World Politics

[The Hitch]

ETA: The fact bad things have been said by American political figures in the past does not make Palin's comment any less reprehensible.

Im not saying it is. But the way i read your comment made it sound like you were shocked , just shocked that Palin would say such a thing

 

[redtreviso]

Liz Trotta of Foxnews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

 

[Spare Tyre]

Liz Trotta of Foxnews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

And she probably considers herself a nice Christian lady.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Ive put this in the music thread but equaly it belongs here.

Great new release hoping to get Christmas no1 here in the UK.

Whatever country your in I guess youl have your equivelent that you have the same sentiment about.

Could this be the return of the protest song?

Catchy beet, Enjoy! " Liar, Liar"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQFwxw57NBI&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Cobblestones]

Lying is not patriotic.

I don't agree with Ron Paul very often, but he has his moments sometimes. This is definitely one of them.

 

[Cobblestones]

Im not saying it is. But the way i read your comment made it sound like you were shocked , just shocked that Palin would say such a thing

I'm not shocked that Palin says such things. I'm shocked that many more reasonable people (like you) aren't outraged. I'm sure you are aware of domestic terrorism in the US which thrives on this kind of rhetoric. Think of Oklahoma city, or the political murder of Dr. Tiller as examples. The extremists on the right have a militant wing. Of course whenever anything happens, they're quick to distance themselves publicly.

In that sense, it's really not different from some of the extremists in the Middle East (or anywhere for that matter). On the one side, you have relatively polished figures which incite the public (examples: Palin, Lieberman etc in the US, mullahs, Hamas and Hisbollah spokesmen in the Middle East). On the other, dark and ugly side, you have some poor, delusional kids who throw away their lives either by blowing themselves up or by facing a death (or lifetime prison) sentence for their acts.

These two sides are linked and this is why this kind of rhetoric does matter. Once you have established a climate where these thoughts are not automatically and universally rejected, you'll often find a few impressionable, poor and angry idiots who feel that a way to give meaning to their wretched lives is to follow up on the propaganda they're fed. Of course, these morons never realize that those to whom they listen would never dream of throwing away their own lives in the same manner, because in truth, they're comfortably profiting from the hate.

 

[blutto]

I'm not shocked that Palin says such things. I'm shocked that many more reasonable people (like you) aren't outraged. I'm sure you are aware of domestic terrorism in the US which thrives on this kind of rhetoric. Think of Oklahoma city, or the political murder of Dr. Tiller as examples. The extremists on the right have a militant wing. Of course whenever anything happens, they're quick to distance themselves publicly.

In that sense, it's really not different from some of the extremists in the Middle East (or anywhere for that matter). On the one side, you have relatively polished figures which incite the public (examples: Palin, Lieberman etc in the US, mullahs, Hamas and Hisbollah spokesmen in the Middle East). On the other, dark and ugly side, you have some poor, delusional kids who throw away their lives either by blowing themselves up or by facing a death (or lifetime prison) sentence for their acts.

These two sides are linked and this is why this kind of rhetoric does matter. Once you have established a climate where these thoughts are not automatically and universally rejected, you'll often find a few impressionable, poor and angry idiots who feel that a way to give meaning to their wretched lives is to follow up on the propaganda they're fed. Of course, these morons never realize that those to whom they listen would never dream of throwing away their own lives in the same manner, because in truth, they're comfortably profiting from the hate.

...well put...

...and to add something along somewhat similar lines...why is it that when dealing with drug issues in cycling, some prominent voices on this forum have a take no prisoners position, that is seasoned with a heap of holier than thou attitude, whereas in the political realm, where we are often dealing with live and death issues, it is a boys will be boys response ( an attitude I will point out that is usually associated with real mature commentators who see themselves firmly grounded in realpolitik...and who are often found on one particular side of the political divide... )

...methinks there is a disconnect there that really doesn't pass the smell test...

Cheers

blutto

 

[The Hitch]

I'm not shocked that Palin says such things. I'm shocked that many more reasonable people (like you) aren't outraged. I'm sure you are aware of domestic terrorism in the US which thrives on this kind of rhetoric. Think of Oklahoma city, or the political murder of Dr. Tiller as examples. The extremists on the right have a militant wing. Of course whenever anything happens, they're quick to distance themselves publicly.

