Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on July 26, 2006, 12:42:08 am
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=392629&in_page_id=1770
What the **** is wrong with England? Quietly, unobtrusively, with little scorn or debate, the Blair government has passed more totalitarian laws in the name of the nanny state than Bush has in the name of the security state.
The home life of every child in the country is to be recorded on a national database in the ultimate intrusion of the nanny state, it has emerged.
Computer records holding details of school performance, diet and even whether their parents provide a 'positive role model' for 12 million children will be held by the Government.
Police, social workers, teachers and doctors will have access to the database and have powers to flag up 'concerns' where children are not meeting criteria laid down by the state.
The 'children's index', which will cost the taxpayer £224 million, will even monitor whether youngsters are eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, whether they go to church or are struggling to get good marks at school.
It could take just two warning flags on a child's file to trigger an investigation.
I'm not even kidding when I say that, unless the majority of these laws can be stopped or repealed once Blair is out of office, you people better start buying masks (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c0/V_for_vendettax.jpg/220px-V_for_vendettax.jpg) and learning how to make plastic explosives.
-
this is what governments tend to do. our Patriot Act is a much less serious threat to liberty and it still has a vocal opposition. its rediculous that people can take an isolated case and use to justify somthing like this
-
I'm questioning why their hasn't been a national backlash in Britain yet.
-
I'm questioning why their hasn't been a national backlash in Britain yet.
Because the bulk of the population - like every country, really - is too ****ing stupid to notice these things happening when the likes of Big Brother is on or Wayne Rooney stubs a toe.
-
I quite agree Aldo, The government dont really publicise this sort of thing, although its easy enough to view propositions or recently passed motions, Most people think *Meh whats that got to do with me*Or are simply "too stupid" to notice without realising the repurcussions of their own ignorance.
-
There's relatively little fuss being made. Especially the written media, since Big Brother is of far more national importance.
-
I'm sure that the irony gods are laughing at our nation as we type/speak....
-
irony gods
Good idea for a new religion. We could make lots of money. Got Tom Cruise's number?
-
Oh, and sadly it's not 'just' England the Blair government controls.
-
Oooh. Looks like the UK givernment is catching up quick toi the yanks in the stupid contest.
How do you people keep electing this guy?
-
Oooh. Looks like the UK givernment is catching up quick toi the yanks in the stupid contest.
How do you people keep electing this guy?
I have no idea.........
my constituency, natch, has a 50% or so Labour majority, so my vote is literally worthless :(. The fact that it is, er, how shall I say, one of the less well educated constituencies my have some bearing on that.......
-
How do you people keep electing this guy?
The same way we keep electing Howard.
-
Oooh. Looks like the UK givernment is catching up quick toi the yanks in the stupid contest.
How do you people keep electing this guy?
I have no idea.........
my constituency, natch, has a 50% or so Labour majority, so my vote is literally worthless :(. The fact that it is, er, how shall I say, one of the less well educated constituencies my have some bearing on that.......
And the fact Nu Labaaa appeals to Middle England does not help matters.
-
How do you people keep electing this guy?
The same way we keep electing Howard.
The way we let ourselves be scared into voting Howard, or the fact there's no one to challenge him?
-
Of course the only opposition to power crazed Blair and the Labour party is... the Tories. A party whose members would sell their own parents into slavery for a profit. Not to mention a long track record of corruption and screwing over the less well off in favour of the rich. But remember kids. Democracy works. :doubt:
-
How do you people keep electing this guy?
The same way we keep electing Howard.
The way we let ourselves be scared into voting Howard, or the fact there's no one to challenge him?
Simply the fact that the dumb minority that votes for him just happens to be the voting majority.
-
And the fact Nu Labaaa appeals to Middle England does not help matters.
I thought that was a new fundamentalist group in the Middle East when I read it! :lol:
-
And the fact Nu Labaaa appeals to Middle England does not help matters.
I thought that was a new fundamentalist group in the Middle East when I read it! :lol:
Well, they are a group, they are kind of fundamentalist, and they are actively causing death and destruction in the Middle East......
-
And the fact Nu Labaaa appeals to Middle England does not help matters.
I thought that was a new fundamentalist group in the Middle East when I read it! :lol:
Well, they are a group, they are kind of fundamentalist, and they are actively causing death and destruction in the Middle East......
Is that all of New Labour or just blair though?
-
Is that all of New Labour or just blair though?
