|
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 |
On September 22 2013 07:15 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 07:10 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 06:54 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 06:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 05:43 Zealos wrote: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? 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. You want provocative? I've found the very first series of posts that passed between us. The first provocative comment is this: On September 04 2013 21:59 Zaros wrote:On September 04 2013 21:28 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 02 2013 19:53 Eufouria wrote:
Nigel Farage is a closet racist who would have no idea how to actually run anything if he had any power, if he somehow became leader he'd blame Europe and immigrants for all of our problems and then nothing would be better since they're really not the main problems in Britain.
Yes, he doesn't have a clue how to run anything, but it's ridiculous to accuse him of being a "closet racist". He wouldn't blame immigrants for all our problems, which is why he took a stand against the Tory advert that told illegal immigrants to "Go home or face arrest". He would be correct in saying that we had, and continue to have, too much immigration. Most of the country agrees with him there. doesn't mean he is correct. He is an isolationist maybe xenophobic. 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. That isn't the definition of isolationism, I'm afraid. I'm all in favour of international collaboration as long as it's within our means. But "xenophobic" was the main thing that got my goat.
And yes, I maintain that it is highly provocative to say that government "shouldn't be providing most of what it does" when we're faced with great poverty, even DESPITE essential assistance by the government to millions of people. This takes us back to my "Blade Runner" comparisons and so forth. I believe I hit the nail on the head on every single one of those posts.
|
On September 22 2013 07:25 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 07:15 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 07:10 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 06:54 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 06:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 05:43 Zealos wrote: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? 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. You want provocative? I've found the very first series of posts that passed between us. The first provocative comment is this: On September 04 2013 21:59 Zaros wrote:On September 04 2013 21:28 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 02 2013 19:53 Eufouria wrote:
Nigel Farage is a closet racist who would have no idea how to actually run anything if he had any power, if he somehow became leader he'd blame Europe and immigrants for all of our problems and then nothing would be better since they're really not the main problems in Britain.
Yes, he doesn't have a clue how to run anything, but it's ridiculous to accuse him of being a "closet racist". He wouldn't blame immigrants for all our problems, which is why he took a stand against the Tory advert that told illegal immigrants to "Go home or face arrest". He would be correct in saying that we had, and continue to have, too much immigration. Most of the country agrees with him there. doesn't mean he is correct. He is an isolationist maybe xenophobic. 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. That isn't the definition of isolationism, I'm afraid. I'm all in favour of international collaboration as long as it's within our means. But "xenophobic" was the main thing that got my goat. And yes, I maintain that it is highly provocative to say that government "shouldn't be providing most of what it does" when we're faced with great poverty, even DESPITE essential assistance by the government to millions of people. This takes us back to my "Blade Runner" comparisons and so forth. I believe I hit the nail on the head on every single one of those posts.
You are making the assumption that privatising etc hurts poor people which i massively disagree with or I wouldn't be in favour of it. Yes maybe the Xenophobic thing was misplaced.
|
On September 22 2013 06:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 05:43 Zealos wrote: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? 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.
Please, one more time, just to humour me, could you quote one of my hardcore libertarian views?
I repeat:On September 22 2013 02:15 Zealos wrote:
Can I ask you to back up your accusations of me that I am pro-immigration in any way with some kind of substance please?
I know it's hard for you, but just try to answer my question please.
|
Also, I think Zealos=Zalos.
Mods ban PBU.
|
On September 22 2013 07:29 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 07:25 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 07:15 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 07:10 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 06:54 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 06:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 05:43 Zealos wrote: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? 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. You want provocative? I've found the very first series of posts that passed between us. The first provocative comment is this: On September 04 2013 21:59 Zaros wrote:On September 04 2013 21:28 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 02 2013 19:53 Eufouria wrote:
Nigel Farage is a closet racist who would have no idea how to actually run anything if he had any power, if he somehow became leader he'd blame Europe and immigrants for all of our problems and then nothing would be better since they're really not the main problems in Britain.
