EPTAnyway, I just ducked in here to see if anyone else had seen the claims made by Damian McBride about Brown preparing for martial law! Insanity.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Trowa127
United Kingdom1230 Posts
Anyway, I just ducked in here to see if anyone else had seen the claims made by Damian McBride about Brown preparing for martial law! Insanity. | ||
|
GhastlyUprising
198 Posts
In this thread he has continually argued against restraints on immigration. Now wants to style himself as not "pro-immigration" after all. Maybe he's counting on my bailing out of the thread before I address his post, so his question will serve to kick up sand and confuse things. Naturally, pro-immigration posts by this guy abound, and at the very best he has a meaningless semantic point. He's just relying on scoring a few cheap debating points in an attempt to discredit me -- or whatever. He will probably now accuse me of derailing the thread, even though I'm faced with a no-win situation of being called a liar if I don't produce the quotes. Everything I said about the Tea Party libertarians has been reinforced, and I don't regret a single one of those comments. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Trowa127
United Kingdom1230 Posts
On September 22 2013 03:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvWn93u4--c The guy in the commons shouting 'who are you' pretty much sums Galloway up haha. | ||
|
3Form
United Kingdom389 Posts
On September 22 2013 03:19 GhastlyUprising wrote: Naturally,. Actually I'd like to point out to you that the Chinese have realised the error of their one child policy. In fact right now it "skips" a generation, so parents are allowed more than one child if they themselves are 1CP children. The social implications of the 1CP are clearly more harmful than the moderate difference in population growth. The more effective controls the Chinese use are restricting the rights of citizens to reside in the large cities. In order to work in a city you need a residence permit, this is an attempt to control migrant workers overpopulating the already crowded cities. Arrogant and stupid hmm? I was only trying to point out your complete and utter hyperbole. The world isn't dangerously overpopulated, as you said. You have a case maybe for Western Europe and the coast of China but, like I said, there are huge areas of the world that are sparsely populated - Siberia and Mongolia were my examples. You then went on to say that England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Cherry picking England out of the UK? FFS you could just pick London and Greater London and declare the population density A DISASTER. I mean, you only have to go over the channel to find the Netherlands, which is even more one of the most densely populated countries in the world... Either way, a blanket restriction on immigration isn't the answer. It's just a complete MESS at the moment, because of this government's retarded immigration cap to pander to the anti-immigrants, yet they can't control immigration from within the EU. So instead of sensibly allowing skilled and capable immigrants from around the world we are instead just getting the dregs from Eastern and Southern Europe. | ||
|
GhastlyUprising
198 Posts
On September 22 2013 04:14 3Form wrote: Actually, the stated reason behind the recent hints of the RELAXING of the one-child policy (not the abandoning) is that much of the population is above reproductive age and therefore isn't expected to materially contribute to the population level.Actually I'd like to point out to you that the Chinese have realised the error of their one child policy. It's obviously complete hogwash to baldly state, without a particle of analysis to back it up, that an ageing population is worse than any effects from excessive population. Even though history is full of whole societies being half-starved through excessive population. Equally question-begging is your assertion that the planet is not overcrowded, at a time when we're simultaneously assailed with (1) global warming, (2) peak oil, and (3) the chronic undernourishment if about one in eight of the planet's population. The ONLY conditions under which the planet is not ALREADY overpopulated are those involving the background assumption of perfect distribution of food and centralized planning to preserve ecology. And of course those conditions are the exact opposite of what my libertarian opponents in the thread are striving in their politics to achieve. Now I've had enough of this idiocy. You essentially have to be a climate change denialist for the idea to even occur to you that the Earth is not overpopulated. For such science-denying ignorance to be packaged with such vituperative condescension is simply beyond the pale of what's acceptable in reasoned debate. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On September 22 2013 05:03 GhastlyUprising wrote: Actually, the stated reason behind the recent hints of the RELAXING of the one-child policy (not the abandoning) is that much of the population is above reproductive age and therefore isn't expected to materially contribute to the population level. Equally question-begging is your assertion that the planet is not overcrowded, at a time when we're simultaneously assailed with (1) global warming, (2) peak oil, and (3) the chronic undernourishment if about one in eight of the planet's population. Well on (1) we haven't had a temperature increase in 16 years now and its highly debatable if global warming is actually a problem with slight warming being beneficial for most people. (2) There is no evidence to back that up and we will soon have shale oil anyway. (3) That is a problem that is certainly possible to solve with GM and the green revolution. | ||
|
GhastlyUprising
198 Posts
But regardless, the point remains that you can't base policy on POTENTIAL breakthroughs in technology years down the line. It's no more valid today than it would have been 300 years ago when above 90% of the world population was severely undernourished (compared with about 13% today). | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On September 22 2013 05:19 GhastlyUprising wrote: I'll ignore the science denial. MAYBE the problem is possible to solve, but that is not an argument for how the planet is not overpopulated in the HERE AND NOW. It's also possible global warming will kill us, and this is a possibility that's seriously entertained by climate scientists. But regardless, the point remains that you can't base policy on POTENTIAL breakthroughs in technology years down the line. It's no more valid today than it would have been 300 years ago when above 90% of the world population was severely undernourished (compared with about 13% today). What science denial the 16 years stat comes from the IPCC. | ||