In that sense, it's really not different from some of the extremists in the Middle East (or anywhere for that matter). On the one side, you have relatively polished figures which incite the public (examples: Palin, Lieberman etc in the US, mullahs, Hamas and Hisbollah spokesmen in the Middle East). On the other, dark and ugly side, you have some poor, delusional kids who throw away their lives either by blowing themselves up or by facing a death (or lifetime prison) sentence for their acts.

These two sides are linked and this is why this kind of rhetoric does matter. Once you have established a climate where these thoughts are not automatically and universally rejected, you'll often find a few impressionable, poor and angry idiots who feel that a way to give meaning to their wretched lives is to follow up on the propaganda they're fed. Of course, these morons never realize that those to whom they listen would never dream of throwing away their own lives in the same manner, because in truth, they're comfortably profiting from the hate.

I really shouldnt be getting involved in such a divisive thing as political threads at this time as i have a disseration for tomorow.

But since your post contains a compliment, i will respond briefly.

I am very much of the opinion that in such cases negative attention> no attention. We see it all the time. David Irving wouldnt be half as popular if he hadnt been brought to trial for free speech crimes. Any country that tries to ban some books large gets numbers of people trying to read them.

So if people ignore Palin, and dismiss her as being stupid again, they are being far more helpful than making a big media deal out of it.

I suppose the forum analogy would be feeding the troll. Whats worse. Responding to bpc or ignoring him?

And with things like terrorism, its not as important how many people hate you as it is how many people like you. Its better to have a the whole world against you but a handful of nutjobs ready to die, than it is if no one has heard of you, but you only have 10 people and no materials.

Also i would add that while i can understand your point about the Tim Mcvay right being similar to the Islamic extremists, i think that the latter is far far more, frequent and potent, and i dont expect to see too many people throwing their lives away for Sarah Palin.

 

[rhubroma]

I really shouldnt be getting involved in such a divisive thing as political threads at this time as i have a disseration for tomorow.

But since your post contains a compliment, i will respond briefly.

I am very much of the opinion that in such cases negative attention> no attention. We see it all the time. David Irving wouldnt be half as popular if he hadnt been brought to trial for free speech crimes. Any country that tries to ban some books large gets numbers of people trying to read them.

So if people ignore Palin, and dismiss her as being stupid again, they are being far more helpful than making a big media deal out of it.

I suppose the forum analogy would be feeding the troll. Whats worse. Responding to bpc or ignoring him?

And with things like terrorism, its not as important how many people hate you as it is how many people like you. Its better to have a the whole world against you but a handful of nutjobs ready to die, than it is if no one has heard of you, but you only have 10 people and no materials.

Also i would add that while i can understand your point about the Tim Mcvay right being similar to the Islamic extremists, i think that the latter is far far more, frequent and potent, and i dont expect to see too many people throwing their lives away for Sarah Palin.

It occurs to me that you can only have this luxury when you are not a public figure, especially one who is potentially running for the US presidency. Any statement you make thus has added weight, the more stupid or more incivil (when not criminal) were ones words, the greater is one to be held accountable (and/or considered moronic) for having stated them.

We did not have Islamic terrorism before the advent of Western-Israeli relations on the one hand, and a struggle to control the oil reserves in the Middle East on the other through the regimes we have sustained. Religion thus becomes a secondary instrument, in this case, to the serious politcal and economic underlying issus that have led to the disaster of the "clash of civilizations" presently in effect. Perhaps it has been in religion that fanaticism has found its most convenient justification of a retaliatory and bellicose ideological position in the region (whereas for our part it has been an economic ideology), though this does nothing to change the unwelcome situation.

In this sense the disaster is both a continuing problem and price to pay for the injustices that have been rought by the political and economic decisions we made.

To fear, consequently, the proliferation of one aspect -- in this case the matrix of Islamic terrorists, without addressing the other issues that have been its underlying cause -- can only ensure that this deadly problem will continue to find considerable purchase among our enemies.

I have always believed that brute force alone is never a way to effect real and lasting change on an external dilemma, especially when that might is not first accompanied by a serious dose of self criticism and internal modification of praxis. It might be that even under such circumstances we would still have to face the hate of a few religious fanatics, but at least we would have the moral ground to fight them on without conflict of interests, nor hypocrisy. While taking away their moral, or self-regarded as moral, cause before those oppressed who sympathize with them in the region and elsewhere around the globe, is probably the most effective way for them to loose such sympathy and hence socio-politcal purchase.

