What does TI actually stand for anyways?

I'm sorry, but the moment you leave your nations jurisdiction, you are choosing to entrust to yourself to the system of the nation you enter. I would not travel to Lagos. The US, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, that about sums up the list of where I will travel. Outside of that, I don't trust the system and as such won't put myself in it's hands.

What's more, IF she is given a fair trial, and found guilty then she deserves the sentence. Nations penal codes tend to be readily available, you're going to be a mule in a nation where the penalty is death? Hey, your problem. Why then, should my tax dollars go to save her? To, indirectly albeit, support the drug trade? Sorry, no thanks.

the barbarians are the drug traffickers and the politicians defending them.

> avogadro wrote:

> the barbarians are the drug traffickers and the politicians defending them.

Not really

that s a harsh thing to say chwis

we dont even know wether she s guilty or not, right?
she could be innocent, forced into stupid stuff, or guilty as hell

EIW, I did believe you were saying deliberately controversial things in order to provoke a response. As this is my understanding of the definition of a troll I accused you of being a troll. This does not mean I was accusing you of being a troll because your opinion differed to mine, I was accusing you of being a troll because I did not believe you were being sincere about your views. So, no, not correct that I accuse people of being trolls because they differ in opinion.

"I am merely saying that when the interests of your own citizens come in conflict with the interests of another country or that other country's right to rule, I believe it is the government's obligation to protect you and choose you over that country's citizens to protect you against unjust prosecution or treatment. Forgive me if I should expect more out of my government for 50% taxes than just a completely irrelevant war, a crappy healthcare system, and shitty public education system. All of which I don't even think should exist."

Of course a government should act in the interest of it's citizens. But the British government has no right, legally or morally to interfere in the judicial proceedings of Laos or any other foreign nation. For one thing, if it did so then it would set a precedent that it is ok to interfere with the laws and justice system of another country, so what then happens when a country more powerful than the UK dislikes some of our laws? Given that you suggested that British special forces attack the country and lift her from jail, would that mean that we might have to put up with the same kind of action from the USA or Russia on the UK as soon as we had a falling out? Even this scenario is getting away from the point as it is assuming that she will not be given a fair trial in Laos, which she may well be. If she is and she is found guilty then so what? It serves her right for (a) being a drug smuggler and (b) being stupid enough to smuggle drugs in a country where the penalty could be death. If she is found not guilty then justice will also have been done. It is speculated that she herself may have been the victim of a crime, but as far as I am aware that kind of thing happens and can happen in prisons in all parts of the world. It is also mere speculation that her pregnancy was the result of a rape. If she is innocent and she has been set up then it really is the nightmare scenario and it is crap to be here but she surely assessed the risks of dodgy justice when she decided to travel to Laos and she takes responsibility for the bad risk. While obviously she should get consular advice and help (which I believe the article said she was) it would be a completely disproportionate response for the UK government to send in the military to break her out. It would also be a bit ironic to spring someone from jail in the name of justice.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, firstly they were both completely different situations, and secondly I didn't defend either of them, so as an argument against my standpoint they are irrelevant.

How much in 'matching funds' does your employer, or any employer/school need to do for you also?

> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:

> EIW, I did believe you were saying deliberately controversial things in order to provoke a response. As this is my understanding of the definition of a troll I accused you of being a troll. This does not mean I was accusing you of being a troll because your opinion differed to mine, I was accusing you of being a troll because I did not believe you were being sincere about your views. So, no, not correct that I accuse people of being trolls because they differ in opinion.

"I am merely saying that when the interests of your own citizens come in conflict with the interests of another country or that other country's right to rule, I believe it is the government's obligation to protect you and choose you over that country's citizens to protect you against unjust prosecution or treatment. Forgive me if I should expect more out of my government for 50% taxes than just a completely irrelevant war, a crappy healthcare system, and shitty public education system. All of which I don't even think should exist."

Of course a government should act in the interest of it's citizens. But the British government has no right, legally or morally to interfere in the judicial proceedings of Laos or any other foreign nation. For one thing, if it did so then it would set a precedent that it is ok to interfere with the laws and justice system of another country, so what then happens when a country more powerful than the UK dislikes some of our laws? Given that you suggested that British special forces attack the country and lift her from jail, would that mean that we might have to put up with the same kind of action from the USA or Russia on the UK as soon as we had a falling out? Even this scenario is getting away from the point as it is assuming that she will not be given a fair trial in Laos, which she may well be. If she is and she is found guilty then so what? It serves her right for (a) being a drug smuggler and (b) being stupid enough to smuggle drugs in a country where the penalty could be death. If she is found not guilty then justice will also have been done. It is speculated that she herself may have been the victim of a crime, but as far as I am aware that kind of thing happens and can happen in prisons in all parts of the world. It is also mere speculation that her pregnancy was the result of a rape. If she is innocent and she has been set up then it really is the nightmare scenario and it is crap to be here but she surely assessed the risks of dodgy justice when she decided to travel to Laos and she takes responsibility for the bad risk. While obviously she should get consular advice and help (which I believe the article said she was) it would be a completely disproportionate response for the UK government to send in the military to break her out. It would also be a bit ironic to spring someone from jail in the name of justice.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, firstly they were both completely different situations, and secondly I didn't defend either of them, so as an argument against my standpoint they are irrelevant.

I never said whether it had any right at all to interfere. Screw that moral argument when your citizens are in danger. As for the rest, I didn't bother to read, it was boring me. Since you treat me as a troll, I will treat you in kind.

>btw, as for 50% taxes, I don't pay 50% tax, in fact I believe I pay a little under 25% of my gross pay in tax. I also believe I get good healthcare provision and had a good state funded education. National health provision is something I believe strongly in and a state funded education is something I don't just believe strongly in but think is absolutely fundamental to any meritocratic society. And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan I don't really have fully formed views on either way and are also irrelevant here.

federal Income tax, state income tax, property tax, sales tax, liquor tax, cigaratte tax, tolls, tariffs, fines, social security "contributions". I can go on if you wish. It comes out to nearly 50%, unless you think you are only getting screwed on income tax.

Why have you copied and pasted a whole post to add merely four lines? It would be easier just to write the four lines. As for treating you as a troll, in what way? I accused you of being a troll but I have debated with you and answered all your posts sensibly anyway. Apologies if my post bored you but it is pretty immature to make a post just to say that mine was boring

Back onto the tax issue, I live in the UK so don't pay state income tax. When I said a bit under 25% I included all deductions from my pay cheque (except pension since that is mine and isn't a tax) so that covered income tax and social security. I don't smoke, I don't drink and I don't drive. I also don't own a property and have never bought or sold one. So I pay the tad under 25% off my pay cheque and I also pay 15% in sales tax everytime I buy a non-essential product. Although admittedly some of the things classed as being non essential are a bit odd. So no, I don't pay 50% of anything in tax.