Politics & Stuff

[Strike 6,957]

What does Brexit mean for countries outside of the EU?

[cosmicway 1,246]

4 hours ago, Strike said:

What does Brexit mean for countries outside of the EU?

Poles and Germans seem to be the most worried according to a piece of news.
In Greece they don't want it but the two camps who are strongly in favour are the golden dawnies (neonazi), the grass roots of the left wing syriza and the orthodox communists. Syriza is officially against that is and the communists have declared neutrality, but their supporters are strongly in favour. They feel it is going to destabilise Europe and bring their "dictatorship of the proletariat" closer.

Most Greeks are pro-eu however.
In 2003 with the parliament dominated by conservatives and socialists the euro constitution passed with a big majority. There was not even talk about a referendum and the two parties forgot their heated exchanges for one day to vote in favour. The euro constitution idea was of course abandoned later, after France and Holland voted against it in referendums.
The feeling of the non-communists in Greece is that the modern free Europe really started here in 1940, or rather simultaneously in Greece and in the UK. Because only Greece and the UK were left fighting the axis forces, plus I should add the American volunteer pilots of La Manche (battle of Britain). America itself was neutral and USSR was also neutral.
Only the communists don't believe this and they like to distort history. The other lot, the neonazis, are a new fruit. The ultra rightists of the past were not, Papadopoulos the dictator and others like him. I remember in the fifth form at school we were given a world geography book with the bird symbol of the dictatorship in the back cover but inside it, ιn the chapter for Africa it condemned the South African apartheid (it's a system that represses the black populations it said).

[KevinAshburner 1,270]

[ LAST WEEK TONIGHT with John Oliver : Brexit ]

[Fernando 6,374]

Not going anywhere, it's Bremain

So much noise for nothing. 

[Fernando 6,374]

19 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

In the 72 hours since the Orlando shootings another 93 people have been shot to death in the US, and 203 are seriously injured or critical from shootings   -but as the NRA say its nothing to do with the guns, its the people.

It is the people. 

It's like drugs, it's illegal but why it's still around? 

You will get your ban on guns but that won't solve the issue. 

I'm sure they will find ways to blame the jews and Christians as people always do. Giving that a UCLA spokeman recently blame christian for the Orlando Shooting... 

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/16/prof-blames-conservatives-christians-orlando-shooting

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

People are children (What I mean is, the vast majority of people have not still developed their intellectual faculties at a later age). It's literally like giving guns to children.
Bans won't eliminate the issue, but it could lead to a diminished number of casualties.
Imagine if drugs were legal.

[Fulham Broadway 16,383]

38 minutes ago, Fernando said:

It is the people. 

It's like drugs, it's illegal but why it's still around? 

You will get your ban on guns but that won't solve the issue. 

I'm sure they will find ways to blame the jews and Christians as people always do. Giving that a UCLA spokeman recently blame christian for the Orlando Shooting... 

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/16/prof-blames-conservatives-christians-orlando-shooting

''It is the people''   -Pretty certain a piece of machinery which is so easy to purchase, and that has been manufactured with the sole intent of being able to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time, has something to do with the dozens of murders, suicides, and critical shootings every day in Old Uncle Sam land.

That article is only half right. You will get gay serial killers where they are unable to reconcile their christian conservative upbringing OR Islamic 'schooling', with their love/attraction to a member of the same sex.

They then end up, in their confusion, hating themselves, and blame other gays -so both religions that condemn homosexuality are to blame. 

Quite tragic really.

[cosmicway 1,246]

Speaking of serial killers I had a certain facebook experience last year.
It was the photoshop pic of the queen with a Chelsea scarf after we won the league.
Made it share in a fb football group with the caption "the queen too is one of us".
A scouser replies and he says "what ? since when ? how dare you ? this is photoshop".
Then I said "we are the army's team, that's why" - because of the nickname "pensioners" we also have (the old soldiers homes that are situated near Stamford Bridge).
He went mad then and he also saw my Greek name and he was shouting "ou-ou-ou-ou Greeks, you will see what will happen to you after Brexit".

[Fernando 6,374]

22 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

''It is the people''   -Pretty certain a piece of machinery which is so easy to purchase, and that has been manufactured with the sole intent of being able to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time, has something to do with the dozens of murders, suicides, and critical shootings every day in Old Uncle Sam land.

That article is only half right. You will get gay serial killers where they are unable to reconcile their christian conservative upbringing OR Islamic 'schooling', with their love/attraction to a member of the same sex.

They then end up, in their confusion, hating themselves, and blame other gays -so both religions that condemn homosexuality are to blame. 

Quite tragic really.

So if this is the case then why make it legal when the founding fathers put the country into motion? 

Tell me what rationale the founding fathers had to make this allowable? 

I hope you don't say that the people was "different" in that time, because then that would validate what I just said before....

[manpe 10,855]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

So if this is the case then why make it legal when the founding fathers put the country into motion? 

Tell me what rationale the founding fathers had to make this allowable? 

I hope you don't say that the people was "different" in that time, because then that would validate what I just said before....

You mean the right to bear arms? Times were different, firearms weren't so lethal and powerful. The country was new, based on colonization, taken with violence and slavery producing many angry people (proven by the shortly followed civil war), people needed to protect themselves from tumultuous times. Simply put times were very different from today. Clinging to centuries old laws isn't the wisest thing as time has shown. Regular folk should be allowed to carry pistols (not rifles) in a strict and controlled manner, not like in the States. What is happening in the USA concerning guns is extreme, it's never good.

[Fernando 6,374]

3 minutes ago, manpe said:

You mean the right to bear arms? Times were different, firearms weren't so lethal and powerful. The country was new, based on colonization, taken with violence and slavery producing many angry people (proven by the shortly followed civil war), people needed to protect themselves from tumultuous times. Simply put times were very different from today. Clinging to centuries old laws isn't the wisest thing as time has shown. Regular folk should be allowed to carry pistols (not rifles) in a strict and controlled manner, not like in the States. What is happening in the USA concerning guns is extreme, it's never good.

Why is times different?

Because of people?

Well that's what I said at the beginning.....

[manpe 10,855]

3 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Why is times different?

Because of people?

Well that's what I said at the beginning.....

Why? Time goes on, world changes. Doesn't really matter why it happens, fact is the world evolves over years and centuries. Yes, people are also different.

[kellzfresh 7,226]

I wonder why most of the gun violence where so much lives are lost in the USA happens in states like Orlando and San Beradino where they have strict gun control laws....... 

[kmk108 1,186]

2 hours ago, Fernando said:

So if this is the case then why make it legal when the founding fathers put the country into motion? 

Tell me what rationale the founding fathers had to make this allowable? 

I hope you don't say that the people was "different" in that time, because then that would validate what I just said before....

Someone once told me that it was put into the Bill of Rights to allow states to have militias. Back when the country was created, the armies that fought in the Revolutionary War were disbanded, because the founders did not trust having a standing army in a new country, fearing they could easily seize power. Instead, they wrote the second amendment to give the states power of militias made up of civilians in order to fight if need be. In order to have militias, they need weapons so it was written that they have the right to bear arms so that no government entity could effectively disarm these militias. Hence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's impossible to know what James Madison intended in today's current use. Language has changed, so what was meant back then may not be what it means today. Would he have known that the United States would be the military force that it is today, effectively taking away the need for a militia? Would he think that armed civilians are necessary to "keep the government in line?" We don't know, and we'll never know.

What I do know is that the most contentious phrase in the second amendment is "shall not be infringed." What does that mean? Should anyone and everyone be allowed to purchase a gun? That's not the case as felons aren't allowed to have guns. So, if it's not a right given to every citizen of the US, is it then a privilege, not a "god given right" that so many supporters say it is? If it's a god given right, shouldn't god be the only one to take away that right, not the US government?

If only I had a time machine...

[Fulham Broadway 16,383]

4 hours ago, Fernando said:

So if this is the case then why make it legal when the founding fathers put the country into motion? 

Tell me what rationale the founding fathers had to make this allowable? 

I hope you don't say that the people was "different" in that time, because then that would validate what I just said before....

I think as @manpe has said it was a completely different era. Guns in their infancy, an unknown land, and a 'frontier' mentality. You claimed yer land, and set up a stockade protected by yer Smith n Wesson or a Winchester if you owned one.

To allow state of the art machines that are purely designed to kill people to an overcrowded populace in tense cities, within dog eat dog capitalism is fucking madness.....unless youre an arms dealer or have stocks and shares in weaponry. I think you know this really.

[kellzfresh 7,226]

22 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

I think as @manpe has said it was a completely different era. Guns in their infancy, an unknown land, and a 'frontier' mentality. You claimed yer land, and set up a stockade protected by yer Smith n Wesson or a Winchester if you owned one.

To allow state of the art machines that are purely designed to kill people to an overcrowded populace in tense cities, within dog eat dog capitalism is fucking madness.....unless youre an arms dealer or have stocks and shares in weaponry. I think you know this really.

Such an important referendum is coming up tomorrow and no one here is talking about it ...... Which will you vote, in or out??????

I've stopped my forex since this week because of this, waiting for the vote..... 

[Fulham Broadway 16,383]

38 minutes ago, kellzfresh said:

Such an important referendum is coming up tomorrow and no one here is talking about it ...... Which will you vote, in or out??????

I've stopped my forex since this week because of this, waiting for the vote..... 

True, its massive, implications bigger than a general election. I made a long rant/post earlier. see above.

How bout you in ? Out? shake it all about ?

[kellzfresh 7,226]

18 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

True, its massive, implications bigger than a general election. I made a long rant/post earlier. see above.

How bout you in ? Out? shake it all about ?

I'm in totally. But EU has to give Britain more say on what happens especially around it's borders. In is also good for my forex trading