Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,883
The EU offered a lifetime guarantee of rights pretty much straight away, and yet the UK wouldn't agree the same thing as they wanted to use EU citizens as a bargaining chip.
Venezuela the failed socialist state - Rising tensions.
TBH that is one area I kind of agree on, albeit I'm not sure whether his reasons for vocalising that were altruistic or not - I don't want to live in a country that uses its citizens or those we've welcomed here as bargaining chips or put them at any more uncertainty as to their future than is normal in life. An exception to the overall rule in that context though.
Its easy to put it forward as a moral position as follows. .
UK representatives - we want to ensure the security of EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals currently in the EU....
We therefore ask the EU to commit to this joint principle....
That's how this should be played out. If you enter negotiations having made one sided concessions before it all starts its not likely to result in an good outcome for the people you are negotiating on behalf of.
For much the same resaso s you don't say that you would never use nuclear weapons especially when your manifesto claims to support the deterrent
Last edited:
Actually, it is more the other way round. This really is one of the fundamental problems with the intellectual "Left".
Your typical intellectual socialist is actually a smart educated individual. As such, they think that they are somehow intellectually and educationally superior to everybody else and that, as a consequence of this, their opinions as to how society should work are therefore "Right" and that anybody who disagrees with them is therefore "Wrong" and because they are "wrong", they must therefore also be intellectually inferior, uneducated, ignorant or just plain dumb!
(See also the conflict over Brexit)
The smart. educated, left really cannot accept that equally smart and educated people might actually have a rather different world view. They simply cannot comprehend the concept!
It is a really nasty and extremely narcissistic attitude.
I have always maintained that, when pushed to the extreme,
A Fascist authoritarian regime will send its enemies to concentration camps (Or even death ones) simply because they are considered enemies who need to be contained or killed.
A Socialist authoritarian one will do just the same to their enemies, but will seek to justify the policy on the grounds that they are somehow morally and intellectually superior to the people that they are imprisoning and/or killing! (and even that somehow they are actually helping their victims by attempting to "Re-educate" them!)
Nasty, Nasty people really! On the spectrum of evil, Socialists make Fascists look like rank amateurs!
Well, there has actually.
WW2 led almost seamlessly into WW3.
WW3 cost the lives of many millions of people and blighted the lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions more. (and still does to this day)
It is just that the "Third World War" was mostly fought in the "Third World" so, apart from the financial cost, most of us here in the "First World" didn't really notice it happening.
To be clear the EU was offering to enforce EU rights on UK citizens in the EU and expecting us to enforce EU rights on EU citizens in an independent/sovereign UK which would mean EU legalism still operating in the UK and a two tier system. Oh and they wanted the EU court to be the ultimate arbitor of any disputes, as usual it was just another EU attempt to re-assert some control.
BTW anyone else have a good laugh over Chuka Umunna today? he's spent the best part of 2 years arguing that the best way to change the EU is from within so we should remain and today he comes out saying he's starting a new party because he's frustrated with where Labour is heading. Hypocrite much?
Actually, it is more the other way round. This really is one of the fundamental problems with the intellectual "Left".
Your typical intellectual socialist is actually a smart educated individual. As such, they think that they are somehow intellectually and educationally superior to everybody else and that, as a consequence of this, their opinions as to how society should work are therefore "Right" and that anybody who disagrees with them is therefore "Wrong" and because they are "wrong", they must therefore also be intellectually inferior, uneducated, ignorant or just plain dumb!
(See also the conflict over Brexit)
The smart. educated, left really cannot accept that equally smart and educated people might actually have a rather different world view. They simply cannot comprehend the concept!
It is a really nasty and extremely narcissistic attitude.
I have always maintained that, when pushed to the extreme,
A Fascist authoritarian regime will send its enemies to concentration camps (Or even death ones) simply because they are considered enemies who need to be contained or killed.
A Socialist authoritarian one will do just the same to their enemies, but will seek to justify the policy on the grounds that they are somehow morally and intellectually superior to the people that they are imprisoning and/or killing! (and even that somehow they are actually helping their victims by attempting to "Re-educate" them!)
Nasty, Nasty people really! On the spectrum of evil, Socialists make Fascists look like rank amateurs!
What? If we’re going to compare the most successful fascist state to the most successful communist one, then ignoring the nazis superiority complex is farcical to the extreme... the people who fundamentally built nazism off the back of eugenics and purity... aren’t primarily concerned about ‘moral and intellectual superiority’?