If there is a war to be waged it seems to me that the battles should be fought here, over this issue, and not the mean, exploitative and ultimately false and hypocritcal ones for which the actual war has been conducted. That has merely exacerbated an external problem.

 

[The Hitch]

We did not have Islamic terrorism before

.

Americas very first war: 1801-1805

The Barbary states engage in pirate terrorism against American ships in the Mediterrenean. They had deals with European states but the US was a new country so they would take the ship, kill some of the crew brutally, enslave others and demand various ransoms and materials from America or the crew would be brutaly murdered.

Thomas Jefferson ask why they act with such brutality to a new nation which have done him no harm. The Barbary states respond that the Qran gives them devine right to capture and kill any non muslim sailors they see.

America goes to war.

Islamic terrorism as any terrorism existed long long long before.

 

[rhubroma]

Americas very first war: 1801-1805

The Barbary states engage in pirate terrorism against American ships in the Mediterrenean. They had deals with European states but the US was a new country so they would take the ship, kill some of the crew brutally, enslave others and demand various ransoms and materials from America or the crew would be brutaly murdered.

Thomas Jefferson ask why they act with such brutality to a new nation which have done him no harm. The Barbary states respond that the Qran gives them devine right to capture and kill any non muslim sailors they see.

America goes to war.

Islamic terrorism as any terrorism existed long long long before.

Hitch I could talk ad infinitem about the horrible crimes Europeans and Americans had committed globally during the Colonial Era (and often in the name of Christendom as a "divine alibi" before the so called heathens), or we could go back to the Arab raids of Byzantium and North Africa in the VII-VIII centuries during the Middle Ages, or the Crusades, etc, to find the origins of a barbarity and "clash of civilizations" that has naturally existed for quite some time.

Though I was addressing a contemoprary form of terrorism that is not so ancient and is quite connected to the reasons I mentioned previously above.

The treatment I find to be the more effective one, consequently, remains substantially the same and can not, nor could not, be effected by bringing to light remote acts that have no bearing upon the present crisis into the discussion just to try and confirm your point about those evil islamisists and forthright westerners.

It's precisely this seeing the world in black and white, rather than the miriad shades of grey of which it is actually composed that is totally, as I see it, counterproductive to every form of desirable progess and peace agenda. Indeed it seems to me that such historical reasoning, childish, reactionary and merely instrumental to ones cause as it is, has conveniently served all the wrong people who have stood to gain from the violence which such discord breeds (from the military, to the oil lobbiests, the undemocratic regimes to the preditory terrorists alike).

No we need new models of behavior and ways of objectivelly looking upon the situation, if there is any hope at all (and I'm not even saying that there is) that one day things can change for the better.

 

[Cobblestones]

I really shouldnt be getting involved in such a divisive thing as political threads at this time as i have a disseration for tomorow.

But since your post contains a compliment, i will respond briefly.

I am very much of the opinion that in such cases negative attention> no attention. We see it all the time. David Irving wouldnt be half as popular if he hadnt been brought to trial for free speech crimes. Any country that tries to ban some books large gets numbers of people trying to read them.

So if people ignore Palin, and dismiss her as being stupid again, they are being far more helpful than making a big media deal out of it.

I suppose the forum analogy would be feeding the troll. Whats worse. Responding to bpc or ignoring him?

And with things like terrorism, its not as important how many people hate you as it is how many people like you. Its better to have a the whole world against you but a handful of nutjobs ready to die, than it is if no one has heard of you, but you only have 10 people and no materials.

Also i would add that while i can understand your point about the Tim Mcvay right being similar to the Islamic extremists, i think that the latter is far far more, frequent and potent, and i dont expect to see too many people throwing their lives away for Sarah Palin.

On a personal level 'ignoring the troll' would work fine, except, in the case of Palin et al. it's not really an option since the comments are already out there.

Remember the guy who threatened to burn the Quran? He was a nobody and 'ignoring the troll' would have been the right thing to do. You could say that Palin is 'too big to ignore'.

Anyway, the newest development is that (i) the judge ruled that Assange should get out on bail except that (ii) the Swedes have appealed the ruling and a new decision has to be made within 48 hours.

