dtkdemongene wrote:I think you'll find that's lightening....RippingFleshFromBone wrote:Just lightning things up a bit!!!...
I was just helping you argue your case for correct spellingRippingFleshFromBone wrote:dtkdemongene wrote:I think you'll find that's lightening....RippingFleshFromBone wrote:Just lightning things up a bit!!!...
Maybe I was trying to 'spark' a further debate!!!...
It's good to know that my posts are being read so indepth that you can pick up on that!!!...
So you're okay with a leader of country, who wants nothing more than to destroy an entire other country, to have nuclear weapons ?RippingFleshFromBone wrote:Perhaps. But what right has the US, or any country, have to try and stop a country having nuclear power? Even if it does want it for nuclear weapons,
I thought they didn't. Looked it up and they're listed as "undeclared" - not confirming or denying.RippingFleshFromBone wrote:Israel already has the bomb.
Nor other countries in the UN for that matter because countries that already have nuclear weapons, don't have sole agendas to wipe other entire countries off the map.RippingFleshFromBone wrote:Don't hear the US complaining about that.
No, but together with the United Nations, we can if it's found unanimously that a country is a dire threat to another entire country as a whole. This is why the US is Not alone in their desire to stop Iran from enriching uranium.RippingFleshFromBone wrote:It isn't down to the US to say who can and who can't do things.
Er, we don't want to - can't afford to.RippingFleshFromBone wrote:I'm not defending Iran here, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the US attitude. "Our allies can have the bomb but our enemies can't." That attitude has p*ssed off a lot of countries. America does not run the world, as much as it would like to.
RippingFleshFromBone wrote:There has even been talk of adopting American spelling! No! Colour is colour, not color. And words with endings like 'lise' at the end are spelt with an 'S'...not a 'z'!!!
Just lightning things up a bit!!!...
Perhaps I was trying to, subconsciously, create my own language of Americanstan!dtkdemongene wrote: I was just helping you argue your case for correct spelling
Anyone remember this post - and my own thoughts about responsible capitalism.RippingFleshFromBone wrote:I've been saying that for years!skinnymartin wrote:Responsible capitalism is not socialism.
It is about those who are involved in business activity recognising that, whilst profit is a healthy thing, obsession with profit above all is not, that with profit comes responsibility. Profit benefits society, it allows for re-investment, creates new jobs, allows economies to expand and diversify, lower profits mean lower investment, less new jobs less diversification and a more inward looking economy (and yes less bonuses for shareholders - which impacts my pension). Earning massive amounts of money is fine - again the desire to earn more and improve your lot is good - it is what drives the spirit if innovation, enterprise and efficiency- which is exactly what separates us from communist/sociaist and marxist states (although we are losing it in the UK). However, earning pots of money and then using it to pay amazing accountants so that you avoid paying taxes in the Country that has enabled you to earn your living is irresponsible, not least because it increases the burden on the have nots. These are not things that regulation will deliver, they can only be delivered by cultural change.
As I said in another post it infuriates me when you get major comapanies complaining that profits have fallen yet the profit they have made is still in the 100 of millions! Guys, you made a profit! Then it leads to job cuts or demands on employees to be more productive for the same amount of pay! Just so more profit can be made. Then often much of the profit goes to the top guys and shareholders who are already on more money in a year than most employees will see in 10.
Then you get companies, as a PR exercise, offering a bit of cash to some high profile cause and expecting everyone to fall over themselves with gratitude. When in reality they could do so much more. Put money, real amounts of money, into communities. It is pretty much proven that giving teenagers activity/sports centres heplds reduce crime, yet these sort of places are in short supply due to lack of money.
As for 'Earning massive amounts of money is fine', not sure about that. There comes a point where when someone has more money than they will ever need and they just want more, doesn't sit right with me. (You listening Gene!) But I'm pleased to read you wrote 'However, earning pots of money and then using it to pay amazing accountants so that you avoid paying taxes in the Country that has enabled you to earn your living is irresponsible, not least because it increases the burden on the have nots.' I didn't think that was the Conservative way. Always thought it was 'get as much as want, then get some more and stuff the rest'. Suppose it still could be and it's just that you really are a free thinking, good guy renegade! Still it's good to read anyway.
I still think there's a bit of Socialism in there!
It's nothing to be ashamed of!!!!!
Not hyping up DC - you make your own mind up, I just remembered this thread and thought it was interesting."We need a more ethical capitalism. I don't think the answer to the current crisis is to tear up the market system and go back to 1970s-style socialism, but we do need a more ethical capitalism in which we recognise that business has real responsibilities. Business is not just about making money. It is also about acting in an ethical way and I think we need to build a more ethical capitalism in Britain as we come out of this dreadful recession."
