INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: benjimanbreeg on July 12, 2016, 11:24:39 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NffWa8ZlJkY
-
Stop calling 17 million people stupid?
Lots more out there that are, in my mind. Stupid and/or uneducated and ill informed. As for the Brexit vote, some voted leave and other voted remain, quite a few of them without knowing what they voted for or why. Which is why it's so scary, and which is why I think Cameron made a huge mistake.
-
That guy's funny. :laugh:
-
Some of the people who voted leave did so as a protest vote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-anger-bregret-leave-voters-protest-vote-thought-uk-stay-in-eu-remain-win-a7102516.html
They must be shitting themselves now. To them I say :congrats: for fucking the UK.
-
Well, Boris didn't think Leave would win either.
Fucking hilarious that he's Foreign Minister now.
-
Well, Boris didn't think Leave would win either.
Fucking hilarious that he's Foreign Minister now.
(http://i.imgur.com/k0XKaEJ.jpg)
-
Stop calling 17 million people stupid?
Lots more out there that are, in my mind. Stupid and/or uneducated and ill informed. As for the Brexit vote, some voted leave and other voted remain, quite a few of them without knowing what they voted for or why. Which is why it's so scary, and which is why I think Cameron made a huge mistake.
You're certainly one of the however many. You have no independent though at all. The same thing happens in an election every 5 years. Lots of people knew what they were voting for with regards to leaving, to do something about immigration. Sure, they might be disappointed but now there's no EU scapegoat, so those people will want answers. Controlling the outrageous numbers was more than enough of a reason to vote to leave and uncertainty was more than enough reason to vote to stay. People can make the right decisions without knowing why they did. We just happened to make the correct one on this instance.
-
That guy's funny. :laugh:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c7RDuSMvi0
-
Some of the people who voted leave did so as a protest vote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-anger-bregret-leave-voters-protest-vote-thought-uk-stay-in-eu-remain-win-a7102516.html
They must be shitting themselves now. To them I say :congrats: for fucking the UK.
:blah:
Really, that's a story? A couple of alleged 'leave' voters who now regret it? They didn't realise leave would win? They are fucking morons or most likely they are remain voters who are lying. It's fucking over, so get over it. Time to move on.
-
Stop calling 17 million people stupid?
Lots more out there that are, in my mind. Stupid and/or uneducated and ill informed. As for the Brexit vote, some voted leave and other voted remain, quite a few of them without knowing what they voted for or why. Which is why it's so scary, and which is why I think Cameron made a huge mistake.
You're certainly one of the however many. You have no independent though at all. The same thing happens in an election every 5 years. Lots of people knew what they were voting for with regards to leaving, to do something about immigration. Sure, they might be disappointed but now there's no EU scapegoat, so those people will want answers. Controlling the outrageous numbers was more than enough of a reason to vote to leave and uncertainty was more than enough reason to vote to stay. People can make the right decisions without knowing why they did. We just happened to make the correct one on this instance.
And you proved again why democracy is such a bad idea. You'll have a vote about the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, and then vote for the wrong option for the wrong reasons.
-
Stop calling 17 million people stupid?
Lots more out there that are, in my mind. Stupid and/or uneducated and ill informed. As for the Brexit vote, some voted leave and other voted remain, quite a few of them without knowing what they voted for or why. Which is why it's so scary, and which is why I think Cameron made a huge mistake.
You're certainly one of the however many. You have no independent though at all. The same thing happens in an election every 5 years. Lots of people knew what they were voting for with regards to leaving, to do something about immigration. Sure, they might be disappointed but now there's no EU scapegoat, so those people will want answers. Controlling the outrageous numbers was more than enough of a reason to vote to leave and uncertainty was more than enough reason to vote to stay. People can make the right decisions without knowing why they did. We just happened to make the correct one on this instance.
And you proved again why democracy is such a bad idea. You'll have a vote about the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, and then vote for the wrong option for the wrong reasons.
That's your opinion. This has nothing to do with you anyway, so like Pie said, fuck off to North Korea.
