Politics & Stuff

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Excellent. I wish Britain would be more like Turkey, Brazil and have some balls . Most people here are atomised and individualised and take whatever crumbs are thrown

I think Brasil is one of the very few countries in the world that this could actually happen and people would actually get the rights they are asking for.

Here in third world countries any demand for freedom and rights would almost inevitable become a civil war while in countries like Britain, people are satisfied and would rather not risk the 'crumbs' they are thrown, as you rightly said. That is the 'brilliance' of capitalism.

[SinineUltra 1,170]

This is sensational and unbelievable if there is even a shred of truth in it. The entire SEAL team that nailed Osama Bin Laden die under mysterious circumstances. Uncle Sam, at least pretend to be respectable!

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/7/the-betrayal-of-the-navys-seal-team-6/

I'm a bit late quoting you but if this is how it reads then it's shocking. I'm actually reading a book about the Osama bin Laden mission and the Team Six. Then again it's nothing surprising- politics is a dog-eat-dog world where only those prevail who go to any lengths.

[Fulham Broadway 16,831]

I agree and that is why I said it looks like the first protests in France and not generally the 1968 ones!

It started with University Students and with extreme police violence and power abuse. Then, the majority of the population backed up their cause and came to the streets with banners and songs of order. Lastly, it spreaded to what we know (11mi people on the streets, with strikes everywhere)..

Sounds familiar?

Brazilian President Rousseff said on Tuesday “The size of yesterday’s marches is evidence of the strength of our democracy.” and that “she is proud so many people are fighting for a better country”.

Today she’s mobilising the army …Swiftly moving from concessionary bullshit to military repression within 24hrs.

Gilberto Carvalho, (Ricardo?? )secretary general of Rousseff’s Worker’s Party (!) said “It would be pretentious to say we understand what’s going on…If we are not sensitive we’ll be caught on the wrong side of history.”

With at least a million people on the streets, an inflation of 15.5 percent, and the distinctly ‘insensitive’ army now being deployed, being ‘on the wrong side of history’ is probably exactly where the Brazilian government is.

Democracy at work....

[Rmpr 8,977]

WE WON, THE POPULATION MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE WOULD NOT TOLERATE MORE ABUSE AND THEY WILL REDUCE THE PRICE TO R$3,00!!!!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

The Egyptian people have done it! They've managed to make an actual change, to make their voices heard. What a truly great nation. They give me hope in an otherwise hopeless Arab world :')

[dave30 728]

The Egyptian people have done it! They've managed to make an actual change, to make their voices heard. What a truly great nation. They give me hope in an otherwise hopeless Arab world :')

But aren't they a minority? more evidence that an active, educated middle class who are able to have a big enough strop can hold the rest of a country to ransom.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

But aren't they a minority? more evidence that an active, educated middle class who are able to have a big enough strop can hold the rest of a country to ransom.

A minority? There were over 20 million people in the streets today! Not denying that Morsi has a lot of supporters (no where near the number of his opponents, though) but it's not about numbers, anyone can get a few million 'blind' followers in a country like Egypt in the name of Allah and Islam. It's about the best interest of the Egyptian nation, the Egyptian society, and the entire Arab world. Because when Egypt leads, the rest of the Arab world is very likely to follow. What is important here is that today is the first nail in the coffin of the rule of Muslim extremist over the region. It is a nail in the coffin of civil war, not just in Egypt but the entire area and most importantly it is a triumph of freedom.

[Rmpr 8,977]

The Egyptian people have done it! They've managed to make an actual change, to make their voices heard. What a truly great nation. They give me hope in an otherwise hopeless Arab world :')

Sorry, but did they get exactly? A military dictatorship? Because I cant see how an army intervention can be a positive thing...

Are they showing power and getting where they want? Yes, but until now, the fight has just begun!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Sorry, but did they get exactly? A military dictatorship? Because I cant see how an army intervention can be a positive thing...

