By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 said:
@ Scifiboy - Eliminating regressive tax effectively could result in lower taxes and higher national income.

okay, if youre sure, thats fine, my main concern is that the NHS and Education system are both getting the funding and good managment they need.



Around the Network
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:

One think i think your missing Scifiboy.

Nobody gives a crap about the palaces of the rest of Europe.

The Royal family is basically what makes Disney world different from Six Flags.

Without them... all those British buildings become no more cool or more of a draw then those is scotland, ireland, france, spain etc.

They still get SOME tourists... not as many.

 

 

meh, im sure the tourism industry will live, its not like there the only historical thing worth seeing here, I mean, this country has all kinds of history to see almost anywhere you go

So do most europeon countries.



Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:

One think i think your missing Scifiboy.

Nobody gives a crap about the palaces of the rest of Europe.

The Royal family is basically what makes Disney world different from Six Flags.

Without them... all those British buildings become no more cool or more of a draw then those is scotland, ireland, france, spain etc.

They still get SOME tourists... not as many.

 

meh, im sure the tourism industry will live, its not like there the only historical thing worth seeing here, I mean, this country has all kinds of history to see almost anywhere you go

So do most europeon countries.

First, Kasz216, I like the way you said 'British buildings become no more cool or more of a draw then those is Scotland'. A nice touch.

But other countries have a Royal Family as well. And other countries have better architechture as well, yet the UK is the around 6th in world tourist. Spain is higher. Infact, France is apparently the most visited country and it has no royalty, just skiing mountains, stunning landscapes and the french. I think really it's USAian's that are the one's obsessed with our royalty.

(Apologies if I've missed any part of the above conversation and jsut repeated stuff).

 

@ Pyro as Bill (from the other page)

First on the legalising drugs thing, the only change would be that the government can tax it and arrests and jail time for selling or possesing drugs will reduce, the illegal sale of legalised drugs will still be a crime. Other drug related crimes or crimes due to drugs taking with will still exist as well. The only benefit I can see from legalising any drugs is that they would be taxable and 'made safe', scientific recreational drugs will not be laced with some unknown dangerous subject as it will be monitered and you will know what you are getting. not just some scabby guy offering you random pills in a night club.

 

Also, if I earned 50k, that would be a dream come true, I have a hard time spending my salary and that includes a large sum on rent. It's all about a matter of want or need. Are you really spending £20k on petrol a year? (exageration much). You'd have more then £30k as luxury spending, cars are a luxury, fuel for it is as luxury, you house is a luxury (you can have a smaller one). I'd love 30K in luxury money a year.



Hmm, pie.

@ fury

Their is another benefit to legalising drugs which is that people will be free to do what they want to their own mind or body without the state interfering. Honestly, I'm not interested in any other benefit than this. The rights of the individual are paramount, they trump democracy and any negative effect on the 'collective' is irrelevant.

My point about petrol is that we have a minimum of 30% stolen from us directly and this figure can go as high as 80% depending on what you spend your cash on. Like I said, the rights of the individual are paramount and no government should be allowed to steal from it's citizens to try and create it's vision of 'utopia'. Stealing from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor' is still stealing.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

SciFiBoy said:
starcraft said:
trashleg said:
nah im not ashamed. perhaps i reacted a bit too quickly to reading it, but it just seems like an attack on immigrants to me.

but from what I know of the BNP, they are anti-immigration and white supremacists and THAT is racist, is it not? believing your race to be superior to others, even those born in your own country?

and well said, its okay to post your opinion. and it is my opinion that your post, like the BNP itself, is ignorant, ugly and shouldn't be tolerated.

anyway, i dont want the hostility to leave this thread. politics is a messy subject.

There is nothing, NOTHING racist about being anti-immigration.

It doesn't matter if you are white, asian, middle-eastern or black.  If you dislike a certain race that is racism.  If you think your country is fine with it's current demographic and has economic need for immigrants, that is not racism.

true, its called Xenophobia!

sorry, had to

problem is, what Slimebeast was saying wasnt simply anti-immigration, but anti-anyone foreign being allowed into any nation (BNP policy support) also, supporting the BNP stance is highly offensive to me, as they would try and kick me and my friends out for not bieng "white christian anglo saxon decent"

so, to be honest, trashleg and me have EVERY right to be very angry at what he said, please do not defend people with such hateful views

also, the UK does have economic need for immigration, they arent many skilled workers in the UK, migrants can do those jobs that brits dont want to do and probably do it better than some of us too, not to mention any freeze on immigration here will significantly impact our EU relations, which in turn will hit trade and thus our economy.

Xenophobia is a mild label compared to racism.

I didn't say I stand behind the exact policies of BNP. I said I'd vote for them if I was British. You don't have to agree with all the opinions of a party to vote for it, that's pretty obvious. But I'm more critical of the liars and hypocrites and control freaks of the major parties, and its those parties that have the huge majority, especially the media support, not marginalized parties like the national parties in Europe. Besides, a marginilzed party would only have so much effect on the society. To expel Irish people is just laughable, there's no risk something like that could happen.

And why do you twist my words? I'm anti-immigration, but you're describing it as something else: "anti-anyone foreign being allowed into any nation". The majortiy of nationalists have nothing against immigrants who behave themselves and assimilate. You know very well that the issues we have are the negative bi-effects of immigration and culture mixing. National parties would accept controlled immigration under strict conditions.

I am against immigration, you are calling that hateful views. Meanwhile trashleg eats chicken (and maybe you too?), but that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

I'm just denying some people entrance to my country, while you accept the killing of living beings (who don't want to be killed) to end up as food for the taste pleasure of humans.