I think it would be an outrage if Assange doesn't get out on bail since there's no danger to the two women (they being in Sweden while Assange is in the UK) and there shouldn't be a high probability that Assange will try to escape justice since he turned himself in to begin with. So for the Swedes to appeal the ruling does seem petty and vindictive. One has to question their motives.

Second: the USAF has blocked access to Wikileaks (no big surprise) and all media outlets which report on the cables (including the NYT, Guardian, Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais). Never mind that practically every news outlet now and then has reports on the cables, which makes the measure fairly ***, doesn't anybody get concerned about censorship? I coined the phrase 'Chinafication' of the US a few pages ago. Seems it's progressing faster than anticipated. When will other branches of the military, or the government follow the example of the USAF? When will access to federal grant money hinge on implementing a similar policy at, say, university campuses and elsewhere? Next week? 2011?

As a side note: where are all the second amendment militias to keep the government in check? Planning to assault USAF bases to oppose censorship? No, I didn't think so either. So can we please get rid of that particularly moronic argument for gun rights?

PS Hitch, good luck with the dissertation. Would you mind telling us in which field you're getting your PhD?

 

[rhubroma]

On a personal level 'ignoring the troll' would work fine, except, in the case of Palin et al. it's not really an option since the comments are already out there.

Remember the guy who threatened to burn the Quran? He was a nobody and 'ignoring the troll' would have been the right thing to do. You could say that Palin is 'too big to ignore'.

Anyway, the newest development is that (i) the judge ruled that Assange should get out on bail except that (ii) the Swedes have appealed the ruling and a new decision has to be made within 48 hours.

I think it would be an outrage if Assange doesn't get out on bail since there's no danger to the two women (they being in Sweden while Assange is in the UK) and there shouldn't be a high probability that Assange will try to escape justice since he turned himself in to begin with. So for the Swedes to appeal the ruling does seem petty and vindictive. One has to question their motives.

Second: the USAF has blocked access to Wikileaks (no big surprise) and all media outlets which report on the cables (including the NYT, Guardian, Spiegel, Le Monde and El Pais). Never mind that practically every news outlet now and then has reports on the cables, which makes the measure fairly ***, doesn't anybody get concerned about censorship? I coined the phrase 'Chinafication' of the US a few pages ago. Seems it's progressing faster than anticipated. When will other branches of the military, or the government follow the example of the USAF? When will access to federal grant money hinge on implementing a similar policy at, say, university campuses and elsewhere? Next week? 2011?

As a side note: where are all the second amendment militias to keep the government in check? Planning to assault USAF bases to oppose censorship? No, I didn't think so either. So can we please get rid of that particularly moronic argument for gun rights?

PS Hitch, good luck with the dissertation. Would you mind telling us in which field you're getting your PhD?

I read this too in the papers today and the first thing that went through my mind was an unsettling thought that the clocks are turning back to more censory times as we speak.

 

[Cobblestones]

I read this too in the papers today and the first thing that when through my mind was an unsettling thought that the clocks are turning back to more censory times as we speak.

Apparently, when you're on a USAF base you can still access the Pravda, but not the NYT. Did Stalin just win the cold war posthumously?

 

[rhubroma]

Apparently, when you're on a USAF base you can still access the Pravda, but not the NYT. Did Stalin just win the cold war posthumously?

McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover and Dr. Strangelove are lighting the candels of the victory party!

 

[rhubroma]

No but I may help the army make some weapons for chemical warfare.
I could go on but we do have some posters on here who look at the glass half empty and I am kinds sick of going into long arguements with people.

Ok, in the patriotic spirit and in response to your now edited remark about certain British protesters behaving "like animals" and the glass being "half full" and all that....Such protesters would according to your assessment have been behaving in a most unpatriotic way. I see things a bit differently. For their crys should be viewed in the light of true patriotism, because shouted against grave injustices and crimes commited by the State against them.

In addition to exercising a democratic right, which is evidently hostile to you, the youth are protesting in Britian, as in France and Italy, because they know that they're getting skrewed by a financial establishment and a politcal class that has worked unrimittingly against their futures since the advent of neoliberal capitalism under Regan and by the Thatcherist idea of the State.