New Labour, yeah. Blair wouldn't be able to operate alone, even if his government is splitting between his and Browns' loyalists.
-
The thing is that the government tends to quietly bring this sort of thing up and then get quietly defeated on it.
ID cards as a case in point. Now it's not time to get complacent and start slapping everyone's backs over this but there is a good chance that once people hear about this it will go the same way that they did.
Quite frankly I'm slowly gathering the opinion that the government know this **** won't fly but are bringing it in to channel money into friendly IT consultancy companies.
-
I'm questioning why their hasn't been a national backlash in Britain yet.
Because the bulk of the population - like every country, really - is too ****ing stupid to notice these things happening when the likes of Big Brother is on or Wayne Rooney stubs a toe.
Plus, honestly, no offense to the European countries, it also has a lot to do with your culture. Your culture is more adjusted to the idea of a nanny state, where the government is very controlling of the citizen's lifes. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, that's just how the culture is. So when someone from England sees this, they're more accepting of it, than, say, an American (whose culture places much more emphasis on the individual and their personal responsability for themselves).
If you want an example of what I mean, just look at Healthcare. The European countries are more used to the idea of having a nanny state, so they get Universal Health Care, while the Americans are much more mistrusting of big government, and as thus have a very vocal response to it.
EDIT: This isn't a flame, just a comment. But yea, hopefully this will get defeated.
-
I'm not saying this to be an arse, (i can quite happily be an arse without help thank-you)....... How do you think the current political climate would be if the states had lost the independance war? (no not the cnv-301 based one) do you think it would be politically more stable, or would there be a super labour government frakking up the planet instead?
Discuss? maybe......... :confused:
-
I'm questioning why their hasn't been a national backlash in Britain yet.
Because the bulk of the population - like every country, really - is too ****ing stupid to notice these things happening when the likes of Big Brother is on or Wayne Rooney stubs a toe.
Plus, honestly, no offense to the European countries, it also has a lot to do with your culture. Your culture is more adjusted to the idea of a nanny state, where the government is very controlling of the citizen's lifes. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, that's just how the culture is. So when someone from England sees this, they're more accepting of it, than, say, an American (whose culture places much more emphasis on the individual and their personal responsability for themselves).
If you want an example of what I mean, just look at Healthcare. The European countries are more used to the idea of having a nanny state, so they get Universal Health Care, while the Americans are much more mistrusting of big government, and as thus have a very vocal response to it.
EDIT: This isn't a flame, just a comment. But yea, hopefully this will get defeated.
It's not that controlling; I mean, there's a rather significant gap between the provision of healthcare to, say, enforcing behavioural rules. Something like providing the NHS surely isn't all that different to providing the police or fire services.
EDIt; of course, historically, the British government operated a laissez-faire policy until the voting franchise was widened, anyways; so in reality any government control was something that was initially demanded by the populace rather than forced upon it.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=392629&in_page_id=1770
What the **** is wrong with England? Quietly, unobtrusively, with little scorn or debate, the Blair government has passed more totalitarian laws in the name of the nanny state than Bush has in the name of the security state.
The home life of every child in the country is to be recorded on a national database in the ultimate intrusion of the nanny state, it has emerged.
Computer records holding details of school performance, diet and even whether their parents provide a 'positive role model' for 12 million children will be held by the Government.
Police, social workers, teachers and doctors will have access to the database and have powers to flag up 'concerns' where children are not meeting criteria laid down by the state.
The 'children's index', which will cost the taxpayer £224 million, will even monitor whether youngsters are eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, whether they go to church or are struggling to get good marks at school.
It could take just two warning flags on a child's file to trigger an investigation.
I'm not even kidding when I say that, unless the majority of these laws can be stopped or repealed once Blair is out of office, you people better start buying masks (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c0/V_for_vendettax.jpg/220px-V_for_vendettax.jpg) and learning how to make plastic explosives.
'bar-coding' of youngsters.
didn't they say something like that would happen right before the Apocalypse?
*hides under desk, whimpering*
-
It's not that controlling; I mean, there's a rather significant gap between the provision of healthcare to, say, enforcing behavioural rules. Something like providing the NHS surely isn't all that different to providing the police or fire services.
EDIt; of course, historically, the British government operated a laissez-faire policy until the voting franchise was widened, anyways; so in reality any government control was something that was initially demanded by the populace rather than forced upon it.