-
Stop calling 17 million people stupid?
Lots more out there that are, in my mind. Stupid and/or uneducated and ill informed. As for the Brexit vote, some voted leave and other voted remain, quite a few of them without knowing what they voted for or why. Which is why it's so scary, and which is why I think Cameron made a huge mistake.
You're certainly one of the however many. You have no independent though at all. The same thing happens in an election every 5 years. Lots of people knew what they were voting for with regards to leaving, to do something about immigration. Sure, they might be disappointed but now there's no EU scapegoat, so those people will want answers. Controlling the outrageous numbers was more than enough of a reason to vote to leave and uncertainty was more than enough reason to vote to stay. People can make the right decisions without knowing why they did. We just happened to make the correct one on this instance.
And you proved again why democracy is such a bad idea. You'll have a vote about the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, and then vote for the wrong option for the wrong reasons.
That's your opinion. This has nothing to do with you anyway, so like Pie said, fuck off to North Korea.
It's got a lot to do with me, actually.
The problem with a dictatorship, of course, is that it's an even worse idea since power will always corrupt, regardless of constitution.
-
Stop calling 17 million people stupid?
Lots more out there that are, in my mind. Stupid and/or uneducated and ill informed. As for the Brexit vote, some voted leave and other voted remain, quite a few of them without knowing what they voted for or why. Which is why it's so scary, and which is why I think Cameron made a huge mistake.
You're certainly one of the however many. You have no independent though at all. The same thing happens in an election every 5 years. Lots of people knew what they were voting for with regards to leaving, to do something about immigration. Sure, they might be disappointed but now there's no EU scapegoat, so those people will want answers. Controlling the outrageous numbers was more than enough of a reason to vote to leave and uncertainty was more than enough reason to vote to stay. People can make the right decisions without knowing why they did. We just happened to make the correct one on this instance.
And you proved again why democracy is such a bad idea. You'll have a vote about the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, and then vote for the wrong option for the wrong reasons.
That's your opinion. This has nothing to do with you anyway, so like Pie said, fuck off to North Korea.
It's got a lot to do with me, actually.
The problem with a dictatorship, of course, is that it's an even worse idea since power will always corrupt, regardless of constitution.
Not really your home country.
Yes power will, that's why the people need more power. No use fretting about it when they exercise those rights and make a choice the powerful do not like.
-
Stop calling 17 million people stupid?
Lots more out there that are, in my mind. Stupid and/or uneducated and ill informed. As for the Brexit vote, some voted leave and other voted remain, quite a few of them without knowing what they voted for or why. Which is why it's so scary, and which is why I think Cameron made a huge mistake.
You're certainly one of the however many. You have no independent though at all. The same thing happens in an election every 5 years. Lots of people knew what they were voting for with regards to leaving, to do something about immigration. Sure, they might be disappointed but now there's no EU scapegoat, so those people will want answers. Controlling the outrageous numbers was more than enough of a reason to vote to leave and uncertainty was more than enough reason to vote to stay. People can make the right decisions without knowing why they did. We just happened to make the correct one on this instance.
And you proved again why democracy is such a bad idea. You'll have a vote about the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, and then vote for the wrong option for the wrong reasons.
That's your opinion. This has nothing to do with you anyway, so like Pie said, fuck off to North Korea.
It's got a lot to do with me, actually.
The problem with a dictatorship, of course, is that it's an even worse idea since power will always corrupt, regardless of constitution.
Not really your home country.
Yes power will, that's why the people need more power. No use fretting about it when they exercise those rights and make a choice the powerful do not like.
Agreed.
I object to those that say variations of "The people do not know what is best for them"
Think of how many times that mentality has been used to detrimental effects.
The people that make claims to know better than "the people" rarely do. It is usually just a away of signalling a position of superior reason, morality or spirituality to others. In its best form it is annoying snobbery and in its worst, hateful demagoguery
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
No, no I get it Odeon.
