Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

So what did Thatcherism wind back?

AFAIK, the UK had a great deal of common wealth that was pillaged. 

Thatcher wound back nothing in real terms, she successfully sold a lie that Britain was Great again whilst calling in cash from all over, yes, including from parts of the Commonwealth but mostly promissory notes from the International money cabal.

She did to a degree put the unions back in their box by borrowing from the policies of her predecessors and reinvigorated British industry to a point but the companies that remained after all the forced mergers and loss of legacy manufacturing and resources revenue that preceded her did that, not her and it was only partly successful anyway.

She did of course have a convenient war to take the public's mind off domestic issues - the Brits love going to war...and winning of course. They then idolise whomever is in power at the time, for a while. Churchill being the classic example, she might as well have been Winnie in drag.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chrisg said:

 Thatcher wound back nothing in real terms

Don't have time to properly research a reply, but here's a couple of quotes... 

"We have done more to roll back the frontiers of socialism than any previous Conservative Government."

"...who is society? There is no such thing!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, @~thehung said:

 

that quote you provided is from a book by Salvatore Babones, a Sydney University sociology professor and contributor to the (pro-Hillary) Sydney Morning Herald (eek!  set "fifth column" alert level to: watch and act)

i point this out, not because it contradicts anything youve said.  it just provides a little nuance.   aah, nuance 🙂 but since i know you dont speak it, i have a hypothetical for you:

I am just going to re-quote it here ... and enlarge it and bold it...

" “The greatest spiritual danger facing 21st century democracy is that liberal intellectuals increasingly dismiss the moral right of less-educated people to have opinions that conflict with the consensus wisdom of the expert class”.

... Is the "aah nuance" because you think it was cool that a pro-Hillary dude came up with it?
I would posit that the only reason Liberal intellectuals even consider the "spiritual danger " is because they understand ( rightly or wrongly ) that the "less-educated people " are more wont to have a faith and be guided by it ( or at least that was the case perhaps ) Where as the Liberal Intellectuals tend to be more agnostic or atheist  depending on the materialistic gains perceived by them 😉  ... and if the Liberal Intellectuals still think their workings are unseen by the less-educated then I have to wonder just who is the more experienced ...
 

4 hours ago, @~thehung said:

     You're out and about in a crowded city centre when suddenly a Trump speech is broadcast on one of those big screens. 

     Do you :-

       a) scramble for something to hide your raging boner
       b) put your hands on your hips and thrust them outwards, hoping others will notice your raging boner

Stop and listen . I'm not up to a " raging boner " though.

I would stop and listen if it were Morrison too. Definitely give Shorten a listen as well ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kimmo said:

@@~thehung

That's why the fucking DNC and the Democratic electoral college were so goddamn criminally negligent to sideline Bernie. They had an obligation to go with the candidate with the best chance of winning and Bernie would have fucking crushed it. 

If it was a choice between two candidates the establishment hated (as it totally deserved to be, by the way), it would've been a piece of piss to say that only moronic racists voted for Trump.

But those stinking fucks figured they had folks over a barrel, and gambled the whole goddamn democracy, not to mention pretty much the last chance the biosphere had, on people holding their noses yet again. 

I was even pulling for Bernie to be the guy up there. You have to wonder about the corruptness of the DNC Party though when they went with a Clinton again. Gives one an idea of how little regard they have for the thought process of the people on the street.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😉

 

By that she meant she thought, or pretended to think, she had destroyed the British Labor Party and to a degree that was true, socialism really does not fit the British mind-set particularly well but the Labor Party learned, Blair and Brown were very different to Wilson.

The U.K. has a strong right leaning tendency overall but the Conservative Party at its worst is considerably more moderate than the American Republicans.

It's not much like either the U'S. or Australia on the political scene in the U.K. For all the left wing rhetoric from the factories and mines the British public is in a majority sense very conservative. That may change with the influx of European migrants particularly from Eastern Europe, which may partly explain Brexit.

But in the end it is a Monarchy and whilst no Royal can show political bias or even inclination it is rather apparent where their sympathies lie.

That may change if Charles who is not very popular takes the throne but his is likely to be a very short reign and try as they might the Daily Mirror and the Sun cannot claw down the Royals and William with Harry is far more to the public's liking.

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little curious to read some thing of Salvatore Babones' stuff, I'm currently having a squiz at this ...

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/09/28/interview-salvatore-babones-his-book-“-new-authoritarianism-trump-populism-and

It's an interview re his book on Trump and Brexit etc. Anyway I came to this bit and thought I'd share here ...

" Q: Your attitude toward Brexit and Trump might be called anticatastrophistic -- a matter of seeing them as the results of normal electoral procedures, rather than as signs of the apocalypse. So are you thinking in terms of swings of the pendulum or long-term cycles?

