, then the rest of us sad beings, are the peasants. Actually most of us methinks do not have letters fore and/or aft of our names, or at least we don't use them to like some, but we, and I know you will find this difficult to believe, know what works and doesn't.
Sometimes these......I don't know what to call them......did not forge a good and stalwart direction for the modern World.
And this independence thing should questioned....United we stand....Divided we Fall/Fail!
I am going to reply to you just once more because trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to swim through mud and i ain't going to do any more of it.
I am not equating myself with Lefebrve. If you'd bothered to read anything beyond his research on peasants in the French revolution then you would have come across his idea that situations in history are best understood by trying to understand the mentality of the people concerned in them. This can be done by examining the forces that are acting on them such as taxes, rents, weather etc.
He wasn't 'supposedly' a man of knowledge but a philosopher and thinker who inspired the 'Annales' school of historians and had a great influence on how modern history is approached. Like it or not he was probably more intelligent than you; he certainly was more intelligent than me but I will admit it.
My meaning is that if he tried to understand your mentality then he would have given up - as am I. Your remark on the TUC showed me finally that my thought processes have as much in common with you as they would with a Martian.
You blow hard, you know little but think you know a lot; you have a chip on your shoulder enough to have supplied Cardosi's for half a century and you clearly have an inferiority complex the size of the Titanic.
Yes - I have a few letters after my name - and so do quite a few on this forum. I and they worked for them.
Live with it.
Now I do what I should have done months ago - welcome to my ignore list.
Blow all you like; I can't see you.
I am going to reply to you just once more because trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to swim through mud and i ain't going to do any more of it.
I am not equating myself with Lefebrve. If you'd bothered to read anything beyond his research on peasants in the French revolution then you would have come across his idea that situations in history are best understood by trying to understand the mentality of the people concerned in them. This can be done by examining the forces that are acting on them such as taxes, rents, weather etc.
He wasn't 'supposedly' a man of knowledge but a philosopher and thinker who inspired the 'Annales' school of historians and had a great influence on how modern history is approached. Like it or not he was probably more intelligent than you; he certainly was more intelligent than me but I will admit it.
My meaning is that if he tried to understand your mentality then he would have given up - as am I. Your remark on the TUC showed me finally that my thought processes have as much in common with you as they would with a Martian.
You blow hard, you know little but think you know a lot; you have a chip on your shoulder enough to have supplied Cardosi's for half a century and you clearly have an inferiority complex the size of the Titanic.
Yes - I have a few letters after my name - and so do quite a few on this forum. I and they worked for them.
Live with it.
Now I do what I should have done months ago - welcome to my ignore list.
Blow all you like; I can't see you.
Cardosi's was a confectioners not a chipper
John Little
31-Aug-11, 18:57
About 1960 they had a chippy too.
About 1960 they had a chippy too.
In the 1950's they had two Ice Cream parlour/cafes, well done the Cardosi family
JL........I am not equating myself with Lefebrve. If you'd bothered to read anything beyond his research on peasants in the French revolution then you would have come across his idea that situations in history are best understood by trying to understand the mentality of the people concerned in them. This can be done by examining the forces that are acting on them such as taxes, rents, weather etc.
SR........He was a bit of a Nothing actually..... Just one of hundreds of people with opinions.
JL.........My meaning is that if he tried to understand your mentality then he would have given up - as am I. Your remark on the TUC showed me finally that my thought processes have as much in common with you as they would with a Martian.
SR........I'm not sure about the TUC...Which remark..Likely about Communism.....Well Documented/ Are you also a follower?
JL.........You blow hard, you know little but think you know a lot; you have a chip on your shoulder enough to have supplied Cardosi's for half a century and you clearly have an inferiority complex the size of the Titanic.
SR.......That should be Houstons or Peachies! They both had good chips!
JL........Yes - I have a few letters after my name - and so do quite a few on this forum. I and they worked for them.
Now I do what I should have done months ago - welcome to my ignore list.
Blow all you like; I can't see you.
SR.......I don't think you need to be nasty about it/ perhaps even obscene....Blow......Shame on you LJ. Pity you cannot see this.
Just wanted to clarify things by identifying who said what. Gosh wouldn't want anyone else to get blamed for my honest comments!
In keeping with the above dialogue.....
We have failed miserably, and are continuing to fail following in the footsteps of these 'so called' experts of the past.
Perhaps it is time that people stopped referring to these 'experts', who go off on Tangents or are paid for opinions favourable to their cause and funding.
I have seen 'experts' for and against a matter. Everyone has an opinion which is sometimes swayed by monetary or other gain....
Take you Court Case....whether is be blood spatter or for or against alcohol, drugs or even tobacco, the experts are trooped out 6 on each side....who does one believe? Our Gov'ts today are full of people.... Lawyers and lettered people....and where are we? In a big pile of ....whatever'.
What works on 'paper' sometimes does not work in the real World..That which is taught at higher levels is on many occasions subjective.
The Pope could be quoted, but it does not negate the fact that our World has lived too long beyond it's means.
Time to tighten the belt a wee bitty....
If everyone could think...that can we do for each other or our Country, rather than what they can get out of it, like would be a bit better.
I really have no one to quote or go for a drink with. Seems simpler that way.....
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.