People are ignorant. It is the "collective will" not the individual will that matters. The best people to determine the rights and the will of the people is a small group of people who can rightly gauge that. The elites are always going to appreciate and understand the best for the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
Because the elites in Government had far better understanding of education, religious beliefs needed for the soul, social capital and civilised customs and social mores.
So, on this basis they KNEW what what BEST for these silly, backward Aboriginal people. They had no business raising children and in their horrible backwards way.
Kids were still being taken right up to the 1970's (Yes that is in MY lifetime).
This is shame for Australia. (Yes, Sweden may be the rape capital of the world BUT we have had our own problems too).
But that may in your mind be ancient business. But something that you said about how the average person is stupid and too ignorant to vote in their economic benefit (paraphrasing LOL)
I knew this guy. He was at the time about 25. He was a Boner at an abattoir. Salt of the Earth. Spoke laconically and simply. Country bloke. He had been working since he was 14 and in his own words was "Not that great at school"
He was decidedly worse than he let on. He was unable to read or write more than his own name. By any reading, he would be about as far removed from the economically educated University Graduates that ought to be able to make economic decisions on behalf of the country's economy.
I was having drinks with him on my veranda one night and he mentioned that he had holidays coming up. I asked him what he was going to do. He said "Oh just going to my house and gonna do some painting and cleaning up the property a bit".
It kind of threw me. "My house"? He lived just down the road from me.
I asked him what he meant by going.
"Nah, not THAT house. That is the one me and (his brother) own."
I asked him if it wasn't that house, which did he mean?
He said it was one in Donnybrook and he was slowly renovating it and fixing it up.
I got it. It was their second house. I said "Oh right, sorry I did not realise you have two house"
He said, "No our house here is jointly owned by me and my brother. I rent out the other ones by the one in Donnybrook I am doing up to sell."
I asked him about the other ones. He told me he had two more houses. He said that they were owed by the bank because unlike the one he had with his brother or the one in Donnybrook, THEY had mortgages on them.
This kid knew his body would be broken down by the age of 35. He had been saving and investing in property off the sweat of his brow since 14. He was on track. He financially (in the way that he conducted his own personal finances) would have shown up most oh so clever university educated economists.
I do not agree with your idea that people cannot vote in their best interests or that only an elite can make the decisions that reflect the interest on an entire population. I understand entirely the nee for elites to run at the top for expediency BUT that in no way says that if THEY think one thing and the population collectively thinks another that they must be right. It just doesn't.
As i said before the "I know better than the unwashed plebs"snobbery is at best poor and at worst the worst hateful demagoguery
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out. Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
No, no I get it Odeon.
People are ignorant. It is the "collective will" not the individual will that matters. The best people to determine the rights and the will of the people is a small group of people who can rightly gauge that. The elites are always going to appreciate and understand the best for the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
Because the elites in Government had far better understanding of education, religious beliefs needed for the soul, social capital and civilised customs and social mores.
So, on this basis they KNEW what what BEST for these silly, backward Aboriginal people. They had no business raising children and in their horrible backwards way.
Kids were still being taken right up to the 1970's (Yes that is in MY lifetime).
This is shame for Australia. (Yes, Sweden may be the rape capital of the world BUT we have had our own problems too).
But that may in your mind be ancient business. But something that you said about how the average person is stupid and too ignorant to vote in their economic benefit (paraphrasing LOL)
I knew this guy. He was at the time about 25. He was a Boner at an abattoir. Salt of the Earth. Spoke laconically and simply. Country bloke. He had been working since he was 14 and in his own words was "Not that great at school"
He was decidedly worse than he let on. He was unable to read or write more than his own name. By any reading, he would be about as far removed from the economically educated University Graduates that ought to be able to make economic decisions on behalf of the country's economy.
I was having drinks with him on my veranda one night and he mentioned that he had holidays coming up. I asked him what he was going to do. He said "Oh just going to my house and gonna do some painting and cleaning up the property a bit".
It kind of threw me. "My house"? He lived just down the road from me.
I asked him what he meant by going.
"Nah, not THAT house. That is the one me and (his brother) own."
I asked him if it wasn't that house, which did he mean?