|
GhastlyUprising
198 Posts
On September 22 2013 05:22 Zaros wrote: Denying anthropogenic global warming is science denial. It goes against the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. I won't get into this, as there's already a designated thread for you to find your answer to such queries. What science denial the 16 years stat comes from the IPCC. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On September 22 2013 05:24 GhastlyUprising wrote: Denying anthropogenic global warming is science denial. It goes against the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. I won't get into this, as there's already a designated thread for you to find your answer to such queries. Where did i deny man made climate change? | ||
|
GhastlyUprising
198 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On September 22 2013 05:33 GhastlyUprising wrote: I'm not playing these semantics with you. Go bother someone else. No where did I deny it? | ||
|
Aeroplaneoverthesea
United Kingdom1977 Posts
On September 22 2013 03:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvWn93u4--c I'm actually in agreement with George Galloway. I think I need a shower. | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3576 Posts
On September 22 2013 03:19 GhastlyUprising wrote: It's hard to know what to do when faced with a poster so addicted to misleading tactics and hypocrisy. In this thread he has continually argued against restraints on immigration. Now wants to style himself as not "pro-immigration" after all. Maybe he's counting on my bailing out of the thread before I address his post, so his question will serve to kick up sand and confuse things. Naturally, pro-immigration posts by this guy abound, and at the very best he has a meaningless semantic point. He's just relying on scoring a few cheap debating points in an attempt to discredit me -- or whatever. He will probably now accuse me of derailing the thread, even though I'm faced with a no-win situation of being called a liar if I don't produce the quotes. Everything I said about the Tea Party libertarians has been reinforced, and I don't regret a single one of those comments. Are you serious? Are you really that dumb? I asked for quotes from ME that show me as pro immigration, and you link a load of posts by Zaros. Are you really having that much difficulty with this thread? | ||
|
GhastlyUprising
198 Posts
On September 22 2013 05:43 Zealos wrote: No, no difficulty. One of you is called Zaros, the other is called Zealos. You have the exact same hardcore libertarian views, the exact same writing style (randomly flitting between writing words in full and txt msg spk with pervasive use of "u" and "ur"), you're active in the same thread around the same time and for some reason have an axe to grind against one particular commenter. Something is going on. In any case it would seem inexplicable that Zealous suddenly jumped in and started insulting me for being anti-immigration (as shown in the second to last of those links) if he didn't entertain contrary views.Are you serious? Are you really that dumb? I asked for quotes from ME that show me as pro immigration, and you link a load of posts by Zaros. Are you really having that much difficulty with this thread? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Ed Miliband has said he is "bringing back socialism" to Britain as he vowed to strengthen the national minimum wage ahead of the Labour Party conference. On the eve of his party's conference in Brighton, Miliband took to the city's streets to deliver his message that David Cameron's Government would stand up only for the "privileged few". The Labour leader, who also confirmed his promise to abolish the "bedroom tax" cut to housing benefit if his party won the next election, promised an "economy that works for working people". The announcements, which also included measures to extend childcare, came as Miliband sought to seize the initiative as a drip-feed of claims from Gordon Brown's former spin doctor, Damian McBride, threatened to cast a shadow over the conference. Miliband, who earlier took a stroll along Brighton seafront with his wife Justine and children Daniel and Samuel, said: "This next election is going to come down to the oldest questions in politics: whose side are you on and who will you fight for?" Source | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On September 22 2013 06:36 GhastlyUprising wrote: No, no difficulty. One of you is called Zaros, the other is called Zealos. You have the exact same hardcore libertarian views, the exact same writing style (randomly flitting between writing words in full and txt msg spk with pervasive use of "u" and "ur"), you're active in the same thread around the same time and for some reason have an axe to grind against one particular commenter. Something is going on. In any case it would seem inexplicable that Zealous suddenly jumped in and started insulting me for being anti-immigration (as shown in the second to last of those links) if he didn't entertain contrary views. I have nothing to do with Zealos lol, and I dont have a grudge against you, I just think your views are incorrect and you are very provocative. | ||
|
GhastlyUprising
198 Posts
On September 22 2013 06:54 Zaros wrote: You want provocative? I've found the very first series of posts that passed between us.I have nothing to do with Zealos lol, and I dont have a grudge against you, I just think your views are incorrect and you are very provocative. The first provocative comment is this: On September 04 2013 21:59 Zaros wrote: Implying that being against immigration is "isolationist" and "xenophobic".doesn't mean he is correct. He is an isolationist maybe xenophobic. As if that wasn't provocative enough, you followed it up with a statement that "government shouldn't be providing most of what it does anyway". I think it's clear that these positions are a hell of a lot more provocative than merely calling someone a zealot. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On September 22 2013 07:10 GhastlyUprising wrote: You want provocative? I've found the very first series of posts that passed between us. The first provocative comment is this: Implying that being against immigration is "isolationist" and "xenophobic". As if that wasn't provocative enough, you followed it up with a statement that "government shouldn't be providing most of what it does anyway". I think it's clear that these positions are a hell of a lot more provocative than merely calling someone a zealot. Being against immigration by definition is isolationist. And why is stating my opinion on the role of government provocative, you might disagree with my opinion but i was only stating it. | ||
| ||