No, I think he's right, up to a point. For all their flaws, Americans seem to have a basic attitude that the government is not your friend, nor should it be. The whole country was founded on the premise that the government is powerhungry and corrupt by its very nature, and that strict controls must be in place at all times to prevent them from going crazy. Now I obviously can't vouch for a half a billion Europeans, but there seems to be a general feeling that the government exists to make life better, and that it is much more capable of handling problems than mere mortals. Once the role of the government shifts from preventing bad things to promoting good things, a subtle yet important distinction, everything they do can be passed of as "for your own good".
Sadly, the general trend I see has nothing to do with the UK or with Blair, but rather is global and progresses linearly. As technology progresses, our ability to monitor people and rob them of their privacy in a thousand little ways also grows. And slowly, I forsee all governments moving in the direction of less privacy, under many justifications and specific cirumstances, but all in the same direction nevertheless. If we posses the ability, chances are that sooner or later all governments will make use of that ability, regardless of the specifc nation or government in power. And that is the most dangerous thing of all. The unseen, creeping kind of control, the one that arrives with decades, not months or years, and simple becomes part of everyday life.
I mean, how does this law differ seriously in spirit from the 3 million CCTV cameras monitoring London at all times, capturing each Londoner on film 300 times a day? It doesn't.
-
How do you think the current political climate would be if the states had lost the independance war?
They did.
Oh, did you mean the first one?
EDIt; of course, historically, the British government operated a laissez-faire policy until the voting franchise was widened, anyways; so in reality any government control was something that was initially demanded by the populace rather than forced upon it.
:lol: That's what they want you to think! First rule of totalitarianism: let the stupid people vote. :p
-
There wouldn't have been a war had those who made the call chosen to implement a federal system across all British territory. Who cares about having a Queen when we could have had the world?
-
No, I think he's right, up to a point. For all their flaws, Americans seem to have a basic attitude that the government is not your friend, nor should it be. The whole country was founded on the premise that the government is powerhungry and corrupt by its very nature, and that strict controls must be in place at all times to prevent them from going crazy. Now I obviously can't vouch for a half a billion Europeans, but there seems to be a general feeling that the government exists to make life better, and that it is much more capable of handling problems than mere mortals. Once the role of the government shifts from preventing bad things to promoting good things, a subtle yet important distinction, everything they do can be passed of as "for your own good".
Yeah, thats one thing I don't get....... why do people think that? I mean.... the government is full of power-hungry politicians, people shouldn't be so confident of their leadership.
I guess people just don't notice these little things that happen, one day the government is a democracy.... the next its the spittin' image of Soviet Russia.
-
No, I think he's right, up to a point. For all their flaws, Americans seem to have a basic attitude that the government is not your friend, nor should it be. The whole country was founded on the premise that the government is powerhungry and corrupt by its very nature, and that strict controls must be in place at all times to prevent them from going crazy. Now I obviously can't vouch for a half a billion Europeans, but there seems to be a general feeling that the government exists to make life better, and that it is much more capable of handling problems than mere mortals. Once the role of the government shifts from preventing bad things to promoting good things, a subtle yet important distinction, everything they do can be passed of as "for your own good".
Yeah, thats one thing I don't get....... why do people think that? I mean.... the government is full of power-hungry politicians, people shouldn't be so confident of their leadership.
I guess people just don't notice these little things that happen, one day the government is a democracy.... the next its the spittin' image of Soviet Russia.
Its because over here in England we hire politions to run the country, not capitalists and oil tycoons. Believe it or not, but blair doesn't have nearly as much power over the country as bush, even though he represents us.
Personally I like the "nanny state" thing here in europe, makes life alot simplier when healthcare is taken care of, and the government is constantly arguing about how to make life better instead of who to attack for oil and whatnot.
-
Personally I like the "nanny state" thing here in europe, makes life alot simplier when healthcare is taken care of, and the government is constantly arguing about how to make life better instead of who to attack for oil and whatnot.
I'm not sure what to do first, rip your heart out for labelling the NHS as part of the nanny state, or beat you for saying the actual nanny state is a good thing.
-
sometimes i really wonder, why the **** do people not care? here its more or less that you get screwed over by everyone. you just have to decide who will screw you over less... :doubt:
also nation-wide health services are an excellent thing, here in croatia, up till 18, you have free healthcare and after 18, it goes from you family's fund, until you start your job and decide where to go with pension, which agency and stuff, which are going to keep your money. more or less works.
yes, define what nanny state means actually?