Are they showing power and getting where they want? Yes, but until now, the fight has just begun!

You have to understand that in Egypt, the army has always had A LOT of power. No change can happen if they are against it. It's been this way for a very long time. But they are not a political party nor will any of the generals be part of any governments. The army stepped in because Morsi was inevitably leaving but he stubbornly decided that he won't leave peacefully. He has a few million supporters in Egypt and the army was just saving the country a lot of blood spill by removing Morsi.

The decisions on the plan of how to get out of this mess to a new elections was not made by the army but by the leaders of the political powers including some of Morsi's allies as well as the Muslim and Cristian religious leaders in the country. What the army did was incredibly smart and very responsible and has saved the country from a lot of trouble.

[Rmpr 8,977]

You have to understand that in Egypt, the army has always had A LOT of power. No change can happen if they are against it. It's been this way for a very long time. But they are not a political party nor will any of the generals be part of any governments. The army stepped in because Morsi was inevitably leaving but he stubbornly decided that he won't leave peacefully. He has a few million supporters in Egypt and the army was just saving the country a lot of blood spill by removing Morsi.

The decisions on the plan of how to get out of this mess to a new elections was not made by the army but by the leaders of the political powers including some of Morsi's allies as well as the Muslim and Cristian religious leaders in the country. What the army did was incredibly smart and very responsible and has saved the country from a lot of trouble.

There is what they say now, just wait until things settle a little. People are always very nice until you give them enough power!

Just like the army said to the people in Brazil back in 1964. The 'transition' that was supposed to last until the end of Janio Quadro's mandate. However, it all became a inhuman dictatorship that lasted until 1988!

If the army dont deliver what their generals are promising, people from Egypt will have lost precious lives, energy and time to change from Mubarak, to Morsi, to the Army.

I am not happy as you are, I am actually the opposite. It is very sad to see they are basically protesting for two years and they have got nothing in return (thus far). While Brazil had a much smaller one week riot and we already got huge improvements...

[CHOULO19 24,332]

There is what they say now, just wait until things settle a little. People are always very nice until you give them enough power!Just like the army said to the people in Brazil back in 1964. The 'transition' that was supposed to last until the end of Janio Quadro's mandate. However, it all became a inhuman dictatorship that lasted until 1988!If the army dont deliver what their generals are promising, people from Egypt will have lost precious lives, energy and time to change from Mubarak, to Morsi, to the Army.I am not happy as you are, I am actually the opposite. It is very sad to see they are basically protesting for two years and they have got nothing in return (thus far). While Brazil had a much smaller one week riot and we already got huge improvements...

Every political change in the modern history of Egypt has come with the direct help from the army. From And El Naser to El Sadat to Mubarak...even Mubarak was not removed until the army gave the word. So this by no means something new or special. The western media and political leaders are just making it out to be something absurd because it is a huge "Fuck You" to the US plans in the region.

I really get what you are saying mate but the Egyptian army is a different case. The army did not remove Morsi because they wanted to, they removed him because the majority of the people have spoken on the streets. They saved a lot of lives by preventing Morsi from starting civil war. Morsi was driving the country to its death. Too sleepy right now to explain how bad the situation was but I'm sure you'll find a lot of stuff online if you want.

[Liquidator 5,176]

Another day another group of children die of cancer because the government can't afford their treatment. Yep the same government that paid £10m for Thatcher's funeral. David Cameron really is bollocks.

[Magic Lamps 11,653]

Another day another group of children die of cancer because the government can't afford their treatment. Yep the same government that paid £10m for Thatcher's funeral. David Cameron really is bollocks.

Germany and USA have similar problems with the health system.

