Pakis is derrogatory? edit: So it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#Paki , one learns something new every day...
Do you also tell Black people not to use the "N"-word? In the context of a rational debate I think it is unreasonable to expect someone else not to use an expression that you personally take offence to. Let's stick to the point.
Social security is an invented term which does not relate to actual security in the sense I talk of. The duty of the state does not need to include distribution of sufficient food or medical supplies - it does require the monopoly use on force internally and, representing the nation, externally. I disagree. If there's a certain risk I'll lose my pinki finger or a small risk I'll lose my entire life, I'll lose the finger. Make sense? As for the use of the word "paki" - I think it's important to recognise Carrie, that just because we've allowed it to take on solely negative and derogatory connotations in the UK doesn't mean it is everywhere, in fact I suspect it's the neutral colloquialism for people from Pakistan over most of the world, just as "Brits" or "Afghans" is. With regards to you not liking it or finding it offensive, I'd point you to Steve Hughes.
An aside I know but Spec, humorously or otherwise, I'd no more use the P*** word (or the N***** word Nexxo or R*****d for that matter) than I would refer to you as a "Sweaty Sock". Apologies for the off topic!
The interpretation I went with was to make a point, unfortunately I used the wrong term of "social security" instead of "social stability" whilst also forgetting to put the word "security" after internal. It has been a long day
Which is the richer man - a person on £20 000 a year and only himself to look after, or a man on £40 000 a year with a wife and two kids? India needs aid - they may have more money but they have much bigger problems to fix with what they have. They might have more billionaires but they are billionaires because they dont go around giving out money to people.
NO NUCLEAR NATION, should take handouts from any foreigne government and no foreign government should give it. Pakistan is the same, they received handouts from USA and UK. next you know we'll be givng cash to Iran.
And what about the third option... Family man on £40k a yr but also has access to an extra £60k in benefits! The extra £60k resembles the money the India government spend on a Space program, Nuclear weapons & Fighter Jets/It's Military! I'm sorry but I can't justify why we as a UK tax payer are giving a country like India so much of our cash when there are people in the UK who could be better off with that money put into housing, community groups, schooling etc etc! How many schools have closed because we cannot afford to keep them running, yet we can afford to give India money we don't have... Apparently! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...eas-face-shutdown-of-all-schools-6268870.html
@AoE Wait what? You mean that if a country, like the Soviet Union, were to collapse then the surviving states, that have nuclear tech and are poor as a result of the collapse, should not take handouts? Cool, lets have ex-soviet states sell nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. Capitalism at work... edit: Why don't you start from inside your own country and try to slim your government, last i heard your members of parliament were buying porn with your tax money...
didnt say I believed it?, i think if a country can afford to go nuclear even with the assistance of russia, china etc then they are appropriately placed to look after their own people. simply a matter of priority and even given the size of India, from what I hear and see on the media, very little apart from indias elite get any of the aid.
The amount of money we pay in foreign aid is a tiny percentage of the amount of money made by the UK each year and there are far bigger areas where money is being spent or lost. If you want to get worked up about the lack of money for schools or housing or community groups then how about considering the amount of money we've spent on overseas conflicts over the past 10 years? Or how much money fails to be collected in tax revenues? Or how much is lost through fraud or misplaced due to inadequte systems in the civil service?
Dwarfer, I do not totally disagree with you, but here is a genuine question: would you consider the money we spent on liberating Iraq, Afghanistan and recently, Libya from their oppressive regimes a form of foreign aid? And are you in favour or against?
Sorry, I forget that terms don't always mean the same thing in different countries. For the record, all the Pakistanis I know refer to themselves as Pakis, the same way we indians refer to ourselves as Desis. I'm just used to using the term without causing offence. The phrase was in quotes. That means in immune from persecution! You cannot possibly be serious. @Nexxo - good point. I'd love to hear Dwarfer's views on this, especially since they can be argued to apply to Spec's idea of stability/security as well.
Wait what? I'm sorry, i forgot that Portuguese people do not inhabit this planet, are not affected by your economic and social decisions, are not your allies for God knows how long and are not entitled to their opinion. It is like if we do not spend a boat load of aid money ourselves during a period of time when there is even a lack of syringes, toilet paper and other essential medical supplies in our hospitals, schools are closing left and right, crime is on the rise, unemployment is absurd and cuts have been so drastic that i may have to emigrate to finish my degree because a lot of Portuguese universities are on the brink of being closed (including mine, the only university on the island). I should be crying like you: "Spend less on aid and spend that money here! We are in an economic depression!" Damn, that made me sound like a dick. Two points: 1: You spend spend a f*** load of money on Pakistan (nuclear weapons) and Iraq. Why don't you cry out about this? Iraq was f***ed? Yes. By you? No, it was the Americans that started this bulls*** and you have to pay for it? 2: You are accepting opinions from people that are not from the UK and you say that my opinion is invalid because this is not a Portuguese issue. I would love to call you a hypocrite, i will simply call you friend. Aid is important, i am proud that my government is sending money and people to help people in need, and so should you! edit: sorry.
If you do not have charity at home then i feel sorry for you. I have lots of problems and charity is not one of them. We have lots and lots of charity programs, you are only homeless and starving to death if you wish for it to be, even then you are almost forced into a government house and feed with government money and food. We also have Santa Casa de Misericórdia that sells lottery and the Euromillions and gives a huge amount of money to charity. I in the future i am without money and a job i know i will be ok. It is strange that the UK does not have programs like these...
Our social state services cost us approximately 20% of our entire GDP. I think it's safe to say that our charity begins at home. We donate 0.7% of our GDP to foreign countries. Even if that fairly ugly justifying idiom for not helping out one's neighbours held any real value, our charity begins at home and then some. It just doesn't end at home, thank goodness.
