Riots in the UK?

[Cerrone]

The "allies" that the students need are the general public...the taxpayers. These are the people that could be said to share a "common enemy" with (i.e. the government). The only problem is, the public want less taxes, and the students want free education. With the government trying to cut spending in order to save the economy, the public know that the two goals are on opposite sides of a pair of scales. If you want free education, you need higher taxes. If you want lower taxes, you'll have to cut spending (and in this case, the cut is education).

As we talked about yesterday, the government may indeed be cutting spending, but they're doing it in the wrong places. While they're funding trillions (and Void im sure if you add the cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Trident nuclear program it would be around that mark) on unnessecary weapons programs and unjust wars they could cease and desist that and channel the funds into the public sector, reform it, and then start improve peoples lives. Because right now the only people affected by the public sector cuts are the most vulnerable people, and its an absolute disgrace, and you can be sure that nobody will see their taxes go down because of these spending cuts, so if you think that a few pence out of your taxes makes up for all this shit then you're sadly and selfishly mistaken.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-5367.html

Besides, I'm also sure that when reasonable people are secure in the knowledge that their taxes arent being wasted on ineffective services they couldn't genuinely say that they wouldn't mind adding 50 pence onto their yearly taxes- as long as the money was going into the right places, the problem however, is that so much needs reforming anyway.. but whatever, again, its a subject for anohter time.

The government don't want to anger the public anymore than they already are, so they can't bow to the demands of the students (who, by the way, make up a far smaller percentage of the electorate than the rest of the public).

The students of today are going to be the workers of tomorrow, correct? lol or they will be if they're lucky enough to be able get a job.

So free speech isn't meaningful? Bullshit. Numerous governments have tried to stomp on free speech, and it arguably goes against the interests of those in power.

Yes exactly! It serves a purpose for those in power; as long as every idiot is guaranteed the right to talk shit about their poorly constructed world views then the fraction of a percent of people who have something meaningful to say are ignored. That's where i'm coming from with Aldous Huxley, read it if you havent read it. And it's happening right now, I proposed people take action to help themselves, you- despite agreeing on some points- actively seek to discourage people from taking action- the end result being that nobody will take action, so things remain exactly the same, and i'm sure it'll be repeated all over again with other people at another time.. in other words, it's an endless cylce of supreme futility with the only people benefitting being those already in power.

you chose to ignore my other two examples (which dealt with sexual liberation and animal rights...two other important issues) is very telling though. Did you have a rebuttal to them, or did you ignore them and think I wouldn't notice?

They weren't relevant really, sexual liberation only exists these days to further divide people and prevent unity, and animal rights is a waste of good activists.

I'm in complete agreement; the government needs to change, but the fact remains that your points are completely empty in that I have demonstrated that your assertions are simply untrue; that enough people can change the law and bring about a referendum, and that the people are the ones with all the power.

That may annoy people like you and me, but rather than deny reality like you, and make up ridiculous claims about what the people want, I accept the fact, and hope for change in the future. Just because the masses don't agree with you doesn't mean you aren't wrong, but it doesn't give you the right to make up lies about people in order to convince everyone that you are in the majority, because you clearly aren't.

I'm not making anything up or denying reality, I understand reality but I also understand it's based on perspective. You're right, the people are the ones with all the power, but they don't realise it! The government, police, corporate sector and whatever else is in control but has a very loose grasp on the reigns of the world, and I recgonise that they can easily be brushed aside and that something much better can be constructed in place. The old saying; "life's on unfair", well yeah it is, but does it really have to be?

I'm glad we've reached some common ground though

Okay, maybe you're not big proponent of Orwell. Your comments regarding an ever encrotching government "chipping away" at me made it seem that way.

Lol.. you continue to misunderstand.. ok, the difference between Huxley and Orwell- with Brave New World and 1984, is that both governments are essentially oppressive tyrannies, however 1984 suggests that the ultimate evil state will oppress physically and let their citizens alone mentally, but with Brave New World the ultimate evil state is the one that oppresses their citizens mentally so there is rarely the need to oppress physically. Both government types consistently oppress their citizens, but the more dangerous one- and the one I believe society has become- is the one where people are unable to understand when they're being oppressed or exploited, neither do they care.

Here's a smaller picture demonstrating..


link to the original again
http://dropular.net/content/_fixed/vhhma22blc_zP5fa.jpg

and a link where you can read Brave New World without having to buy anything
http://www.huxley.net/bnw/

Anyone is free to establish a party, the reason there are no new major parties is because most people realise that there is no super group who's going to come fix everything, nor could this fantasy party that you have possibly exist.