Here, thousands of people die per year because doctors were so greedy to implement too expensive treatment instead of the adequate treatment. Our docs are like professional killers with general amnesty. It's astonishing how this profession still enjoys such a good reputation. when you got a problem you have to pray there are expensive ways to treat it right, if not you are fucked. No government has the balls to mess with the insurance companies and their lobbies.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

The US are really showing their true colors with their defense of Muslim extremism in Egypt. It goes without saying, but the Egyptian people are not happy about it:

[Dion 2,476]

The very concept is flawed. Just because most people agree in something does not make it right/in their best interest. The masses will always be easily manipulated by the media and money so the decision will never truly be in the hands of the people. The true 'spirit' of democracy, just like socialism, is achievable. I often find that political dictatorships result in much more stable and secure countries.

I'm much more social and interactive over the internet or phone (I was having this discussion with Jason the other day..). It's not something I control, I just feel like I'm being drained of energy whenever I'm around crowds

I don't think the concept is flawed. I mean... democracy comes from greek and means something along the lines of "the power/rule/will of the people". That much is very achievable. If people are influenced or don't know what's better for them is another concern, one that can be strongly diminished with a better educational system - one which would help people to develop critical thinking. Still, even if people would make the wrong choices, it's just fair that they do it by themselves, not by some ruler forcing things down everyone's throats. Democracy isn't perfect but it is a fair system, especially when you have laws protecting fundamental rights of minorities so they don't get oppressed. And I don't think I quite agree with "dictatorships result in much more stable and secure countries". Brazilian militar dictatorship was woeful for our economy, a lot of people were killed or went missing and freedom of speech was almost non-existant (and this is a pattern present in most dictatorships). Even if they are more stable and secure (and that's not always the case), if that's achieved with lots of deaths, violence and repression, I'm passing it.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I don't think the concept is flawed. I mean... democracy comes from greek and means something along the lines of "the power/rule/will of the people". That much is very achievable. If people are influenced or don't know what's better for them is another concern, one that can be strongly diminished with a better educational system - one which would help people to develop critical thinking. Still, even if people would make the wrong choices, it's just fair that they do it by themselves, not by some ruler forcing things down everyone's throats. Democracy isn't perfect but it is a fair system, especially when you have laws protecting fundamental rights of minorities so they don't get oppressed. And I don't think I quite agree with "dictatorships result in much more stable and secure countries". Brazilian militar dictatorship was woeful for our economy, a lot of people were killed or went missing and freedom of speech was almost non-existant (and this is a pattern present in most dictatorships). Even if they are more stable and secure (and that's not always the case), if that's achieved with lots of deaths, violence and repression, I'm passing it.

But that's the point, "the will of the people" will never be achieved. It will always be the will of the "elite" and it is just a battle of who can get more 'cattle' on his side. The problem is that reality is relative because human perception, including rationalizing, differs from one to another. Democracy is just a battle between the elites to see who can trick more of the masses to believe his version of reality by means of money, media propaganda and manipulation on basic human instincts. Candidates will always portray them selves as being the 'moral' choice, they will always spend A LOT of money to get elected and they will always try to get you scared of what would happen if someone else won. That is why true democracy is achievable.

When was the last time a common man or group of men (and women) came up with an idea or a national choice by themselves and managed to make it happen democratically? It usually takes riots, death and even entire revolutions if the idea makes a genuine change, to happen. To quote the great @Fulham Broadway: "If voting changed anything, it would have been banned long ago".

You are never politically 'free'. You almost always have to choose one of two options given to you by people of a different social class than you; and even the choices you make very rarely ever have any actual effect on your life. Take the USA for example, the symbol of freedom, democracy and morals in the modern world. The people only have two options to choose from. Those two options make it seem like it's a fight for morals, or tradition or religion or freedom or change..etc but at the end of the day the difference in what their policies would impact the life of the average American citizen is almost negligible and any true change cannot happen unless the leaders of both parties, or the elite, agree on it. How is that different from a dictatorship? The modern 'democracies' in the some of the most important countries in the world is just a subtle version of dictatorships, that's why they work!