A: After nearly two years in office, the Trump administration has shown itself disorderly but effective. I may not agree with all of Trump's policies, but they have been generally in line with his election program and have sparked neither economic collapse nor foreign war. That's a record our last several presidents might envy. As for Brexit, my own expert opinion -- and on this topic I have written for both academic and popular audiences -- is that the potential economic risks have been wildly exaggerated, and the biggest challenge is the social challenge of the Irish border. Both Trump and Brexit are signs of underlying structural change, but to my mind that change is for the better. It represents the return of politics. Experts often demand that we should not "politicize" public policy debates, but democracy is all about taking those debates into the sphere of politics -- taking them to the people."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Leonid said:

c. At this point, I listen. 

Because people like you are fundamentally wrong about everything you have said about Trump and the world of 2016-> thus far.

thats it?  'people like me'?  i agree with a lot of what youve said about Trump, actually.   that must be confusing for you. 

the optics, for instance.   power perceived, is power achieved.   he's been a manipulator of his public persona for decades, hyper-aware of the boundary lines between image and reality, and what he can spin.   while others are distracted by surface nonsense, he is targeting their centre of gravity.  a man who walks into a street fight blindly assuming Queensberry rules should apply is going to get kicked in the nuts.  thats what the establishment does with Trump, and over and over again, he kicks them in the nuts.  on a certain level, i respect that.  also, on a certain level, they have it coming.   but i use qualifiers like, "on a certain level" because there are many other aspects to consider, and like most thinking people, i dont think the circumstances or his presidency can be summed up as either "Orange man good" or  "Orange man bad".

if you cant see that your description of Trump's sales prowess goes hand in hand with Mr Moore's description of what the people were aching to buy in 2016, then you are lost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eveln said:

... Is the "aah nuance" because you think it was cool that a pro-Hillary dude came up with it?

i dont presume Babones is pro-Hillary at all.  seems like a centrist to me.  i also agree with the quote, and how Leo used it.

hopefully what ive written above clarifies things.  i was drawing attention to the fact that even the establishment is capable of representing "dissenting truths" about itself.  because in reality, the world isnt so black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep ^^ ... and what I have to ask is who else would have succeeded in making this all happen ? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting opinion Ev, just as all I'm saying is nothing else but opinion.

With Trump it depends upon timing and the beliefs of the author but economic  collapses are not as likely in the U.S. anymore, the system has much better checks and balances. However the impact of the shutdown is probably not factored in, nor the uncertainty the so-called three week hiatus will engender. Wall Street is jittery, manufacturers are jittery, the public service is jittery, all caused by uncertainty with what he will do next. Domestic spending is down, wallets are closing the economy is slowing.

That would be ok if it was overheated but it was not.

Time will tell what his real negative impact has been on the economy.

No, he hasn't started another war, the U.S. was running out of places to do that anyway and although it was a risk I do agree with him getting out of Syria, if he can - leaving a war is not easy, the exit from Vietnam confirmed that. However he is sniffing around Venezuela, as are the Europeans, not going to surprised if that place becomes a messy war zone.

Brexit, he may be right, but I doubt it,  simply put the U.K. attempted to join for a very long time, now they want to leave. No one really predicted the impact upon the U.K of the U.S.S.R. collapse but it is palpable, but can be ridden out.

Ireland he is utterly correct on, the U.K. does not need a return to the Troubles but the reality of that is already stirring.

The world is basically never black and white @~thehung, presently storm clouds are gathering and it is  dark grey.

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chrisg said:

An interesting opinion Ev, just as all I'm saying is nothing else but opinion.

Well that’s all we got because the fifth column utterly refuses to take any responsibility for their chaos.

47 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

thats it?  'people like me'?  i agree with a lot of what youve said about Trump, actually.   that must be confusing for you. 

Apologies. I went too far there.

5 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Brexit, he may be right, but I doubt it,  simply put the U.K. attempted to join for a very long time, now they want to leave

Demographically speaking, the people who voted to enter, are the same people who voted to leave.

With age comes experience. Theocratic blame shifting is not appealing to the UK’s peoples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 Demographics do not mean much on  a small Island with a very internally mobile population really, but it's a way to manipulate the stats to whatever you want them to say 🙂

I tend, in both the U.S. and U.K cases to apportion blame to apathetic voters and voluntary voting from an electorate that in the main lost interest long ago.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chrisg said:

🙂

 Demographics do not mean much on  a small Island with a very internally mobile population really, but it's a way to manipulate the stats to whatever you want them to say 🙂

I tend, in both the U.S. and U.K cases to apportion blame to apathetic voters and voluntary voting from an electorate that in the main lost interest long ago.

Cheers

There’s very little mobility in the people who voted for the EU back then and are now the rump of the leave voters.