They realize that they have been brutalized by a generation that took full advantage of tax payers contributions decades ago, who had their university educations provided for by the social democratic State, who have their pensions for the same reason, who bought their new homes and cars while the going was good, have since eaten all the savings, left the kitty empty and, additionally, have passed on a formidable national debt the younger generation of protesters while be expected to repay when these folks shall long since have been dead.

As one young Italian guy said in the daily today: "I'm ****ed! I have a degree, but no prospect of work. My taxes are paying for the pensions of this generation in power today, from a job I don't have. I will never be able to afford a new home, and probably will never be able to buy a new car. I will never have a pension. If I ever have a family, I will never be able to provide the same quality of life as my parents generation provided me. I have no future."

And this is the growing sentiment of millions across Europe, and in America too. In the meantime the Wall Street and finanacial market gurus, after a disaster that saw tax payers bail out those banking institutions that were simply "too big to fail," rake in the handsome year-end bonuses. While economists talk about budget cuts and sacrifices, their sacrifices, this young generation sees only a very bleak horizon looming over their future. And they are freakin mad. In Europe, where a modicum of civic interest still exists among today's youth, you can't keep getting away with f-ing society for long without a considerable segment of that society getting hopping mad on the streets.

One can thus be at odds with the violence of some, but at which point does the supportable become merely unsupportable? At which point do the crimes demand more aggressive measures than simply playing nice and continue to be fuwcked repeatedly by the same rapists? At any rate the victomizing of society that this financial and political class has hanging over its conscience is so great that indeed it should consider itself fortunate that those among it were not having to contend with an all out revolution, but only a raucous series of public demonstrations agianst them. Some protesters, as the youth are wont to do, exaggerated, but not nearly as much as the generations of their parents and grandparents did and, above all those financially and politically in power today and over the past 30 years or so, in ensuring that they have no future.

The West is a timebomb ticking just waiting to explode in a matter time. These protesters simply provided us all with a wake up call to the pressence of such an explosive device that's among us. In this sense their violent acts were simply a means to try an disengage the fuse. For this we should only be thanking them. Every single one.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Ok, in the patriotic spirit and in response to your now edited remark about certain British protesters behaving "like animals" and the glass being "half full" and all that....Such protesters would according to your assessment have been behaving in a most unpatriotic way. I see things a bit differently. For their crys should be viewed in the light of true patriotism, because shouted against grave injustices and crimes commited by the State against them.

In addition to exercising a democratic right, which is evidently hostile to you, the youth are protesting in Britian, as in France and Italy, because they know that they're getting skrewed by a financial establishment and a politcal class that has worked unrimittingly against their futures since the advent of neoliberal capitalism under Regan and by the Thatcherist idea of the State.

They realize that they have been brutalized by a generation that took full advantage of tax payers contributions decades ago, who had their university educations provided for by the social democratic State, who have their pensions for the same reason, who bought their new homes and cars while the going was good, have since eaten all the savings, left the kitty empty and, additionally, have passed on a formidable national debt the younger generation of protesters while be expected to repay when these folks shall long since have been dead.

As one young Italian guy said in the daily today: "I'm ****ed! I have a degree, but no prospect of work. My taxes are paying for the pensions of this generation in power today, from a job I don't have. I will never be able to afford a new home, and probably will never be able to buy a new car. I will never have a pension. If I ever have a family, I will never be able to provide the same quality of life as my parents generation provided me. I have no future."

And this is the growing sentiment of millions across Europe, and in America too. In the meantime the Wall Street and finanacial market gurus, after a disaster that saw tax payers bail out those banking institutions that were simply "too big to fail," rake in the handsome year-end bonuses. While economists talk about budget cuts and sacrifices, their sacrifices, this young generation sees only a very bleak horizon looming over their future. And they are freakin mad. In Europe, where a modicum of civic interest still exists among today's youth, you can't keep getting away with f-ing society for long without a considerable segment of that society getting hopping mad on the streets.

One can thus be at odds with the violence of some, but at which point does the supportable become merely unsupportable? At which point do the crimes demand more aggressive measures than simply playing nice and continue to be fuwcked repeatedly by the same rapists? At any rate the victomizing of society that this financial and political class has hanging over its conscience is so great that indeed it should consider itself fortunate that those among it were not having to contend with an all out revolution, but only a raucous series of public demonstrations agianst them. Some protesters, as the youth are wont to do, exaggerated, but not nearly as much as the generations of their parents and grandparents did and, above all those financially and politically in power today and over the past 30 years or so, in ensuring that they have no future.

