WTC 1 & 2. Hit by planes, flown by Islamist terrorists...probably facilitated by purposeful government inaction.

Flight 93...bad piloting, nasty crash.

Pentagon...who cares?? all is fair in love and war and enough peoples' deaths have been planned in there.

WTC7...official story is implausible. conspiracy explanation is equally implausible.

there that's that sorted.

Heeby Jeeby wrote:Pentagon...who cares?? all is fair in love and war and enough peoples' deaths have been planned in there.

Unfortunately it was mainly contract workers who got killed there.

It's like the Death Star in Return of the Jedi. It might have been a blow against the evil empire but a lot of innocents will have been working on rebuilding that thing*





* I won't claim it for myself - insight stolen from that Kevin Smith movie

Earwicker wrote:

Heeby Jeeby wrote:Pentagon...who cares?? all is fair in love and war and enough peoples' deaths have been planned in there.

Unfortunately it was mainly contract workers who got killed there.

It's like the Death Star in Return of the Jedi. It might have been a blow against the evil empire but a lot of innocents will have been working on rebuilding that thing*





* I won't claim it for myself - insight stolen from that Kevin Smith movie

I understand your point and I've seen Clerks but I think people have a personal responsibility to watch who and what they work for. A paycheck is no excuse.

I feel the same about people who buy shares in war-profiteering companies and about the construction workers building the wall in Palestine. Economic necessity doesn't excuse you from the consequences of your actions, nor does saying 'If I didn't do it somebody else would have'.

I'm not in any way glad that people died anywhere but all I'm saying is the Pentagon isn't exactly the most innocent place in the world.

Heeby Jeeby wrote:I understand your point and I've seen Clerks but I think people have a personal responsibility to watch who and what they work for. A paycheck is no excuse.

I entirely agree.

I've said it a number of times but usually get pounced on for being callous and unsympathetic.

What about teenagers who work in McDonalds because they're really, really poor and they need jobs to live? Call centre workers for crooked insurance companies? Construction workers who build the offices for big corporations?

Why have a policy of attacking the most needy? Where do you draw the line? I'm guessing that you share Bob's attitude towards bums and the homeless.

You're guessing completely fucking wrong then.

Explain to me why you felt the need to make up bogus examples instead of dealing with the ones I gave.

Do I really need to explain the difference between working in McDonalds or a Call Centre and the Pentagon?

Who's attacking the most needy? Who mentioned the homeless? BTW your use of the word 'bum' doesn't exactly portray you as the warm and fuzzy help-everyone-you-can type. Just sayin.

big_dave wrote:What about teenagers who work in McDonalds because they're really, really poor and they need jobs to live?

I'll look the other way

big_dave wrote:Call centre workers for crooked insurance companies?

Shouldn't do it. Certainly if they know the insurance company is crooked.

big_dave wrote:Construction workers who build the offices for big corporations?

Again I'd look the other way tbh (dependent on the corporation). But what if you were building the cages at Guantanamo?

big_dave wrote:Why have a policy of attacking the most needy?

Who's doing that?

Heeby Jeeby wrote:You're guessing completely fucking wrong then.

Explain to me why you felt the need to make up bogus examples instead of dealing with the ones I gave.

Do I really need to explain the difference between working in McDonalds or a Call Centre and the Pentagon?

Who's attacking the most needy? Who mentioned the homeless? BTW your use of the word 'bum' doesn't exactly portray you as the warm and fuzzy help-everyone-you-can type. Just sayin.

My reply was towards Earwicker and not you, who already about how welfare claimants are mostly lazy and don't "deserve" help. If you haven't noticed he's screamed his little heart-out over the fact that I spend a few hours a week working for a bank.

I think the difference does need to be defined if you're going to blame contract workers as much as those that hire them. I don't disagree when it comes the Israel or the Pentagon, but I think personal responsibility doesn't come it to when we're talking about neediness or absolute necessity. If someone makes a lot of money working for private health-care because he wants to support his wife and children, it says a lot of good about his character even if it says some bad about his business ethics.

You basically just posted about personal responsibility, and not the characters or intentions of the people. Which is fine, but everyone has a bunch of responsibilities and how they choose between them (as individuals) seems to be a better way to focus than blanket assumptions about the workforce.

A woman takes a job cleaning the offices of Monsanto or ICI for the sake of getting off benefits and improving her family. Right or wrong? The answer is both.

I don't think that ethical choice should be a privilege of those wealthy enough to choose any more than money should free people from social responsibility. I think the appearance of being a liberal, conscientious lefty is a privilege afforded by money as people are quick to judge those without enough money/education to present themselves in a way that lives up to our expectations of what a responsible person should be.

