Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 17,397]

On a macro level Europe has been at war for centuries. The Great War was initially 'the war to end all wars', and then we saw what happened as countries suffered staggering inflation National Socialism was allowed to grow resulting in well over 100 million killed in both conflicts. The EU has so far stopped any such re occurences of slaughter on that scale. Make no mistake war in Europe with disunified states would probably be global Armageddon.

Iain Duncan Smith, Gove, Farage, and Alexander de Pffeifel Johnson say their ''leave campaign'' is about taking back control. What we have seen in the debate so far are these politicians using the  referendum to avoid responsibility for their own failures, and in Johnsons case a vague chance of being Tory leader is his motivation. Trump n Johnson -fuck me, Gawd elp us guvnor.

We are told immigration is to blame for all the problems we face - but the fact is the NHS is way underfunded-even Greece spend more of their GDP on health than the UK, and the Govt have also failed to build sufficient houses. Brexit under the tories would not address these issues-if anything progress on their agenda, from employment rights to trade deals and the NHS, would make them worse.

Brexit under the tories might make a few multi milionaires like Farage and Johnson richer, but we know for the rest of us millions of people it would be worse.

The EU under pressure from European Trade Unions has guaranteed - The right to full holiday pay when you take leave, the right to equal pay for agency workers preventing them being used as cheap labour, TUPE rights if your job is transferred, and proper Health and Safety law protecting you in the workplace.

Under the tories all the above rights have been attempted to be removed or watered down, quite often they refer to it as ''red tape'' -but it is only the EU that have kept them in place. Personally I would probably be better off under Brexit,  but a social conscience wants better for the majority rather than just a few.

 

[Muzchap 8,966]

8 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

I don't think that should be a controversial position at all. The danger though is when you start justifying some violence and demonizing another. Those are not conscious (or rational) choices to do so, but subconscious beliefs hammered in slowly (or rather obviously in this case) by the media that have an agenda, like when to call an attack 'terrorist'. 

If I can add another point, and I'd love your opinion on this, I think that people have this morally baseless idea that individual violence is much more wrong than systematic faceless violence carried out by states and other systems of power. 

 

A lot of people on the left don't want to vote out to not associate themselves with racists and bigots, but that's a rather weak argument in my mind. Even for social services, the idea of them being imposed by an unelected foreign committee is still undemocratic. But I absolutely get that things like social services and worker rights are about practicality not just principles so I would agree with you there (it's like the old argument some anarchists make that we should be against social services because it creates a 'parental' relationship between the state and citizens which makes them reliant on this corrupt system of power, but obviously if it keeps an orphan from starting to death (till the 'revolution') then I can't see how you can morally be against it).

I am of course as well for freedom of movement and as someone who believes in socialist values, I do think that people and communities are better off together as long as everyone is represented. I especially like the idea of a unified Europe that can oppose a US hegemony.

On the other hand, I don't think even the people for stay actually believe that they can reform the EU. The thing is, the EU is not 'corrupt'. It is very much designed to be a tyranny to promote the benefit of corporations. I was too young when the EU started and I only came to know how messed up it is set up hearing Yanis Varoufakis explain it all. Then you have TTIP which you will likely be forced to sign if you stay which is one of the gravest dangers to the world along with the other 'free trade' agreements. 

All that said, I would be shocked if the UK actually leaves because all of Labour and basically the Tory mainstream are behind the stay campaign. Which is probably the main reason why, if I were a Brit, would probably vote leave. NOTHING gives me more pleasure than pissing off corporations and mainstream parties.

 

It's true, they recovered faster because the EU did not force on them the crazy austerity measures that the IMF itself publishes study of how counter productive they are (and because Iceland actually jailed the criminal bankers instead of bailing them out with tax money). 

But the problem with that rationale is that most of the people you would be empowering by voting to leave the EU are more in favor that the EU itself of austerity and other insane financial policies that punish the most vulnerable people in society and benefit no one but the super rich.

There has to be another answer... 