Brexit is the best thing to happen to the UK in terms of the rights of citizens, since the Magna Carta.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you really understand mobility in the U.K. Leo.

It's a small island, move from London to Birmingham, to Manchester or Liverpool  or to retire in the West country - you are talikng not much over 100 miles, but you are in a new electorate. In Perth I drove further than that on a client visit - often.

Get outrageous and go to Scotland and you have visited my brother in Port Augusta, which I have done from Adelaide to and back i n a weekend.

Different country, different perspective - think Israel, Tel Aviv to Eilat, easy trip, you just traversed most of the country, on quickly very quiet roads - they are anything but in the U.K.

I sit on the fence with Brexit, so long as it does not restart the Ireland essentially civil war but overall I do think the U'k. belongs as a part of Europe essentially, history just has a way of messing with timing.

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2019 at 9:41 PM, Leonid said:

Imagine a scenario where a fictitious country with a dictator we shall call Abu Mazen, courts the world for aid.

Abu Mazen’s sons become the richest people in that country, the population remains living in shanty towns and Abu Mazen, absolved of responsibility of paying for services for his people on account of foreign aid - uses money raised through taxes to pay stipends to murderers with progressive curve based on the number of people murdered.

 

That’s actually how foreign aid works.

Didn't realise we were funding death squads across the Pacific.  huh.

 

On 22/01/2019 at 7:51 PM, eveln said:

Why not ?

I'm sorry, I can't answer that question until you send me itunes gift cards to stop you from being banned.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Nich... said:

Didn't realise we were funding death squads across the Pacific.  huh.

 

When you give money to assholes, they’ll do asshole things with it.

This is also something you learn in business. Opportunity cost: if you make money on a project, you lose time doing that project that can be used to make more money.

When you give assholes money to spend on things they should spend THEIR money on, you free their money to be spent on stuff they shouldn’t be spending on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Nich... said:
On 22/01/2019 at 6:51 PM, eveln said:

Why not ?

I'm sorry, I can't answer that question until you send me itunes gift cards to stop you from being banned. 

lol. but that wouldn't be appeasement ... that'd be straight up bribery and corruption ... duuude !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems I unfortunately predicted correctly.

New from Washington suggests Trump is planning to put 5,000 troops into Columbia, right next door to Venezuela.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when "conservative leadership" is failing, time for a good war to distract the plebs... but make sure you win it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. has very little overt experience in conflict in South America, been playing intel agency games there for years.

If it were a straight intervention in Venezuela alone it would really be more of a police action, there would be strong support from a big section of the population although that could lead to civil war quite quickly of course, that country is an armed society. However Brazil might  not be too amused. They don't have much time for Venezuela itself but a U.S. presence  on their border would not likely be viewed calmly.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chrisg said:

Seems I unfortunately predicted correctly.

New from Washington suggests Trump is planning to put 5,000 troops into Columbia, right next door to Venezuela.

Cheers

Real news or fake news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

Real news or fake news?

Heh,

In today's world who knows?

A senior Defense aide was filmed at a press conference with an exposed note saying just that. It was on regular news feeds for a while, still on YouTube, no denial thus far from the WH.

It's a bit the buzz in military circles but that is less firm, leaves are being cancelled etc but half the speculation is troops to Columbia half troops to the Mexican border.

I'd regard it as credible given the actions thus far by the WH, and Europe,  against the purported vote fixing in the last election in Venezuela.

It is the sort of action that could be taken to divert attention from the wall and shutdown situation and to grandstand over the in general movement of people across borders in that part of South America as a tie in to people heading to the Mexican border but it is not announced yet. Then again neither was Panama under a previous administration that took out Noriega, the Pentagon does not leak like the WH.

We'll have to see but if I had to guess I'd say it is a real possibility. Then again I don't have the contacts I once had and particularly not with relevance to ground troops.

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/01/2019 at 11:54 PM, eveln said:

lol. but that wouldn't be appeasement ... that'd be straight up bribery and corruption ... duuude !!

Isn't it pretty much the same thing? Someone makes demands, and you give them what they want to avoid unpleasantness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nich... said:

Isn't it pretty much the same thing? Someone makes demands, and you give them what they want to avoid unpleasantness.

I thought appeasement was like trying to sort things out with various bods ... Your take on it was a demand only , black mail .... " I'm sorry, I can't answer that question until you send me itunes gift cards to stop you from being banned. "

Granted you may give me the option to talk you round without having to give in to your blackmail ... but it doesn't read too promisingly in my favour 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eveln said:

I thought appeasement was like trying to sort things out with various bods ... Your take on it was a demand only , black mail .... " I'm sorry, I can't answer that question until you send me itunes gift cards to stop you from being banned. "

Granted you may give me the option to talk you round without having to give in to your blackmail ... but it doesn't read too promisingly in my favour 😉

that would be, most correctly, extortion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×