Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[The Mad Rapper]

People shouldn't be given so much wealth they never have to work just because their daddy did well. It's not fair.

I take issue with just about everything you posted, but I am going to focus on just one of your comments. You really do need to wake up, smell the coffee and get a grip. Life is NOT fair, life is NOT supposed to be fair. A person should benefit from their efforts in life, that's just the way it is. If that person wants to pass that on to their children, then that's a matter for them and them alone.

You may wish to move to Russia, your bizarre, almost communist views, will be more welcomed.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Naah, we should be 'above' animals.

Not in that regard we shouldn't.

 

[britboy4321]

I take issue with just about everything you posted, but I am going to focus on just one of your comments. You really do need to wake up, smell the coffee and get a grip. Life is NOT fair, life is NOT supposed to be fair. A person should benefit from their efforts in life, that's just the way it is.

We should try and make things fair when possible.

Your last sentence does not make sense in context to your argument. I am arguing 'A person should benefit from their efforts in life', you are arguing 'A person should potentially benefit from making no effort whatsoever and being a scumbag, if he has a rich daddy'. Remember?

 

[meghatronic]

We should try and make things fair when possible.

Your last sentence does not make sense in context to your argument. I am arguing 'A person should benefit from their efforts in life', you are arguing 'A person should potentially benefit from making no effort whatsoever and being a scumbag, if he has a rich daddy'. Remember?

The problem is that what's fair for one facet of society, perturbs the other...

Rich vs poor. Why should the rich pay for the poor? It's unfair on the rich. Why should the poor have *** lives, it's unfair on the poor. Blah blah blah.

Life is what you make it.

 

[britboy4321]

Not in that regard we shouldn't.

In a wild animal is born with a disability like a leg missing, that animal will perish.

I can't take your argument seriously anymore. Talk to someone else!

 

[RDM]

We should try and make things fair when possible.

Your last sentence does not make sense in context to your argument. I am arguing 'A person should benefit from their efforts in life', you are arguing 'A person should potentially benefit from making no effort whatsoever and being a scumbag, if he has a rich daddy'. Remember?

Do you have kids? I know that I will certianly be doing my best to make sure that my daughter is supported as much as I possibly can and that includes financially if possible. Should I instead, just leave her to get on with it all in the interests of "fairness"?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

In a wild animal is born with a disability like a leg missing, that animal will perish.

I can't take your argument seriously anymore. Talk to someone else!

With respect, you aren't grasping reality. There are far too many people in the World, there need to be fewer - there simply aren't the resources to go around. Your view is that humanity should fight back against nature's own checks and balances.

You are wrong.

 

[britboy4321]

The problem is that what's fair for one facet of society, perturbs the other...

Rich vs poor. Why should the rich pay for the poor? It's unfair on the rich. Why should the poor have *** lives, it's unfair on the poor. Blah blah blah.

Life is what you make it.

Unless scumbag have a rich daddy, in which case RATHER than the money being divided between the hard workers, you'd have one fat lazy layabout that's never worked in his life have the whole lot.

Which is an interesting thoery bearing in mind your thoughts about 'scroungers' ...

 

[Dolph]

In a wild animal is born with a disability like a leg missing, that animal will perish.

I can't take your argument seriously anymore. Talk to someone else!

Always going to the extreme without addressing the crux of the argument eh?

I've not seen anyone arguing that we shouldn't look after those unable to care for themselves, just that we should not reward those unwilling to look after themselves or their offspring.

Do you not agree that our current system creates a massive benefit trap for the underclass and traps them in state dependency. Before you answer, you might want to look up William Beveredge's views on the dangers of means testing...

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Rich vs poor. Why should the rich pay for the poor? It's unfair on the rich. Why should the poor have *** lives, it's unfair on the poor. Blah blah blah.

I was born of a broken home, domestic violence and poverty. I managed to forge my own life and am now very, very comfortable. There is no excuse for not giving life 100%. A poor start does not mean your life is written off.

Life is what you make it.

Exactly.