He said it was one in Donnybrook and he was slowly renovating it and fixing it up.
I got it. It was their second house. I said "Oh right, sorry I did not realise you have two house"
He said, "No our house here is jointly owned by me and my brother. I rent out the other ones by the one in Donnybrook I am doing up to sell."
I asked him about the other ones. He told me he had two more houses. He said that they were owed by the bank because unlike the one he had with his brother or the one in Donnybrook, THEY had mortgages on them.
This kid knew his body would be broken down by the age of 35. He had been saving and investing in property off the sweat of his brow since 14. He was on track. He financially (in the way that he conducted his own personal finances) would have shown up most oh so clever university educated economists.
I do not agree with your idea that people cannot vote in their best interests or that only an elite can make the decisions that reflect the interest on an entire population. I understand entirely the nee for elites to run at the top for expediency BUT that in no way says that if THEY think one thing and the population collectively thinks another that they must be right. It just doesn't.
As i said before the "I know better than the unwashed plebs"snobbery is at best poor and at worst the worst hateful demagoguery
First of all, I'm not in favour of "a top elite". In an ideal world, it would be a better idea than democracy, but OTOH, in an ideal world, the man on the street would have the necessary knowledge and insight to make democracy work.
Realistically, democracy is a better option because I would trust the "top elite" as little as I would the common man. There is very little to say that the elite was any better.
I wouldn't trust a concept such as a "collective will", though. I think it's a pipe dream and wishful thinking. There is very little to suggest that humanity as a collective entity knows what's good for it or the planet. It's a nice thought but unless you provide proof beyond wishful thinking, my answer will be "seriously?", shrug and then move on to the next post.
I do think that under the circumstances, democracy is the best available option, but would like to let the people whom we elected do their jobs than hold referendums to satisfy popular demand.
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out. Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.
Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out. Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.
Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.
NO. Just NO. Not another call-out.
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
No, no I get it Odeon.
People are ignorant. It is the "collective will" not the individual will that matters. The best people to determine the rights and the will of the people is a small group of people who can rightly gauge that. The elites are always going to appreciate and understand the best for the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
Because the elites in Government had far better understanding of education, religious beliefs needed for the soul, social capital and civilised customs and social mores.
So, on this basis they KNEW what what BEST for these silly, backward Aboriginal people. They had no business raising children and in their horrible backwards way.
Kids were still being taken right up to the 1970's (Yes that is in MY lifetime).
This is shame for Australia. (Yes, Sweden may be the rape capital of the world BUT we have had our own problems too).
But that may in your mind be ancient business. But something that you said about how the average person is stupid and too ignorant to vote in their economic benefit (paraphrasing LOL)
I knew this guy. He was at the time about 25. He was a Boner at an abattoir. Salt of the Earth. Spoke laconically and simply. Country bloke. He had been working since he was 14 and in his own words was "Not that great at school"
He was decidedly worse than he let on. He was unable to read or write more than his own name. By any reading, he would be about as far removed from the economically educated University Graduates that ought to be able to make economic decisions on behalf of the country's economy.
I was having drinks with him on my veranda one night and he mentioned that he had holidays coming up. I asked him what he was going to do. He said "Oh just going to my house and gonna do some painting and cleaning up the property a bit".
It kind of threw me. "My house"? He lived just down the road from me.
I asked him what he meant by going.
"Nah, not THAT house. That is the one me and (his brother) own."
I asked him if it wasn't that house, which did he mean?
He said it was one in Donnybrook and he was slowly renovating it and fixing it up.
I got it. It was their second house. I said "Oh right, sorry I did not realise you have two house"
He said, "No our house here is jointly owned by me and my brother. I rent out the other ones by the one in Donnybrook I am doing up to sell."
I asked him about the other ones. He told me he had two more houses. He said that they were owed by the bank because unlike the one he had with his brother or the one in Donnybrook, THEY had mortgages on them.
This kid knew his body would be broken down by the age of 35. He had been saving and investing in property off the sweat of his brow since 14. He was on track. He financially (in the way that he conducted his own personal finances) would have shown up most oh so clever university educated economists.