The West is a timebomb ticking just waiting to explode in a matter time. These protesters simply provided us all with a wake up call to the pressence of such an explosive device that's among us. In this sense their violent acts were simply a means to try an disengage the fuse. For this we should only be thanking them. Every single one.

Brilliant post!!!!. Absalutly encapsulating the zigist thats spreading.

The people have had enough of the 1% who own 80% of this planets wealth stuffing the overwhelming majority.
There is no fathomable way this injustice can be seen as necessery no mater how much some claim it be "human nature" to be so greedy.
There is starvation and famine in the world not because there has to be but because we choose to let it happpen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLD3Z6sJWA

 

[rhubroma]

Brilliant post!!!!. Absalutly encapsulating the zigist thats spreading.

The people have had enough of the 1% who own 80% of this planets wealth stuffing the overwhelming majority.
There is no fathomable way this injustice can be seen as necessery no mater how much some claim it be "human nature" to be so greedy.
There is starvation and famine in the world not because there has to be but because we choose to let it happpen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLD3Z6sJWA

The real problem, isn't the chaos of the protesters, but the fact that for the first time in centuries in Europe and the US there advances a "have less" generation. A generation that will, therefore, have less opportunity, less social mobility, will substantially be able to afford less material things - cars and homes being chief among them - won't have state pensions, will have in short less than that which their fathers' and grandfathers' generations had. And this epochal question is enormous just as it is unedited.

As such the politicians, union leaders, industrial and financial institutions should be occupying themselves with nothing else but this. Instead they occupy themselves with everything but this, when saving the grubstead of the industrial and financial establishments, while waging all out war on society through so called corrective measures like cuts in everything the State has previously tried to provided them with through their (and this is the gravest injustice of it all) tax contributions.

Everyone should be greatful to these kids because they remind us that we have a future that we have to choose (not them). After the G-8 Summit in Genova in 2001 amidst the tear gas and No-Global rioters, the dailies universally denounced the "barabary" of the protesters, one of whom though was murdered in cold blood by the gunshots fired by so called law enforcement. And yet what happened afterward? America went ot war in Iraq to save Wall Street and satisfy the oil-military block. The realestate speculative bubble burst anyway driving Wall Street down the gutter and the rest of the finanicial markets with it triggering a world wide financial crisis; for which the governements responded by privitizing tax payers contributions while socializing the private debt of Wall Street and the other financial markets. The world's great "aqueducts" are systematically being privitized, while a collapse in the prices of agricultural products has resulted in a surpluss which ironically causes even harder times for the worlds already poor and starving masses in the Third World. All this under the so called leadership of those against whom the No-Global elements were protesting at the time before it all went precipitously downhill.

Instead of having at the time universally condemned those G-8 summit protesters against the horrible and occultist actions of the political-corporate universe, we should now be in awe and admiration of just how prophetic their grievences with the establishment have actually turned out to be, and the lessons we should learn from such foresight as a result.

Lessons which the recent student protests throughout the capitals of Europe should also provide us. Are we willing to listen though?

http://tv.repubblica.it/edizione/roma/la-battaglia-nel-centro-di-roma/58292?video=&pagefrom=1

http://tv.repubblica.it/edizione/ro...ti-a-palazzo-grazioli/58300?video=&pagefrom=1

 

[auscyclefan94]

rhubroma, so trashing the streets, hurting police officers, wrecking buildings around london is the way to protest. Definetly a bunch of animals in my opinion. Rhubroma, the british university fees had always been very cheap in comparision to the rest of the world. They really don't have much to complain about. Someone has to pay for the teachers, fascilities, etc. nothing is for free.

You think it is alright to be violent when protesting? The protest loses all meaning and credibility when people act like animals.

 

[rhubroma]

rhubroma, so trashing the streets, hurting police officers, wrecking buildings around london is the way to protest. Definetly a bunch of animals in my opinion. Rhubroma, the british university fees had always been very cheap in comparision to the rest of the world. They really don't have much to complain about. Someone has to pay for the teachers, fascilities, etc. nothing is for free.

You think it is alright to be violent when protesting? The protest loses all meaning and credibility when people act like animals.