**** sake
Soldato
That was my actual implication and the same for the below statements that I've left but not responded to. The supercilious nature of "them" leads them to believe another 20,000,000 dead to achieve utopia is in actuality a trap (or series thereof) that their fuliginous minds are unable to comprehend.
typical intellectual socialist is actually a smart educated individual. As such, they think that they are somehow intellectually and educationally superior to everybody else and that, as a consequence of this, their opinions as to how society should work are therefore "Right" and that anybody who disagrees with them is therefore "Wrong" and because they are "wrong", they must therefore also be intellectually inferior, uneducated, ignorant or just plain dumb!
(See also the conflict over Brexit)
The smart. educated, left really cannot accept that equally smart and educated people might actually have a rather different world view. They simply cannot comprehend the concept!
It is a really nasty and extremely narcissistic attitude.
I have always maintained that, when pushed to the extreme,
A Fascist authoritarian regime will send its enemies to concentration camps (Or even death ones) simply because they are considered enemies who need to be contained or killed.
A Socialist authoritarian one will do just the same to their enemies, but will seek to justify the policy on the grounds that they are somehow morally and intellectually superior to the people that they are imprisoning and/or killing! (and even that somehow they are actually helping their victims by attempting to "Re-educate" them!)
Nasty, Nasty people really! On the spectrum of evil, Socialists make Fascists look like rank amateurs!
Well, there has actually.
WW2 led almost seamlessly into WW3.
WW3 cost the lives of many millions of people and blighted the lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions more. (and still does to this day)
It is just that the "Third World War" was mostly fought in the "Third World" so, apart from the financial cost, most of us here in the "First World" didn't really notice it happening.
Yes we're living in a post WW2 world where the Great Powers fight proxy and economic wars against each other, so the millions of deaths is in contrast to the hundreds of millions of deaths which would've occurred had nuclear weapons not existed.
Actually, it is more the other way round. This really is one of the fundamental problems with the intellectual "Left".
Your typical intellectual socialist is actually a smart educated individual. As such, they think that they are somehow intellectually and educationally superior to everybody else and that, as a consequence of this, their opinions as to how society should work are therefore "Right" and that anybody who disagrees with them is therefore "Wrong" and because they are "wrong", they must therefore also be intellectually inferior, uneducated, ignorant or just plain dumb!
(See also the conflict over Brexit)
The smart. educated, left really cannot accept that equally smart and educated people might actually have a rather different world view. They simply cannot comprehend the concept!
It is a really nasty and extremely narcissistic attitude.
I have always maintained that, when pushed to the extreme,
A Fascist authoritarian regime will send its enemies to concentration camps (Or even death ones) simply because they are considered enemies who need to be contained or killed.
A Socialist authoritarian one will do just the same to their enemies, but will seek to justify the policy on the grounds that they are somehow morally and intellectually superior to the people that they are imprisoning and/or killing! (and even that somehow they are actually helping their victims by attempting to "Re-educate" them!)
Nasty, Nasty people really! On the spectrum of evil, Socialists make Fascists look like rank amateurs!
Well, there has actually.
WW2 led almost seamlessly into WW3.
WW3 cost the lives of many millions of people and blighted the lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions more. (and still does to this day)
It is just that the "Third World War" was mostly fought in the "Third World" so, apart from the financial cost, most of us here in the "First World" didn't really notice it happening.
A bit of a tangent to your post but it is interesting seeing the various responses from within the Labour party to those 7 who've left - a heavy emphasis on "if you aren't with us you are against us" and other quite spiteful comments with an almost cult like feel behind them.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,883
- They have registered as a business and not a party so they do not have to reveal their donors.
- They have registered their website in Panama so they do not have to reveal data on it.
- They have lied about and insulted in the most vitriolic terms themselves about the party membership.
- They have refused to stand in by-elections, removing the enfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of people, even though their biggest policy position - a second vote on Brexit - would suggest they understand why it would be so important.
- To a greater or lesser extent they have seriously questionable positions on a number of things - and in the case of Angela Smith revealed a tinge of racism herself just a few hours in, which was conveniently swept under the carpet by Chuka and Leslie.
- They see a moral equivalence - if not superiority on the Tory side - between a Labour Government and a Tory government.
There are many people worthy of criticism in politics right now, but few more so than this lot. They are the very worse that politics has to be shameful about. They absolutely deserve every last drop of criticism they get, except any that incorporates their race or gender or religion.
But it's also kinda funny too. They've decided to start a new politics by.... occupying the hill the Lib Dems have been dying on for the last 5 years.
