Politics & Stuff

[Magic Lamps 11,692]

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.

[Mr_President 404]

Those of you living in England and Wales, get your porn in now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

I am finding it harder and harder to take Cameron seriously. He manages to escalate from talking about cracking down on child porn (as he rightly should), yet he goes further to say porn will be banned in all households and people will have to OPT-OUT (i.e. call up their ISPs and say "sorry, I am a compulsive wanker and need porn unblocking on my computer, thanks".) Does he seriously think that banning porn and using this ridiculous OPT OUT system will do anything to stop teenage boys from watching porn? All it will do is potentially create some awkward conversations and a hassle for responsible people who just want to watch a bit of girl-on-girl or whatever floats their boat.

The problem is, it wont even work anyway. Even my younger brother, who is in primary school, knows how to circumvent blocks (not for porn, I might add), and teenage boys will find a way to watch some porn whether it be through proxies or torrents or whatever else, which could lead to them seeing something potentially more 'vile' because they are not using safe, regulated streaming sites.

Then there is this massive assumption that porn actually hurts children? Sure, some violent stuff might but they are more likely to be exposed to that if they have to circumvent ISP blocks than if they can use safe sites. Anyway, whatever happened to parenting? If parents don't want their kids watching that stuff, monitor their computer usage; we don't need a nationwide fucking blackout of porn just because some parents are too lazy to monitor their children's internet usage.

Finally, to end my rant, if I (at 18) am old enough to serve my country in the military, vote and pay taxes, I sure as hell am old enough to know what is 'appropriate' and 'safe' to watch on the internet and I don't need the fucking government blocking sites for me. Wearing my tinfoil hat, I might suspect that this isn't about porn at all but is about the government setting a precedent for blocking and censoring the internet - this isn't fucking China or North Korea.

Sorry for the long post but I really am amazed that the Tories are stupid enough to suggest this kind of bill and if, by some miracle, it goes through, I can't see myself voting for them ever.

Off to pornhub now.

[Hutcho 8,443]

Lol. Blocking porn... That is gonna work.

[lucio 5,418]

cameron can block porn if he wants. all i have to do is watch bbc parliament if i want to see some cunts.

[Stingray 9,441]

Never, ever take away porn ....

It will be revolution!

[Ankit 3,176]

They are blocking porn sites here as well. Funny how these guys think they have Internet figured out.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Then there is this massive assumption that porn actually hurts children? Sure, some violent stuff might but they are more likely to be exposed to that if they have to circumvent ISP blocks than if they can use safe sites.

That is an excellent point. There is no way in the world that they can block all the porn sites on the internet, they'll block the main stream ones. Teenage kids will always search on the internet about sex and most will find links to "non-mainstream" porn instead which is potentially much more harmful.

I completely agree. This is not about porn but rather about governments starting to put censorship on the internet to control what people see and write.

[EBH 283]

Internet should always stay free... it is the only place we have where politicans can not stop us from talking the truth..

I think all these lies about free speech are politicians censoring... if you say something about history not in line with the major view, then you get a big damage to your reputation.. so even though you think you are free, you still say what the government wants you to say. It is like Stalin.

[Amblève. 4,995]

Wow, the UK government don't even care about horny 14 year old boys.

Lmao, the best comment I've read in days.

[Fulham Broadway 17,326]

Everyone talk like a terrorist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4z09el30f8&feature=player_embedded

[BluesChick 1,260]

Hey, Tom, have a question for you... Well, everyone else too

California has passed a law that "transgender" children can use the bathroom of the sex they identify with to prevent bullying. My questions are:

1. At what age is a child old enough to "know" they are transgender?

2. Do you think it will decrease bullying?

3. Who makes the final call saying the child is transgender (child, parent, doctor)?

As a parent I can see this law being a political nightmare and moreover as the mother of a little girl, how do I know that "Johnny" is transgender and not some pervert trying to get into the girl bathroom/locker room. Yes, I do worry about this because I have known guys who just might be that warped.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[CHOULO19 24,332]

A western strike on Syria seems imminent. The nature of the strike is still to be seen and more importantly it's repercussions. I don't think the objective to over-turn the regime, but lately the army was gaining the upper hand for a few months now and the strike is meant to weaken the Syrian air force in order to even things again to ensure that the war goes on for at least a couple years more. Not sure what the Syrian, and more importantly, the Iranian, response will be.

[dave30 728]

Another war initiated by the world's self-righteous, neo-liberal policemen.

[Peppen 934]

In regards to the Syrian situation, I am split. On one hand I believe it is wrong to intervene, since it is on false grounds. We know the governments don't do it because of pity towards the civilians.

Still, you can't just stand by and let the Syrian regime slaughter it's people. We've been too quiet for too long.

[Azpinator 2,325]

Still, you can't just stand by and let the Syrian regime slaughter it's people. We've been too quiet for too long.

I'm Syrian people, I'm not being slaughtered. Please, please believe me it's sooo much more complicated than you think. It's not as simple as that. It's not regime vs own people, we're not playing a video game here.