Riots in the UK?

[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