Yea this is the way out of dealing with the real issues to which reactionary conservatives like yourself always take recourse.

We should all be greatful to the wake-up call such protests provide. To do otherwise is where the true violence is inflicted, and not just on a few but the masses who continue to see their futures deteriorate at the expense of a very few.

Instead many like yourself, who are perhaps in the majority (which always dispises to have to actually face reality and potential revolutionary change because cowardly), in reality are greatful to the few idiots who strike at a police officer down on the ground or set a few cars to flames, because it gives them the easy and convenient way out of having to think beyond what the pundits of the political-financial establishment have been ramming down our throats for the past three decades or so. An ideology which works exclusively in favor of the interests of a few and, therefore, unrimittingly against the interests of the masses.

The majority of these kids, however, didn't strike at a police officer, didn't attack a mac machine, didn't set a car on fire, etc. They rather have tried, and desperately, to let that establishment know (and all of us) that their continued business is not to be tollerated without resistance. And I'm all for them and their cause and not for those and theirs.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Yea this is the way out of dealing with the real issues to which reactionary conservatives like yourself always take recourse.

We should all be greatful to the wake-up call such protests provide. To do otherwise is where the true violence is inflicted, and not just on a few but the masses who continue to see their futures deteriorate at the expense of a very few.

Instead many like yourself, who are perhaps in the majority (which always dispises to have to actually face reality and potential revolutionary change because cowardly), in reality are greatful to the few idiots who strike at a police officer down on the ground or set a few cars to flames, because it gives them the easy and convenient way out of having to think beyond what the pundits of the political-financial establishment have been ramming down our throats for the past three decades or so. An ideology which works exclusively in favor of the interests of a few and, therefore, unrimittingly against the interests of the masses.

The majority of these kids, however, didn't strike at a police officer, didn't attack a mac machine, didn't set a car on fire, etc. They rather have tried, and desperately, to let that establishment know (and all of us) that their continued business is not to be tollerated without resistance. And I'm all for them and their cause and not for those and theirs.

So you are really going to condone violence when protesting? Was never "dissing" protesting. I am prud that I don't have left wing attitudes like you do. I think you having a go at my "conservative" beliefs is very much outlandish. I am a student myself so I think I know what it is like to have to pay uni fees. UNif fees are super expensive over in australia especially when you are doing a course at the 2nd top uni in Australia.

 

[rhubroma]

So you are really going to condone violence when protesting? Was never "dissing" protesting. I am prud that I don't have left wing attitudes like you do. I think you having a go at my "conservative" beliefs is very much outlandish. I am a student myself so I think I know what it is like to have to pay uni fees. UNif fees are super expensive over in australia especially when you are doing a course at the 2nd top uni in Australia.

Hint: Re-read my posts. Then get back to me where it says I advocate violence during protests. Perhaps at times the violence of some (compared to, for example, the military violence of the State when applied) seems to me at the very least comprehensible, given the deaf ears the just cries have always fallen upon among those, who, for baseness and in the name of self-interest and that of a select minority (which means the direness of the circumstances) have always chosen to neglect: but personally it's not my style.

Or, I could turn the questions toward you.

Do you advocate the violence of war fought merely for economic interests masked behind ideology? (Now that, yes, is what we call destructive power - and certianly far supperior to a few over-zealous protesters)

Do you advocate the exploitation, rape and pillaging by industry and finance of 80% of the global population against the minority 20% that benefit from such exploitation? (Allthough, as the student protests remind us, within that priviledged 20% are an ever increasing more wealthy, powerful and insidious minority elite. Washington's soft response, both by the right and left, to the Wall Street debacle lets us know just how true this has become within today's developed world.)

In short, are you for tollerating the intollerable?

