Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.development > #8862 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-02 11:42 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-27 23:22 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.development
Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 11:42 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2015-10-02 20:43 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 15:23 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2015-10-05 17:38 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-02 17:17 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:36 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-04 21:27 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:01 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-05 21:57 -0400
Re: halting Adobe Flash videos with Mozilla Firefox, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-26 04:35 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:40 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 15:51 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:08 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-03 14:55 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 17:58 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 11:32 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-16 03:29 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:44 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-16 12:55 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:55 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 07:39 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:45 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-19 22:28 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:27 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-27 17:20 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:03 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 17:43 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-23 13:17 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 13:42 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 09:14 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 09:56 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-14 09:11 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:58 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-15 05:55 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 15:57 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-16 05:33 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 06:16 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-24 18:03 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 06:25 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 00:21 -0800
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 08:45 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-28 20:40 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 14:49 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-02 21:50 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:09 +0000
OT politics was Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-05 12:40 +0000
Re: OT politics was Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-05 20:11 -0500
Re: OT politics, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-05 20:11 -0500
Re: OT politics, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:35 +0000
Re: OT politics, was [Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-17 21:02 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-24 20:09 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:55 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 03:56 -0800
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-17 04:21 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 02:12 -0800
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-24 18:03 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 02:53 -0800
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-28 20:15 -0500
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 20:37 -0700
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-28 18:23 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 21:10 -0700
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 14:34 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 15:10 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:39 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-03 12:48 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 17:00 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-04 23:32 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 14:05 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:17 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-06 10:35 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 16:28 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-06 19:14 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 20:02 +0100
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-10-06 10:46 +0200
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-07 01:16 -0400
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:50 +0000
Re: Flow of keystroke messages in a UI "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2015-12-27 23:22 +0100
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 07:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160118073941.489cd556@_> |
| In reply to | #9103 |
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:55:50 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16/01/2016 17:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:44:08 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > [OT] > >>>> * EU policies have already brought in and are continuing to bring > >>>> in an unknown number of terrorists as well as large groups who > >>>> are not terrorists but who do not share the West's traditional > >>>> respect for women. There have already been assaults, rapes, > >>>> intimidation and killings. > >>> > >> > > > * Yes, stop people coming by their own efforts. The current flow of > humanity must be brought to an end. It is killing people. People die all the time. Most don't deserve to be here anyway. Stopping the flow can cause just as many deaths. > Just last night I saw on Sky News another three children were pulled > dead from the sea. IIRC they were just 4 and 6 years old. It's an > indictment against civilisation that such things happen. These > children are so young. They have no say, no choice. So, you intend to punish their parents for making a bad decision? It could be argued that anyone with less than an exceptionally high IQ makes bad decisions which sometimes lead to death. > As well as killing people such migrations fuel criminality because > traffickers make vast profits from it. What doesn't fuel criminality? ... That's the point of criminality. They know how to make illicit money no matter what the laws are or what the law does to stop them. They make money in open societies. They make money in closed societies. > * Ensure refugee camps are adequate places for people to live and for > them to get education for their children. So, out of sight, out of mind? NIMBY? Let them rot elsewhere? Interesting ... Such camps usually provide no means of gainful employment. So, people suffer or are on the government's dole until they can manage to move onwards which can take a long time without financial resources. > * Take in the refugees who are the most needy directly from the > refugee camps as the UK is doing. Allow-in refugees only, not > economic migrants (unless they are part of the country's normal > immigration processes). Rather than the many relatively wealthy young > men who are making their own way across this would allow poor > families with children and/or infirmities to get priority. Is this about protecting jobs at home? I.e., you seem opposed to economic migrants who likely want a better life and economic mobility. I'm not opposed to the US accepting Mexicans, but I see no need for them since we have so many unemployed blacks. I'm opposed to the US not vetting the good from the bad, by allowing people to illegally cross our borders and then granting Mexicans immunity from the laws they broke to enter our country, simply because they've been in our country for a while. All new citizens are required to follow the laws. This goes against the moral grain. > * Work on the causes of the war that is driving people away from > Syria so that they can return home. So, corral, return? Is that humane? > * Work with countries in the region to give refuge for those who are > displaced. While millions have come from Syria to Europe, "Gulf > countries including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, > Kuwait, and Bahrain have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian > refugees." So, more NIMBY? > Any good? I am thinking that that kind of approach would help those > who really need the help but stop 90+% of the migration, keeping the > would-be migrants and their children safe and also protecting > European countries against taking in terrorists. I asked you, since I didn't know ... You have a plan. That's the first step. Maybe, it'll work. Some things seemed somewhat questionable to me. So, others might take offense to certain aspects as inhumane or protectionist, or they might accept them as necessary via reason. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 22:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7jppg$559$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9108 |
On 18/01/2016 12:39, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:55:50 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 16/01/2016 17:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:44:08 +0000 >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > [OT] > >>>>>> * EU policies have already brought in and are continuing to bring >>>>>> in an unknown number of terrorists as well as large groups who >>>>>> are not terrorists but who do not share the West's traditional >>>>>> respect for women. There have already been assaults, rapes, >>>>>> intimidation and killings. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> * Yes, stop people coming by their own efforts. The current flow of >> humanity must be brought to an end. It is killing people. > > People die all the time. Most don't deserve to be here anyway. > Stopping the flow can cause just as many deaths. I don't agree. Syrian people are being killed by war, oppression and murder in their own country, and by unsafe migration. Stopping those problems would help save lives. >> Just last night I saw on Sky News another three children were pulled >> dead from the sea. IIRC they were just 4 and 6 years old. It's an >> indictment against civilisation that such things happen. These >> children are so young. They have no say, no choice. > > So, you intend to punish their parents for making a bad decision? > It could be argued that anyone with less than an exceptionally > high IQ makes bad decisions which sometimes lead to death. No, making people safe is not punishing them. Just the opposite. I was suggesting that people be made secure in or near their homes. ... >> * Ensure refugee camps are adequate places for people to live and for >> them to get education for their children. > > So, out of sight, out of mind? NIMBY? Let them rot elsewhere? > Interesting ... Such camps usually provide no means of gainful > employment. So, people suffer or are on the government's dole > until they can manage to move onwards which can take a long time > without financial resources. No, not rot, live! I said "adequate" to emphasise that I was talking about basic but sufficient conditions, and not luxury. Some form of employment sounds like a good idea. It would give people an opportunity to do something to contribute to the system under which they live. >> * Take in the refugees who are the most needy directly from the >> refugee camps as the UK is doing. Allow-in refugees only, not >> economic migrants (unless they are part of the country's normal >> immigration processes). Rather than the many relatively wealthy young >> men who are making their own way across this would allow poor >> families with children and/or infirmities to get priority. > > Is this about protecting jobs at home? I.e., you seem opposed > to economic migrants who likely want a better life and economic > mobility. No, not at all. Notice I said that normal immigration processes should continue. Those who want to migrate for economic reasons should be treated in line with the country's existing policies. At the moment the great tide of people coming into Europe is a mix of refugees, economic migrants and terrorists. The latter two groups are pretty much indistinguishable from genuine refugees. ... >> * Work on the causes of the war that is driving people away from >> Syria so that they can return home. > > So, corral, return? Is that humane? No, I was saying that there needs to be a solution to the problem that is causing the Syrian exodus. That would include stopping the war and Syria getting a stable government that can maintain peace and order. >> * Work with countries in the region to give refuge for those who are >> displaced. While millions have come from Syria to Europe, "Gulf >> countries including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, >> Kuwait, and Bahrain have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian >> refugees." > > So, more NIMBY? Some Arab/Muslim states don't show compassion, even for fellow Muslims. >> Any good? I am thinking that that kind of approach would help those >> who really need the help but stop 90+% of the migration, keeping the >> would-be migrants and their children safe and also protecting >> European countries against taking in terrorists. > > I asked you, since I didn't know ... You have a plan. That's > the first step. Maybe, it'll work. Some things seemed somewhat > questionable to me. So, others might take offense to certain > aspects as inhumane or protectionist, or they might accept them > as necessary via reason. It is surely right (and affordable) to protect and help the relatively few who have a genuine need. But I don't believe it is right to allow economic migrants and others to bypass normal immigration procedures on the back of a wave of human migration. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 22:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160119222809.15f2f3b8@_> |
| In reply to | #9110 |
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:45:36 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/01/2016 12:39, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:55:50 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 16/01/2016 17:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:44:08 +0000 > >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [OT] > >>>>>> * EU policies have already brought in and are continuing to > >>>>>> bring in an unknown number of terrorists as well as large > >>>>>> groups who are not terrorists but who do not share the West's > >>>>>> traditional respect for women. There have already been > >>>>>> assaults, rapes, intimidation and killings. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> * Yes, stop people coming by their own efforts. The current flow of > >> humanity must be brought to an end. It is killing people. > > > > People die all the time. Most don't deserve to be here anyway. > > Stopping the flow can cause just as many deaths. > > I don't agree. Syrian people are being killed by war, oppression and > murder in their own country, and by unsafe migration. Stopping those > problems would help save lives. While no one wants to lose their life, and the right to life is legally protected in some places like the U.S., I'm wondering if you're being too protective of life. If you knew that you could save everyone in the U.S. Civil War, but the outcome was slavery continues to exist, would you save lives or choose freedom for the slaves? If you knew that you could save everyone from the Nazi's or Soviet's, but the outcome was that the Nazi's or Soviet's controlled the EU, would you accept that? The end never justifies the means, but sometimes the events are justified by the outcome. IMO, these issues are not just simple issues where we must simply save the life of everyone involved. There are political outcomes, financial outcomes, and social outcomes which must all be considered. > >> Just last night I saw on Sky News another three children were > >> pulled dead from the sea. IIRC they were just 4 and 6 years old. > >> It's an indictment against civilisation that such things happen. > >> These children are so young. They have no say, no choice. > > > > So, you intend to punish their parents for making a bad decision? > > It could be argued that anyone with less than an exceptionally > > high IQ makes bad decisions which sometimes lead to death. > > No, making people safe is not punishing them. Just the opposite. I > was suggesting that people be made secure in or near their homes. > > [snip] > > No, I was saying that there needs to be a solution to the problem > that is causing the Syrian exodus. That would include stopping the > war and Syria getting a stable government that can maintain peace and > order. In a violent place, that requires violence, including death. If they're not willing to use violence or fight to protect their own lives, then who should potentially forfeit theirs for them? AISI, this doesn't come without a cost in human life. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8agfc$15d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9115 |
On 20/01/2016 03:28, Rod Pemberton wrote: [All OT] ... > While no one wants to lose their life, and the right to life is > legally protected in some places like the U.S., I'm wondering if > you're being too protective of life. If you knew that you could > save everyone in the U.S. Civil War, but the outcome was slavery > continues to exist, would you save lives or choose freedom for > the slaves? If you knew that you could save everyone from the > Nazi's or Soviet's, but the outcome was that the Nazi's or Soviet's > controlled the EU, would you accept that? The end never justifies > the means, but sometimes the events are justified by the outcome. There are different issues here. 1. There is war between the Syrian government and various groups who oppose it Syria. That is resulting in death directly from weapons and even from famine. I would suggest that it needs a college of other nations to work together in order to stop it. 2. There is currently a safe territory for ISIL to use for terror training. Terrorists are already being exported. There are reports of them using their freedom to try to develop WMDs. The safe place needs to be denied them for the good of all of us. 3. There is a violent ideology that is being taught in the region, including to children, sowing seeds of jidadism for the near future and also for the long term. That needs to be tackled on many levels. Tony Blair, former UK PM, is one of the few people who seem to have anything to say on this. AFAICS governments just now are so indolent that they seem content to wait until there are further attacks before they will do anything. 4. ISIL are terrorising, murdering and enslaving people who live within their area they control. Sorry if that sounds brutal. It is just a reminder of things which have been reported as going on. Some would say that what happens in ISIL territory is not our problem. But I think that after WW2 people realised that it was not enough for the world's conscience to leave the Nazis contained. As above, organisations such as these must, IMO, be denied safe space in which to operate and carry out their barbaric acts. Issues above need to be tackled at source. Solutions will need courage, will, cooperation and persuasion - in addition to willingness to carry out a range of measures, as necessary. 5. People who have fled from Syrian war-zones have been housed in refugee camps in various countries in the region. I don't know what the conditions are like in those camps. 6. People who are dissatisfied with the camps or who want to risk the journey for other reasons have migrated out of the region to Europe and elsewhere. 7. Inspired by the open welcome of Europe, especially that of Germany, people from elsewhere are travelling to Europe. Some of these migrants are also fleeing danger while others are migrating to get a better life. Whatever the reason for travelling, the migration has led to the deaths of many adults and children. Basically, IMO it is not enough to say that people will die and just let them get on with it. Individual groups, above, can be helped. Saving those who are currently migrating, for example, will not affect the outcome of the battles where they come from. > IMO, these issues are not just simple issues where we must simply > save the life of everyone involved. There are political outcomes, > financial outcomes, and social outcomes which must all be considered. Agreed. ... > In a violent place, that requires violence, including death. > If they're not willing to use violence or fight to protect > their own lives, then who should potentially forfeit theirs > for them? AISI, this doesn't come without a cost in human life. It is not just soldiers but also civilians who are dying, many of them far away from the war zone. If you like, there may be some deaths which are inevitable but not all of them are. ATM, many of those deaths can be prevented. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 17:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160127172050.78541a06@_> |
| In reply to | #9137 |
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:27:38 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20/01/2016 03:28, Rod Pemberton wrote: [All OT] > 1. There is war between the Syrian government and various groups who > oppose it Syria. That is resulting in death directly from weapons and > even from famine. I would suggest that it needs a college of other > nations to work together in order to stop it. Well, some people believe world leaders are implementing population control via various means. War and famine are excellent for that. > 2. There is currently a safe territory for ISIL to use for terror > training. Terrorists are already being exported. There are reports of > them using their freedom to try to develop WMDs. The safe place needs > to be denied them for the good of all of us. > Is this really likely? It's unlikely, but possible, that North Korea has nuclear weapons. This is after decades of effort. How likely is it that ISIL obtained WMDs? Even Saddam Hussein apparently didn't have them ... But, what is any country with nuclear weapons going to do to the U.S. or Russia or allies of the U.S. or Russia? If any country uses such a weapon, they'll be annihilated by either the U.S. or Russia. Region-wide genocide. Both countries have an abundance of such weapons, and neither will tolerate the use of such weapons by "terrorist" countries. If North Korea uses such a weapon against the U.S., do you think that the U.S. will be concerned that Russia or China is next door? No, it won't. North Korea will be a hole full of radio active dirt. The same goes for Iran. The U.S. won't be concerned that Russia is it's ally. It'll be a pile of radio active glass. The U.S. will deal with Russia or China after the fact. > 3. There is a violent ideology that is being taught in the region, > including to children, sowing seeds of jidadism for the near future > and also for the long term. That needs to be tackled on many levels. > Tony Blair, former UK PM, is one of the few people who seem to have > anything to say on this. Nitpick. By "violent ideology," you meant an "ideology which teaches violence." I.e., an ideology in and of itself isn't violent even it if promotes or incites violence. In the U.S., ideologies are technically protected speech, like religion, although I'm sure the U.S. government has likely been violating that since 9/11 in the name of "safety." They can't be held accountable. > Some would say that what happens in ISIL territory is not our > problem. But I think that after WW2 people realised that it was not > enough for the world's conscience to leave the Nazis contained. As > above, organisations such as these must, IMO, be denied safe space in > which to operate and carry out their barbaric acts. If they are contained, who do they have to attack other than themselves? > Issues above need to be tackled at source. Solutions will need > courage, will, cooperation and persuasion - in addition to > willingness to carry out a range of measures, as necessary. People loose the desire to fight over time. They want to live and love and rest and relax and cherish and move on etc. You have to be immensely, insanely traumatized to continue to hate and be angry with an intense focus for long time periods. If you weren't directly affected, i.e., follower of a violent/hurt leader, then this isn't easy as you don't share the anger. You want something from the movement, in a timely manner. When that doesn't come, the followers are disgruntled, and leave. > 5. People who have fled from Syrian war-zones have been housed in > refugee camps in various countries in the region. I don't know what > the conditions are like in those camps. > There was an article yesterday here that they were now fleeing camps provided by Germany because the conditions were so deplorable. > Whatever the reason for travelling, the migration has led to the > deaths of many adults and children. How many more are alive because they didn't die as a byproduct of war? If war has a 30% chance of death, and migrating is less than 2%, the latter is the better choice. Life is not without risk. You can die from simply eating food or touching animals or falling down, etc. People must accept some risk of untimely death simply because they are alive. Do you want a Nanny-state where the government protects and controls your every action? "You can't walk there." Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 11:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8csdm$upr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9146 |
On 27/01/2016 22:20, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:27:38 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 20/01/2016 03:28, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > [All OT] ... >> 2. There is currently a safe territory for ISIL to use for terror >> training. Terrorists are already being exported. There are reports of >> them using their freedom to try to develop WMDs. The safe place needs >> to be denied them for the good of all of us. >> > > Is this really likely? It's unlikely, but possible, that North > Korea has nuclear weapons. This is after decades of effort. How > likely is it that ISIL obtained WMDs? WMDs are not just nuclear. There are lots of reports of ISIL having a chemical weapons programme. For example, http://news.nationalpost.com/news/isil-is-aggressively-pursuing-chemical-weapons-iraqi-u-s-intelligence-officials-say Note the phrase that they are "setting up a branch dedicated to research and experiments with the help of scientists from Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region". That matches what I have read elsewhere and goes to the heart of the safe-space point I made. As long as they have territory in which they reign supreme they have the time and space needed for such development and testing. > Even Saddam Hussein apparently > didn't have them ... But, what is any country with nuclear weapons > going to do to the U.S. or Russia or allies of the U.S. or Russia? > If any country uses such a weapon, they'll be annihilated by either > the U.S. or Russia. Region-wide genocide. I think the threat is more about them exploding a dirty bomb, such as a chemical bomb, in a big US city or its underground rail system. > Both countries have an > abundance of such weapons, and neither will tolerate the use of such > weapons by "terrorist" countries. If North Korea uses such a weapon > against the U.S., do you think that the U.S. will be concerned that > Russia or China is next door? No, it won't. North Korea will be a > hole full of radio active dirt. The same goes for Iran. The U.S. > won't be concerned that Russia is it's ally. It'll be a pile of > radio active glass. The U.S. will deal with Russia or China after > the fact. > >> 3. There is a violent ideology that is being taught in the region, >> including to children, sowing seeds of jidadism for the near future >> and also for the long term. That needs to be tackled on many levels. >> Tony Blair, former UK PM, is one of the few people who seem to have >> anything to say on this. I found a reference for that: http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/the-depth-of-the-challenge-why-force-alone-will-not-defeat-islamist-extremi/ > Nitpick. By "violent ideology," you meant an "ideology which teaches > violence." I.e., an ideology in and of itself isn't violent even it > if promotes or incites violence. Yes, an ideology which espouses violence, intolerance, conquest, permission to kill anyone who is not a true believer, violent domination of men over women, etc, etc. And this is being taught in schools in some countries in the region to make the next generation of jihadists. It is more about a philosophy than guns but the following picture makes a point. https://twitter.com/Linnlondon1/status/667342957742301185 I don't mean to be alarmist. If these things are indeed going on then current politicians need the courage to tackle them, not to stick their heads in the sand. If the problems are not dealt with now then they will surface in the future. > In the U.S., ideologies are > technically protected speech, like religion, although I'm sure the > U.S. government has likely been violating that since 9/11 in the > name of "safety." They can't be held accountable. > >> Some would say that what happens in ISIL territory is not our >> problem. But I think that after WW2 people realised that it was not >> enough for the world's conscience to leave the Nazis contained. As >> above, organisations such as these must, IMO, be denied safe space in >> which to operate and carry out their barbaric acts. > > If they are contained, who do they have to attack other than themselves? Make no mistake. The goal of many of the most violent is a *worldwide* caliphate. >> Issues above need to be tackled at source. Solutions will need >> courage, will, cooperation and persuasion - in addition to >> willingness to carry out a range of measures, as necessary. > > People loose the desire to fight over time. They want to live and > love and rest and relax and cherish and move on etc. You have to > be immensely, insanely traumatized to continue to hate and be angry > with an intense focus for long time periods. If you weren't > directly affected, i.e., follower of a violent/hurt leader, then this > isn't easy as you don't share the anger. You want something from the > movement, in a timely manner. When that doesn't come, the followers > are disgruntled, and leave. That would be nice but, unfortunately, that picture is very different from what is happening in the middle east. Remember that Nazism did not gradually dissipate. ... >> Whatever the reason for travelling, the migration has led to the >> deaths of many adults and children. > > How many more are alive because they didn't die as a byproduct of war? People may get out of the war zone to a place of safety but then still want to 'flee' from that place of safety to Europe or the USA. > If war has a 30% chance of death, and migrating is less than 2%, the > latter is the better choice. That is not the choice that people face, though it seems to be a widely held belief. The first point is that those who cannot escape from Syria have no choice at all. They are trapped there. Second, those that can and do get away face a choice between options such as life in a refugee camp and life in Europe. Naturally, the latter sounds better to many and they take the risk. There is a difference between fleeing from war and 'fleeing' from a refugee camp. As I have said before, I don't in any way blame people for wanting to get themselves and their families to a better life. I do blame European governments for encouraging people to make the dangerous trip instead of taking in the needy directly from the refugee camps. Not all of Syria is a war zone. Not all who arrive claiming they have fled from Syria have fled from a place of war. I have seen video of some who say they are bored here and want to go back. > Life is not without risk. You can die > from simply eating food or touching animals or falling down, etc. > People must accept some risk of untimely death simply because they > are alive. Do you want a Nanny-state where the government protects > and controls your every action? "You can't walk there." The government says you cannot walk on a freeway (term?). That seems a pretty good law to me. ;-) James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-22 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7tpih$rp9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9103 |
On 16/01/2016 19:55, James Harris wrote: [All OT] ... > ... The current flow of > humanity must be brought to an end. It is killing people. Just last > night I saw on Sky News another three children were pulled dead from the > sea. Sadly, the news here is reporting that yet another 20 children have drowned, and at least as many adults. http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0122/762064-greece-migrants-boat/ Also, according to that report: 'Separately, three more children's bodies found' 'yesterday, 12 drowned, including children' So while the mainstream media consider the bigger death-toll worthy of report, it seems that smaller numbers of people are still dying in the cold winter Mediterranean and go unreported. Presumably such deaths are so frequent that it has become as background noise. Yet the drownings continue. As I said before, IMO the current EU policy effectively encouraging migrants to make the journey is causing deaths. Mrs Merkel's invitation may have been well intentioned but it was utterly irresponsible. Of course, ISIL has also promised to flood Europe with its jihadis. I expect most of those arrange that they have safe travel to Europe's shores. As you can probably tell, I am incredulous at some of the decisions that are being made by EU politicians. As if that's not enough, based on other reports, the main concern of EU leaders about the migrant crisis seems to be the effect it may have on the EU club rather than how to save people. For example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35375303 James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 13:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160123131706.54e58214@_> |
| In reply to | #9122 |
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:43:16 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16/01/2016 19:55, James Harris wrote: > [All OT] > [human tragedy] > > As I said before, IMO the current EU policy > effectively encouraging migrants to make the > journey is causing deaths. I thought you said that war was driving migration. I.e., these people are making a journey somewhere - no matter what. If the EU blocks, then they'll go somewhere else, say North Africa. > Of course, ISIL has also promised to flood Europe > with its jihadis. I doubt it'll exist much longer. It's strategy seems to be plunder, take the money and run, destroy anything non-Muslim, and kill anyone who has no value to them. > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35375303 The French have a very weird socialist and anarchic perspective on every situation, perhaps this is due to them once beheading politicians they opposed. They take this pattern of attack with any issue they dislike. So, I don't give them much credit for political, economic, intellectual, social or other issues, except when they inspired the founding fathers of the US to rebel. Even the reviews of recent book by the French economist Thomas Piketty was extremely biased, IMO, towards socialism, almost a ruthlessly brutal attack on capitalism. The French controlled OECD is always concocting tax schemes that would bankrupt the US and enrich other countries which have no right to our wealth. When did robbing Peter to pay Paul become just? When did Robin Hood become economic policy? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8ahaj$53c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9127 |
On 23/01/2016 18:17, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:43:16 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 16/01/2016 19:55, James Harris wrote: >> > > [All OT] > >> [human tragedy] >> >> As I said before, IMO the current EU policy >> effectively encouraging migrants to make the >> journey is causing deaths. > > I thought you said that war was driving migration. > I.e., these people are making a journey somewhere - > no matter what. If the EU blocks, then they'll > go somewhere else, say North Africa. I have seen estimates of the number migrating due to war (i.e. genuine refugees) to be between 5% and 50%. That suggests that between 50 and 95 percent are migrating for a better life. Even those who come to the EU and say they are fleeing war are not stopping in the refugee camps near their homes. Notably, those who say they are fleeing war do not stop in the first European safe country they get to. Instead, they want to get to countries where they have heard that conditions will be better. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that such migrants are fleeing refugee camps (or even that they are fleeing certain European countries in order to get to other European countries). They are not looking just for safety but also for better living conditions. Please note that I an not saying that they are not justified in wanting a better life or in wanting to get to Germany, the UK or Sweden etc. But I am saying that most of these people are not necessarily refugees. I suspect that people in Syria, in refugee camps, and in other parts of the world, have seen that migrants are getting welcomed into Europe. From reports, they have seen propaganda, falsely positive reports sent back by some who have made it etc, and they think it is worth risking the journey. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 09:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ne7p36$a2r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9103 |
On 16/01/2016 19:55, James Harris wrote: ... > German chancellor Angela > Merkel's invitation to take as many as could come was, IMO, highly > irresponsible to the point of stupidity. As above, I have long lamented the terrible decision by Mrs Merkel to welcome as many as who could get to Germany. I think it will go down as one of the worst policy decisions ever made. So I noted a comment by a migrant to Mrs Merkel: “Why couldn’t you say no from the beginning?” http://www.thelondondailynews.com/migrants-acuse-germany/ From their point of view the migrants have been invited to Europe and given the impression that if they get here they will be welcomed, at least in Germany. To people living under the oppression of an Islamic regime or in poverty or under threat that must seem like a golden opportunity to build a better and safer future for themselves and their families, if they are prepared to take the chance. What they find when they get here is very different: closed borders, wire fences, mud, tents and unsanitary conditions. Those that survive the journey mostly find themselves in large groups of people, not welcomed and not wanted. ... > * Take in the refugees who are the most needy directly from the refugee > camps as the UK is doing. Allow-in refugees only, not economic migrants > (unless they are part of the country's normal immigration processes). > Rather than the many relatively wealthy young men who are making their > own way across this would allow poor families with children and/or > infirmities to get priority. It is a far better policy to transport over the few who are both genuine refugees and who need to come here. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 09:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9pir2$ah1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9093 |
On 16/01/2016 08:29, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:32:45 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/01/2016 19:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... >>> Why doesn't the U.K. want to be part of the E.U.? ... >> * Primarily, it is undemocratic. ... >> UK law is *subject* to EU law The US Secretary of State has apparently intervened in the UK-EU debate and said he wants a strong UK to be "in a strong EU". It seems completely wrong for a representative of another country - even a friendly one - to attempt to influence the democratic choice of the British people. AIUI politicians usually stay out of political matters of other nations - especially those of their friends. I am not sure why he has thought it right to interfere in this case. Unfortunately, Mr Kerry is talking about things he doesn't know enough about. Here, Brits are drawing an analogy to help explain it to him and I thought you might find it of interest given what we have already discussed in this thread. The analogy is this: Would Mr Kerry want the US to have an open border with Mexico and for the US Supreme Court to be subject to another court which was outside the USA? No. (A thousand times No, right?) So he should not want that for the UK either. To use the vernacular, he should butt out. Presumably that analogy resonates in the USA. People in the US and the UK value their freedom. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 09:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160214091143.3e442dbb@_> |
| In reply to | #9173 |
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:56:28 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16/01/2016 08:29, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:32:45 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/01/2016 19:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> Why doesn't the U.K. want to be part of the E.U.? > > ... > > >> * Primarily, it is undemocratic. > > ... > > >> UK law is *subject* to EU law > > The US Secretary of State has apparently intervened in the UK-EU > debate and said he wants a strong UK to be "in a strong EU". I didn't read or hear what he said. So, I guess that he is saying that he foresees the UK's future as being a state which is part of a larger union. It seems rational to me. Does the UK want to be a member of the "European Union" or not? I.e., if your country signs on to the European Union agreements, then your country is a member state. From Wikipedia, it seems there has been numerous agreements over a long time period, which progressively move Europe towards a common system and more integrated union. If all your neighbors are part of the EU, what benefit does it have to be the odd man out? I'd guess it's really a matter of trust, commonality of people, and acceptance of each other and their ways. In the US, in many areas, this is a good thing. E.g., common currency, common national defense, and also localized regional laws for each state and incorporated city which serve the daily lives of the people better, etc. Everyone is simply not going to agree on everything. Having slightly different laws in different areas allows people to choose different alternatives. At worst, you may have to change what side of the road you drive on. That's been done before. The rest is adaptation to a different set of rights, most of which don't affect the common man. You can always earn rights back later on. The laws here shift this way and that. Had alcohol. Banned alcohol. Have it again. Have silencers. Banned silencers. Have them again. Gambling. Ditto. Drinking age 18, then 21, then 18 again, 21 again, and similar issues with age of consent, adulthood, etc, mainly because these issues are all state controlled. The key is to restrict rights for the common man to the state and not the federal government or centralized government. National or union level laws don't change very often. > It seems completely wrong for a representative of another country > - even a friendly one - to attempt to influence the democratic > choice of the British people. Ironic. This one is a book. I'm not even going to start. > AIUI politicians usually stay out of political > matters of other nations - especially those of their friends. I am > not sure why he has thought it right to interfere in this case. You clearly haven't been paying attention. When has the US *NOT* been involved in affairs of their friends? We usually fight wars on behalf of other countries too, at our expense. We place military bases and strategic weapons on their soil for their protection. We contribute funds for military weapons purchases. We contribute funds for health and welfare. We bug all their electronics and communications to make sure they aren't deceiving us about their intent and loyalty, etc. He who has the gold, makes the rules ... That's the problem the U.K. has with Germany, i.e., not enough "gold". > Unfortunately, Mr Kerry is talking about things he doesn't know > enough about. Here, Brits are drawing an analogy to help explain it > to him and I thought you might find it of interest given what we have > already discussed in this thread. Ok. > The analogy is this: Would Mr Kerry want the US to have an open > border with Mexico [...] I'm not sure of his personal stance, but the Obama presidential administration wants to keep an open border with Mexico. Well, it's partially closed already for safety and drug smuggling issues, so relatively open, under government administration, I guess ... More immigrants means more demand for social services, which means more votes for the Democrats which hinders Republicans. This issue isn't about what's morally correct in the U.S. It's about power. > The analogy is this: Would Mr Kerry want [...] > and for the US Supreme Court to be subject to > another court which was outside the USA? No. > (A thousand times No, right?) Isn't it already subject to some international courts via various treaties? ... I think it is. I.e., I'm not sure our Supreme Court is always absolutely 100% independent for every legal issue. For issues inside the U.S. involving U.S. citizens, it usually has final say. E.g., I think on issues involving Native Americans it doesn't, and some trade issues it doesn't due to treaties, and certain international copyright issues it doesn't due to treaties, and on national security issues it doesn't. So, it might not on certain international tax issues either. However, the U.S. seems to not sign on to tax treaties and war treaties as they are generally too restrictive or onerous. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 15:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9q821$ls3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9174 |
On 14/02/2016 14:11, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:56:28 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> The US Secretary of State has apparently intervened in the UK-EU >> debate and said he wants a strong UK to be "in a strong EU". > > I didn't read or hear what he said. So, I guess that he is saying > that he foresees the UK's future as being a state which is part > of a larger union. Yes, though he went slightly beyond that. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-spells-near-existential-threat-to-europe-says-us-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-a6871921.html. > It seems rational to me. Does the UK want to be > a member of the "European Union" or not? The UK is to hold a referendum to decide, possibly as early as June this year. Maybe the UK will end up with its independence day a bit like your 4th of July! > I.e., if your country signs > on to the European Union agreements, then your country is a member > state. From Wikipedia, it seems there has been numerous agreements > over a long time period, which progressively move Europe towards a > common system and more integrated union. Yes. > If all your neighbors > are part of the EU, what benefit does it have to be the odd man out? Only some neighbours are members of the EU, not all. Those neighbours who are independent of it have more opportunities to trade worldwide, and apparently have been doing better economically over the past few years because of that freedom. That is important because the EU's influence is declining as a share of world trade. The EU does not allow members to sign their own trade deals. The EU is also a political bloc. To be a member, states need to cede some of their sovereignty to it and I think the members have to accept any laws it passes. The EU mandates a lot of fiscal matters. One that recently caused amusement here was VAT - Value Added Tax, which might be similar to what you would call Sales Tax or maybe Purchase Tax. There are different VAT rates including zero percent for essential items such as food and children's clothes. Well, I gather the EU decided that tampons were not essential items and could not have zero percent VAT. That triggered some girls to comment on how they liked nothing more than to treat themselves to a tampon, and similar. IIRC the EU also rules on what is a biscuit (AmE: cookie) and what is a cake, for example, because that affects the rate of VAT that has to be applied. The minutiae of EU regulations is stifling. > I'd guess it's really a matter of trust, commonality of people, and > acceptance of each other and their ways. In the US, in many areas, > this is a good thing. E.g., common currency, common national defense, > and also localized regional laws for each state and incorporated city > which serve the daily lives of the people better, etc. Everyone is > simply not going to agree on everything. Having slightly different > laws in different areas allows people to choose different alternatives. The UK has something slightly similar, though on a much smaller scale. The countries of the UK: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have devolved governing assemblies with powers over their own countries. > At worst, you may have to change what side of the road you drive on. > That's been done before. The rest is adaptation to a different set > of rights, most of which don't affect the common man. You can always > earn rights back later on. The laws here shift this way and that. > Had alcohol. Banned alcohol. Have it again. Have silencers. Banned > silencers. Have them again. Gambling. Ditto. Drinking age 18, > then 21, then 18 again, 21 again, and similar issues with age of > consent, adulthood, etc, mainly because these issues are all state > controlled. The key is to restrict rights for the common man to > the state and not the federal government or centralized government. > National or union level laws don't change very often. OK. ... >> AIUI politicians usually stay out of political >> matters of other nations - especially those of their friends. I am >> not sure why he has thought it right to interfere in this case. > > You clearly haven't been paying attention. > > When has the US *NOT* been involved in affairs of their friends? > We usually fight wars on behalf of other countries too, at our > expense. We place military bases and strategic weapons on their soil > for their protection. We contribute funds for military weapons > purchases. We contribute funds for health and welfare. We bug all > their electronics and communications to make sure they aren't deceiving > us about their intent and loyalty, etc. He who has the gold, makes the > rules ... That's the problem the U.K. has with Germany, i.e., not > enough "gold". Yes, that's true. I meant that countries don't normally try to influence elections in other countries. This is not a normal election, however, as it is not a choice of which group gets to govern. It is more a choice of governmental arrangement. ... >> The analogy is this: Would Mr Kerry want the US to have an open >> border with Mexico [...] > > I'm not sure of his personal stance, but the Obama presidential > administration wants to keep an open border with Mexico. Well, > it's partially closed already for safety and drug smuggling issues, > so relatively open, under government administration, I guess ... All EU states have to allow free movement of people between themselves. That is a problem here because economic and social conditions in the different states are too divergent and that cause flows of people that nations struggle to deal with. For example, as the UK has free healthcare people come here from elsewhere in Europe to get medical help. That may sound OK but the free healthcare system is on its knees. If you go to a hospital's Accident and Emergency department there is a target for you to be seen in four hours. Yes, you could be waiting there for that long and it be considered acceptable. If that's not bad enough, the four-hour target is not always met. The demands are too great. As people have said, it is a *National* Health Service, not an international one. It was never set up to, and cannot, provide free healthcare to people from across the continent. So-called 'health tourists' are not the only cause of pressure on services but they are an unnecessary one, and the UK can do nothing about it while in the EU because of EU rules. > More immigrants means more demand for social services, which means > more votes for the Democrats which hinders Republicans. This issue > isn't about what's morally correct in the U.S. It's about power. OK. >> The analogy is this: Would Mr Kerry want [...] >> and for the US Supreme Court to be subject to >> another court which was outside the USA? No. >> (A thousand times No, right?) > > Isn't it already subject to some international courts > via various treaties? ... I think it is. I.e., I'm not > sure our Supreme Court is always absolutely 100% independent > for every legal issue. That's a surprise. I thought the US system was built on three independent pillars: executive, judicial and legislative. > For issues inside the U.S. involving > U.S. citizens, it usually has final say. E.g., I think on > issues involving Native Americans it doesn't, and some trade > issues it doesn't due to treaties, and certain international > copyright issues it doesn't due to treaties, and on national > security issues it doesn't. So, it might not on certain > international tax issues either. However, the U.S. seems > to not sign on to tax treaties and war treaties as they > are generally too restrictive or onerous. AIUI, while in the EU UK courts are subject to the European court and laws including for domestic matters. Even the UK's parliament cannot make a law which overrides rulings from the EU. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 05:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160215055546.61c0b1ed@_> |
| In reply to | #9175 |
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:58:35 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14/02/2016 14:11, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:56:28 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: <OT> > >> The US Secretary of State has apparently intervened in the UK-EU > >> debate and said he wants a strong UK to be "in a strong EU". > > > > I didn't read or hear what he said. So, I guess that he is saying > > that he foresees the UK's future as being a state which is part > > of a larger union. > > > It seems rational to me. Does the UK want to be > > a member of the "European Union" or not? > > The UK is to hold a referendum to decide, possibly as early as June > this year. Maybe the UK will end up with its independence day a bit > like your 4th of July! Canada has ten provinces. They could be the 51st through 60th US states, if they wanted that. Obviously, they see no need. Personally, I think they have roughly the same level of freedoms, but their economy would be much stronger, if they were a part of the US. The capital flows would be massive, if they adopted our legal system. The UK is in much the same position. It can exist on it's own, but should it? ... > > If all your neighbors are part of the EU, what benefit does > > it have to be the odd man out? > > Only some neighbours are members of the EU, not all. Those neighbours > who are independent of it have more opportunities to trade worldwide, > and apparently have been doing better economically over the past few > years because of that freedom. That is important because the EU's > influence is declining as a share of world trade. So, the choices are 1) fix the EU or 2) abandon it. I guess your countrymen need to decide if the EU is worth saving. Saving it could lead to short-term negative consequences. > The EU mandates a lot of fiscal matters. One that recently caused > amusement here was VAT - Value Added Tax, which might be similar to > what you would call Sales Tax or maybe Purchase Tax. I don't fully understand how VAT differs from a sales tax. It seems to be a tax on the markup of products instead of a full tax on the product. Perhaps, this is an attempt to avoid double taxation in the product chain? I don't think there is an equivalent here. Ditto for stamp duties, although we usually get charged some type of fee in similar instances, e.g., filing fee or processing fee or origination fee or notary fee, etc. Generally, sales taxes are charged for all goods sold, with the exception of grocery store food and medications in some states. Restaurants charge sales tax. Under certain circumstances, some of those taxes are refunded via tax credits on state or federal tax forms. I.e., consumer pays taxes, but businesses receive a discount or refund. Most states tax income after various credits are applied which reduces taxable income by say 13% to 20% or so, but some states have a gross receipts income tax which taxes all income or revenue. The tax rate is much lower in such states since they're taxing all income. I'm not sure whether the tax rate rate in gross receipts states is effectively higher or lower than that in other states. The big losers in such states would be businesses, i.e., unable to subtract expenses prior to revenue taxation. Citizens are taxed without being allowed to subtract expenses. Some states have no income taxes for individuals and a few have no income taxes for corporations either. Most of these type of states have much higher sales taxes and property taxes and are "under-developed" as compared to other states. I.e., they're attempting to attract business. Federal taxes must be paid by all. They're usually the lion's share of taxes. We also have a federal Alternative Minimum Tax. This was intended to tax wealthy people who had very little income and very large capital gains. Capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than income here. However, the AMT wasn't adjusted for inflation for a long time. So, the middle class had to pay it for a while. Of course, there are numerous ways businesses can sidestep taxes here, like free trade zones, various free trade tax discounts, numerous different business and legal structures, different state laws, states without income or revenue taxes. That doesn't even include profit shifting monies into offshore tax havens, which seems to work very well for large US multinationals. Of course, if the US was a territorial taxation system, i.e., only taxed revenue earned within the US like other countries, then most of this tax avoidance wouldn't be done. The US is a global system which taxes revenue on it's people and corporations no matter where that income was earned. Generally, a slight credit is provided on the tax forms to reduce "double taxation" since foreign revenue is also taxed by the country where it is earned. Yes, a simple tax system is desired by many here. Sometimes even people who had no income have to file a full set of tax forms just to prove they had no income. > There are different VAT rates including zero percent for > essential items such as food and children's clothes. States which don't charge sales tax for food and/or medications typically have larger quantities of retirees (AKA pensioners). It's always a shock traveling to an expensive state to see the high local food costs, e.g., three times as much, and then you get hit with a very expensive sales tax for the fast food too ... > Well, I gather the EU decided that tampons were not essential items > and could not have zero percent VAT. That triggered some girls to > comment on how they liked nothing more than to treat themselves to a > tampon, and similar. There is a continuing ruckus here about a "pink tax" from females. That's their term, not mine, if you think it's slightly suggestive ... Apparently, consumer product companies charge more for products marketed to women than they do to men. Women earn less than men. > IIRC the EU also rules on what is a biscuit (AmE: cookie) and what is > a cake, for example, because that affects the rate of VAT that has to > be applied. The minutiae of EU regulations is stifling. Yes, various US food producers run into issues of using "common" names for food items, only to find that such terms are restricted by a set of rules which appear to be arbitrary and capricious to those who support free trade in the US, e.g., names for wines or cheeses can only be used if the food product originated from certain regions. > > I'd guess it's really a matter of trust, commonality of people, and > > acceptance of each other and their ways. In the US, in many areas, > > this is a good thing. E.g., common currency, common national > > defense, and also localized regional laws for each state and > > incorporated city which serve the daily lives of the people better, > > etc. Everyone is simply not going to agree on everything. Having > > slightly different laws in different areas allows people to choose > > different alternatives. > > The UK has something slightly similar, though on a much smaller > scale. The countries of the UK: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern > Ireland each have devolved governing assemblies with powers over > their own countries. Well, four is big enough for a country, right? Perfect size ... ;-) The US only started with thirteen. Maybe, the UK should start it's own club and attract the countries which aren't currently part of the EU. That would provide extra bargaining power. Wait a minute, the UK has crown dependencies (3), overseas territories (14), and the commonwealth realm (16). I think the UK has plenty to work with. > > When has the US *NOT* been involved in affairs of their friends? s/their/our/ > I meant that countries don't normally try to > influence elections in other countries. Ok. I didn't take what you said that way. Maybe, he was meddling ... If so, he was probably "protecting" something he considered to be important to the US, perhaps free trade or military issues. Good luck finding out whatever that is. > All EU states have to allow free movement of people between > themselves. That is a problem here because economic and social > conditions in the different states are too divergent and that cause > flows of people that nations struggle to deal with. Populations shift in the US, but rather slowly, except for Mexican migrations into western US. As stated previously, our state borders are open, but monitored by both state and federal police for illegal or "suspicious" activity. National borders are "closed" with both state and federal border protection requiring proof of identity or other valid legal reasons to cross at legal crossings, e.g., job, travel, asylum. The national border is closed at non-legal entry points. The Canadian border was basically fully open prior to 9/11 as long as you crossed at the legal crossings, with only minimal checks in both directions. Crossing elsewhere is closed. Exiting the US to Mexico was fully open via legal exit points until recently, with absolutely no checks by the US or Mexico. You could just walk through a turnstile from the US to Mexico. Entering the US from Mexico has had strong checks for years. Planes now, of course, require federal TSA screening before boarding. I'm not sure about screening for rail or subways nowadays, not being on either in over a decade. Subways and short line railroads would fall under state laws and not the TSA, but inter-state rails could fall under TSA jurisdiction. > For example, as the UK has free healthcare people come here from > elsewhere in Europe to get medical help. Nobody likes a freeloader, but can anyone deny someone sick and in need of medical attention? ... This issue is a problem anywhere where the government offers free or subsidized medical coverage. It's part of the reason why so many people in the US don't want a "single payer" medical system, i.e., US government controlled. A "single payer" system shouldn't be confused with individual payer system. I suspect that misunderstood use of that term helped to support Obamacare. The politicians were discussing one thing, but people took it to mean something else. We want people to work to pay for what they need and earn what they have. > That may sound OK but the free healthcare system is on its knees. Nobody here listened when Canada or the UK or other countries with massive healthcare driven debt were cited as reasons to not pass Obamacare. The majority and younger people in the US now see healthcare as a fundamental right, i.e., socialist shift. Personally, I believe this to be unfortunate. The entire younger generation of "millenials" here seem to be a bunch of freeloaders. First, they wanted free healthcare. Now, they want amnesty for their college loans. Nobody is taking responsibility anymore. Capitalism is the only solution, but it seems that it is being rejected. > If you go to a hospital's Accident and Emergency department there > is a target for you to be seen in four hours. Yes, you could be > waiting there for that long and it be considered acceptable. If > that's not bad enough, the four-hour target is not always met. > The demands are too great. We _knew_ about similar problems with Canada prior to Obamacare. It still happened anyway. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 15:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9ssb4$foc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9179 |
On 15/02/2016 10:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:58:35 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14/02/2016 14:11, Rod Pemberton wrote: [All OT] A fun but interesting comparison of issues, for Mr Kerry's benefit: https://twitter.com/montie/status/699238102536228864 > Canada has ten provinces. They could be the 51st through 60th US > states, if they wanted that. Obviously, they see no need. Personally, > I think they have roughly the same level of freedoms, but their economy > would be much stronger, if they were a part of the US. The capital > flows would be massive, if they adopted our legal system. The UK is > in much the same position. It can exist on it's own, but should it? ... I don't think there is any question of the UK being on its own after leaving the EU. Folks in the UK want to continue to engage with the EU and, in fact, to engage more with the rest of the world. The question is more about the UK's future political status - somewhat like your Canada example. The choices are 1. Leave the current political arrangement (but keep trading). 2. Stay in and integrate further. 3. Stay in and try to maintain the status quo. >>> If all your neighbors are part of the EU, what benefit does >>> it have to be the odd man out? Incidentally on that, tiny Iceland has been outside the club for some time now and has commented on how helpful that has been to them. They have no intention of joining. >> Only some neighbours are members of the EU, not all. Those neighbours >> who are independent of it have more opportunities to trade worldwide, >> and apparently have been doing better economically over the past few >> years because of that freedom. That is important because the EU's >> influence is declining as a share of world trade. > > So, the choices are 1) fix the EU or 2) abandon it. Fixing the EU sounds nice but I no longer think that is feasible. The established institutions are too stuck in their ways. Britain needs more flexibility for its international relationships. The UK and the EU have long disagreed over matters but the UK gets outvoted. > I guess your countrymen need to decide if the EU is worth saving. It's funny. Even the EU's proponents say it is not very good but they want to stay in anyway, seeing it as the only option. Those who actually work with it and have invested time and love into it have become blinkered into seeing it as THE way. They keep bashing away at it and don't see any other future. Perhaps they are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome > Saving it could lead to short-term negative consequences. That sounds interesting. What negative consequences did you have in mind? ISTM that *leaving* it could result in short-term negative consequences for the UK. The reasons are complex. I won't detail them just now. Leaving would be better for the UK in the longer term. >> The EU mandates a lot of fiscal matters. One that recently caused >> amusement here was VAT - Value Added Tax, which might be similar to >> what you would call Sales Tax or maybe Purchase Tax. > > I don't fully understand how VAT differs from a sales tax. > It seems to be a tax on the markup of products instead of > a full tax on the product. Perhaps, this is an attempt to > avoid double taxation in the product chain? I don't think > there is an equivalent here. You have understood it well. The main point is that retailers add a tax (VAT) to goods they sell to the public. When I was in Vermont I think they did something similar. I say that because I found it was cheaper to nip across to New Hampshire. Or maybe New Hampshire sales tax was lower? ... I've snipped your clear explanation of tax issues. Suffice to say that we have similar complexities and tax avoidance here. ... >> Well, I gather the EU decided that tampons were not essential items >> and could not have zero percent VAT. That triggered some girls to >> comment on how they liked nothing more than to treat themselves to a >> tampon, and similar. > > There is a continuing ruckus here about a "pink tax" from females. > That's their term, not mine, if you think it's slightly suggestive ... > Apparently, consumer product companies charge more for products > marketed to women than they do to men. Women earn less than men. Same here. Recent news items, in fact. ... >> The UK has something slightly similar, though on a much smaller >> scale. The countries of the UK: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern >> Ireland each have devolved governing assemblies with powers over >> their own countries. > > Well, four is big enough for a country, right? Perfect size ... ;-) > The US only started with thirteen. Maybe, the UK should start it's > own club and attract the countries which aren't currently part of > the EU. That would provide extra bargaining power. Wait a minute, > the UK has crown dependencies (3), overseas territories (14), and > the commonwealth realm (16). I think the UK has plenty to work with. You know more about it than I do. :-) The UK's instincts are more about free trade and light regulation so I think you are absolutely right about the potential for the UK to "start it's own club" as it were, or at least to link up with an existing club. The EU, by contrast, has a different approach. It tends to be more heavy-handed, regulatory, protectionist and integrationist. I think the UK would be happier in a club which was essentially for trading only. If the UK leaves the EU club then the countries which remain could continue their political integration if they want to do so. What you say about attracting others into the UK's club, however, highlights a problem to which I don't yet have a really good answer. I'll try to explain. I will use the term "club" as it is a good one. Imagine the UK leaves the EU club. If the UK subsequently does well then more members of the EU club might want to leave. The EU's movers and shakers would hate that! They don't want to lose members. It would therefore be in their interest to prevent an independent UK from being successful. I don't mean that I expect dirty tricks but they could be unhelpful or even spiteful. When negotiating trade between the UK and the EU they could be obstructionist and unhelpful. Even if they know they will suffer economically because of it they will think it will help keep other members in their club. That unknown factor, i.e. how EU leaders will react, casts doubt over whether UK-EU trade will be affected by the UK leaving the club. My problem is I cannot be sure that existing trade will continue unchanged. Something I am working on. Scepticism about the EU project is growing across Europe as people see the effects it is having. I think the UK is the first member to have a referendum on whether to remain in or leave. ... >> For example, as the UK has free healthcare people come here from >> elsewhere in Europe to get medical help. > > Nobody likes a freeloader, but can anyone deny someone sick and > in need of medical attention? ... I thought that happened in America prior to what you call Obamacare. ... >> That may sound OK but the free healthcare system is on its knees. > > Nobody here listened when Canada or the UK or other countries with > massive healthcare driven debt were cited as reasons to not pass > Obamacare. The majority and younger people in the US now see > healthcare as a fundamental right, i.e., socialist shift. Personally, > I believe this to be unfortunate. The entire younger generation of > "millenials" here seem to be a bunch of freeloaders. First, they > wanted free healthcare. Now, they want amnesty for their college > loans. Nobody is taking responsibility anymore. Capitalism is > the only solution, but it seems that it is being rejected. The UK used to have free healthcare and free education up to degree level. Most healthcare is still free but dental care no longer is. Education is free up until something like age 18. After that, university students get loans which they are expected to pay back once they start earning over a certain amount. >> If you go to a hospital's Accident and Emergency department there >> is a target for you to be seen in four hours. Yes, you could be >> waiting there for that long and it be considered acceptable. If >> that's not bad enough, the four-hour target is not always met. >> The demands are too great. > > We _knew_ about similar problems with Canada prior to Obamacare. > It still happened anyway. Has Obamacare made any difference to those who have health insurance. Or are they unaffected? James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 05:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160216053337.76cadb5e@_> |
| In reply to | #9180 |
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:57:00 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15/02/2016 10:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:58:35 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 14/02/2016 14:11, Rod Pemberton wrote: [OT] > > I guess your countrymen need to decide if the EU is worth saving. > > It's funny. Even the EU's proponents say it is not very good but they > want to stay in anyway, seeing it as the only option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion > > Saving it could lead to short-term negative consequences. > > That sounds interesting. What negative consequences did > you have in mind? Well, nothing in particular. More an expectation that things could become worse before they become better. "It's darkest before dawn ..." > ISTM that *leaving* it could result in short-term negative > consequences for the UK. The reasons are complex. I won't > detail them just now. Leaving would be better for the UK > in the longer term. Ok. > The EU, by contrast, has a different approach. It tends to be more > heavy-handed, regulatory, protectionist and integrationist. Change doesn't have to be forced. Enough people are for change - no matter what kind of change - that change happens. > I think the UK would be happier in a club which was essentially > for trading only. Ah. That may be the crux of the issue. I.e., how do you have free trade and open markets, when other countries are trading increased political and legal control for the open markets? The issue could entirely be about accumulating and centralizing power. > Imagine the UK leaves the EU club. If the UK subsequently > does well then more members of the EU club might want to > leave. The EU's movers and shakers would hate that! They > don't want to lose members. It would therefore be in their > interest to prevent an independent UK from being successful. Sabotage. There is no guarantee that will happen. The EU may simply be indifferent to the UK, or they may want secretly desire the UK leaves it. The latter would give someone more power and control over the EU group. It would also give them immense bargaining power over the UK should the UK decide to rejoin in the distant future. I.e., the UK may be far worse off if it's forced to exit and then rejoins later. Or, did you mean the EU already has the legal option to prohibit the UK from leaving the EU? ... > I don't mean that I expect dirty tricks but they could > be unhelpful or even spiteful. When negotiating trade > between the UK and the EU they could be obstructionist > and unhelpful. Even if they know they will suffer > economically because of it they will think it will help > keep other members in their club. True. > Scepticism about the EU project is growing across Europe > as people see the effects it is having. I think the UK is > the first member to have a referendum on whether to remain > in or leave. That's a strong message. It may be enough to shock leadership into realizing that there are some major structural problems with the EU as it is. The economies and legal systems of the EU countries are at widely different stages of development. The politics are all over the political spectrum. Some countries embrace democracy, some socialism, ... Maybe, a tiered approach to government and economics would work, if not already implemented. > >> For example, as the UK has free healthcare people come here from > >> elsewhere in Europe to get medical help. > > > > Nobody likes a freeloader, but can anyone deny someone sick and > > in need of medical attention? ... > > I thought that happened in America prior to what you call Obamacare. It was "limited." Usually, the hospitals subsidized much of the cost of people without coverage at their own expense due to local or state regulations requiring treatment of people in emergencies. IIRC, some care was subsidized by the state via a cut of various random taxes for the uninsured, e.g., uninsured motorist accidents. And, various charities would cover medical bills for certain types of people, e.g. poor, children, minorities. I.e., "socialism" via capitalist means. Basically, what was denied was basic coverage, which you were expected to provide for yourself, but weren't required to do so. Also, extreme medical expenses weren't covered, such as for the sick who needed healthcare that only a millionaire could afford. Healthy people simply didn't buy healthcare. Many poor people here refused government provided coverage prior to Obamacare. There is a strong belief in many parts of the US that opposes any help from the government. This is especially true in the South and Appalachia. People there will buy illegal "moonshine" before they'll buy taxed alcohol just to spite the government. They'll willingly become criminals instead of accepting help from the government, e.g., for food or income. This is also true in parts of the West, which are usually rural areas also. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA > Has Obamacare made any difference to those who have > health insurance. Or are they unaffected? I personally haven't seen any issue in wait times. Primarily, the negative affects of putting many millions of people onto healthcare without solving the increasing healthcare costs issue for the healthcare industry are: 1) a loss of freedom and money due to the requirement that healthy people must pay for healthcare insurance which they don't need or want 2) a massive increase in healthcare costs for most The latter is due to numerous reasons, but primarily a total failure by the "brilliant" economist who designed much of the plan to understand economics: a) many millions more people who are on healthcare who aren't paying their own way and need coverage b) the legislation not solving the issue of increasing costs for the healthcare industry which are due to: b-i) malpractice lawsuits b-ii) new, expensive medical technologies b-iii) newly patented, expensive drugs b-iv) excessive medical testing to avoid lawsuits c) the legislation not creating an actual reduction in healthcare costs but reduces those costs via government subsidies which are supplied from taxing medical supply and medical device companies, which just causes those companies to pass those costs on to us somewhere else d) the legislation not charging a fair market price for coverage in urban, suburban, and rural areas but instead redistributes medical costs from expensive, urban regions of the country to those in lower cost areas suburban and rural areas e) legal restrictions on insurance providers which force them to bear the brunt of the extra costs which is causing them to exit the market or file for bankruptcy f) the government effectively legalizing a Ponzi scheme, which requires young healthy people, middle class whites, and the deserving elderly to pay for poor urban, predominantly black, minorities and city dwellers who are generally more wealthy than suburbanites, i.e., redistribution There are definite racial retribution undertones here. Blacks here are always looking for ways to "sock it to the white man" or "screw whitey" or "hurt the crackers" or "screw the man" etc rhetoric, or increase "free" government handouts and social programs for minorities, even over 150 years after the end of slavery. The current President of the US is no different. It's the same thing decade after decade by the black minority. Hurt whites. Freeload off the government. Attack cops. Riot. Pretend to be a victim. Claim discrimination. Claim reparations. Minority entitlement. Repeat. This is all driven by a small group of radical black individuals known as "race baiters" here. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 06:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <najhng$ffq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9181 |
On 16/02/2016 10:33, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:57:00 +0000 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: All OT. ... >> It's funny. Even the EU's proponents say it is not very good but they >> want to stay in anyway, seeing it as the only option. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion A good link. ... >> Imagine the UK leaves the EU club. If the UK subsequently >> does well then more members of the EU club might want to >> leave. The EU's movers and shakers would hate that! They >> don't want to lose members. It would therefore be in their >> interest to prevent an independent UK from being successful. > > Sabotage. There is no guarantee that will happen. > The EU may simply be indifferent to the UK, or they may > want secretly desire the UK leaves it. The latter would > give someone more power and control over the EU group. > It would also give them immense bargaining power over > the UK should the UK decide to rejoin in the distant > future. I.e., the UK may be far worse off if it's > forced to exit and then rejoins later. Yes, though that seems unlikely. The UK has been operating as 1/28th of the EU yet the UK has the world's 5th largest GDP and (along with other countries) has been essentially subsidising the EU. Even the EU Commission president said that in his opinion they need the UK but the UK doesn't need the EU. Of course, the truth is that both need each other but for trading, not for political integration. > Or, did you mean the EU already has the legal option to > prohibit the UK from leaving the EU? ... No, they cannot prevent the UK from leaving. The UK parliament chose to cede some powers to the EU. That could just be repealed but there is an EU process for a country to withdraw in an ordered manner (EU Article 50, IIRC). ... >> Scepticism about the EU project is growing across Europe >> as people see the effects it is having. I think the UK is >> the first member to have a referendum on whether to remain >> in or leave. > > That's a strong message. It may be enough to shock leadership > into realizing that there are some major structural problems > with the EU as it is. The economies and legal systems of > the EU countries are at widely different stages of development. Yes, the disparity between the countries is marked and is a cause of problems for both poorer and richer countries as people migrate for a wealthier life. > The politics are all over the political spectrum. Some > countries embrace democracy, some socialism, ... Maybe, a > tiered approach to government and economics would work, if > not already implemented. You are right. Some leaders even want to bring Turkey into the EU. They think it will help Turkey become more democratic. But that seems to me and many to be wishful thinking. Turkey is 95% or more Muslim (whereas Europe has mainly a Christian background). I don't mind what religion a person professes but the Christian/Muslim difference shows in tolerance levels. Turkey brought in a law in 2005/8 that made it a criminal offence to insult the leader, government or the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_%28Turkish_Penal_Code%29 Insulting the government is what we do in the UK. ;-) Notably, that new law was brought in to make Turkey *more* western. Where they are coming from is draconian, oppressive and intolerant. Such attitudes infiltrate the population and do not dissipate overnight. ... > There is a strong belief in many parts of the US that opposes > any help from the government. This is especially true in the > South and Appalachia. People there will buy illegal "moonshine" > before they'll buy taxed alcohol just to spite the government. > They'll willingly become criminals instead of accepting help > from the government, e.g., for food or income. This is also > true in parts of the West, which are usually rural areas also. I find that fascinating. Do they also refuse to use government-provided roads? When they come to a river do they supply their own means to cross it so that they don't have to use a bridge that the government has built? I thought the idea of taxes is that we give the government money for it to spend on facilities and services that benefit us all. ... > There are definite racial retribution undertones here. > Blacks here are always looking for ways to "sock it > to the white man" or "screw whitey" or "hurt the crackers" > or "screw the man" etc rhetoric, or increase "free" > government handouts and social programs for minorities, > even over 150 years after the end of slavery. The > current President of the US is no different. It's the > same thing decade after decade by the black minority. > Hurt whites. Freeload off the government. Attack cops. > Riot. Pretend to be a victim. Claim discrimination. > Claim reparations. Minority entitlement. Repeat. > This is all driven by a small group of radical > black individuals known as "race baiters" here. We don't have any significant amount of that here. People of all colours work together and have broadly the same opportunities. There used to be a lot of prejudice in the 1970s but that has gone now. What *is* still here is a sense of grievance and blame. It has come up recently. Some groups of people complain about being disadvantaged but from what I have seen the figures do not support their assertion. Of course, anyone needs 'the breaks' but much of a person's progress here seems to be down to effort. James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 18:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20160224180359.56592d10@_> |
| In reply to | #9204 |
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 06:16:49 +0000 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16/02/2016 10:33, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:57:00 +0000 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is a strong belief in many parts of the US that opposes > > any help from the government. This is especially true in the > > South and Appalachia. People there will buy illegal "moonshine" > > before they'll buy taxed alcohol just to spite the government. > > They'll willingly become criminals instead of accepting help > > from the government, e.g., for food or income. This is also > > true in parts of the West, which are usually rural areas also. > > I find that fascinating. Do they also refuse to use > government-provided roads? Yes, sometimes, but probably not for the reason of opposing the government, i.e., they need a secret route for unlawful activity. > When they come to a river do they supply > their own means to cross it so that they don't have to use a bridge > that the government has built? Probably not. > I thought the idea of taxes is that we give the government money > for it to spend on facilities and services that benefit us all. To this day, many people are opposed to taxes here, even if they use and understand the benefits of public roads, public schools, etc. I'd say this is true even in lower class, middle class, and even upper classes. Small rebel movements actually claim that taxes are illegal, or that the laws of the federal government don't apply to them. These voices seem to be getting louder. Some people just don't like authority. This stuff is like playground rumors as a child. These beliefs are passed down generation to generation and never seem to die. Don't forget how this country got it start, i.e., opposing British taxes on tea and molasses used for rum. Of course, that too was inflamed by the French who didn't tax ... I.e., there is plenty of historical evidence to suggest France used the colonial U.S. in a financial proxy war with Britain. > > There are definite racial retribution undertones here. > > Blacks here are always looking for ways to "sock it > > to the white man" or "screw whitey" or "hurt the crackers" > > or "screw the man" etc rhetoric, or increase "free" > > government handouts and social programs for minorities, > > even over 150 years after the end of slavery. The > > current President of the US is no different. It's the > > same thing decade after decade by the black minority. > > Hurt whites. Freeload off the government. Attack cops. > > Riot. Pretend to be a victim. Claim discrimination. > > Claim reparations. Minority entitlement. Repeat. > > This is all driven by a small group of radical > > black individuals known as "race baiters" here. > > We don't have any significant amount of that here. People of all > colours work together and have broadly the same opportunities. There > used to be a lot of prejudice in the 1970s but that has gone now. > > What *is* still here is a sense of grievance and blame. It has come > up recently. Some groups of people complain about being disadvantaged > but from what I have seen the figures do not support their assertion. > Of course, anyone needs 'the breaks' but much of a person's progress > here seems to be down to effort. As mentioned before, I doubt that it'll end any time soon here. The lack of basic jobs here means that economic parity for minorities and social equality is unlikely to arrive any time soon. I would say not fixing the economy was the largest failing of President Obama. I would've helped minorities immensely, but his mental model doesn't think Republican. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 06:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nau3n3$u0k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9212 |
On 24/02/2016 23:03, Rod Pemberton wrote: All OT ... > As mentioned before, I doubt that it'll end any time soon here. > The lack of basic jobs here means that economic parity for > minorities and social equality is unlikely to arrive any time > soon. I would say not fixing the economy was the largest failing > of President Obama. I would've helped minorities immensely, but > his mental model doesn't think Republican. ISTM that America desperately needs a stronger, more right-wing president next time. Yet from the albeit little I have seen the GOP candidates are not of sufficient intellectual quality. It seems that Trump will get the nomination but I can imagine him turning America into a nastier, more divided place, and he seems self-obsessed and overconfident. Yet the Democrats have Mrs Clinton. I have seen people say she too would be a bad choice though I am less clear as to why. Is there a chance of anyone else challenging as an independent in the same way that, IIRC, Ross Perot did a number of years ago? If not, what is the best option for you guys? James
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 00:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19e60fbf-8417-4ef0-99a7-85ee8a58eea9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9220 |
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 10:25:31 PM UTC-8, James Harris wrote: ... > Yet the Democrats have Mrs Clinton. I have seen people say she too would > be a bad choice though I am less clear as to why. I don't know for sure. But she looks to me like a sly fox of sorts. And there's some interesting stuff about here (I guess, this can be easily fact-checked?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL8T18zwRpg Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.development
csiph-web