bobbins

Anybody want to explain to me why the Greek's would rather their country go bankrupt then accept the austerity measures put forward by thier Government?

Because austerity isn't a solution to any of their problems, it's just a way for the IMF to ensure that the banks all get their money back by further exploitation of the working people. The only way for the Greeks to get out of debt is through growth or default, but the IMF isn't going to invest in growth. The IMF want to keep unemployment high so that wages are forced to the floor. It's all a plan to make it easier to extort the Greek people and exploit their assets. It will do literally nothing to help the Greek people, of course they're opposed to it. There's only so much you can squeeze until it all falls apart. They've been trying this deep austerity for months, it's made everything infinitely worse, so they're going to do more of the same.

Why not go bankrupt? They'll have to restructure their economy, maybe pull out of the Euro, but that's a better option than these impossible cuts, and it's a chance to create a system where the rich actually pay tax. And even if they refuse the austerity measures, it's very unlikely that the global powers would really let them go bankrupt, with all the knock on effects and massive bank losses. They'll be cashing in big with the interest repayments built on the back of the slave labour of the people, they're not going to throw away this opportunity to grab the plunder of one of the greatest ancient civilizations just because the Greeks are playing hardball.

As per usual, when you actually read his words, it seems perfectly sensible.

He's chosen his words very carefully, but this is clearly just the groundwork. Laying the foundations for an attack on worker's rights.

Not entirely what I was saying, as a smoker I repeatedly hear the very misinformed comment that my actions are selfish as they cost the country money and it should be stopped. The response is, do your fucking research, I'm saving it money. Which doesn't mean I'm saying the government should be pro smoking, simply pointing out that the idea smokers cost the country money is bollocks, we actually do quite the opposite, and it's worth pointing out.

Alchohol's a different issue as the issues surrounding it can and do have a negative impact on society, on top of premature deaths and cost to health service and such there's unseen knock on costs. It's very hard to put a financial figure on the damage done by a child seeing his alchoholic father beat shit out of his mother every day, but we can probably all agree the affect it has will probably not be a good one. I do believe (but could be wrong) that the higher level of domestic abuse in scotland is generally considered to go hand in hand with the higher levels of alchohol consumption there.

But even so, it's not the governments job to decide how much we drink, smoke, or indeed snort inject eat or stick up our ass. It's a matter of personal choice, and it's high time legislation started to reflect that.

I think the domestic abuse link you mentioned proves the point that it should be a more complex issue for governments than unregulated personal choice for all. It's still a personal choice to buy cigarettes when they're

Am I thick or am I missing the point of this argument? Are people saying that government shouldn't introduce measures to discourage people from smoking purely because smokers create a net profit for the state balance sheets? Seems daft for two reasons. Public health isn't about the bottom line. And the only reason smokers create a net profit is because of measures introduced by the state to discourage people from smoking.

I don't mind so much.

 

Tbh, I'd be a bit embarassed for us if the US President went to our Prime Minister's house and it was a bit shit.

 

I think the general point is that when the nation is in the shape it is in it is not the best idea to pose for a pic in your designer Kitchen not that it it wrong for them to have a decent Kitchen.

 

Still though I'm with Magnum

Melanie Phillips was amazing. We all want to help destitute, starving people abroad blah blah blah, so lets completely stop helping them in any way.

Whilst I agree that all rapes are terrible, there is a clear difference between somebody being raped on a drunken walk home and someone being beaten up, a knife held to their throat and then mugged afterwards.

There really isn't much of a distinction between those two instances at all.

MOTION: I move that we all ignore any and all points Happ makes ever. Whether we argue with him or not, he's only going to cite the "leftist bias" again to cover up for the fact he has no answers or has no intention of arguing by any recognised criteria, so we might as well save ourself the irritation and let him spout his sewage without wasting our time on the keyboards. There are plenty others on here who make for good debate without having to concern ourselves with Happ's drek. Jonathan Ford, johnnyboy and Van Dammer have provided good arguments for their perspectives in the past, even if I didn't agree with them; don't know if they're right-wing or consider themselves such, but it'd be like listening to their gentle chimes rather than Happ's irritating clanging.

 

All those in favour?

