Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
Lol, notice how we are slowly agreeing on each point.
1) How am I dodging the point? You said faith schools should be abolished. There are plenty of non-faith schools already. *sigh* no, what i said was we cant pander to every minority intrest group and also do so fairly, so we shouldnt bother pandering to any of them
2) Because people would continue to pay no matter how high the taxes got, and that isn't good for the people. Smokers need to be discouraged and eased off, not prohibited and taxed. sure, why not do both? encourage people to stop but for now have things legal, so you can at least make money while your solving the problem? also, having them legal would probably help treatment, you could allow doctors to wean people off if things were legal, at least medically for rehab?
3) No need to give them £40 million, I agree. But come on, you can't just throw them out on the street! Bring their monetary supply down to perhaps 1/8 of that. But don't destroy the symbol of the country. Nobody will want to see Buckingham if it's a museum. i dont see romans anywhere, do you? people still flock to see the roman baths (in my hometown of bath) even without them? surely the main tourist atraction is the palace and sites, i doubt many would care wether or not the monarchy were there or not, lets face it, how many tourists are realisticly going to meet them anyway?
4) It's not so much that Cameron is bad, it's that everyone else is worse  disagree here, i think he is worse than the others, lol, hell, even brown seems preferable to me, ideally, none of the 3 would get in and a new Centre Left party will emerge before the GE! (a man can dream, ey? lol)
|
|
1) Well, it's not pandering, it's simply letting them do what they want. It doesn't hurt anyone or violate any laws, and if someone wants to make a Jain, Sikh or Zoroastrian school, let them! my issue is i doubt any system that allowed that would ever be fair to all groups, by the book there, you would also have to allow BNP or Labour schools to be setup, but if you have your reasons, fine, agree to disagree on that
2) That's good. Agreed.
3) Let's label this as an "agree to disagree". I just don't think they should be removed, as they are icons. But you do make a good point.
4) Ideally, Stephen Fry would be Prime Minister. haha, excellent choice 
Are we agreed or agreeing to disagree on everything? Not bad. pretty much, yeah
|