-
No, I think he's right, up to a point. For all their flaws, Americans seem to have a basic attitude that the government is not your friend, nor should it be. The whole country was founded on the premise that the government is powerhungry and corrupt by its very nature, and that strict controls must be in place at all times to prevent them from going crazy. Now I obviously can't vouch for a half a billion Europeans, but there seems to be a general feeling that the government exists to make life better, and that it is much more capable of handling problems than mere mortals. Once the role of the government shifts from preventing bad things to promoting good things, a subtle yet important distinction, everything they do can be passed of as "for your own good".
Yeah, thats one thing I don't get....... why do people think that? I mean.... the government is full of power-hungry politicians, people shouldn't be so confident of their leadership.
I guess people just don't notice these little things that happen, one day the government is a democracy.... the next its the spittin' image of Soviet Russia.
Its because over here in England we hire politions to run the country, not capitalists and oil tycoons. Believe it or not, but blair doesn't have nearly as much power over the country as bush, even though he represents us.
Personally I like the "nanny state" thing here in europe, makes life alot simplier when healthcare is taken care of, and the government is constantly arguing about how to make life better instead of who to attack for oil and whatnot.
Firstly, I never said I'm backing the idiotic things that Bush does, I'm simply saying that you should simply take a look at how Blair is running your country.
Secondly, I hate the way Bush is running my country. He's a complete idiot, I can't wait until the next election so we can boot his ass out of the White House!
Thirdly, I cannot possibly imagine how anyone could like their government spying on them. It makes absolutely no sense.
*edit 1*
BTW, Don't you people know what Wikipedia is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny-state
*edit 2*
Check this out! (http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/)
A fairly blunt point of view on this issue, but nonetheless accurate.
Though, I admit... most of it is ranting.
-
Thankfully I dont have to worry about such type of projects here, the politicians here are of such level that it would take years just to propose such thing, decades till it would actually be implemented and even then it wouldnt work because they would be too busy stealing any money diverted to it. :yes: The only reason the government doesnt work here is because of itself, its really pratical. :lol:
-
The only reason the government doesnt work here is because of itself, its really pratical. :lol:
*snicker*
:D
You mean here in the U.S.?
Too true....
-
I meant the great, great brazillian government. Really, some of the political scandals that happen here are priceless.
-
Oh.
Is there anyone here whos from the U.S.?
-
:yes:
-
Ok, thats 1....
-
No, I think he's right, up to a point. For all their flaws, Americans seem to have a basic attitude that the government is not your friend, nor should it be. The whole country was founded on the premise that the government is powerhungry and corrupt by its very nature, and that strict controls must be in place at all times to prevent them from going crazy. Now I obviously can't vouch for a half a billion Europeans, but there seems to be a general feeling that the government exists to make life better, and that it is much more capable of handling problems than mere mortals. Once the role of the government shifts from preventing bad things to promoting good things, a subtle yet important distinction, everything they do can be passed of as "for your own good".
Sadly, the general trend I see has nothing to do with the UK or with Blair, but rather is global and progresses linearly. As technology progresses, our ability to monitor people and rob them of their privacy in a thousand little ways also grows. And slowly, I forsee all governments moving in the direction of less privacy, under many justifications and specific cirumstances, but all in the same direction nevertheless. If we posses the ability, chances are that sooner or later all governments will make use of that ability, regardless of the specifc nation or government in power. And that is the most dangerous thing of all. The unseen, creeping kind of control, the one that arrives with decades, not months or years, and simple becomes part of everyday life.
I mean, how does this law differ seriously in spirit from the 3 million CCTV cameras monitoring London at all times, capturing each Londoner on film 300 times a day? It doesn't.
Well, this european trust of governments is basically a watered down version the whole divine right of kings, which itself was inherited from the orientalized late Roman monarchy (Aurelian, Diocletian), which took its form from the many eastern kingdoms that Rome conquered as a republic, which took their form from ancient egypt and sumeria. If you're in the mood for blaming someone, blame Diocletian. He's the one who introduced this plague into the western world (heh, being an american I guess I fit your description very well).
And while you're absolutely right about the technology thing, I wouldn't say that the changes are too small to be perceptible taken one at a time. From personal experience, they are actually quite noticable, but they're always just below the threshhold where the silent majority (or more likely, any vocal minority of sufficient strength) is willing to stick they're necks out to do something about it.
