d-d-d-dAz Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) That was like watching a WWE promo video. Â I honestly think there is a real chance that Obama isn't going to last two terms. Edited September 21, 2011 by The King Of Swing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I thought, until recently, that he would win but I'm not so sure now. Â It depends who the Republicans pick; Mitt Romney is way too establishment and representative of the wealthy elites that Americans aren't to fond of right now, Huntsman is implicated in the Obama regime and won't get the nomination, Bachmann is a loon and Cain/Santorm/Paul are all fringe fruitcakes. Â I genuinely believe Perry is their best bet. He might be pandering to the Tea Party right at the minute, but he's got stories to tell about pragmatism (i.e. unconservative policies such as the HPV virus) and economic rejuvenation. He's also from humble beginnings, which always plays well. Â Though, if I was American, and faced the prospect of Obama vs. Perry i'd probably be looking for the 'neither' option... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Atkins Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 The Republicans should pick . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 basildon council aren't not giving them planning permission because it's green belt land, they're not giving them planning permission because they're travellers  I'm sorry, but do you actually have any proof of that? You've made that contention a number of times, so I presume you have something to back it up with. Otherwise it's just an accusation, not a fact.  Well basildon council, like pretty much all councils, have happily let greenbelt land be built on. It was a fucking scrapyard before the travellers bought it. And while they let it be a scrapyard, they wouldn't grant the travellers planning permission to build on it. I'm kinda confused as to why you'd think it's in question, basildon council don't want the the site getting any bigger, so they're not going to give planning permission, that's the facts of the situation. Whether or not they're right to do so is where the debate can occur, but the underlying fact that baslidon council doesn't want to give the travellers planning permission is somewhat clear, given they've spent the last 10 years not giving the travellers planning permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 So, no proof then. Just your unsubstantiated opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Bobbins is alright, he's just too earnest at times, and so fails to distinguish between actual casual racism and someone making a joke about casual racism. I don't really get the joke if that's true (and you've got to agree pretty bad taste given the context of what's going on), but I'll take your word for it. Â Butch, I don't get the complaints about using too many long words and shit, I just try to communicate as well as possible. That's not my strong point. I'm not exactly Will Self though. Â In fact, a quick scan over the last couple of months of my posts and I couldn't find anything that fit your description. I used "egalitarian" and "false consciousness" at one point but nothing as pseudo-intellectual as "ethos" or "proactive". As for talking down to people, I turned into a sarcastic patronising sod for the purposes of repelling the flamebaiting idiocy of the RIOT thread. I don't think I've done that in pointing out my objection to a racist joke here. But you can't really blame people if they overreact to this kind of stuff. It's an emotive issue for people who have sympathy for the travellers. Â I don't wear my politics as a badge or try to make it a competition. The only reason I've marked up LoKi for being "illiberal" in the past, is because of his long history of proudly proclaiming himself a liberal with all that that entails, and a recent history of expressing opinions that run in direct contradiction to that. I've never done anything similar with anyone else. I think I just generally try and argue the points. It just seems to me that LoKi's politics have taken quite a dramatic shift to the right since the election, and he's someone I used to agree with most of the time so it's been really noticeable and I've pointed it out. It's not "My politics are better than yours and everyone elses!!", it's "What happened to Lefty LoKi?". Maybe it's just a case of previously discussing stuff that brought out the Lefty side, and more recently discussing the stuff that showed off the Righty side. Â I actually totally agree with Kiffy that liberalism isn't necessarily something to hang your hat on. Â So, no proof then. Just your unsubstantiated opinion. It's pretty much impossible to prove guilt over individual acts of discrimination. But statistics can show where the authorities are institutionally discriminatory against certain groups, and the statistics regarding planning permission for travellers are incredibly damning. The idea that the council's reasoning for denying the planning permission is purely because it's green belt land just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 The pro-travellers should have a whip round and get involved, try to bring a bit of attention to the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 So, no proof then. Just your unsubstantiated opinion. Â What? The council decided not to grant planning permission, they were happy to have a scrapyard on green belt, but not more travellers, can you give me any other possibility as to why they might have spent the last 10 years denying them planning permission and fighting a legal battle to get them off? Come on LoKi, you're not this thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) It's pretty much impossible to prove guilt over individual acts of discrimination. But statistics can show where the authorities are institutionally discriminatory against certain groups, and the statistics regarding planning permission for travellers are incredibly damning.  Ok, let's see these statistics then...   What? The council decided not to grant planning permission, they were happy to have a scrapyard on green belt, but not more travellers  It was a scrapyard BEFORE the land was zoned as green belt; it wouldn't be available for any development by any section of the community now. Let's at least try and get the story right eh? You guys are just screaming institutional racism based on nothing more than a vague misunderstanding of the case and a natural mistrust of authority. You HAVE to have something more substantial, otherwise you're just being hugely naive. Edited September 22, 2011 by Loki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Lol if it was designated green belt after the scrapyard was gone, then it was designated green belt while the travellers were living on it. That means they bought the land, tried to get planning permission, and the council then designated it green belt. Come on Loki, the council doesn't want an extension to the traveller site, there's no doubt about that. If it was ok with having it, it would let it happen, instead of designating the land green belt while they were on it and spending a decade fighting with them to stop them settling there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It was a scrapyard BEFORE the land was zoned as green belt; it wouldn't be available for any development by any section of the community now. Â And I'm sorry but that is just utter bollocks, well over 5,000 new houses are built on green belt land every year, special exceptions are also made for leisure and retail enterprises all over the country all the time. I'm sorry but on this one you really are going to need a little more understanding of the issues involved old boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'm sorry but on this one you really are going to need a little more understanding of the issues involved old boy. And, in fairness, you're going to have to back up what you are saying with factual evidence, as in links. not just opinion (an opinion I do agree with, by the way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I already did a few pages back, the tones a little sterner than I would normally take with LoKi, who seems a pretty reasonable chap for the most part, but the answers and the link is in there. Â First google search shows this http://www.lawsonfairbank.co.uk/building-on-green-belt.asp it was not only happening on a pretty significant scale between 1994 to 1996 (an average of 3,287 houses per year) it jumped massively after that, going up to 5,265, an increase of 60%. Honestly if you don't have even a passing understanding of the issues involved and under discussion why would you venture an opinion? Do you not find it a little embarassing to quote ill informed rubbish as fact in a debate you have no understanding of? You may not know this about me, but I post very little, in fact nothing, on nuclear physics forums, because I would add nothing of any worth. You may want to apply the same approach to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Atkins Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It was a scrapyard BEFORE the land was zoned as green belt; it wouldn't be available for any development by any section of the community now. Â And I'm sorry but that is just utter bollocks, well over 5,000 new houses are built on green belt land every year, special exceptions are also made for leisure and retail enterprises all over the country all the time. I'm sorry but on this one you really are going to need a little more understanding of the issues involved old boy. Do they build the houses and then apply for retrospective planning permission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts