Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Sharia law being imposed in London "Muslim areas"

How well Keynesian ideas work depends on the skill, intentions and sincerity of those implementing Keynesian policies. Investing in public works is effective, but less so if channelled through the private sector. Raising wages (and therefore social security), investing in education and training, public housing to reduce the amount siphoned out of the productive economy by rentiers ... you can achieve loads. If you want to.
A public-private mix is where the world is going. The biggest problem with public enterprise is not corruption, although it enters into it, but patronage and cronyism and empire building and the fact that it's the public's money. The biggest problem with private enterprise is monopolistic behavior, which can only partly be prevented through regulation, and the fact that profit prevails over public interests (such as with the environment).

So neither by itself really works very well, and a mix of the two is an unhappy compromise.
 
Muslims are idiots. The same as anyone who subscribes to any religion. Feel sory for the apostates because their life is in danger over the absolute nonsense of their peers. Fuck all of them!
 
Muslims are idiots. The same as anyone who subscribes to any religion. Feel sory for the apostates because their life is in danger over the absolute nonsense of their peers. Fuck all of them!
Yeah, a quarter of the world's population, a billion and a half people are "idiots". No nuance, no recognition of culture, history, or tradition or the meaning that people frame their lives with.No recognition of diversity. Just dismiss over a billion people's lives as idiotic.
 
Yeah, a quarter of the world's population, a billion and a half people are "idiots". No nuance, no recognition of culture, history, or tradition or the meaning that people frame their lives with.No recognition of diversity. Just dismiss over a billion people's lives as idiotic.

The problem seems to be the equation of sense-impression with reality. To this kind of mentality, what we see is all there is.
 
The Kamikaze targeted combatants. You might look up "Shinto" to deepen your understanding.

Buddhists have the same problem with wars as does every religion, and do not dictate to individuals how to react. Buddhists will join everyone else in the defense of their country.

Right - so it's not the suicide part you have a problem with then? If it's down to the number of innocents killed then Islam has some catching up to do. And those suicide bombers? They see what they're doing as no different from a soldier defending their country.
 
The examples of my "rudeness" are underwhelming. Accusations are easy, you know. In the meantime I've had quite a few obscenities thrown at me.

I get the feeling people don't like being disagreed with, and when all I get back are things like what you just posted, I get the further feeling that maybe this is because there is a subconscious fear that what I said might be correct. Just a possibility.

I suspect it's more to do with the wafty insubstantiality of so many of your replies. Anecdotes and hippyisms do not a substantive reply make. It's not to do with fear that you might be "right", it's more to do with being abrupt with someone who doesn't have the cojones to speak plainly, without a mountain of self-referentiality and quasi-pious waffle.
 
I suspect it's more to do with the wafty insubstantiality of so many of your replies. Anecdotes and hippyisms do not a substantive reply make. It's not to do with fear that you might be "right", it's more to do with being abrupt with someone who doesn't have the cojones to speak plainly, without a mountain of self-referentiality and quasi-pious waffle.
Whatever; you really do try to get me, don't you? How nice it must feel inside to be so vicious.
 
Markets can't be trusted because of greed and corruption; government can't be trusted because of greed and corruption.

It's far simpler than that. At any level of human interaction interests are at play, often not even consciously, and those interests, and the fact that (in contradiction of market dogma) the relationship between buyer and seller is asymmetric in many cases can mean that seller interest has a stronger grip on power (and therefore the mechanisms of the market or of government) than buyer interest. You don't need to bring greed and corruption into the equation to realise that markets and governments will almost always represent the dominant rather than the secondary interests.
 
Whatever; you really do try to get me, don't you?

Don't flatter yourself. I treat you exactly the same as any other waffler.

How nice it must feel inside to be so vicious.

It's part of who I am. It's part of who we all are. I'm comfortable with who and what I am. You appear to still be coming to terms with yourself, hence your reaction. :)
 
It's far simpler than that. At any level of human interaction interests are at play, often not even consciously, and those interests, and the fact that (in contradiction of market dogma) the relationship between buyer and seller is asymmetric in many cases can mean that seller interest has a stronger grip on power (and therefore the mechanisms of the market or of government) than buyer interest. You don't need to bring greed and corruption into the equation to realise that markets and governments will almost always represent the dominant rather than the secondary interests.
All I said is that the statism/privatism debate is an argument between tweedledee and tweedledum.
 
Don't flatter yourself. I treat you exactly the same as any other waffler.
It's part of who I am. It's part of who we all are. I'm comfortable with who and what I am. You appear to still be coming to terms with yourself, hence your reaction. :)
I know enough about people to recognize what you are. I just refrain from saying it.
 
A public-private mix is where the world is going.

It's where those with the closest relationship to power are attempting to steer the world, hence the construction of various structures (WTO, NAFTA etc) through which to realise that desire. We know it's where the powerful wish to go, because as long ago as the early 1990s attempts were being made to realise it at a global (as opposed to merely multi-national) level, when draft proposals for the OECD's Multilateral Agreement on Investment were leaked.
 
Yes, I am rather amazed at the level of rudeness.:facepalm:

You made a post, I replied perfectly politely suggesting that there were reasons that Muslims are reacting to the West in the way they are, and you accused me of being disingenuous ("insincere, false, devious"). You don't think that's rude?

You've done this on three threads that I've seen now, you state your opinion, ignore the points people make in response as being propaganda, and then insult people who disagree with you as being assorted lefties and statists with a lack of moral fibre.When people respond in kind you whine about how rude everyone else is, and if they're not rude you accuse them of playing good cop/bad cop. :facepalm:

When you're not being all passive aggressive you made some fair points. But no, people being rude to you doesn't show that your opinions are right, it shows that you're acting like a cunt.
 
All I said is that the statism/privatism debate is an argument between tweedledee and tweedledum.

And again, you'd be incorrect. It's not a case of "same shit, different arseholes". If it were, then the dynamic between the two would be different. More combative, for a start.
 
Muslims are idiots. The same as anyone who subscribes to any religion. Feel sory for the apostates because their life is in danger over the absolute nonsense of their peers. Fuck all of them!

Ah theres nothing more idiotic than a militant Atheist.

It's one thing to say Islam as a ideology is idiotic and untrue and a whole other thing to say ''Muslims''. Same goes for Christian, Jew, Buddhist, ect ect
 
Back
Top Bottom