Yes, he doesn't have a clue how to run anything, but it's ridiculous to accuse him of being a "closet racist". He wouldn't blame immigrants for all our problems, which is why he took a stand against the Tory advert that told illegal immigrants to "Go home or face arrest". He would be correct in saying that we had, and continue to have, too much immigration. Most of the country agrees with him there. doesn't mean he is correct. He is an isolationist maybe xenophobic. 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. That isn't the definition of isolationism, I'm afraid. I'm all in favour of international collaboration as long as it's within our means. But "xenophobic" was the main thing that got my goat. And yes, I maintain that it is highly provocative to say that government "shouldn't be providing most of what it does" when we're faced with great poverty, even DESPITE essential assistance by the government to millions of people. This takes us back to my "Blade Runner" comparisons and so forth. I believe I hit the nail on the head on every single one of those posts. You are making the assumption that privatising etc hurts poor people which i massively disagree with or I wouldn't be in favour of it. Yes maybe the Xenophobic thing was misplaced. So we're back to the idea that you think a laissez-faire, 19th century system, whereby churches, charities and workhouses are the only recourse of poor people, is the best way to run things.
This is why I was led to the conclusion that you're a Tea Party-like extremist and an unquestioning devotee to the cult of free-market libertarianism. There should be nothing provocative in such statements, because such statements are simply TRUE.
I have nothing more to say to you and will leave this one here.
|
On September 22 2013 07:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 07:29 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 07:25 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 07:15 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 07:10 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 06:54 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 06:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 05:43 Zealos wrote: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? 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. You want provocative? I've found the very first series of posts that passed between us. The first provocative comment is this: On September 04 2013 21:59 Zaros wrote:On September 04 2013 21:28 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 02 2013 19:53 Eufouria wrote:
Nigel Farage is a closet racist who would have no idea how to actually run anything if he had any power, if he somehow became leader he'd blame Europe and immigrants for all of our problems and then nothing would be better since they're really not the main problems in Britain.
Yes, he doesn't have a clue how to run anything, but it's ridiculous to accuse him of being a "closet racist". He wouldn't blame immigrants for all our problems, which is why he took a stand against the Tory advert that told illegal immigrants to "Go home or face arrest". He would be correct in saying that we had, and continue to have, too much immigration. Most of the country agrees with him there. doesn't mean he is correct. He is an isolationist maybe xenophobic. 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. That isn't the definition of isolationism, I'm afraid. I'm all in favour of international collaboration as long as it's within our means. But "xenophobic" was the main thing that got my goat. And yes, I maintain that it is highly provocative to say that government "shouldn't be providing most of what it does" when we're faced with great poverty, even DESPITE essential assistance by the government to millions of people. This takes us back to my "Blade Runner" comparisons and so forth. I believe I hit the nail on the head on every single one of those posts. You are making the assumption that privatising etc hurts poor people which i massively disagree with or I wouldn't be in favour of it. Yes maybe the Xenophobic thing was misplaced. So we're back to the idea that you think a laissez-faire, 19th century system, whereby churches, charities and workhouses are the only recourse of poor people, is the best way to run things. This is why I was led to the conclusion that you're a Tea Party-like extremist and an unquestioning devotee to the cult of free-market libertarianism. There should be nothing provocative in such statements, because such statements are simply TRUE. I have nothing more to say to you and will leave this one here.
They are not true you are just being an ass
|
On September 22 2013 05:14 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 05:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 04:14 3Form wrote: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. 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.
It really is best to leave global warming to scientists who specialise in the field. Climatologists say that global warming is real, continuing and isn't good. They have a truly staggering amount of data and analysis to back their positions up. Head over to the global warming thread and argue with scientific consensus over there please.
|
On September 22 2013 09:09 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 05:14 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 05:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 04:14 3Form wrote: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. 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. It really is best to leave global warming to scientists who specialise in the field. Climatologists say that global warming is real, continuing and isn't good. They have a truly staggering amount of data and analysis to back their positions up. Head over to the global warming thread and argue with scientific consensus over there please.
Its well known there has been a plateau for the last 16 years im just stating what even the IPCC says.
|
On September 22 2013 07:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 07:29 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 07:25 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 07:15 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 07:10 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 06:54 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 06:36 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 05:43 Zealos wrote: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? 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. You want provocative? I've found the very first series of posts that passed between us. The first provocative comment is this: On September 04 2013 21:59 Zaros wrote:On September 04 2013 21:28 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 02 2013 19:53 Eufouria wrote:
Nigel Farage is a closet racist who would have no idea how to actually run anything if he had any power, if he somehow became leader he'd blame Europe and immigrants for all of our problems and then nothing would be better since they're really not the main problems in Britain.