Of course there have been failed dictatorships, because naturally it depends on the dictator or group of dictators running the country. But unlike democracies, dictatorships actually have a chance of achieving it's purpose. I genuinely believe that a lot of nations cannot be at peace unless they are under a dictatorship rule. Let's take a look at the changes in the middle east in the past decade for example. Iraq under Saddam was one of the richest countries in the area, not in terms of how much money the government has but in terms of the lifestyles of it's people. Iraq had one of the highest average salaries in the world. The capital, Baghdad was comparable to the best cities in Europe. Look how well democracy has worked for them. They are no longer a nation but rather a group of poor cults in an endless fight. Same for Libya where all the life necessaries from schooling to medical care were free. Gaddafi literally gave people houses for free. Now it has become a place for barbaric tribes to fight. Even in Egypt where Mubarak was one of the worst dictators around, the country was in so much better shape during his reign. Now the economy has broken down, the country has a huge dept, people are starving and freezing to death and large areas of Egypt don't get Electricity and water and it has only been two years since he has gone! And Syria..well you know the story.

Funnily enough all those regimes used to call themselves democracies (except Libya) So, for me, democracies cannot work until they become more totalitarian and become, at least in political practice, some form of dictatorship. Democracies are not synonymous with freedom and rights as people would have you believe. The people of Iraq had the right of national and not getting blown up in the streets while they were under a dictatorship but have lost that with democracy. They had freedom to chose and practice their religious beliefs but get killed when they do so now. The people of Algeria had the traveling securely inside their won country and the right of a shelter and medical care. The Egyptians lost the right for food and the freedom of using electricity. Why don't you just ask about all the freedom and rights the Syrian people have lost in the past two years?

PS: We've move way off topic here, moving this discussion to the politics thread.

[Dion 2,476]

But that's the point, "the will of the people" will never be achieved. It will always be the will of the "elite" and it is just a battle of who can get more 'cattle' on his side. The problem is that reality is relative because human perception, including rationalizing, differs from one to another. Democracy is just a battle between the elites to see who can trick more of the masses to believe his version of reality by means of money, media propaganda and manipulation on basic human instincts. Candidates will always portray them selves as being the 'moral' choice, they will always spend A LOT of money to get elected and they will always try to get you scared of what would happen if someone else won. That is why true democracy is achievable.

When was the last time a common man or group of men (and women) came up with an idea or a national choice by themselves and managed to make it happen democratically? It usually takes riots, death and even entire revolutions if the idea makes a genuine change, to happen. To quote the great @Fulham Broadway: "If voting changed anything, it would have been banned long ago".

You are never politically 'free'. You almost always have to choose one of two options given to you by people of a different social class than you; and even the choices you make very rarely ever have any actual effect on your life. Take the USA for example, the symbol of freedom, democracy and morals in the modern world. The people only have two options to choose from. Those two options make it seem like it's a fight for morals, or tradition or religion or freedom or change..etc but at the end of the day the difference in what their policies would impact the life of the average American citizen is almost negligible and any true change cannot happen unless the leaders of both parties, or the elite, agree on it. How is that different from a dictatorship? The modern 'democracies' in the some of the most important countries in the world is just a subtle version of dictatorships, that's why they work!

Of course there have been failed dictatorships, because naturally it depends on the dictator or group of dictators running the country. But unlike democracies, dictatorships actually have a chance of achieving it's purpose. I genuinely believe that a lot of nations cannot be at peace unless they are under a dictatorship rule. Let's take a look at the changes in the middle east in the past decade for example. Iraq under Saddam was one of the richest countries in the area, not in terms of how much money the government has but in terms of the lifestyles of it's people. Iraq had one of the highest average salaries in the world. The capital, Baghdad was comparable to the best cities in Europe. Look how well democracy has worked for them. They are no longer a nation but rather a group of poor cults in an endless fight. Same for Libya where all the life necessaries from schooling to medical care were free. Gaddafi literally gave people houses for free. Now it has become a place for barbaric tribes to fight. Even in Egypt where Mubarak was one of the worst dictators around, the country was in so much better shape during his reign. Now the economy has broken down, the country has a huge dept, people are starving and freezing to death and large areas of Egypt don't get Electricity and water and it has only been two years since he has gone! And Syria..well you know the story.