Aye. These characters always have a morbid fascination (not a libertarian, not a capitalist, then what? nihilism?), but there comes a time when that is outweighed by the inevitable frustration.

So Happ thinks that fast food companies should be forced by the state to stop marketing to children, and that vast swathes of tax money should be spent on imprisoning the parents of fat children and putting said fat children into care. That's one incredibly confused libertarian.

It's a TV programme. How it is interpreted is up to the person watching it. I find it hard to see how it could be read as a vindication of leftist ideas, however. Baltimore's been run by the Democrats since time immemorial. Clay Davis is a democrat.

Jesus. Please stop seeing everything as black and white, repubs vs dems, labour/tory left vs right. How can you be this thick?

 

Yes you can interpret TV shows any way you like, but if you're happy that drug addicts (even when you've been shown the full tragedy of their back story/mental health problems/societal problems/upbringing/surrounding/life chances) are left to die in the gutter unless they're lucky enough to pull themselves out of it, then a. you've completely missed the point that the programme makers were trying to convey and b. you're a fucking psychopath.

 

Quite. But also, Bubbles only ultimately gets clean through state intervention - he is 'sectioned' because he is a suicide risk; though admittedly he stays clean with the help of a 'big society' Narcotics Anonymous. Nonetheless, the point of the whole thing is that he has to 'cause' the death of Sherrod and attempt suicide before he can get the help he needs, and even then this is only because Jay Landsmen shows compassion and doesn't charge him with the death. He didn't have some magical libertarian epiphany.

Yes. I was wondering whether Steve Earle's big society group would have had any public funds.

Why would I be happy about it?

Sorry, "happy" was a bad choice of words. What I meant is that you would prefer it if drug addicts died in the gutter rather than being helped by the state. This is the exact opposite of David Simon's intention.

That's how I watched it too. It wasn't me that started making assertions of "how can you enjoy the Wire and have the political views that you do". It was lauded across all the media, from left to right.

LEFT VS RIGHT!!!!!

It's a TV programme. How it is interpreted is up to the person watching it. I find it hard to see how it could be read as a vindication of leftist ideas, however. Baltimore's been run by the Democrats since time immemorial. Clay Davis is a democrat.

Jesus. Please stop seeing everything as black and white, repubs vs dems, labour/tory left vs right. How can you be this thick?

Yes you can interpret TV shows any way you like, but if you're happy that drug addicts (even when you've been shown the full tragedy of their back story/mental health problems/societal problems/upbringing/surrounding/life chances) are left to die in the gutter unless they're lucky enough to pull themselves out of it, then a. you've completely missed the point that the programme makers were trying to convey and b. you're a fucking psychopath.

Imagining Happ watching The Wire and misunderstanding the point of every single scene, interpreting the entire thing as a paean to naked self-interest, accepting it (along with everything else) as proof that he's right about the world is just incredible. The wilful ignorance is astounding.

What I don't understand is your avatar. Did you not get that programme at all? Or is it intended as a tribute to the system that keeps Bubbles in the gutter selling t-shirts for a couple of dollars?

I did "get" the programme. In the UK, bubbles would have never got clean. He'd have been kept subsidised on various benefits, and never would have hit rock bottom, which in the show was what caused him to get clean and end the last episode running up the stairs to join his sister and nephew for dinner.

 

What incentive is there for addicts to get clean in this country? In many cases they'd be financially penalised for it.

 

I assume anyone who "gets" the Wire knows to treat official crime statistics with the contempt they deserve?

Greatest post in the history of the internet right here. Amazing.

Has Clegg really done all that mcuh wrong through this? The budget yesterday was actually nowhere near as bad as people imagined, the higher rate of tax was included, as the Libbies said they would demand and there were some quite sensible bits too to please everyone ie the drop in corporation tax and the private jet tax to go after those 'tax dodgers'..

????

We're happy with psychotic dictators until they reach a point where we can't credibly support them any longer, or when they start acting against our interests. Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are still working for the west, and their crimes can be quietly swept under the carpet. Gaddafi's gone rogue and that puts the oil at risk.

The idea that "most of the country aren't faffed" is ludicrous. An uprising like this doesn't come about from widespread apathy.