 

[Dolph]

Unless scumbag have a rich daddy, in which case RATHER than the money being divided between the hard workers, you'd have one fat lazy layabout that's never worked in his life have the whole lot.

Which is an interesting thoery bearing in mind your thoughts about 'scroungers' ...

You confuse the actions of the parent with the actions of the highway robber that is the state.

As a parent, I can choose not to give money to my layabout son. I can't choose not to contribute to funding the government's encouragement of doing nothing.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

I've not seen anyone arguing that we shouldn't look after those unable to care for themselves, just that we should not reward those unwilling to look after themselves or their offspring.

Nail Head Hammer.

 

[meghatronic]

I've not seen anyone arguing that we shouldn't look after those unable to care for themselves, just that we should not reward those unwilling to look after themselves or their offspring.

Do you not agree that our current system creates a massive benefit trap for the underclass and traps them in state dependency. Before you answer, you might want to look up William Beveredge's views on the dangers of means testing...

This is the point.

Unless scumbag have a rich daddy, in which case RATHER than the money being divided between the hard workers, you'd have one fat lazy layabout that's never worked in his life have the whole lot.

Which is an interesting thoery bearing in mind your thoughts about 'scroungers' ...

So? Rich daddy obviously worked hard so why can't his offspring enjoy the fruits? Or his rich daddy, or so on ever upwards. I'd rather they play in their pools of gold sitting on their butts than claim benefits and sit on their butt.

Communism for the ******* lose.

 

[britboy4321]

The 'life's unfair so we should vote for some party who makes it more unfair because that's the way it is' argument has always baffled me!

 

[robgmun]

Unless scumbag have a rich daddy, in which case RATHER than the money being divided between the hard workers, you'd have one fat lazy layabout that's never worked in his life have the whole lot.

Which is an interesting thoery bearing in mind your thoughts about 'scroungers' ...

It's there private life what they do with there own money, unless they got rich via illegal means, what the **** has it to do with you?

You're out and out communist, which is why your comments make no sense

 

[RDM]

The 'life's unfair so we should vote for some party who makes it more unfair because that's the way it is' argument has always baffled me!

Which is why I dont vote for Labour. That is who you mean isnt it as social mobility has actually fallen under them?

 

[britboy4321]

This is the point.


So? Rich daddy obviously worked hard so why can't his offspring enjoy the fruits? Or his rich daddy, or so on ever upwards. I'd rather they play in their pools of gold sitting on their butts than claim benefits and sit on their butt.

Communism for the ******* lose.

You'd rather scumbag got given £60m WAD OF DOSH (that could be used elsewhere like taxbreaks to hard workers) for doing precisely NOTHING than got given £63.50 a week for doing precisely NOTHING?


What a strange way to think. Paradoxical to your benefits thoughts. If Spock was here he'd say 'that is illogical Captain'!

 

[Dolph]

The 'life's unfair so we should vote for some party who makes it more unfair because that's the way it is' argument has always baffled me!

Strange, I've always been completely baffled by the 'shotgun fairness' arguments of the loony left, where any money you make is only considered a gift of the state to be taken at whim and will, and everyone is left to lie in the crap at the bottom of the pile because the race to enforced equality always in reality leads to a race to the bottom.

Furthermore, your attempts to suggest that anyone doesn't support shotgun fairness is somehow an evil babykiller also makes no sense. I fully support a guaranteed minimum income for example, but it should be gauranteed for everyone and balanced with fair and equal % taxation levels.

 

[Dolph]

You'd rather scumbag got given £60m (that could be used elsewhere like taxbreaks to hard workers) for doing precisely NOTHING than got given £63.50 a week for doing precisely NOTHING?


What a strange way to think. Paradoxical to your benefits thoughts. If Spock was here he'd say 'that is illogical Captain'!

You again forget that no force is involved in the former, but force is involved in the latter.

Why should I care if a wealthy person gives their layabout son £60m of their money? It makes no difference to me.

I do, however, care, when I'm forced to hand over money which is then given to a waster.

Do you not see the difference?

 

[Davies_M]

Words
[/b]

Would somebody please bring this man a pint and listen to what he has to say?