Oh sure, anyone can establish a party and anyone in america can one day be president. It never quite works though does it? Anyhow, I wasn't talking about creating a political party, Cromwell had a squad of soldiers, that's all anybody would need, right?

War does cost money, and yes it is largely futile, but was it realistically better than the alternative? It's not so clear. Afghanistan was definitely justified, so there is some necessary cost, possibly the largest portion of the military spending. Iraq is not as justified, it was nice to depose Sadam but the actual total cost is too high.

Some of it certainly, but I still doubt not going to war would have had better long term implications.

Give me a break Void, I thought you were smarter than that. The UK wouldn't be the target of any terrorism or hatred if we weren't supporting America and Israel, that's plainly fucking obvious.

Brainwashed? No, just informed, unlike you.

As I said, I understand the complexities perfectly, I also understand that they're not worth engaging with because they're harmful, wasteful and counter productive both long term and short term to the quality of life of everybody.

Understanding the practises of capitalism and the mechanism of modern government is more than quoting statistics or learning reports, you need to actually UNDERSTAND the implications and intentions rather than just record the data like some mindless serf and construct your opinions based media influence.

I was entirely correct when I said "get some perspective", because if you don't then you're limiting your understanding of absolutely everything.

Not to mention that lowering the deficit and gaining momentum in business will increase the Credit rating for the country, which makes the loans even cheaper. Spending more and more money has the exact opposite approach.

And your ultimate solution is to "Borrow More Money"? How inspirational, inciteful and original Void- not to mention how flawless and certianly not fixated on short term benefit.

And there we have it.

[theVOID]

Anyone is free to establish a party, the reason there are no new major parties is because most people realise that there is no super group who's going to come fix everything, nor could this fantasy party that you have possibly exist.

Oh sure, anyone can establish a party and anyone in america can one day be president. It never quite works though does it? Anyhow, I wasn't talking about creating a political party, Cromwell had a squad of soldiers, that's all anybody would need, right?

Your resorting to putting words in my mouth rather early aren't you? I'd expect you to have a little more actual argument, but apparently not.

1. I never said that "everyone can be president", I said "anyone can establish a party". Is that not true?

2. Cromwell lived 400 fucking years ago, back then government wasn't a colossal balancing act in an extremely complicated socio-economic environment. Putting untrained civilians in charge is a fucking dumb idea, it's like putting my grandma in charge of my Active Directory domain, without training she's going to be a liability. Politics is an even more complex system with even higher stakes.

War does cost money, and yes it is largely futile, but was it realistically better than the alternative? It's not so clear. Afghanistan was definitely justified, so there is some necessary cost, possibly the largest portion of the military spending. Iraq is not as justified, it was nice to depose Sadam but the actual total cost is too high.

Some of it certainly, but I still doubt not going to war would have had better long term implications.

Give me a break Void, I thought you were smarter than that. The UK wouldn't be the target of any terrorism or hatred if we weren't supporting America and Israel, that's plainly fucking obvious.

Are you sure about that? The Americans got attacked prior to all of the events, and in the eyes of the Muslim fundamentalists all of the western nations are the enemy.

The fact that the plane crashed in the USA and not the UK is rather arbitrary, what is not arbitrary however is the hundreds of attacks that have been prevented by proactivity, some of that as a result from the war effort.

And the fact that they support Israel is a bad thing how? The Israeli Jews have a right to self governance just as much as everyone else, and yes their situation with Hezbollah isn't good, they aren't faultless, but things are getting better, largely because of this western support for Israel, not despite it like you think. Look at the Israel/Egypt treaty, that's a prime example of western democracy leading to a stable and sustainable treaty between historical enemies.

Also, the fact that they share more and stronger values with us compared to most of their Arab neighbours is why the west tend to have a stronger relationship with them. If the Anti-semetic Arab extremists don't like it then so fucking what? I'd be there to defend my allies regardless.

Brainwashed? No, just informed, unlike you.

As I said, I understand the complexities perfectly, I also understand that they're not worth engaging with because they're harmful, wasteful and counter productive both long term and short term to the quality of life of everybody.

You clearly don't understand the complexities, after all you think that storming parliament with guns and turning control over to civilians is a good idea...