I do not agree with your idea that people cannot vote in their best interests or that only an elite can make the decisions that reflect the interest on an entire population. I understand entirely the nee for elites to run at the top for expediency BUT that in no way says that if THEY think one thing and the population collectively thinks another that they must be right. It just doesn't.
As i said before the "I know better than the unwashed plebs"snobbery is at best poor and at worst the worst hateful demagoguery
First of all, I'm not in favour of "a top elite". In an ideal world, it would be a better idea than democracy, but OTOH, in an ideal world, the man on the street would have the necessary knowledge and insight to make democracy work.
Realistically, democracy is a better option because I would trust the "top elite" as little as I would the common man. There is very little to say that the elite was any better.
I wouldn't trust a concept such as a "collective will", though. I think it's a pipe dream and wishful thinking. There is very little to suggest that humanity as a collective entity knows what's good for it or the planet. It's a nice thought but unless you provide proof beyond wishful thinking, my answer will be "seriously?", shrug and then move on to the next post.
I do think that under the circumstances, democracy is the best available option, but would like to let the people whom we elected do their jobs than hold referendums to satisfy popular demand.
The little shit does not matter. The general Administrative running of a country, we leave to senior Public Servants of one rank/title or another. But they ARE Public Servants. They serve the public. On the big issues. The nation changing ones. It is up to them to find out what the public want and to act on that response and that is the need for a referendum.
You want to secede from the Monarchy....referendum
You want to leave the EU.....referendum
Lower voting age......referendum
Introduce the military draft......referendum
These are the types of things that the public need to be asked about. No Public Servant is going to be across what the country collectively wants and it is necessary that these public servants know what the public wants so that they can serve the public. Because without a referendum they are doing what? Guessing? Doing what is easiest? Doing what fits into an agenda? None of that is serving the public.
Which comes to the next point. Does the public know what is best for them? Yes. The public is made up of individuals and these individuals have an assortment of perspectives and reasons why they may want something. Some may be inspired and some fucking crazy. That is not up to a Public Servant to second guess. Collectively the majority of a country deciding on a course of action is the country deciding on a course of action. The individuals may have had differing reasons but the demand for a specific course of action is the result. There is only one way to tap into the nation's thoughts. A public servant has only their own understanding and own perspective and an entire nation will have millions of different perspective and understandings that that public servant cannot tap into.
-
And I disagree. Referendums are a populist's way of handling a short-term problem.
Now, I know you'd like things to be different, and it's sweet in a way that you trust people like that. You'd like them all to be the same. But they are not.
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out. Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.
Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.
NO. Just NO. Not another call-out.
Not everyone is like Al.
-
And I disagree. Referendums are a populist's way of handling a short-term problem.
Now, I know you'd like things to be different, and it's sweet in a way that you trust people like that. You'd like them all to be the same. But they are not.
Its a way of a politician with an issue that is pressing and unable to be avoided or delayed, to make without too much backlash. The reason is that he or she can always say "It was the will of the public. Hey don't blame me, all of you are responsible for this decision" and he or she will be right.
Regardless of how well the public may feel about being consulted, this is the rationale. It is specific to BIGGER issues that have had discussions and grumblings about and which a "wrong" answer may be either or both decisions. In fact putting it to referendum may be a way of denouncing responsibility in a way that not doing so would have blown back regardless of the decision.
Take Brexit as an example that was a case of damned if you do and damned f you don't. Clearly half the UK wanted to leave and half did not. Whatever decision you made without a referendum was going to get a shitload of blowback. Referendum solves it. The will of the people.
The only thing left is whether the people should have will and whether the will of the public should be ignored. This should be a no-brainer unless you enjoy a totalitarian regime.
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
-
<insert suitable ninja cat here>
-
<insert suitable ninja cat here>
[pimg]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/d/df/Ninjacat.jpg[/img]
-
It would have been brilliant if you'd gotten the start tag right. :)
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out. Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.
Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.
