Be Excellent To Each Other

A system where people can not work for 3 months, but sleep in a tent and communicate with the world through $1,000 technology would, I'd suggest, show some signs of it 'working'.

That risk is spread across many investments, though.

Which bit of that, other than the avaiblility of an iPhone and a tent for purchase with money, is due to capitalism?

I rather think Plissken's point may have been that we didn't have capitalism in 1066, as such.

Would that have happened though? Or would we have had a run on all banks, a general collapse of the entire banking industry and everyone being screwed totally? If we had had a true, free-market, laissez faire, non-interventionist system I think we'd have been really bodged.

The capitalist society that we live in, which has clearly empowered people to take 3 months off and live in a tent with $1,000 communications equipment that has existed since 1776?

Again, in what way has "capitalism" "empowered" them to take 3 months off? Especially if they're all tramps on the dole as the Mail says.

Also, consider that a pure capitalist society wouldn't have any regulatory restrictions on it, e.g. employent law protections. So any ability to waft around in tents on benefits is due to socialist democracy, not capitalism. And is in fact in spite of the capitalism.

I'm also not sure where 1776 came from.

'Cos otherwise they'd be dead due to not eating and shit like that.

1776 - Adam Smith's the 'Wealth of Nations' was published.

Well, quite. Given that the entire problem with the near banking collapse was the interconnectedness of the banking system, there wouldn't be any "more efficient competitors" left.

Capitalism didn't feed them.


Ahhhh, I see. That still doesn't help with 1066.

Even if it could be demonstrably proven to increase the overall revenue achieved from taxation, particularly at the highest levels? That would be a baffling opinion to hold if so. Note that I'm not speaking up in favour of a flat tax there, merely that it would be odd to oppose a measure that could achieve something you thought was desirable, particularly if it's based on a historical viewpoint that 'blararagh, a flat tax is EVIL', without really thinking about the potential reality.

I certainly reject the unqualified notion that Hannan is a 'fucking moron'. He's the rarest of politicians in that he's capable of speaking with great articulation, but also always conveys a detailed understanding of the subject he's talking about. I can't help by find myself agreeing with the vast majority of what he says about europe, and enjoying listening to him even when I don't agree with his views.

Note that Hannon is careful not to claim this. He claims it will increase the proportion of tax paid by the rich; he doesn't talk about the actual overall revenue at all.

He's just a slightly less swivel eyed version of Nigel Farage. Yes, he can be eloquent, but that doesn't stop him being flat wrong about things and demonstrating that he can't think things through. He's a moron.

Well yes, I'd always want to see the figures as real numbers stacked a few different ways. But I was talking more of a principal on the general point - disagreeing with things you have previously believed to be 'bad' without actually having investigated or thought about them any time recently.

I can't begin to name of number of people I know who pay no attention to politics, and can barely name a politician who isn't David Cameron, but despite that will forcibly tell you that the Tories are 'evil', because they were once told that by someone else, and so they're sticking to it indefinitely. Whether they're evil or not is almost immaterial, but if you consider the majority of people will align themselves politically without even thinking about or examining it, then fuck me, I wonder what the point of all this democracy is.

Feex.

Oddly I really dislike Nigel Farage, despite his terrifying ability to survive plane crashes.

The Tories being evil is an objective fact, though.

Intellectually you know that all political views are subjective so if you are genuinely trying to say the Tories are inarguably evil, that's just.... silly.

Yeah, they're like the Empire in Star Wars, or the Germans in 'Allo, 'Allo.

Whether you think, I dunno, gays should marry in church or not is of course subjective opinion, but it is objective fact that, e.g. Thatcher ate children, after weakening them by stealing their free milk.

The difference is that yes, political views can be subjective (some are objectively wrong, of course), but the EFFECTS of the policies that flow from those views are not.

Actually I disagree. He isn't a moron, he's much more dangerous than that because he can debate and he is very eloquent. He'll steal your money and persuade you he is right to do so.

Fox love him because Americans love a well spoken British guy even if he is doing evil. See Alan Rickman.

There is a reason he is in Europe and not Westminster - and that is to keep his extremist views as hidden away as possible.

I agree he's eloquent, but he's still flat wrong on stuff, and has such way off-base views that I can only assume that he's, at heart, a fucking moron.

Effects are entirely arguable, however. 'Blahblahblah the cuts are making me poor' vs 'Long term econominic stability for UK, we'll all be better off in the long run'. Both of which could be true to varying degrees. People are merely predisposed towards thinking about only themselves in the very short term, so an angry reaction to the cuts is understandable, but short-sighted.

I'm sure I've said it before but had it not been for Thatcher, matey, you'd currently have euros in your wallet. Her refusal to agree a timetable for joining it was ultimately what got her kicked. The momentum of that sentiment remains to this day. I don't know about you, but I'm bloody glad for it.