Hey Choulo, 

i think the key word here is 'propaganda' - for example the Iraq war - Iraq was painted as a hotbed of extremists running around with WMDs - so the popular opinion thanks to media bias and propaganda was - we need to get them, before they get us!

this was a justification 

many, many innocent people were killed - on a 'basis' that never existed 

however - do you think the British media ever reported a 'stray' bomb that blew up a hospital? No, they simply reported the victories. The quote about history only being written by the victors is extremely apt and was still true in the early 00's. 

I think the population know there are casualties (innocent) during war, but it's somehow socially acceptable not to mention it because the populace is fed the great lie of 'it's for your own benefit'

control the media and you essentially control the hearts and minds of the people. 

This is why the Brexit debate is so toxic as both camps have media control - you would imagine that this would be a beneficial situation, however, sadly it is not. What passes as 'journalism' now is essentially over-hyped click bait and spurious half truths or complete lies being widely accepted, it's almost comical that people 'have' to believe the media, as it absolves them of guilt from previous atrocities carried out for their benefit. 

Only now will you find a groundswell of opinion that the Iraq war was stupid and that the lie about WMD was true - but it has taken years for this to seep into the collective conscious.... It's a real shame that propaganda and media manipulation by a few has such drastic worldwide ramifications. The world is running in a devolutionary state - education is typically seen as less cool and people want to be fed answers rather than ask questions and explore alternative hypothesis. I do wonder how this will end and makes me keep second guessing whether I should bring a child into this world. 

Sadly - in my heart - I know that a global conflict is less than 20 years away - I just know that things are on the precipice at the moment across the globe, the media is twisting and distorting facts - Right Wing Extremist movements are on the rise in every nation fighting a false battle - nothing good comes from ignorance and small mindedness

anyway, wow went off topic there  sorry for the long post

[CHOULO19 24,332]

@Muzchap human civilization in it's current form is not sustainable. Something has got to give, I feel in this current century. If it's not a global war, it's going to be a nuclear disaster or an environmental catastrophe. There's a reason why the doomsday clock is at its closest to midnight since 1984, and we escaped that through nothing short of a miracle. We can't get that lucky twice.. 

[cosmicway 1,333]

On 18/6/2016 at 0:11 PM, We Hate Scouse said:

Trade and commerce would either be the same or better. The European Free Trade Agreement would still completely cover us, as it does with many other non-Eu states. We could also negotiate better deals with European countries as we'd have a wider audience to barter with.

There's a reason Iceland and Switzerland have revoked their application to join the EU.

EU itself is a trade agreement basically.
It's either good or bad. It does n't make sense to knock the symbol EU anymore than it makes sense to say London should not be our capital, but Bristol.
But it's not only that. It is also the political wing of the NATO alliance and many people see it as "home". It's been 65 years now. People were born and died as EU citizens. It's not last year's product.
What you say has little chance of materialising because we are in the midst of a hate environment, created by the Brexiteers and others similar.
Other thinks more diabolical stand a higher chance of happening.

[cosmicway 1,333]

Look, the heart of Brexit beats here:

- Monopoly industries. Big business is divided two ways. Those who want open markets and look forward to internationalise and those who want to lock the customers to a single choice. The former are bremainers, the latter are brexiters.

- Race hate. Brexiters say no, but it's an elephant on the roof learning foreign languages (as the saying goes). We are now being subjected to a deluge of hate propaganda against foreign nurses and nuns "stealing" the jobs from "poor Britons".

So that's how the system works.
Anything else would n't even make a Brexiteer wake up in the morning and go to the polling station.

[Fulham Broadway 17,397]

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.

[Strike 7,556]

What does Brexit mean for countries outside of the EU?

[cosmicway 1,333]

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 6,612]

Not going anywhere, it's Bremain

So much noise for nothing. 

[Fernando 6,612]

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 17,397]

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 1,333]

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 6,612]

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 10,861]

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 6,612]

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 10,861]

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 7,229]

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...