The proof is the history of the world. You think powerful crooks should have more power because we're too thick to know what's good for us, but they know what's good for us and have the best intentions. Could you be anymore naive? I'd suggest you ought to start reading some books by Noam Chomsky.
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
-
It would have been brilliant if you'd gotten the start tag right. :)
Absolutely. I had no realised you were after ninja cat images. I had forgotten about them. They are fun though. I may get them firing again. Just for you
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
That's a fact
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out. Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.
Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.
The proof is the history of the world. You think powerful crooks should have more power because we're too thick to know what's good for us, but they know what's good for us and have the best intentions. Could you be anymore naive? I'd suggest you ought to start reading some books by Noam Chomsky.
Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?
Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
Experts did not necessarily thought "remain" would win, but they did warn you about the consequences.
Experts were divided, with some suggesting the Euro, others not, IIRC. There was no agreement.
Experts certainly didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. This is just wrong.
Experts certainly didn't all suggest attacking all those countries in the Middle East was even remotely a good thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You probably need to do your homework.
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
That's a fact
What is?
-
It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.
Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.
Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out. Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.
Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.
The proof is the history of the world. You think powerful crooks should have more power because we're too thick to know what's good for us, but they know what's good for us and have the best intentions. Could you be anymore naive? I'd suggest you ought to start reading some books by Noam Chomsky.
Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?
Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.
Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for.
-
Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?
Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.
Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for.
And you are doing it again.
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
Experts did not necessarily thought "remain" would win, but they did warn you about the consequences.
Experts were divided, with some suggesting the Euro, others not, IIRC. There was no agreement.
Experts certainly didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. This is just wrong.
Experts certainly didn't all suggest attacking all those countries in the Middle East was even remotely a good thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You probably need to do your homework.
What are you talking about? There wasn't a shed of preparation from the 'experts', as they were all sure we'd stay in. Across the spectrum the result is described as a "shock". You seem to be just disagreeing for the sake of it.
We've never said we were talking about all 'experts' and if we were, plenty of 'experts' said we'd be better off coming out of the European Union.
Again, you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of it, British 'Intelligence' produced a report with the WMD claim.
And again... Multiple 'experts' made these claims. And yes, some 'experts' claimed it would cause disaster. Are you just picking and choosing with the benefit of hindsight as to who you see as 'experts'? :lol1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RkSrF1HFY0
-
Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?
Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.
Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for.
And you are doing it again.
OK, then you must have completely fooled me. What are you asking for?
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
Experts did not necessarily thought "remain" would win, but they did warn you about the consequences.
Experts were divided, with some suggesting the Euro, others not, IIRC. There was no agreement.
Experts certainly didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. This is just wrong.
Experts certainly didn't all suggest attacking all those countries in the Middle East was even remotely a good thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You probably need to do your homework.
What are you talking about? There wasn't a shed of preparation from the 'experts', as they were all sure we'd stay in. Across the spectrum the result is described as a "shock". You seem to be just disagreeing for the sake of it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-live-updates-brexit-polls-how-to-vote-what-happens-to-uk-economy-ifs-niesr-lse-a7093111.html
This is just the "final warning" of these three institutions. There were quite a few of such warnings and to miss all of them you need to have been avoiding the media like the plague for the last six months at the very least.
There are many, many other examples.
We've never said we were talking about all 'experts' and if we were, plenty of 'experts' said we'd be better off coming out of the European Union.
"Plenty", in this case, was what Financial Times somewhat charitably labelled a "sizable minority". They say around 75% of the financial experts warned against the effects of leaving.
So we are talking about a majority a lot larger than the 52%.
Again, you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of it, British 'Intelligence' produced a report with the WMD claim.
Hans Blix, the UN Chief Inspector at the time, claims that to this day, neither the US nor the UK have presented their evidence to him. See Wikipedia for more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War).
He and his team provided a report presented well before the invasion, providing evidence of the contrary, however, something that could hardly be ignored by the two countries.
Are you deliberately ignoring this? Or, for that matter, deliberately ignoring the recent findings re Mr Blair?
