When will the Blair, Brown, Geldof gang learn?

Well as babies grow their food demands increase, food supplies can fluctuate to facilitate pregnancy. Food supplies can increase allowing a population to expand then expand again unto famine.

Does the argument against that ghost take into account these factors?

Reply to
theabstraction
Loading thread data ...

In message , snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes

Please repost enough material to provide context in follow-ups. Crystal balls are not always reliable even if their shape is appropriate.

Reply to
JF

You have a bed! E, lad, luxury. Sheer bloody luxury. Some people don't know they're born.

Reply to
JF

LUXURY! - I get up half an hour before I go to bed blah blah. And trying telling that to the young people of today. You know what? They won't believe you! :-) Luap

Reply to
Luap

in

That presupposes similar intelligence. That is a big presupposition.

R
Reply to
Roger Dewhurst

I understand your point of view; I'd just got in from the pub:)

Basically what I'm saying that if debt is just cancelled you don't need to take it seriously. So you get it cancelled and can build up some more debt if someone is daft enough to lend money to you.

Reply to
Dave

Ah! Now you're talking. That's exactly why we shouldn't lend them any more money until some method of making sure it's spent reasonably wisely is put into place.

Rob

Reply to
Rob graham

The african governments borrow the money on the expectation that they won't really have to repay it. So they treat it as a donation.

Reply to
Jonathan Bryce

African solution is an oxymoron!

They have intelligence which seems to be a pre-requisite.

Have they ever, in the history of the human race, done anything except subsist?

Poverty will continue as long as Africans govern in Africa.

R
Reply to
Roger Dewhurst

"John Redman" wrote in message news:d8l7sj$n54$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

Charity with someone else's money is always easier than charity with one's own.

R
Reply to
Roger Dewhurst

"Roger Dewhurst" wrote

Liberalism is basically a surrogate religion, and handing out other people's money to Africans is something liberals do to feel good about themselves, like a penance except someone else is made to suffer.

Reply to
John Redman

Indeed. According to the Sunday Times U2 are jointly worth about 400 million quid. If they each kept 20 million, leaving them an income of 1 million a year forever, they could then afford to give away the other 320 million to Africa. They do not do this, of course, because they want other people to pay for making them feel good about themselves.

People who vote Labour to secure benefits for themselves funded by tax rises for other people are basically doing the same thing.

Reply to
John Redman

"John Redman" wrote in message news:d8mghv$irn$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk... [snip]

This point would only be valid if they were both

  • not paying anything at all themselves
  • asking everyone else to reduce their assets to 20 million.

Anyway, are U2 all involved ? I thought that it was just Bono.

Reply to
Fergus O'Rourke

"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote

Nonsense. It should be in proportion to their ability to pay and the degree of their anguish at their prosperity as Africans starve. On that basis they aren't that bothered, so neither need the rest of us be.

Reply to
John Redman

Im expected to explain every little thing...

Reply to
theabstraction

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.