Earwicker wrote:

big_dave wrote:Why have a policy of attacking the most needy?

Who's doing that?

Seem to recall you making a lot of grudging posts about not wanting to pay for the welfare of the "idle". I was wondering if you extend that grudge to the very poor, the homeless and those suckered into terrible CSA/service industry jobs for big corporations.

You and I both know how difficult it is to get work, let alone work outside of the corporate rubric. Especially for those that can't afford education or other signifiers of social status.

I won't condemn anyone with a low paying job for their work. Obviously cages at gitmo and labelling crates of grenades would be exception. But then again, maybe we should so them the same compassion and understanding we show troops. Low rank troops are the ultimate victims, and I wouldn't feel excession extending that classification to the secretary at the barracks as well.

big_dave wrote:My reply was towards Earwicker and not you, who already about how welfare claimants are mostly lazy and don't "deserve" help.

This is a distortion of what I said actually.
I said I object to my tax paying for long term (2 years plus) dole claimants (along with a lot of other things I object to it paying for).

big_dave wrote:If you haven't noticed he's screamed his little heart-out over the fact that I spend a few hours a week working for a bank.

Helping people get into debt with credit cards or loans comes into my 'don't do' bracket.

big_dave wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

big_dave wrote:Why have a policy of attacking the most needy?

Who's doing that?

Seem to recall you making a lot of grudging posts about not wanting to pay for the welfare of the "idle".

Didn't say that. See above.

big_dave wrote:I was wondering if you extend that grudge to the very poor, the homeless and those suckered into terrible CSA/service industry jobs for big corporations.

I thought I answered your specifics. Grudge about what exactly?
Do I think the homeless should be helped? Yes, by society at large, government programs etc. Do I think I should give them the change in my pocket? Personally, no.
The question of the corporate job would depend on the circumstances.

big_dave wrote:You and I both know how difficult it is to get work, let alone work outside of the corporate rubric. Especially for those that can't afford education or other signifiers of social status.

I know it's hard to get the exact job you want but I do no think it is hard to get a job at the moment generally. And I don't see that that job has to be for some large scale perpetuator of society's ills. Pretty much anyone but the disabled can get a job within 2 years that would not be adding to the shitstorm.

big_dave wrote:I won't condemn anyone with a low paying job for their work. Obviously cages at gitmo and labelling crates of grenades would be exception. But then again, maybe we should so them the same compassion and understanding we show troops.

You missed me having a go about soldiers then?

Why do you think an exception should be made for contractors who build torture chambers?

Earwicker wrote:This is a distortion of what I said actually.
I said I object to my tax paying for long term (2 years plus) dole claimants (along with a lot of other things I object to it paying for).

You said a bunch of other stuff too. You said anyone on benefit for more than two years was more than likely committing benefit fraud and accused long-term claimants of "wanting to live off everyone else".

The difference of opinion in that thread is that you were seeing bad people where most people were seeing people in bad situations.

You accused everyone who argued with you as wanting to "pay the idle for continuing to be idle".

Helping people get into debt with credit cards or loans comes into my 'don't do' bracket.

I don't do this. I don't work for a company that does this. Maybe we do personal loan accounts sometimes, but infrequently. I don't think personal loans are unethical at all, I think they're too expensive but eventually maybe I'll have more of a say in what the rates should be. I owe a lot of great things in my life to loans, because I was sensible.

I dislike the credit industry. But I don't think the company I work for is as unethical as the property industry. I moved from property to banking. I felt terrible working in property.

Although I was offered a really good job working for a developer last year and I turned it down. I felt like a chump for a few months, but I'm back in full time education now and it feels good.

Didn't say that. See above.

If you didn't mean what I thought you meant, I apologise. But you used very loaded language, you must admit.

Do I think I should give them the change in my pocket? Personally, no.

Well, this is a thing I plain don't understand.

I know it's hard to get the exact job you want but I do no think it is hard to get a job at the moment generally. And I don't see that that job has to be for some large scale perpetuator of society's ills. Pretty much anyone but the disabled can get a job within 2 years that would not be adding to the shitstorm.

Do you really think that those with children/debt/desire to better themselves should wait two years to find the most socially responsible job that they can?

You missed me having a go about soldiers then?

Did you, or are you being sarcastic? Hate the game, not the playas.

Why do you think an exception should be made for contractors who build torture chambers?

I didn't say that. I meant to imply that "Bring the Troops Home" is a sentiment for the good of the troops, and that goes for the people who work for the troops as much as the troops themselves.

Maybe I would think less of someone for polishing leg irons in Gitmo.