As for paying those tuition costs. I'm glad you haven't grave trouble affording these things, however a growing number of today's youth, even in the priviledged world, are not able to even with great sacrifices. How many people are there in Australia? What is the average monthly wage for people entering the job market after university? Is it enough to reasonably afford a home? Buy a car? Think about starting and raising a family? With the Asian market right out the door to exploit to boot. In short, what are your prospects of finding a job in your homeland and maintain a decent standard of living after graduation? Before you comment upon your willingness to support what is placed upon your shoulders first answer those questions and then try to imagine the same plight with the same unkowns in the future and possibilty of resolving this life's rebus, for your coevals in Europe, the United States, South America (not to mention the worst cases of up and comming generations in the Third World). In Europe, throughout the continent, the wages are insufficent, the State social programs that those of the past so handsomely benefited from are now being increasingly attenuated because of the greed, excesses and mismangement of the previous generations' socio-economic praxis and political leadership. This is where the anger begins and the potential violence foments.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Hint: Re-read my posts. Then get back to me where it says I avocate violence during protests. Perhaps at times the violence of some (compared to, for example, the military violence of the State when applied) seems to me at the very least comprehensible, given the deaf ears the just cries have always fallen upon among those, who, for baseness and in the name of self-interest and that of a select minority (which means the direness of the circumstances) have always chosen to neglect: but personally it's not my style.

Or, I could turn the questions toward you.

Do you advocate the violence of war fought merely for economic interests masked behind ideology? (Now that, yes, is what we call destructive power - and certianly far supperior to a few over-zealous protesters)

Do you advocate the exploitation, rape and pillaging by industry and finance of 80% of the global population against the minority 20% that benefit from such exploitation? (Allthough, as the student protests remind us, within that priviledged 20% are an ever increasing more wealthy, powerful and insidious minority elite. Washington's soft response, both by the right and left, to the Wall Street debacle lets us know just how true this has become within today's developed world.)

In short, are you for tollerating the intollerable?

As for paying those tuition costs. I'm glad you haven't grave trouble affording these things, however a growing number of today's youth, even in the priviledged world, are not able to even with great sacrifices. How many people are there in Australia? What is the average monthly wage for people entering the job market after university? Is it enough to reasonably afford a home? Buy a car? Think about starting and raising a family? With the Asian market right out the door to exploit to boot. In short, what are your prospects of finding a job in your homeland and maintain a decent standard of living after graduation? Before you comment upon your willingness to support what is placed upon your shoulders first answer those questions and then try to imagine the same plight with the same unkowns in the future and possibilty of resolving this life's rebus, for your coevals in Europe, the United States, South America (not to mention the worst cases of up and comming generations in the Third World). In Europe, throughout the continent, the wages are insufficent, the State social programs that those of the past so handsomely benefited from are now being increasingly attenuated because of the greed, excesses and mismangement of the previous generations' socio-economic praxis and political leadership. This is where the anger begins and the potential violence foments.

Rhu, youe making me obselete!.

Thats 3 posts in a row were youve stated the case so well theres nothing I could add other than my overwhelming agreement.
Great writing.

 

[Barrus]

rhubroma, so trashing the streets, hurting police officers, wrecking buildings around london is the way to protest. Definetly a bunch of animals in my opinion. Rhubroma, the british university fees had always been very cheap in comparision to the rest of the world. They really don't have much to complain about. Someone has to pay for the teachers, fascilities, etc. nothing is for free.

You do realize that they were not cheap, especially not to European standards.

European states need to be measured by European standards, and compared to those, I belive the UK was already somewhere near the top for cost for going to Uni. The standard of living, expenses and probable pay, and probable taxes, are completely different over here compared to Australia. And they have a lot to complain about, many hihly educated people just out of university cannot get a job, they cannot make enough to buy a house anymore, they cannot ensure proper education for their childern, they need to pay the pensions of the entire previous generation who spent all their money on fun stuff and ensured that many of our European States their economy are almost flat out broke. Our generation will need to pay the pensions and the insurances of double the amount of people as this generation consist of. We will need to pay higher taxes while not getting any of the benefits.

The babyboomers ensured that they have all the right positions, they will not suffer any setback as they are in the majority. The babyboomers won't be pushed to work longer, all those measures only will go into effect when they are already on their pension. These people won't have paid for their schooling, or at least very little, but we are expected to fully pay for everything.

 

[The Hitch]

You do realize that they were not cheap, especially not to European standards.

European states need to be measured by European standards, and compared to those, I belive the UK was already somewhere near the top for cost for going to Uni. everything.

Correct. We here in England pay a more than in europe. Its £3300 a year + the 4000 or so for accomodation. If your a european citizen. About 10 000 if your not and thats what euro citizens will have to pay in 3 years time. I considered going to europe to have a better experience and because uni was cheaper but stayed because the uni i got into is quite good.