I certainly find the whole thing questionable - but it is possible to be critical without the harassment and spite that is coming out - it doesn't reflect well on Labour at all whether that is from those that have left or those (engaged in this) that are part of Labour.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,883
Well yeah, Nobody should be celebrating except the Tories.
It's was a very bad, very damaging day for the Labour Party and may cause irrecoverable damage to the potential for a Labour government in the future.
Though it seems there might be a few tories who want to join them as well...
It's was a very bad, very damaging day for the Labour Party and may cause irrecoverable damage to the potential for a Labour government in the future.
Though it seems there might be a few tories who want to join them as well...
Why? They’re tribal politicians, if tories did the same, it would go over much the same way.
Only worse if they have you in their blackmail book.
We need a truly progressive technocratic third party to distance themselves from the shower of imbeciles, but they’ve had no less than 5 scandals in a single day... saddening waste of people’s deep need to find a political home.
Nuclear weapons may come handy in case of asteroid strike threat.
Well, now they’re shooting people in the street, I imagine it’s only going to get worse.
Soldato
Marco Rubio (US Senator, failed presidential candidate) just made a call for the Venezuelan army to stage a coup:
(Bing Translate: "Military leaders of #Venezuela, the historic moment has come. In the coming hours you, inspired by Bolivar's ideal and action, can defend the dignity of the Venezuelan people and their homeland. Now is the time, tomorrow will be too late.")
Bit off topic, but no it wouldn't really./
The usefulness of nukes for mitigating an asteroid impact are extremely limited.
The old Hollywood scenario of blowing up an impacting asteroid at the last minute so it "Burns up harmlessly in the atmosphere" simply replaces a single 1 million-gigaton explosion with 1 million 1 gigaton ones!
Though to be fair, on more recent asteroid-disaster movies they have improved the science a little bit..
(Large nuclear powered rockets might be a slightly different issue, but this is a matter for a different discussion)
Soldato
That likely is actually better though, because the vastly greater surface area of 1 million small pieces of meteor than 1 giant piece of meteor increases air-resistance and means that the total amount of "explosion" (impact energy) is less than it would have been, not merely distributed differently. Now there are other factors like the million small pieces would cover a wider area which for smaller meteorites could actually be worse. But it's not a simple equivalence is the point. Also, doing it early enough would cause parts of the mass to miss us, perhaps.
However, I'm not sure our current nuclear weapons actually would shatter a meteorite. I mean, it's not like the land around a nuclear bomb is stripped of all its top-soil even, let alone cracked apart. The USA has developed some "bunker buster" nuclear bombs which would be more appropriate, though they're bombs not missiles, I believe. Nuclear-based anti-asteroid systems might be viable. But I think using that as a rationale for our current arsenals doesn't work because they're really not geared up for this. To do this you'd need something not that pops up into the high atmosphere and then falls down again on someone else's city, but something that can travel the thousands of times further, leaving Earth's orbit and being guided out towards the asteroid while it's far enough away to be effective.
In the Disaster movie scenario, this is like saying that being on the receiving end of a whole magazine of bullets from a machine gun is better than being hit by a 120mm shell.
Even if the asteroid was blown into bits that all burned up in the atmosphere, the energy would still be there and would generate a massive fireball The Tungus event managed to devastate nearly 1000 square miles and yet none of the object actually reached the ground, and that was only a small one. the size of a large building with a KE of around 5Mt.
The sort of thing we a talking about are more like Shoemaker–Levy. Nothing could stop something like that once it had got close. The only way is to deflect it starting decades, or even centuries before the predicted impact.
And breaking it up wouldn't help much since all the pieces would still be traveling in more or less the same direction. And nothing in space is ever truly lost. It literally is a case of what goes around comes around.
Anyway, back to nukes.
Provided you started early enough, you could deflect a comet or large asteroid by detonating thousands (tens of thousands) of nukes close enough to the object so as to vapourise the surface (which would provide a pulse of thrust) but far enough away as to NOT break it up in any way.
Or, with a comet anyway, you might be able to construct large nuclear thermal rocket engines actually on the object that could use the comets water./etc as propellant to try to deflect the object away from the earth.
Either way, the longer you wait, the harder it gets. It is best to detect these things early so that you have the chance to do something about it. At the moment, by the time we could see anything it would be too late. current detection really isnt good enough. Early detection is critical and if we are going to try to do anything about this danger. improving Detection is what we need to do first!
Anyway, any more topic drift and this will get shut down, so interesting as it is.....!