From: The Reid on 19 Jul 2006 03:44
Following up to Tchiowa
>> what you probably don't get is that that lifestyle isnt
>> supportable. We need to consume less, work less and pollute less,
>> its not really anything to do with what I think is useless.
>Consume less, maybe.
>Work less, absolutely not. That's the kind of
>thinking that destroys civilizations.
We have to move from using productivity to create more stuff and
pollution to using productivity to achieve efficiency and low
pollution. We have to slow down, air travel alone threatens to
destroy us if we allow it to grow as predicted.
>And yes my lifestyle is completely supportable.
across the world it isn't, so unless you aim to find a way of
stopping the new economies moving forward towards western levels,
you have a problem.
>People have been saying
>the US lifestyle isn't supportable for over half a century and we keep
the future will prove you wrong, hopefully you will come to see
your mistake as a country before its too late for everybody..
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: Tchiowa on 19 Jul 2006 04:40
> Tchiowa wrote:
> > Jordi wrote:
> > >
> > > Repeating your failed statements will not make them any more true.
> > And repeating your silly analysis won't make that any more true.
> > You don't want to look at them together because when you do so the
> > failure of your position becomes obvious.
> Bleh, bleh, blah. Stay in your wonderful U.S. of A. and stop saying bs.
> > >
> > > It is not failing despite whatever you've been told. Go please get a life.
> > Get one yourself. And when you do try facing reality. Socialism is a
> > failure. Period.
> However, when being told that our system actually works for everyone
> and with less expense, all I hear from you is some distant whining
> about lines and the system going bankrupt.
Being told by you as opposed to seeing the actual statements from the
governments involved and the court rulings and everything else. The
fact that you have blinders on doesn't mean anyone should accept your
claims while ignoring all the evidence around them.
From: Tchiowa on 19 Jul 2006 04:46
The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Mxsmanic
> >Yes. It's hard to see how having a larger house would not have an
> >impact on quality of life. Many European homes are matchboxes
> >compared to the average American home. A car is less important,
> >unless one spends a great deal of time therein. A large television is
> >usually more enjoyable to watch than a small television (although
> >Europe is actually better supplied with widescreen TVs at reasonable
> >prices than is the United States--but I've heard the disparity is much
> >smaller now).
> its pretty shallow to see quality of life as possessions. With
> the Tv what matters is the programmes, with the home what matters
> is the community, with the car, well, you agree its a bit of a
> non issue, even for a petrol head like me. Guaranteed medical
> care even if i'm broke means more to me.
Medical care is one of several issues. I'm more worried about medical
care for my kids and subsequent generations.
Quality of life is not just about possessions. But it is also wrong to
ignore financial success when considering quality of life. I can afford
to eat as often as I want whenever I want. That gives me a better
quality of life than someone who goes to bed hungry every night. Part
of my quality of life is the ability to travel, to see new countries,
to meet new people, to learn new cultures. That ain't free. If I get to
do it more than someone who earns less money then my income provides me
with a higher quality of life.
> As predicted Tchowa wants different goalposts to prove US is the
> best of all things.
Just goalposts that apply to reality rather than some far-fetched
fantasy about everyone living together in blissful poverty.
Which is what that website was all about.
From: Jordi on 19 Jul 2006 05:26
> Jordi wrote:
> > However, when being told that our system actually works for everyone
> > and with less expense, all I hear from you is some distant whining
> > about lines and the system going bankrupt.
> Being told by you as opposed to seeing the actual statements from the
> governments involved and the court rulings and everything else. The
> fact that you have blinders on doesn't mean anyone should accept your
> claims while ignoring all the evidence around them.
We are living the system day to day, as opposed to some smoke signals
by think tanks disguised as government statements.
From: Jim Ley on 19 Jul 2006 05:35
On 19 Jul 2006 01:46:00 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>Quality of life is not just about possessions. But it is also wrong to
>ignore financial success when considering quality of life. I can afford
>to eat as often as I want whenever I want. That gives me a better
>quality of life than someone who goes to bed hungry every night.
no-one is suggesting otherwise, but few people in ny rich country re
going to bed hungry, although I understand it's higher in countries
with low levels of support for unemployed etc.