And we westerners are so comfortable and confident in the success of our democratic systems that even if we were less lackadasical in protecting them, most of us still don't grasp the massive changes that technology introduces. Which is why I place my hope in the third world democracies, ether in Latin America (if Chavez really does start quashing dissent on a large scale, I don't have any doubt that he is going to get himself overthrown eventually one way or another), Africa (once they solve their population and economic problems, the latter of which basically translates to telling the western corporations to **** off), and the Middle East (Iran is getting better, slowly but surely, as is Egypt), because any democracies that are born there are going to have to be more up to date, per se, to the issues that all this technology is introducing. Not to mention that there are few things more awesome than democratic spirit in the full flush of a successful coup by people who've never tasted democracy before.
Speaking of which, any similar stuff going on in canada?
-
"People who are willing to rely on the government to keep them safe are pretty much standing on Darwin's mat, pounding on the door, screaming, "Take me, take me!"" --Carl Jacobs
Needless to say, I hate the nanny state with a passion and I'm planning to emigrate as soon as I can afford to. Unfortunately, with National Insurance and taxation as high as ever (which is typical when Labour is in power) that won't be for a while.
I'm tired of the government taking my money because it thinks it knows better what to spend it on. I don't want 40% of my income (even at the 12 grand, supposedly-10%-tax mark) going to the government and the local council. It's MY money and I have worked hard for it, unlike those ****ing fat politicians who have no idea how to run a country but get elected because democracy rewards the ****ers who are good at getting elected regardless of actual ability to govern the country.
Every damn election, every party generates a list of promises (most likely from their collective asses). Four years later, the winner has broken half their promises and put the rest on hiatus just to fulfill one or two. And the sheeple never learn! They keep on trusting these bastards!
Frankly, I think we get the government we deserve. The British population, by and large, seems to know ****-all about how the economy, legal system, or society works, and so they go and vote in whichever party has the biggest gap between perception and reality.
I hate idealists. I hate unwarranted optimism. Neither contribute anything useful, and neither should be allowed near power.
-
EDIt; of course, historically, the British government operated a laissez-faire policy until the voting franchise was widened, anyways; so in reality any government control was something that was initially demanded by the populace rather than forced upon it.
:lol: That's what they want you to think! First rule of totalitarianism: let the stupid people vote. :p
Um, you might want to bear in mind that we kind of invented the democracy that eventually got exported to the Americas.......
-
In all honesty, I don't really see anything much coming out of this, it's vanish in its own paperwork and in about 20 years the government will face being sued by hundreds of kids for discrimination on the basis of this act.
Light Blue touchpaper and retire....
-
I say we all move to Austrailia and just let Blair, Bush, and their cronies rape the world while we sit back and drink margaritas.
:lol:
-
I say we all move to Austrailia and just let Blair, Bush, and their cronies rape the world while we sit back and drink margaritas.
:lol:
pah I thought australia has too much censorship of media.
-
How do you people keep electing this guy?
The same way we keep electing Howard.
We keep electing Howard because everyone over about 25 remembers the 17% interest rates under the last labor government, and assumes that the current economic boom has to do with the coalition. The poms and yanks don't have the excuse of an economy at one of its strongests periods in history.
Me, I'm a convinced Labor voter, and thinking seriously about joining the student branch here, particularly since Beazley decided to allow Uranium mining (don't confuse British labor with Aussie labor though all non locals reading this - very different ideals).
Africa (once they solve their population and economic problems, the latter of which basically translates to telling the western corporations to **** off)
There's a lot more wrong with Africa than the western corporations.
-
I say we all move to Austrailia and just let Blair, Bush, and their cronies rape the world while we sit back and drink margaritas.
:lol:
pah I thought australia has too much censorship of media.
Hmmmmm...., Mexico?
:lol:
-
We keep electing Howard because everyone over about 25 remembers the 17% interest rates under the last labor government, and assumes that the current economic boom has to do with the coalition. The poms and yanks don't have the excuse of an economy at one of its strongests periods in history.
Um, depending on what you read, we are in one of our strongest economic periods in history. Certainly it was one of Labours main campaign points (well, they'd scarcely put forward their record for sensibly defending the country, intelligent spending, sensbile taxation, the NHS, preservation of civil liberties....)
Putting responsibility for that into the hands of the current - or any - government is equally assumptative, though, especially when the BofE is managing interest rates.