And again... Multiple 'experts' made these claims. And yes, some 'experts' claimed it would cause disaster. Are you just picking and choosing with the benefit of hindsight as to who you see as 'experts'? :lol1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RkSrF1HFY0
As for the rest, "attacking all those countries in the Middle East" is such a generic phrase that it's utterly pointless. Which countries? When? IIRC, while the Gulf War was widely supported, the Iraq invasion never was.
Your ignorance shows. It's quite painful, in fact. How old were you at the time of these two wars? How much did you read and watch about them at the time and how much did you have to look up now?
Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?
Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.
Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for.
And you are doing it again.
OK, then you must have completely fooled me. What are you asking for?
Look, if you can't remember the discussion, you should probably stop posting. Try going back and rereading the thread before posting more nonsense.
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
That's a fact
What is?
What the "experts" believed. I wonder what the people would have said if referendums were held. In these instances the experts were wrong in 100% of these cases I reckon the public would have got it a lot closer (even if you think people are too stupid to know what is in their best interests).
-
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
That's a fact
What is?
What the "experts" believed. I wonder what the people would have said if referendums were held. In these instances the experts were wrong in 100% of these cases I reckon the public would have got it a lot closer (even if you think people are too stupid to know what is in their best interests).
I love it when you make my arguments for me.
-
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
That's a fact
What is?
What the "experts" believed. I wonder what the people would have said if referendums were held. In these instances the experts were wrong in 100% of these cases I reckon the public would have got it a lot closer (even if you think people are too stupid to know what is in their best interests).
I love it when you make my arguments for me.
Unless you hold opposite views to what you touted so far, I really don't think so. I will be charitable and say that you may be confused
-
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
That's a fact
What is?
What the "experts" believed. I wonder what the people would have said if referendums were held. In these instances the experts were wrong in 100% of these cases I reckon the public would have got it a lot closer (even if you think people are too stupid to know what is in their best interests).
I love it when you make my arguments for me.
Unless you hold opposite views to what you touted so far, I really don't think so. I will be charitable and say that you may be confused
:hahaha:
-
Which is where we will continue to disagree.
I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.
Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times. :zoinks:
Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.
'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in :orly:
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro :orly:
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes :orly:
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing :orly: :orly:
Experts did not necessarily thought "remain" would win, but they did warn you about the consequences.
Experts were divided, with some suggesting the Euro, others not, IIRC. There was no agreement.
Experts certainly didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. This is just wrong.
Experts certainly didn't all suggest attacking all those countries in the Middle East was even remotely a good thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You probably need to do your homework.
What are you talking about? There wasn't a shed of preparation from the 'experts', as they were all sure we'd stay in. Across the spectrum the result is described as a "shock". You seem to be just disagreeing for the sake of it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-live-updates-brexit-polls-how-to-vote-what-happens-to-uk-economy-ifs-niesr-lse-a7093111.html
This is just the "final warning" of these three institutions. There were quite a few of such warnings and to miss all of them you need to have been avoiding the media like the plague for the last six months at the very least.
There are many, many other examples.
We've never said we were talking about all 'experts' and if we were, plenty of 'experts' said we'd be better off coming out of the European Union.
"Plenty", in this case, was what Financial Times somewhat charitably labelled a "sizable minority". They say around 75% of the financial experts warned against the effects of leaving.
So we are talking about a majority a lot larger than the 52%.
Again, you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of it, British 'Intelligence' produced a report with the WMD claim.
Hans Blix, the UN Chief Inspector at the time, claims that to this day, neither the US nor the UK have presented their evidence to him. See Wikipedia for more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War).
He and his team provided a report presented well before the invasion, providing evidence of the contrary, however, something that could hardly be ignored by the two countries.
Are you deliberately ignoring this? Or, for that matter, deliberately ignoring the recent findings re Mr Blair?
And again... Multiple 'experts' made these claims. And yes, some 'experts' claimed it would cause disaster. Are you just picking and choosing with the benefit of hindsight as to who you see as 'experts'? :lol1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RkSrF1HFY0
As for the rest, "attacking all those countries in the Middle East" is such a generic phrase that it's utterly pointless. Which countries? When? IIRC, while the Gulf War was widely supported, the Iraq invasion never was.