I think you are the true racist, and your political opinions and ethical positions are offensive to me.

 



Around the Network

If i were British i would vote for UKiP.

 

pull out of the war against

abolish tuition fees against

proportional representation complicated especially we have similiar disscusion in Polland just in other way

proggressive taxation heavily against. Every income tax is stupid, and proggressive is worst

more funding for the NHS/Education system NHS?

abolish faith schools against

legalise less dangerous drugs agree

close tax loopholes specify, but rather against

better public transport (trains, buses, etc) private or at least half private. While railorads and roads should be national, raillway companies should be private

abolish the monarchy Rather against

make the lords elected (if not fully, then atleast like 75%) What they can do? 

proper action on climate change  I'm all for nuclear energy.



^ yep. But they are branded racist by the communists.



The Fury said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:

One think i think your missing Scifiboy.

Nobody gives a crap about the palaces of the rest of Europe.

The Royal family is basically what makes Disney world different from Six Flags.

Without them... all those British buildings become no more cool or more of a draw then those is scotland, ireland, france, spain etc.

They still get SOME tourists... not as many.

 

meh, im sure the tourism industry will live, its not like there the only historical thing worth seeing here, I mean, this country has all kinds of history to see almost anywhere you go

So do most europeon countries.

First, Kasz216, I like the way you said 'British buildings become no more cool or more of a draw then those is Scotland'. A nice touch.

But other countries have a Royal Family as well. And other countries have better architechture as well, yet the UK is the around 6th in world tourist. Spain is higher. Infact, France is apparently the most visited country and it has no royalty, just skiing mountains, stunning landscapes and the french. I think really it's USAian's that are the one's obsessed with our royalty.

(Apologies if I've missed any part of the above conversation and jsut repeated stuff).

 

@ Pyro as Bill (from the other page)

First on the legalising drugs thing, the only change would be that the government can tax it and arrests and jail time for selling or possesing drugs will reduce, the illegal sale of legalised drugs will still be a crime. Other drug related crimes or crimes due to drugs taking with will still exist as well. The only benefit I can see from legalising any drugs is that they would be taxable and 'made safe', scientific recreational drugs will not be laced with some unknown dangerous subject as it will be monitered and you will know what you are getting. not just some scabby guy offering you random pills in a night club.

 

Also, if I earned 50k, that would be a dream come true, I have a hard time spending my salary and that includes a large sum on rent. It's all about a matter of want or need. Are you really spending £20k on petrol a year? (exageration much). You'd have more then £30k as luxury spending, cars are a luxury, fuel for it is as luxury, you house is a luxury (you can have a smaller one). I'd love 30K in luxury money a year.

I agree about the US being the biggest draw to the royal family.  Pretty important set of royalty.

As for Scotland.  It's the best example, part of the UK, but not assosiated with the monarchy and with a lot of kickass buildings.

Plus I just got done conquering Scotland for the Polish in a videogame, and was listening to a comedy festival from Edinburgh which i took over.



The Fury said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:

One think i think your missing Scifiboy.

Nobody gives a crap about the palaces of the rest of Europe.

The Royal family is basically what makes Disney world different from Six Flags.

Without them... all those British buildings become no more cool or more of a draw then those is scotland, ireland, france, spain etc.

They still get SOME tourists... not as many.

 

meh, im sure the tourism industry will live, its not like there the only historical thing worth seeing here, I mean, this country has all kinds of history to see almost anywhere you go

So do most europeon countries.

First, Kasz216, I like the way you said 'British buildings become no more cool or more of a draw then those is Scotland'. A nice touch.

But other countries have a Royal Family as well. And other countries have better architechture as well, yet the UK is the around 6th in world tourist. Spain is higher. Infact, France is apparently the most visited country and it has no royalty, just skiing mountains, stunning landscapes and the french. I think really it's USAian's that are the one's obsessed with our royalty.

(Apologies if I've missed any part of the above conversation and jsut repeated stuff).

 

@ Pyro as Bill (from the other page)

First on the legalising drugs thing, the only change would be that the government can tax it and arrests and jail time for selling or possesing drugs will reduce, the illegal sale of legalised drugs will still be a crime. Other drug related crimes or crimes due to drugs taking with will still exist as well. The only benefit I can see from legalising any drugs is that they would be taxable and 'made safe', scientific recreational drugs will not be laced with some unknown dangerous subject as it will be monitered and you will know what you are getting. not just some scabby guy offering you random pills in a night club.

 

Also, if I earned 50k, that would be a dream come true, I have a hard time spending my salary and that includes a large sum on rent. It's all about a matter of want or need. Are you really spending £20k on petrol a year? (exageration much). You'd have more then £30k as luxury spending, cars are a luxury, fuel for it is as luxury, you house is a luxury (you can have a smaller one). I'd love 30K in luxury money a year.


Well illegal sellers would lose a LOT of steam

I mean the markup on drugs right now is ridiculiously high.

Like for Cocaine it's like 130% in the US.  That's why it's so "easy" to smuggle drugs into the US.  It's not so much easy as... as long as you get in 1 out of every 13 shipments in you break even.

If we legalize it and then mark it up like... 50%... Illegal drugdealers can't really undercut that.



I'm not from the UK (I'm an Aussie) but as always I support the legalisation of drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, early term abortion, homosexual marriage, a reduction in stealth taxes (eg take a look at the alcopop taxes in Australia), increases in efficiency if possible, less censorship in regards to media and the arts (Australia sucks in this regards), getting rid of the monarchy and social welfare where its affordable.