Riots in the UK?

[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.