Your ignorance shows. It's quite painful, in fact. How old were you at the time of these two wars? How much did you read and watch about them at the time and how much did you have to look up now?
Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?
Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.
Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for.
And you are doing it again.
OK, then you must have completely fooled me. What are you asking for?
Look, if you can't remember the discussion, you should probably stop posting. Try going back and rereading the thread before posting more nonsense.
For the last time Odeon, we have not left yet!!! And we won't know the results of leaving until we have left (if we do) and seen the plan in action for at least a couple of years and made the trade deals. A bunch of rich people have lost a lot of money in a short space of time because they were so arrogant as to think that the British people wouldn't dare vote to leave. But the long term is far more important and we can only speculate for now.
We're not talking about the affects of leaving, I said that 'experts' believed we were going to stay.
Blix is one 'expert', as I said, the 'experts' with British Intelligence produced a report claiming that Saddam had WMD's. So again, you are cherry picking what 'experts' and just using the ones that you wish. Some 'experts' believed the tripe about Saddam's WMD's and some knowingly lied. And again you resort to your Captain Hindsight character. We're not talking about 2016, we're talking about 2003 before the Iraq invasion. For all I know, you could have been in favor of it and waited until the Chilcot Report was released to then join the crowd, now it's been officially confirmed.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Libya, Syria... I never said that the Iraq war was widely supported, I said that 'experts' said attacking these countries would be a good thing, as we love democracy so much. I never said how many, and what does the majority have to be to be all 'experts', wouldn't that have to be 100%, or wait 75% is the rule you've made, what about 74%? But not 52%? Cause that isn't a real majority....
Really Odeon, you're making some claim that I would have had to be an adult at the time of the first Gulf War? Does that mean you cannot comment on WWII because you weren't even born? Surely as a fan of hindsight you would agree we can actually learn far more after the events?
I've read through, I want to know what your stance is please? Just sum it up short and sweet if you would.
-
So I'm cherry-picking but you are not? That's sort of funny.
I was not in favour of the Iraq war in 2003. Like others, I followed the UN team and its findings with some interest since they never found any indication of WMDs and were quite public about it, whereas Bush was as adamant about the opposite being true. I don't really care what you think, though. I know where I stand but you seem to have trouble with your side.
-
So I'm cherry-picking but you are not? That's sort of funny.
I was not in favour of the Iraq war in 2003. Like others, I followed the UN team and its findings with some interest since they never found any indication of WMDs and were quite public about it, whereas Bush was as adamant about the opposite being true. I don't really care what you think, though. I know where I stand but you seem to have trouble with your side.
Fuck, I hate referendums. But I do now wonder what would have been the outcome of a referendum on that one.
Why do I hate referendums, because they do not take the public serious. They do not take votes cast before serious. They reduce difficult issues into a simple A or B thing, hoping they spindoctered it well enough to get the outcome they want.
I rather have a government take the mandate they have been given during elections serious, and brave enough to bear the consequences of their own policy, without blaming it on the people by means of a referendum.
On simple issues, in smaller communities, I can see referenda work. Otherwise they will hardly ever be anything else than a spindoctered game, that can go wrong.
That the referenda I have voted for have not been taken serious, because the people voted different than hoped for has not helped improve my ideas on a referendum. On the other hand, the issues were that complicated that reducing it to a referendum was taking the public for people without functioning brain-cells beyond the ones needed to colour a box red.
-
+
-
So I'm cherry-picking but you are not? That's sort of funny.
I was not in favour of the Iraq war in 2003. Like others, I followed the UN team and its findings with some interest since they never found any indication of WMDs and were quite public about it, whereas Bush was as adamant about the opposite being true. I don't really care what you think, though. I know where I stand but you seem to have trouble with your side.
Well, I just don't think an 'expert' can really be defined properly.
What's my side? I was against the war at the time, without really knowing why, just seemed like bullshit and they were so desperate to go in.