Worst thing in your country ?

You make some good points, but this one I'll pick up on just briefly.  I wouldn't go as far as to say that property is theft, but it is a limited resource which we have to own sparingly, and with consideration for others.

There are whole swathes of the countryside where the average starter home is seriously out of the range of young local people (like round here) because they are bought up by retiring people from the South East of Birmingham.  Some places in Cornwall, Devon & Norfolk Broads have over 90% of their housing under second home ownership.

I don't think its right to say there are single people with money to buy....the spare money in this country of mostly with the 50 plus bracket...but its single people with a desperate need for somewhere to live, to such an extent that they are willing to pay out more than half their salary on rent.......in places like here, where a 1 room bedsit will go for over £400pcm (and I don't live in the South East!).

B*****ks, How do you get the boxes around previous comments?

Anyway.

I can only comment in my experience. I work with a fair number of 25s-35s and a reasonable proportion of them live on their own in their own houses. We don't work in high flying jobs - just ordinary office jobs. In earlier days there wouldn't be such a high proportion of single occupancy dwellings due to our social structure. I agree that the cost of housing is far too high but, again in my earlier days, mortgage rates were in double figures and my first mortgage took at least half of my income. In fact I had to have two jobs to fund my prog vinyl habit. (I  had a look at my vinyls the other day and noticed that an average album from the mid 70's was £3.50. - my salary was just under two grand. Modern equiv is about 16 grand for the same job - £27 equiv for a CD today??) I don't think there is much difference in the ratio of income v mortgage/rent these days now that interest rates are a lot lower. We also expect more today from our disposal income. I didn't have a car till I was 29, no mobile to fund and all the other stuff we (think) we need today. I still live on a train/bus route to work. Yes, times change but the one constant fact is that we should live within our means.

I agree with you entirely about second homes. It is scandalous that people are allowed to have second homes in areas crying out for reasonably priced accommodation. My job is connected with the rural scene and I see on a regular basis just what effect it is having in the countryside, which in turn affects everywhere else. I'm not totally in favour of, more a reluctant acceptance, but if I understand what you are saying, if a couple from Birmingham sell their house for a cheaper place in the country then market forces must play a part. Granted they may not be contributing much to their new area but if it wasn't for the flipping second home owners perhaps the problem wouldn't be as severe. Not that I am in favour of the extremist action a couple of decades ago in Wales, but I can appreciate their frustration.

I agree totally with your view in your first paragraph but these days people only look after number one and basically couldn't give a damn about anyone else. Hasn't the recent fuel scare farce demonstrated this? I also feel that little is being done about developing brown field sites because that is more expense.

I could go on but TTFN

PS. I had a listen to Proto Kaw - maybe next month. I'm getting a bit of pressure?!

BitchBrew wrote: LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES

Fencesitters for me.

Also, I have a question..what would be a better place to visit..Western or Eastern Europe?

stonebeard wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: King of Loss wrote: NetsNJFan wrote: The Bush Admin. So much wasted potential after 9/11, he coulda been a great president. You actually think he could have been a great president?  I don't think he has the potential to be a sh*tty president. I do.  After 9/11 he had such a united country.  He could have really been great aftre that.  But no. i can understand why we went to war in iraq, we were still on edge about wmd's and 9/11. now, when we found no wmd's and no truth to the claim that iraq was seeking enriched uranium, bush should have been impeached and the head of the cia fired (along with many higher-ups). the way we went into war was as arrogant and single-minded as when nepoleon invaded russia, and we are still suffering greatly because of it. the climate in the us now just makes me want to leave. i'll be glad when bush is gone. you know, i really only started paying attention to the news and following politics with the bush administration and it is really disheartening. if things do not get better with the next president, i'm moving to europe.

Me2!!!

I can't stand Neo-cons like him!!

marktheshark wrote: I've been pondering this for a good while. But as a vet without going into any Bush or Iraq rantings, I have to say it's the constant denigration of our armed forces. People who insist on saying that anybody with a military uniform is evil. And at the same time camouflage their hatred by saying "We support the troops, but don't support the war". BS! Right now there are people here who actually want as many troops killed as possible just for political advancement. Just like the people who just loved seeing as many people perish in the wake of Katrina for the same cause. It's one thing to hate your president. It's another to hate your country. Just ask Cindy Sheehan.

i think she's a fool. the reason she's protesting the war (from what i've heard) is the argument, "My son died in Iraq. It's the president's fault. I want him to apologize to me. He should recall troops from Iraq just because my son is dead." Look, i have respect for a grieving mother and the life that her son gave in this endless and enigmatic conflict is irreplaceable, but it is a major conflict and one death frankly doesn't make a difference. the way she is playing the innocent mother routine all while giving interviews to the media is dusgusting!

i do disagree with what you say about not supporting this conflict while still supporting the troops is BS. i do think this conflict (war) is a pointless, meandering walk in a desert hellhole but i completely support the brave troops carrying us through this mess.

the sad thing is that we cannot pull out of Iraq, what is necessary, until stability is atttained. however, i do not think stability will ever be attained as long as a US presence is over there. Hence we come to the problem. since i see no true solution, i say we somehow ensure that those responsible for the war never hold any influential position for the rest of their lives. in a democracy, i do not know how this will be possibl. but other than a war crimes trial for everyone in the white house and pentagon responsible, this is fair, IMO.

The Doctor wrote: marktheshark wrote: I've been pondering this for a good while. But as a vet without going into any Bush or Iraq rantings, I have to say it's the constant denigration of our armed forces. People who insist on saying that anybody with a military uniform is evil. And at the same time camouflage their hatred by saying "We support the troops, but don't support the war". BS! Right now there are people here who actually want as many troops killed as possible just for political advancement. Just like the people who just loved seeing as many people perish in the wake of Katrina for the same cause. It's one thing to hate your president. It's another to hate your country. Just ask Cindy Sheehan. I've kept my mouth shut over Cindy because she's a grieving mother and has every right speak out on the cause of her loss, including the commander-in-chief. But now she's protesting almost every military move this country is doing. Including rescue and evac operations in New Orleans. And not to mention passing judgement on Israel. Sorry, but she's now crossed the line. You know.  I agree with you 100% on this issue.  I often disagree with the government in this country, but I love my country and would stand up for it if it took my last breath.  As to your comment about wanting as many troops killed as possible for political advancement, it's funny.  I was just talking with my girlfriend last night about how those on the far left as well as those on the far right care much more about causes than they do about people.  People be damned so long as their cause is advanced.  And they really don't even care about the people who would benefit from their cause.  All they care about is the cause itself.  I think it makes them feel important to have a cause.

sometimes a cause is greater than the individual. example: WW2.

Wake up MTS.  The ACLU doesn't support our country.  I wouldn't be shocked if the ACLU planned to fly planes into our buildings.  They hate everything that lives within the normal boundaries of our society.

marktheshark wrote: stonebeard wrote: marktheshark wrote: I've been pondering this for a good while. But as a vet without going into any Bush or Iraq rantings, I have to say it's the constant denigration of our armed forces. People who insist on saying that anybody with a military uniform is evil. And at the same time camouflage their hatred by saying "We support the troops, but don't support the war". BS! Right now there are people here who actually want as many troops killed as possible just for political advancement. Just like the people who just loved seeing as many people perish in the wake of Katrina for the same cause. It's one thing to hate your president. It's another to hate your country. Just ask Cindy Sheehan. i think she's a fool. the reason she's protesting the war (from what i've heard) is the argument, "My son died in Iraq. It's the president's fault. I want him to apologize to me. He should recall troops from Iraq just because my son is dead." Look, i have respect for a grieving mother and the life that her son gave in this endless and enigmatic conflict is irreplaceable, but it is a major conflict and one death frankly doesn't make a difference. the way she is playing the innocent mother routine all while giving interviews to the media is dusgusting! i do disagree with what you say about not supporting this conflict while still supporting the troops is BS. i do think this conflict (war) is a pointless, meandering walk in a desert hellhole but i completely support the brave troops carrying us through this mess. the sad thing is that we cannot pull out of Iraq, what is necessary, until stability is atttained. however, i do not think stability will ever be attained as long as a US presence is over there. Hence we come to the problem. since i see no true solution, i say we somehow ensure that those responsible for the war never hold any influential position for the rest of their lives. in a democracy, i do not know how this will be possibl. but other than a war crimes trial for everyone in the white house and pentagon responsible, this is fair, IMO. Ok Stone, fair enough. But you have to think from the soldier's head. Here you are volunteering to serve your country, and then you start hearing on the Armed Forces Network that what you're doing is wrong, you're duped into this, the president is a liar, ect ect... Guess what happens Stone? They start having feelings of depression, inadequecy and uselessness. Can you do your job to the fullest under those conditions? Here's a good one. The ACLU wants to sopena all the Abu Graib "abuse" pictures and videos from the Pentagon to be displayed in public on the news simply for the so-called principle of freedom of the press. All this will do is encourage more terrorism and aid the enemy AND endanger our troops even more. Obviously the ACLU doesn't support our troops.

i don't want our troops morale to be affected by a discussion among civilians. they're the ones who have to fight in this sad conflict. but this does need to be discussed. this is surely one of the biggest blunders in the history of the united states, assuming it never gets resolved, and i personally don't think it will be resolved.

i think that bush may be (though i may be wrong, but it would make sense if it were ture) a bit glad in a way because of hurricanes katrina and rita, for it's taking people's minds of iraq, which he has far less support for now. remeber, bush's approval rating is at about 40% (i'm not quite sure, but its close to that) and that is not good. his recent actions, such as placing a majority of the blame for the delayed response to katrina on state and local authorities, bring doubts in even the most consevative minds of his authenticity, commitment, and honor. i do be lieve, though, that he eventually took a small bit of the blame for the delayed response to katrina, but he rarely ever admits a fault in his actions or the actions of his administration.

as for the "abu graib scandal," anyone who cares about it already has seen the pictures or knows what happened, so i see no need to spread the pictures out across every medium. the ACLU is as corrupt at the Tammany political machine was in the 1800s.