Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Peter Wolf

Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death


Dandontdare

Quote from: Peter Wolf on 29 April, 2010, 09:31:13 PM
The lunatics have taken over the asylum :

http://climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151:uk-house-of-commons-qthe-regulation-of-geoengineeringq&catid=38:climate-intervention-news&Itemid=63

I don't get it - this seems to be saying that countries should not be allowed to unilaterally launch "geo-engineering" projects, that may affect the climate of the whole world, and that we need regulation to stop such potentially irresponsible ventures. You disagree?

Christov

Cameron was all over the bloody place tonight, used buzzwords and scaremongering as a crutch like nobody's business.

Clegg was middling for a bit but shot off a couple swift bitchslaps to both the Tories and Labour, I'm quite sure his consistently good performance over the three debates will be reflected in the polls tomorrow.

Brown actually held his own tonight, despite battling to get over Bigotgate, and he almost had me thinking seriously about Labour for once during his closing statement until he did that. fucking. smile. I swear I shit a little.

vzzbux

Brown worst mannerism is when he sucks his bottom lip over his teeth. It really grates me.

To the Bigoted British public.








VNP
Drokking since 1972

Peace is a lie, there's only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.

The Legendary Shark

Brown planning to "compel" people to work, Cameron broadly agreeing. Compel? A democratic government wants to compel its people?


Arbeit macht frei?
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Peter Wolf

Quote from: Dandontdare on 29 April, 2010, 10:06:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 29 April, 2010, 09:31:13 PM
The lunatics have taken over the asylum :

http://climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151:uk-house-of-commons-qthe-regulation-of-geoengineeringq&catid=38:climate-intervention-news&Itemid=63

I don't get it - this seems to be saying that countries should not be allowed to unilaterally launch "geo-engineering" projects, that may affect the climate of the whole world, and that we need regulation to stop such potentially irresponsible ventures. You disagree?

Thats fair enough in principle but that wasnt my point as my point was that it should not be permitted under ANY circumatance whatsoever wether its unregulated or regulated.

It should be unilaterrally banned. [not to mention the fact that it is already happening unofficially.]


Period.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 April, 2010, 11:28:18 PM
Brown planning to "compel" people to work, Cameron broadly agreeing. Compel? A democratic government wants to compel its people?


Arbeit macht frei?

I really dont want to get started on that but the longer everyone just accepts this kind of thing then the longer it will continue and the cutbacks wont start till after the election as they are saving all that till you have all voted them in and there is nothing you can do about it.
Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death

TordelBack

Quote from: Peter Wolf on 29 April, 2010, 04:23:13 PM
The EU Empire has spread itself too thin and is more interested in swallowing up countries without thinking about the consequences of it all.

Um, are you suggesting that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland (to which the linked article refers) have no place in the EU?  I was under the impression that the inclusion of the 'peripheral' countries in a single market that already included the industrialised heartland was pretty much the original goal of the community project.

Dandontdare

Quote from: Peter Wolf on 29 April, 2010, 11:49:04 PM
Quote from: Dandontdare on 29 April, 2010, 10:06:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 29 April, 2010, 09:31:13 PM
The lunatics have taken over the asylum :

http://climateresponsefund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151:uk-house-of-commons-qthe-regulation-of-geoengineeringq&catid=38:climate-intervention-news&Itemid=63

I don't get it - this seems to be saying that countries should not be allowed to unilaterally launch "geo-engineering" projects, that may affect the climate of the whole world, and that we need regulation to stop such potentially irresponsible ventures. You disagree?

Thats fair enough in principle but that wasnt my point as my point was that it should not be permitted under ANY circumatance whatsoever wether its unregulated or regulated.

It should be unilaterrally banned. [not to mention the fact that it is already happening unofficially.


A unilateral ban would be pointless - if GB said we're banning it, any other country could go ahead. The article proposes a GLOBAL framework of regulations that would prevent ANY country unilaterally launching such a project.

But that would require some sort of international body, representing every counttry in the world, with the powers to implement, monitor and if necessary enforce such a ban, such as ....errr... the United Nations - and I know how much you love that organisation!

LARF



Vote for the Fonz! Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

(finally proving that Brown has 'jumped the Shark!')

The Legendary Shark

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Robin Low

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 April, 2010, 11:28:18 PM
Brown planning to "compel" people to work, Cameron broadly agreeing. Compel? A democratic government wants to compel its people?

Well, in all seriousness, given the reality that there are some people who will cheerfully live on benefit payments and make no effort to find work or won't accept work they can do when it's offered on a plate, how would you resolve this problem?

(I'm making an assumption about the context here, so sorry if I'm off the mark.)


QuoteArbeit macht frei?

I think that's a bit OTT.

Regards

Robin

Dark Jimbo

Couldn't help but notice that an 'Al Ewing' was quoted in the Times today concerning last night's party leader debate. Co-inky-dink or the man himself?
@jamesfeistdraws

Al_Ewing

That was me, in relation to something that was happening on screen right at that moment, which is why it looks so flaccid and lifeless now that some hack at Murdoch's shitrag's decided to nick it to fill some space. Anyone following me on the basis of that will have got a near-incoherent rant about yellow journalists eating babies this morning.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

Peter Wolf

Quote from: TordelBack on 30 April, 2010, 08:20:50 AM
Quote from: Peter Wolf on 29 April, 2010, 04:23:13 PM
The EU Empire has spread itself too thin and is more interested in swallowing up countries without thinking about the consequences of it all.

Um, are you suggesting that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland (to which the linked article refers) have no place in the EU?  I was under the impression that the inclusion of the 'peripheral' countries in a single market that already included the industrialised heartland was pretty much the original goal of the community project.

No i am not but they were let into the single currency [EURO] while not being finacially solvent to varying degrees which was always going to be storing up problems for later on so it wasnt thought out properly at all.These countries are absorbed into the EU partly on the basis that the EU has been all about expanding its empire as much as possible without out any other consideration other than that.These countries were all insolvent to varying degrees when they first joined and since then the entire designed to fail economies of every other country within the EU have now also become insolvent including the UK.

So the way i see it the whole thing was a trap financially unless Greece decides to leave the Eurozone and its a house of cards because if other countries follow on from Greece then we have a problem because it will not be financially sustainable to bail them all out so this in turn will leave these countries open to be abused and exploited by the IMF [right where they want them] and besides that the EU themselves havent got any real solutions to this problem in the long term as they cant agree among themselves who should pay what which is why i say it wasnt thought out properly in the first place.

So no i am not saying those countries dont have any place in the EU but rather that the whole single currency thing is ill conceived because it doesnt take countries going bankrupt or adverse economic conditions into account and it didnt have a plan already worked out in advance or they didnt see it coming or they did but they let Greece join regardless.

Also if these countries go bankrupt or already are then it either means they have to borrow more money to keep paying into the EU or it will cost the other EU member states who are also in varying degrees of bankruptcy/insolvency more money on top of what they pay into it already.

Which is exactly what is already happening.



Its just a very costly mistake.
Quote from: Robin Low on 30 April, 2010, 05:33:08 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 29 April, 2010, 11:28:18 PM
Brown planning to "compel" people to work, Cameron broadly agreeing. Compel? A democratic government wants to compel its people?

Well, in all seriousness, given the reality that there are some people who will cheerfully live on benefit payments and make no effort to find work or won't accept work they can do when it's offered on a plate, how would you resolve this problem?





Regards

Robin

Thats very true.Having said that these politicians will always pick the easy and soft targets when it comes to making spending cuts if its not applied selectively and used against the unemployed in general.
Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death