Also, what data are you using to state that the war is going to have a long term negative impact on the life of the general population? It's true that all wars have short term implications, we have seen this effect already, what you don't have any justification for saying is that there are going to be serious long term implications. That looks to be the opposite, with the establishment of democracies in Iran and Afghanistan there will eventually be a change of values amongst the populations as they begin to think more and more secularly, and almost every similar example in the history of Democracy there has been a long term positive outcome.

This book is a very unbiased look at the pros and cons of "democracy by force", and it's conclusions are the same as the data, that overall the establishment of Democracies lowers the intensity and frequency of actions that is likely to have a significant negative impact on a population:

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/is...cale=en_GB

Understanding the practises of capitalism and the mechanism of modern government is more than quoting statistics or learning reports, you need to actually UNDERSTAND the implications and intentions rather than just record the data like some mindless serf and construct your opinions based media influence.

Seriously, out of everyone who has posted in this thread you are the one who has the least understanding, that fact is plainly obvious. Your use of the straw-man also tells of your incompetence, for example: Where did I quote statistics or reports? All of what I said came from my own understandingof the situation. To accuse me of "quoting statistics and learning reports" is fallacious.

I was entirely correct when I said "get some perspective", because if you don't then you're limiting your understanding of absolutely everything.

And your basing this accusation that I have no perspective on what? Nothing. Once again you've pulled some complete bullshit out of your ass to cover up the fact that your argument is neither sound or valid.

Either address the points that i've made of just stop arguing because making accusations, obfuscating the discussion and pulling facts out of your ass just makes you look like an idiot with nothing of substance to say.

Not to mention that lowering the deficit and gaining momentum in business will increase the Credit rating for the country, which makes the loans even cheaper. Spending more and more money has the exact opposite approach.

And your ultimate solution is to "Borrow More Money"? How inspirational, inciteful and original Void- not to mention how flawless and certianly not fixated on short term benefit.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT? Go and find me one fucking example where I said "borrow more money" because "cutting spending" and "freeing assets and re-designating them towards economic growth" was what I said, and all of these actions are TO AVOID FURTHER DEBT .

Unless this is just a further example of how little of a fucking clue you have, that being you don't understand the credit rating scheme. That seems quite likely because it's already obvious that you're in la-la land.

Having a better credit rating means 1) The loans you already have can be refinanced at a lower interest rate 2) All future bank loans will be at a lower interest rate, 3) All business loans are subsequently at a lower interest rate 4) All personal loans are subsequently at a lower interest rate.

This has the advantage of lowering the cost of borrowing, both with the current debt AND any future debt both government, bank, business and personal, It also allows people/business/government to get out of debt FASTER. NONE OF THIS == BORROW MORE MONEY

Go get a fucking clue Cerrone, it will be good for you.

[Cerrone]

Your resorting to putting words in my mouth rather early aren't you? I'd expect you to have a little more actual argument, but apparently not.

1. I never said that "everyone can be president", I said "anyone can establish a party". Is that not true?

What you said means exactly the same thing, it's a different set of words with the exact same point- your point I believe, was to recognise the merits of the existing political "faux democratic" system by stating that one does not need to go to the lengths of a military coup to achieve ones goals, one needs only to enter government, fund a political party/run for presidency and hope that people aren't so jaded by past politicians that they give you a break. Obama/Labour spring to mind as perfect examples where politicians have come forward as champions of the people and soon reveal themselves to be totally full of shit, thereby jading peoples view of the democratic process and politicians themselves.

So given that the population A. wants things to change and B. distrusts politicians, I see that there would be no benefit in engaging in the current political process since it'd be rather futile. Even if -under our flawed democratic process- one of us was able to get elected, what'd be the point? We'd be bound by convention like any other small town politician who tries to make a differance. No no, it's better to remove and to rebuild rather than renovate- it's a lot easier too.

Are you sure about that? The Americans got attacked prior to all of the events, and in the eyes of the Muslim fundamentalists all of the western nations are the enemy.

The fact that the plane crashed in the USA and not the UK is rather arbitrary, what is not arbitrary however is the hundreds of attacks that have been prevented by proactivity, some of that as a result from the war effort.

Prior to all the events? You sure about that? The American governments and corporations have been exploiting people all over the world for the last century, they install corrupt pro-western dictators in third world countries for american benefit and at the expense of everybody else. No to mention funding the Zionist occupation of palestine which you're such a fan of, which itself is the number one problem in the middle east- and in fact if it wasn't for the British government drawing lines across maps in the early 20th century and declaring which native "arabs" should live where, then the entire religious/ethnic dilemma would never have even come about.