Effects are entirely arguable, however. 'Blahblahblah the cuts are making me poor' vs 'Long term econominic stability for UK, we'll all be better off in the long run'. Both of which could be true to varying degrees. People are merely predisposed towards thinking about only themselves in the very short term, so an angry reaction to the cuts is understandable, but short-sighted. /[quote]

Hang on - the "I'm poorer" is objective, verifiable, present fact. The "we'll all be better off in the long run" is a subjective forecast.

Yes, you won't necessarily know what the effect of a policy will be at the time it's implemented (although often you will), but we know the effects of lots of Tory policies in the past. And they're TEH EVILZ.

He's not a moron, he's just drunk the kool-ade. All these wingers love to believe in their true "pure" free market, fairness for all, and doing away with strong government, but where's it ever been or going to be tested? It's just a fantasy.

MORONS.

FAOD, "moron" is being used in the correct sense applicable for discourse on matters political - i.e. "someone who doesn't agree with me".

I see your Conversative stance and raise you one Labour government.

It's almost pointless following politics in Scotland unless you're a mouth-foaming nationalist, or possibly worse, Labour. There might be a Tory around here somewhere but I think he just spends all his time whizzing around on a Segway bought on expenses*.




* possibly not true.

The original iPhone was released in 2007!

"Look at them with their iPhones! I didn't have an iPhone when I was their age!"


BECAUSE IT HADN'T FUCKING BEEN INVENTED YOU FUCKING PRICK.

Edit: Not aimed at anyone, BTW.

The attitude that you can't be protesting your lot in life unless you're barefoot and wearing sackcloth is indeed highly irritating.

Now, I think we can agree that all Republicans are evil though, yes?

I think every single one of them wants to ban same sex marriage (effectively saying that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals) and believe that full human rights should be granted at the moment of conception, thus making miscarriage a potential crime, and the use of the morning after pill or various other forms of contraception (such as IUDs) first degree murder.

Because you can uninvent abortion.

Bill Maher summed it up best. "Teabagger Congress voted on No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. If you're going to take innocent life it had better be by gun."

Bill Maher is a bunny hugging PETA Mr Knob Face, so his opinions on just about fucking anything can be safely ignored, as you'll get more rational ideas from a hungry shark on meth in Boulder.

PMQs.

Leaving any party politics aside our parliament really is a completely embarrassing spectacle at times isn't it? I mean it's just plain weird how they conduct themselves whilst discussing important matters. I guess it's just an illustration of how little it actually means to them, they might as well be back at school in a fucking debating group. Wankers.

On the contrary, I quite like the idea of running a country through a slightly drunk boy's club.

Good job that's exactly what's happened since, ooooh, the council of Barons in 1258.

Their second album was a disappointment, though.

Actually, without Thatcher we might not be anywhere near as 'in' Europe as we are. She managed a public face "I want my money back!" and a behind closed doors "signing every treaty going, get us the fuck right in there".

This. Politics should be noisy, loud, and at times rude. Except in the Lords. The noise would give then heart attacks.

Was reading the transcript of Monday's debate in the Common on Europe last night. Well worth it, and some of the comments from the speaker to try to hush the House were hilarious.
And any official record that contains an interjection of '[hon. Members: 'Doomed!'] to capture the atmosphere of a debate is pretty awesome.

I like parliament - it's quaint and quirky in equal measures, a relic of the olden days. It would be worse if they treated it like a business meeting and talked about 'synergising the electorate' and whatnot.

The Daily Show did a whole segment over the summer on how 'awesome' it was that the Commons could attack Cameron over the phonehacking scandal. Worth finding, and also the followup a week later where they point out how under UK broadcasting rules prohibiting the use of Parliamentary clips outside of serious programme the segment couldn't be shown here.

Quaint, quirky and a relic of the olden days just about sums it up and everything that's wrong with it. I guess it doesn't help that tradition apparently dictates that they all behave like a bunch of sycophantic tosspots, braying loudly at every witless aside that their leaders dribble out. Honestly when the camera pans round for a reaction I just want to slap them all.

This. Despite the speaker reminding them several times that the public probably won't be impressed by their ceaseless honking, it never shuts them the fuck up. Laughing, giggling, pointing, heckling and shouting over everything said by anyone answering a question or making a statement doesn't quite convey the sense of shit-hot administration that government should aspire to. On that score, they're all as bad as each other.

DOUBLE POST HILARITY EDIT.

Ironically though, debates in the EU chambers of power are typically of the sober, polite, non-grandstanding model.

Except when Hannan or Farage get going.

(Chuckles)

This is a quality thread. Brought to you by Mr Chris, folks. Whatever happened to him.

He decided that space was passe.

Died in Space after sacrificing Mali A in an A Wing because Mr Chris IS NO SPACE PIRATE