Yes, he doesn't have a clue how to run anything, but it's ridiculous to accuse him of being a "closet racist". He wouldn't blame immigrants for all our problems, which is why he took a stand against the Tory advert that told illegal immigrants to "Go home or face arrest". He would be correct in saying that we had, and continue to have, too much immigration. Most of the country agrees with him there. doesn't mean he is correct. He is an isolationist maybe xenophobic. 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. That isn't the definition of isolationism, I'm afraid. I'm all in favour of international collaboration as long as it's within our means. But "xenophobic" was the main thing that got my goat. And yes, I maintain that it is highly provocative to say that government "shouldn't be providing most of what it does" when we're faced with great poverty, even DESPITE essential assistance by the government to millions of people. This takes us back to my "Blade Runner" comparisons and so forth. I believe I hit the nail on the head on every single one of those posts. You are making the assumption that privatising etc hurts poor people which i massively disagree with or I wouldn't be in favour of it. Yes maybe the Xenophobic thing was misplaced. So we're back to the idea that you think a laissez-faire, 19th century system, whereby churches, charities and workhouses are the only recourse of poor people, is the best way to run things. This is why I was led to the conclusion that you're a Tea Party-like extremist and an unquestioning devotee to the cult of free-market libertarianism. There should be nothing provocative in such statements, because such statements are simply TRUE. I have nothing more to say to you and will leave this one here.
See, not only have you failed to address my post, you've also made some bizarre comparison that serves no more than to dilute any useful discussion.
|
On September 22 2013 09:15 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 09:09 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 22 2013 05:14 Zaros wrote:On September 22 2013 05:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 22 2013 04:14 3Form wrote: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. 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. It really is best to leave global warming to scientists who specialise in the field. Climatologists say that global warming is real, continuing and isn't good. They have a truly staggering amount of data and analysis to back their positions up. Head over to the global warming thread and argue with scientific consensus over there please. Its well known there has been a plateau for the last 16 years im just stating what even the IPCC says.
You are incorrect, follow the links, head to the thread, you can discuss it in detail there.
|
Nigel Farage has admitted he is "pretty hacked off" after the Ukip conference descended into farce yesterday following the bizarre actions of an outspoken MEP. Godfrey Bloom had the whip withdrawn after calling women at a conference fringe event "sluts" and hitting a TV journalist with a copy of the brochure for the gathering in Westminster. The conference continues today, but Mr Farage admitted it had been "destroyed" by the calamitous events surrounding Mr Bloom. The Yorkshire and the Humber MEP was yesterday clearly heard stating "this place is full of sluts" on an audio clip recorded exclusively yesterday by The Huffington Post UK. ![[image loading]](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/3qm83_0.gif)
Source
|
About time they kicked him out. He seems like the type of guy that would get banned really fast if he posted on the TL forums.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 22 2013 18:02 Shiragaku wrote:
About time they kicked him out. He seems like the type of guy that would get banned really fast if he posted on the TL forums.
That is an amazingly humorous way of judging politicians.
|
On September 22 2013 05:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:
such vituperative condescension
I'm the condescending one? You are perhaps the most condescending poster in this thread. Apologies for not measuring up to your immeasurable intellect.
Problems with undernourishment etc etc are entirely problems of inefficiency and wastage. I am more than certain our planet is capable of supporting more people. IRRESPECTIVE of the fact that immigration does not change the total population of the planet so why did you even bring this matter up in the first place?
Edit: You mention aging populations. It's entirely plausible that current population growth is caused by aging populations, isn't it? Is it then not reasonable to assume that, since populations cannot age indefinitely, this growth will inevitably drop off?
|
On September 23 2013 00:08 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 05:03 GhastlyUprising wrote:
such vituperative condescension I'm the condescending one? You are perhaps the most condescending poster in this thread. Apologies for not measuring up to your immeasurable intellect. Smear-spreading, defamatory bollocks once again. All I did was call people zealots when they advocated extreme policies. That's all. The libertarians have been FAR more condescending than I have in this thread, for example with repeated snide allegations -- not a single one of them substantiated -- about how I don't understand economics.
About immigration not changing the total population of the planet: do I really need to write a post about this? The point in question was whether the planet is overpopulated. You implied that it isn't ("The world isn't dangerously overpopulated, as you said" is a direct quote.) I maintain that it is and I give global warming as proof. That is what that particular detour was about.
The reality is, by the way, that abolishing national boundaries would lead to a VASTLY increased total population of the Earth. Europe, with its relatively stable population, would quickly be swamped with immigrants that have no intention of restricting themselves to 2 children per family.
As for undernourishment being "entirely" a problem of inefficiency and waste: do you realize that almost everyone arguing against me in this thread is a free-market libertarian, not a socialist? Waste and inefficiency is an UNAVOIDABLE consequence of free-market, laissez-faire economics. IF they were some kind of utopian socialists, they might have a point that the planet hasn't reached its peak population (although the truth is that most experts, such as climate scientists, would probably still disagree). But here's a newsflash for you: abolishing waste and inefficiency is a pipe dream. The overthrow of capitalism is not remotely on the cards. The surest way to avoid malnourishment is for developing countries to aspire toward a stable population, like what we would have in Europe without the immigration. That is not a pipe dream and just needs a cultural change for it to become a reality.
|
On September 23 2013 01:43 GhastlyUprising wrote:
do you realize that almost everyone arguing against me in this thread is a free-market libertarian, not a socialist?
Do bear in mind that this guy chats a lot of shit, and no matter how much he yells about the fact that "Everyone in this thread is a free-market libertarian" it doesn't make it true 
|
David Cameron appeared to have blundered again on Twitter, marking a highly offensive tweet as a "favourite" on his official account on the social networking site.
The tweet, from a user mocking former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit, was posted in response to the prime minister's message of condolence for victims of the Nairobi terror attack.
The prime minister warned about the danger of Twitter before he signed up to the website and it is the second time his account has been involved in an embarrassing mistake.
The error occurred after the account, run by the prime minister and Tory aides, posted a message saying he had given his condolences to Kenya's president Uhuru Kenyatta after the attack and added that Foreign Secretary William Hague would make a statement.
The reply, which was mistakenly marked as a favourite, said: "@David_Cameron please call off @WilliamHague, hasn't Kenya suffered enough today?"
The user's profile coupled an offensive username with an image of Lord Tebbit in the aftermath of the Brighton bombing.
The Mail Online website said the error was made overnight by one of the aides running the Tory leader's Twitter account.
A spokesman said: "This is a deeply offensive account that the prime minister would never want to be associated with.
"Clearly the Tweet was favourited by mistake and was removed as soon as it was realised."
Source
|
GhastlyUprising, smear spreading?? What do you think this is? a forum to get elected to government? Dont take this so seriously. The point of this thread is to have open and frank discussions about UK politics, everyone is mildly combative, but you are particularly shouty. Hence why you have four people arguing with you, not on the substance of your argument, -everyone is entitled to their views - rather, because your style of debate is somewhat defamatory, as you consistently misrepresent the arguments of others.
On an unrelated note:
Im glad Ed Miliband is pushing for a minimum wage rise, but he needs to go a lot further to reinvigorate the left wing base. A real left wing agenda, one that differentiates itself from the centre would be a great thing to see for the upcoming election. Hell, I might even come back to the UK to vote for it.
|
On September 23 2013 01:43 GhastlyUprising wrote:
But here's a newsflash for you: abolishing waste and inefficiency is a pipe dream. The overthrow of capitalism is not remotely on the cards. The surest way to avoid malnourishment is for developing countries to aspire toward a stable population, like what we would have in Europe without the immigration. That is not a pipe dream and just needs a cultural change for it to become a reality.
Or we could stop our elites stealing from them. If developing countries could keep their tax revenues they'd be a lot better off.
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/deathandtaxes.pdf
|
On September 23 2013 07:39 olias wrote:
GhastlyUprising, smear spreading?? What do you think this is? a forum to get elected to government? Dont take this so seriously. The point of this thread is to have open and frank discussions about UK politics, everyone is mildly combative, but you are particularly shouty. There is no substance to these charges. It's simply a case of posters on the pro-migration side taking revenge because I've successfully refuted their views and embarrassed them a bit by showing just how fringe and radical their proposals really are. (Especially those of Zaros, who has called for not only open borders, but also the privatization of education as well as the welfare state.)
What is the point in continuing with these personal attacks? Haven't you derailed the thread enough? I have no intention of continuing to debate immigration, but I'm not going to allow the libertarians to rewrite the history of this thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