The simple fact is that while the corporations excercise capitalist exploitation and while out governments try to pacify them by excerting military force over these people they have every right to defend themselves- it's true in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon.

And the fact that they support Israel is a bad thing how? The Israeli Jews have a right to self governance just as much as everyone else, and yes their situation with Hezbollah isn't good, they aren't faultless, but things are getting better, largely because of this western support for Israel, not despite it like you think. Look at the Israel/Egypt treaty, that's a prime example of western democracy leading to a stable and sustainable treaty between historical enemies.
Also, the fact that they share more and stronger values with us compared to most of their Arab neighbours is why the west tend to have a stronger relationship with them. If the Anti-semetic Arab extremists don't like it then so fucking what? I'd be there to defend my allies regardless.

The Zionist cowards in "Israel" have the duty to leave the occupied territories and fuck off back to the slums of eastern europe where most of them came from. They have no right to live there, they have no right to abuse the people who once lived there. They may have once had the opportunity to co-exist there with the native palestinians, but as far as anybody with common sense is concerned once they kicked the palestinans out of their homes and acted like they owned the place they gave up any rights to anything.

Historically when the Muslims were in charge of the lands they always treated the Jews with respect, and allowed them to live in peace. The fact now that Jewish men and women think they're doing something good by treating Muslims like garbage is symptomatic of their religion and our media influence.

In short, they're the scum of the earth for what they've done out there, and any pro-israeli lobbyist in this country or anywhere- any "allies of zionism"- should be treated in a manner no less than any member of the IDF.

Also, what data are you using to state that the war is going to have a long term negative impact on the life of the general population? It's true that all wars have short term implications, we have seen this effect already, what you don't have any justification for saying is that there are going to be serious long term implications.

This book is a very unbiased look at the pros and cons of "democracy by force", and it's conclusions are the same as the data, that overall the establishment of Democracies lowers the intensity and frequency of actions that is likely to have a significant negative impact on a population:

We've already been over this topic.. the system is inherently flawed, it needs fixing. It's that simple.

And on the subject of democracy; do you personally think that people on mass tend to elect the right person? Or that the method of giving power to politicians has been proved to offer up a majority percentage of what we would consider "good" or "ethical" results?

Democracy isn't just queing up once every 4 or 5 years -if you can be bothered- to elect some manicured grinning political party and crossing your fingers they won't lie and let you down later. Democracy should be focused less on political parties and the power they hold in parliament, it SHOULD be about handing power to local citizens in their own community to allow them to vote on the things that matter to them and to have the authority to make those things a reality. Central government would still exist certianly, but as I said some time ago, in a reduced capacity existing if only to vanguard to continuation of the state in its form of true democracy.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT? Go and find me one fucking example where I said "borrow more money" because "cutting spending" and "freeing assets and re-designating them towards economic growth" was what I said, and all of these actions are TO AVOID FURTHER DEBT.

Having a better credit rating means 1) The loans you already have can be refinanced at a lower interest rate 2) All future bank loans will be at a lower interest rate, 3) All business loans are subsequently at a lower interest rate 4) All personal loans are subsequently at a lower interest rate.

This has the advantage of lowering the cost of borrowing, both with the current debt AND any future debt both government, bank, business and personal, It also allows people/business/government to get out of debt FASTER.

You just said it and continue to keep on saying it! Whether you meant taking a loan nationally, covering the costs of existing loans or regular people taking loans or nationally/locally living on credit.. it's all in ammount to the same thing which involves BORROWING MONEY or at least it fixates on having to pay back the loans of previous governments, but I don't see why we need to do that. You're focusing on the worst aspects and trying to resolve them by engaging in the same stupid and desperate courses of actions that politicians have been doing- which is of NO benefit to anybody.

I think i've answered you properly now.

Which leaves me free to say; based on your love for Israel Void, you can go and fuck yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgSizU6zsHc

[Tiberius]

Yay! More students who don't know anything about economics decide to march and riot in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11830813

The pictures get progressively worse. I especially like the one with the sign "No cuts. No fees." Who knew it? Students are supporters of ridiculously high tax rates. That's surprising.

[Skipper]

If a bank offered you a loan that they only asked you to pay back at £7 a week at an interest rate that was never above the Bank of England base rate and only once you were earning over £21k a year and said you could never default on it if you found yourself out of work and they would never ask for any of it back in lump sums...would you think that's a good deal? Apparently students do not. pffft