Me, I'm a convinced Labor voter, and thinking seriously about joining the student branch here, particularly since Beazley decided to allow Uranium mining (don't confuse British labor with Aussie labor though all non locals reading this - very different ideals).
That's totally wrong, and you know it!
British Labour doesn't have ideals.
;)
-
Me, i'm a convinced Labor voter, and thinking seriously about joining the student branch here, particularly since Beazley decided to allow Uranium mining.
See, I can't really relate to that. We've got the Liberals who are stone-deaf to anything the public says, and Labour who are just a bunch of inept pussies. I think i'm going to become a communist!
-
Um, you might want to bear in mind that we kind of invented the democracy that eventually got exported to the Americas.......
Actually, the Greeks did that IIRC. But I am grateful for the many English philosophers that fleshed it out. :)
EDIT: Ugh, there I go with England/UK. :nervous: I suppose there were philosophers from Scotland too. :)
And bear in mind that the U.S. was never intended to be a democracy. It was meant to be a republic, with representative rule, not mob rule. Only landowners could vote, and they could only vote for state governments and members of the House. State legislatures voted for Senators, and state electors voted for the President. It was a tiered system, very different from what's in place now.
-
Um, you might want to bear in mind that we kind of invented the democracy that eventually got exported to the Americas.......
Actually, the Greeks did that IIRC. But I am grateful for the many English philosophers that fleshed it out. :)
EDIT: Ugh, there I go with England/UK. :nervous: I suppose there were philosophers from Scotland too. :)
And bear in mind that the U.S. was never intended to be a democracy. It was meant to be a republic, with representative rule, not mob rule. Only landowners could vote, and they could only vote for state governments and members of the House. State legislatures voted for Senators, and state electors voted for the President. It was a tiered system, very different from what's in place now.
Ah, but the mechanics of democracy were exported from the UK; that doesn't mean it was a purely or even initially British concept, just that it bled across to our former colonies. I'll need to check dates, but land ownership was part of early UK democracy too, a method of restricting the franchise to a select few (a bribeable few, too). In any case, my point was that expanding the electorate was something that was mandated by popular demand, and that this demand was caused by the ineffectiveness of laissez faire government is keeping the country properly running.
Of course, nowadays we open the franchise, but we limit the (realistically electable) candidates...
-
Ah, but the mechanics of democracy were exported from the UK; that doesn't mean it was a purely or even initially British concept, just that it bled across to our former colonies. I'll need to check dates, but land ownership was part of early UK democracy too, a method of restricting the franchise to a select few (a bribeable few, too). In any case, my point was that expanding the electorate was something that was mandated by popular demand, and that this demand was caused by the ineffectiveness of laissez faire government is keeping the country properly running.
Ineffective how? The growth of the British Empire and the ending of slavery in the first world are pretty effective accomplishments. On the other hand, the collapse of the Empire coincided with the expansion of the franchise.
The point of restricting the franchise to landowners is that landowners aren't stupid. If you know how to run and manage a piece of land, you'll very likely know how to run and manage government, and you'll be able to vote wisely. The problem with expanding the franchise is that you scoop up a lot of guillible people. Shrewd people in government can then tell them how to vote, or who to vote for, and the sheep will go right along with it. The landowners, in contrast, would simply laugh them off.
-
You have a point there, but if we had that in the US there would be riots all over the place.
-
No there wouldn't. Human nature is to accept the status quo.
...all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.
-
Wanna tell that to Marie Antoinette? I'll lend you my ouija board :)
-
He does have a point though. Unless something affects one's future breathing prospects, most will just sit there and take it with a sour face at most.
-
And we westerners are so comfortable and confident in the success of our democratic systems that even if we were less lackadasical in protecting them, most of us still don't grasp the massive changes that technology introduces. Which is why I place my hope in the third world democracies *snip*
I wouldn't count too much on any of them. Africa's problems are not just with the population and economic, but they also have serious pandemics (the highest AIDs infection rates in the world are in Africa), famines, wars, and also the biggest problem are the african governments themselves.
-
If there were any sane/smart people, the damn Bush administration, Blair's wannabe dictatorship, and any other smart-ass son of a ***** with any plans to eradicate the free-world would be inserted head-first into a giant blender!
But noooooooooooo! Everyone (except us) has to be completely retarded and let Bush and his goons (the NSA, CIA, etc.) F*** the so-called "Land of the free" in the ass!
If I were any older I'd................. well, you know......