Funnily enough all those regimes used to call themselves democracies (except Libya) So, for me, democracies cannot work until they become more totalitarian and become, at least in political practice, some form of dictatorship. Democracies are not synonymous with freedom and rights as people would have you believe. The people of Iraq had the right of national and not getting blown up in the streets while they were under a dictatorship but have lost that with democracy. They had freedom to chose and practice their religious beliefs but get killed when they do so now. The people of Algeria had the traveling securely inside their won country and the right of a shelter and medical care. The Egyptians lost the right for food and the freedom of using electricity. Why don't you just ask about all the freedom and rights the Syrian people have lost in the past two years?

PS: We've move way off topic here, moving this discussion to the politics thread.

What you're complaining about is the way we're trying to reach democracy, not democracy itself. There's a project in Brazil to change the way electoral propaganda and campaigns (?) are made, because the way we have it now, politicians are financed by big corps and/or rich people and these people will expect something in return when these politicians get elected. There's another point you suggested, that common people would never get the shot to change things unless there's riots etc. Well, I don't believe in that either. You see, here in my city we founded a group to try to change a bit of the political scene for the better. We've already elected one of our members. Sure one isn't that big of a deal but we started this project in the beginning of last year and we already have someone there making things happen.

I'll give it to dictatorship that it is a much more functional and efficient system. If you could guarantee for sure the dictator was the most capable for the job and he would always do everything in the best interests of the nation, that would be a better option than democracy, no doubt. But it isn't like that. And when you have a bad dictator, it ain't easy to change. Whereas in democracy you have elections every X years to try to change things. Most problems come from the way we're trying to implement democracy, especially the way elections are dealt with. That's why there's a mass appeal now in Brazil to change it. I think the only real problem with democracy is that it is slow as a system because of too many divergent opinions (that's one of the reasons for corruption, also). That's where dictatorship excels in comparison - you are the dictator, everything you say is an order, there's no discussion about it, it will be done asap. In times of war, for example, it is much better to have all the power in the hands of a single person, because you need things done as quick as possible.

I can't speak for countries of middle east, because I don't know enough to elaborate an opinion. But yeah, probably there are people out there who would be best served with a dictatorship. But I will refrain from commenting about them because I have a very prejudiced view about those.

[dave30 728]

George Zimmerman cleared of murdering Trayvon Martin. Nice to see that justice can still prevail even in the midst of a country baying for blood and the President inferring with the judicial system with hugely emotive comments. Whether it was morally right to shoot the lad.. probably not, but based on Florida law he seems to me to be innocent. The witch hunt based on racial politics has failed.

A comment taken from The Guardian website.

Zimmerman saw a seventeen year old who he thought was acting suspiciously and phoned in to the police to report this. In the meantime he either followed Martin or went to check on the name of the road. Martin had plenty of time to get home to where he was staying and shut himself in. Instead it appears that he turned around and ambushed Zimmerman knocking him down, straddling him and hitting his head on the concrete and beating him. Zimmerman was legally carrying a concealed weapon and in self defence fired a single shot which killed Martin.

The prosecution was completely unable to shake this explanation, indeed many of the witnesses it called helped the defence more than the prosecution.

The whole trial was politically motivated with Obama saying that if he had a son he would look like Martin, the police were not allowed to drop the case, Angela Corey has been criminally indicted by a Citizens' Grand Jury for allegedly falsifying the arrest warrant and complaint,, the council produced evidence to Martin's family ignoring police procedure and the Judge, who is herself a Democrat, refused to allow evidence to be presented showing Martin's interest in guns and fighting.

The verdict in my opinion was the only one which the jury could reach. Had Martin been white and Zimmerman been black it would have been the only decision which the jury could reach.