With tennis, they don't have to predict anything. It's just judging where the ball actually landed. Hawkeye doesn't have to make assumptions, like it does with an lbw.

They're still talking about Libya and Bahrain, but that news is understandably playing second fiddle to Japan. More interesting that the escalating problems in Ivory Coast has been completely ignored by news channels, and with all the talk of no-fly zones in Libya, there's been no political discussion of intervention in Ivory Coast. It's the same situation, protesters getting shot. Why do we care about Libya but not Ivory Coast? No oil to protect.

 

Ivory Coast has been in civil war/ all out war for as long as I can remember with lulls in fighting at various times for a renewed 'peace' Im assuming the latest is over the election results from November/ December which iirc they got Mbeki from SA in to do some mediation over

 

Its an oil/petrol producer of a sort and is responsible for alot of coffee and Cocoa being produced so it has some value economically

 

Most of the fighting has been around Ouattra's and Gbagbo's legitimacy after said election. Gbagbo like any good dictator doesnt want to relinquish power, despite Ouattra winning

Yes, there's been trouble in Ivory Coast on and off for a long time. But the violence has escalated rapidly recently with Gbagbo trying to cling to power, troops murdering protesters on the streets. I assure you, if our economy was as reliant on chocolate as it is on oil, this would be getting infinitely more coverage.

They're still talking about Libya and Bahrain, but that news is understandably playing second fiddle to Japan. More interesting that the escalating problems in Ivory Coast has been completely ignored by news channels, and with all the talk of no-fly zones in Libya, there's been no political discussion of intervention in Ivory Coast. It's the same situation, protesters getting shot. Why do we care about Libya but not Ivory Coast? No oil to protect.

Love how Happ's complaints about Labour's failure to police the financial sector is in direct contradiction to all his other beliefs.

They might allow some opinions that deviate from the party line a little bit, in order to make it seem like their views are reasonable and well-considered. But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever.

 

I don't even think the Guardian care about Britain that much any more. Half the stuff on CiF is about the US or other foreign countries. It seems they are trying to target the worldwide latte liberal demographic, having given up on the British people who tend to see right through their rhetoric.

This is my favourite bit of the last few pages of Happ insanity. Complaining about rhetoric and weasel words, while describing what in anybody's reality is a fair and free forum of expression and discussion, as a ruthless quashing, banishing dictatorial regime.

Some of them clearly are just autonomous nutcases. But it's clear that astroturfing does take place - there are theories about MoveAnyMountain particularly; there appears to be more than one person using that handle/login.

 

Anyway, I thought you said it was ruthlessly censored? But now you've admitted that it us not the circle-jerk you claimed. And yet you get all annoyed when you get accused of posting a load of right-wing filler? Weird.

Posts which go against the ethos of the newspaper are routinely censored and posters banned, including myself. Yet the most ridiculous lefty crap is allowed to remain, including from contributors such as Polly Toynbee and Laurie Penny.

Utter bullshit. If you've had a post censored on CiF it could only be because it was abusive, offensive, spam, libellous or so completely irrelevant that it would derail the thread. You can only be banned for persistently breaking those simple rules. The idea that you can be censored or banned for posting against the ethos of the paper is laughable to anyone who has ever visited the site.

dp

It's a politics thread. Not a left-wing circle-jerk. If people want to read leftie pie-in-the-sky bullshit they can do so over at the Guardian or other similar website where any diverging opinions are ruthlessly censored.

Got to back up Alan here (hey blud). Anyone who goes on CiF knows that every single thread is astroturfed to fuck by lunatic right-wing Randian sociopaths like yourself. You should look into it, it's a growth industry.

People are starting to believe they really can take their countries back.

It's just a pity we probably won't ever see the same kind of thing here.

What the fuck have we got to complain about? In general, really?

Our democracy has been eroded and is now enslaved to the financial sector, to the point where we can no longer make our opposition known through the ballot box. You and I might be perfectly comfortable, but the destruction of the welfare state and the NHS and the marketisation of all our public services comes at a massive cost to the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the single mothers, children, the mentally ill and countless others. Funny how an attack on the forests, the playground of the middle and upper class caused massive uproar and a reversal of policy. But attacks on the disenfranchised and the voiceless continue unabated.