What would Jesus do?

To be honest I simply wanted to support your thread by posting on it - not to get into arguments.

I'm sure Glos and everyone else posting on here did so too.

If anything I go out of my way to swerve arguments with you - so no I'm not looking to pick an argument.

Are you?

Great, if that’s the case can you focus on the topic rather than answering for Glos and posting definitions?

Thanks.

Leeds_Trotter wrote:Personally, I do not believe this country is in a position anymore to be giving away such money. There are vital services in this country that could do with the money. We should sort them out before sending money abroad. However in cases where we've caused destruction of other countries, we should assist in helping rebuilding the country. But in the future, we should not get involved in such conflicts.

My only point on this is that we’re the 6th largest economy in the world. Do not make the mistake of thinking the lack of funding of public services is due to the pot being empty. It’s a political choice to underfund.

Let’s make sure the money is spent wisely rather than cutting it out.

I am sure JRM genuinely believes he is a religious man. I am equally sure that he has no trouble believing the foreign aid budget should be cut without seeing any contradiction with his interpretation of what being a Christian is. That is just one of the ways religion works. Once you start believing in non-rational things you can pretty much justify anything. All those fanatics in ISIS believe that they are Muslims, apartheid supporting South Africans believed they were Christians, Indians who killed people they thought had eaten beef believe they are Hindus, the Burmese who are persecuting the Rohingya believe they are Buddhists and so on.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Great, if that’s the case can you focus on the topic rather than answering for Glos and posting definitions?

Thanks.

I'll post whatever I like within the rules of the forum - thank you.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Leeds_Trotter wrote:Personally, I do not believe this country is in a position anymore to be giving away such money. There are vital services in this country that could do with the money. We should sort them out before sending money abroad. However in cases where we've caused destruction of other countries, we should assist in helping rebuilding the country. But in the future, we should not get involved in such conflicts.

My only point on this is that we’re the 6th largest economy in the world. Do not make the mistake of thinking the lack of funding of public services is due to the pot being empty. It’s a political choice to underfund.

Let’s make sure the money is spent wisely rather than cutting it out.

Given we are the sixth largest economy I do wonder where the money goes. We have funding crises in the NHS, social care, education and local authorities. Where does the money go?

Perhaps we should make some attempt to get the very wealthy individuals who live here to pay a fair share of tax. Then we could afford more completely useless white elephant aircraft carriers.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed,

How does being a religious man equip him to know where aid is needed?

You're the one who decided Jesus' view should be taken into account, so from the religious point of view, I would have though R-M would be well aware of what Jesus would think,(if that is possible), and as a result, has decided to follow the decision he has made. 
I genuinely believe that its all conjecture when looked at from the religious point of view.

xmiles wrote:I am sure JRM genuinely believes he is a religious man. I am equally sure that he has no trouble believing the foreign aid budget should be cut without seeing any contradiction with his interpretation of what being a Christian is. That is just one of the ways religion works. Once you start believing in non-rational things you can pretty much justify anything. All those fanatics in ISIS believe that they are Muslims, apartheid supporting South Africans believed they were Christians, Indians who killed people they thought had eaten beef believe they are Hindus, the Burmese who are persecuting the Rohingya believe they are Buddhists and so on.

Good post, and one I agree with. Worrying this mans in the running to be the next PM by all accounts.

gloswhite wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed,

How does being a religious man equip him to know where aid is needed?

You're the one who decided Jesus' view should be taken into account, so from the religious point of view, I would have though R-M would be well aware of what Jesus would think,(if that is possible), and as a result, has decided to follow the decision he has made. 
I genuinely believe that its all conjecture when looked at from the religious point of view.

Right, so a misinterpretation on my part. I had read that to mean you thought JRM was qualified to make a judgement based on his religion. 

My point around Jesus wasn’t to bring his view into it,  it was that cutting foreign aid doesn’t seem a religious thing to do (in the traditional sense).

I have to say T.R.O.Y., you've done a magnificent job here. From a small item about foreign aid, you have managed to create an argument where its you against the rest of us, (again), You have expertly manipulated our comments to cause annoyance on the forum, and completely distorted the argument and valid views, even those that are in agreement with you. 
I much preferred it when you were keeping a low profile.

gloswhite wrote:I have to say T.R.O.Y., you've done a magnificent job here. From a small item about foreign aid, you have managed to create an argument where its you against the rest of us, (again), You have expertly manipulated our comments to cause annoyance on the forum, and completely distorted the argument and valid views, even those that are in agreement with you. 
I much preferred it when you were keeping a low profile.

Sadly, I am agreeing with what Glos has said and this is why I generally try to avoid you on here.

A true shame, but you certainly can’t please everyone!

I resent the accusation that I’ve manipulated comments, anyone can see through that lie by simply reading the thread. 

It’s an interesting topic though, particularly if Rees-Mogg goes on to become pm, his record on a host of social issues makes interesting reading. It would certainly please some on here, while alienating others.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Leeds_Trotter wrote:Personally, I do not believe this country is in a position anymore to be giving away such money. There are vital services in this country that could do with the money. We should sort them out before sending money abroad. However in cases where we've caused destruction of other countries, we should assist in helping rebuilding the country. But in the future, we should not get involved in such conflicts.

My only point on this is that we’re the 6th largest economy in the world. Do not make the mistake of thinking the lack of funding of public services is due to the pot being empty. It’s a political choice to underfund.

Let’s make sure the money is spent wisely rather than cutting it out.

Just because we are the 6th largest economy in the world, doesn't mean we should be throwing money around that we haven't got helping others out. There are people in our country struggling, what about them? It's ok saying it's a political choice that the services are underfunded, but the money has to come from somewhere, and the foreign aid budget should be the 1st thing to cut. Though it isn't just down to how much money we are pumping into services, it's how the services are run and the NHS is very poorly run.

I’d say there are responsibilities that come with being so wealthy, I’d like to see them upheld. A different viewpoint I guess.

T.R.O.Y wrote:A true shame, but you certainly can’t please everyone!

I resent the accusation that I’ve manipulated comments, anyone can see through that lie by simply reading the thread. 

It’s an interesting topic though, particularly if Rees-Mogg goes on to become pm, his record on a host of social issues makes interesting reading. It would certainly please some on here, while alienating others.

It is an interesting topic, and should he become PM, it will add a whole new dimension to any political argument. 
I for one, think we have enough of those just now 

As Jesus was,quite obviously,a Socialist,I'm sure he'd have a lot to say about this matter.

The present Oxfam scandal isn't helping.

gloswhite wrote:I believe it was Cameron who wanted the practice of giving away billions enshrined in our law, (0.7% of GDP ?), even though there was, and is, solid proof that much of the funds are siphoned off to either people or projects theat do not necessarily help the poor and starving. Read somewhere that he thought the benefit in doing this was that the UK would be held in high esteem by the developing nations. To this argument, I would ask just one question, why, after all these years, and billions of pounds, dollars, etc., are we still paying for their development? surely, after all this investment, somebody must be able to stand on their own two feet by now. The truth is that we, amongst others, have allowed a dependency culture to develop, and by pouring more money into it, we are actually making it worse, in the longer term.
I think that we should stop the index linked rise in foreign aid, and target those who actually need it. I'm sure we all know of the time, a couple of years ago, when India said they didn't need the money, but were told that they would need to take it, as it had already been allocated. 
I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed, and where, and I agree with him that its needed at home, at least for the next few years. I think the Jesus angle is spurious in this case.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

Angry Dad wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I believe it was Cameron who wanted the practice of giving away billions enshrined in our law, (0.7% of GDP ?), even though there was, and is, solid proof that much of the funds are siphoned off to either people or projects theat do not necessarily help the poor and starving. Read somewhere that he thought the benefit in doing this was that the UK would be held in high esteem by the developing nations. To this argument, I would ask just one question, why, after all these years, and billions of pounds, dollars, etc., are we still paying for their development? surely, after all this investment, somebody must be able to stand on their own two feet by now. The truth is that we, amongst others, have allowed a dependency culture to develop, and by pouring more money into it, we are actually making it worse, in the longer term.
I think that we should stop the index linked rise in foreign aid, and target those who actually need it. I'm sure we all know of the time, a couple of years ago, when India said they didn't need the money, but were told that they would need to take it, as it had already been allocated. 
I don't believe Rees-Mogg is being a hypocrite, and with him being a religious man, will be well aware of what is needed, and where, and I agree with him that its needed at home, at least for the next few years. I think the Jesus angle is spurious in this case.

I was going to go on a rant but no need to as these are exactly my thoughts.

I also agree with Glos however I'd add that a few years ago I saw an expose of how "foreign aid" was spent and in essence it said that the British Government use "foreign aid" as a slush fund to grease the palms of officials in countries we want to trade with or influence politically, hence donating to e.g. India and China - huge economies that don't actually need the money. 
That has always been the British way when it comes to international relations and it could be argued that it works as we have done very well out of it.
The idea that our "foreign aid" budget is used to help the poor and needy - and thereby salve our collective conscience - is one that I think is a bit naive.
Can't locate the expose at the moment but there is a Telegraph article online which complained that whilst British aid was being used to cut the smoking rate of workers in China, British territories in the caribbean damaged by hurricane Irma weren't eligible. Pakistan is by far the biggest recipient and 37% of the entire budget goes to unilateral organisations such as the UN with only 16% being spent on crisis/disaster relief.
I would assume JRM has knowledge of how it's spent and maybe, just maybe he is actually proposing a change in the way we conduct trade and diplomacy rather cutting money for people who really need it. 
Perhaps his comments may stimulate a public debate on how the budget is spent?

Mogg is about as much a Christian as Pontius Pilate!
Some of his comments beside this subject beg belief!
Twat of the highest order and a top flag bearer for the blue nose nasty bastards!