I don't wanna say any more, as I might have some government spyware or somethin' in my comp..............
:mad: :mad: :hopping: :hopping: :mad2: :mad2: :ick: :ick:
Africa's problems are not just with the population and economic, but they also have serious pandemics (the highest AIDs infection rates in the world are in Africa)
Thats prolly because they f*** like bunnies down there...........
-
...and also the biggest problem are the african governments themselves.
Which simply cannot be remedied in the current western political climate. I mean, the reality is that if you're a politician, you quite simply can't say something like "African Governments are problematic and they need serious Western help", as you'll be labelled as a racist by the opposition and ousted next round of elections, regardless of the merit of whatever it is you said. Simple as that.
-
Bloody political correctness is more important than accuracy or honesty these days. And politics is just a ****ing popularity contest; no one in the job seems to give a damn what they do as long as they get re-elected.
-
Bloody political correctness is more important than accuracy or honesty these days. And politics is just a ****ing popularity contest; no one in the job seems to give a damn what they do as long as they get re-elected.
I think that statement sums up everything thats wrong with these damn beauraucrats, and their mile-long rolls of red tape.
God, I hate our election system.
I'd give anything to go back in time and give ole Tom Jefferson a few pointers............
-
Bloody political correctness is more important than accuracy or honesty these days. And politics is just a ****ing popularity contest; no one in the job seems to give a damn what they do as long as they get re-elected.
Exactly. That's something I really noticed last bout of elections down here. Only a tiny fraction of the TV-ads for either bloke actually focussed on what they'd do and how they'd make the country better, with the vast majority of ads simply going "the other guy did this, so vote for me".
-
Negative campaigning is the ultimate in laziness. You don't have to make the case for any of your own arguments, just spray the other guy with enough manure to make him smell bad.
-
Yeah, and people are too stupid to smell the guy who supposedly "smells better".
:lol:
People individually are OK,
but people in a group are complete morons.
-
...and also the biggest problem are the african governments themselves.
Which simply cannot be remedied in the current western political climate. I mean, the reality is that if you're a politician, you quite simply can't say something like "African Governments are problematic and they need serious Western help", as you'll be labelled as a racist by the opposition and ousted next round of elections, regardless of the merit of whatever it is you said. Simple as that.
At the same time if the western powers dont help them they'll still be labeled as racist and imperialistic, another major problem, IMO, is exactly that ''humanitarian'' help, if we always continue to help them on this and that they'll never have any reason to fix their own problems because we'll be there for them.
-
Negative campaigning is the ultimate in laziness. You don't have to make the case for any of your own arguments, just spray the other guy with enough manure to make him smell bad.
Pff. We all know you're focus on 'negative campaigning' is merely a smokescreen to draw away attention from the allegations over you being seen in a Giffnock motel with an uninflated lilo, a mullet wig, and a goat.
-
Just read this
Suddenly, I feel soooo much better about living in the US.
-
after reading this whole thread and, all, i'm happy living in a country still rebuilding itself from the war(which ended ten years ago... meh, everybody steals a wee bit for himself...), where politicians just steal, steal, steal, steal and oh, did i mention that they steal?
anyways, this whole thing is just plain ****ed up. then again, you brits are known for being up the head a wee bit.
this was a pointless post. gah.
-
If nothing else, there's whole libraries of books warning about the dangers of fascism in the name of security, militarism and so on. The "this **** ain't right" aspect has filtered into the public consciousness. If they start fingerprinting people and putting up checkpoints, it's very easy to point and say "Damn it, you're turning this country into Italy/Germany/Soviet Union/1984" and every instantly feels repulsed.
However, there is no such widespread fear of a nanny state. Aside from Brave New World, I don't really know of any books or real-life examples of nanny-statism run amuck. People don't have that little warning bell in their head telling them that it's a Bad Thing.
-
I thought everyone in the freakin' world needed to read 1984 in 10th grade! Come'on people!
-
I always imagined a system where only the educated were allowed to vote, or held more sway in voting decisions. But again, that would be filled with loopholes also. =/
In the end, I think Democracy's don't really work as well as other systems in situations. A benevolent king with ultimate power could most likely do far better for a nation than a democratically elected system of rulership.
-
I think that's called an "Enlightened Monarch" in order to be effective there would need to be a foolproof way of selecting the next monarch, which is biggest problem with the system. However, with brainmapping technology on the rise... :rolleyes: