Rioting in London

[sstype]

LOL I'm glad I don't have to write a serious response to this. it reads like it was written by a robber baron in the 1890s - and actually part of it was (the 'divide the money equally and in five years blah blah').

In a curious way, people like Danger are as naive as the hippies they despise on the Left; Utopian Capitalists instead of Utopian Socialists.

I stopped taking people like Danger seriously when his Libertarian High Priestess of "F*ck you, I Got Mineism" Ayn Rand collected Social Security and Medicare.

And before any glibertarians come back with “but…but…she paid into it so there’s no hypocrisy”, Rand herself wrote,

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

She, like many of her followers, may have been a raging hypocrite, but at least she was counted on to look after her own self-interest.

 

[Gaucho]

Oh hang on, the police have just been told they are now allowed to use water cannons!!!!!!!!!! FUKCING LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

This is when you know political correctness and human rights have gone off the deep end! You have people injuring police, throwing rocks at them, burning places down and taunting police. And 4 days later the police just get armed with a giant water pistol? Am I understanding this right? This is what the world has come to? FUKC ME. :trouble:

 

[Jariel]

Oh hang on, the police have just been told they are now allowed to use water cannons!!!!!!!!!! FUKCING LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

This is when you know political correctness and human rights have gone off the deep end! You have people injuring police, throwing rocks at them, burning places down and taunting police. And 4 days later the police just get armed with a giant water pistol? Am I understanding this right? This is what the world has come to? FUKC ME. :trouble:

I know, it's pathetic.

When you think how proud Britain once was and how instrumental our army and navy were in WW2, it's shocking to see the entire country held hostage by a bunch of kids and our spineless leaders being walked over like doormats.

I'm watching the news now and they're acting like this is all over now and we can go back to our normal lives. Ridiculous. This will happen again and will keep happening because if they can get away with it for 4 days and the only deterrant is, like you say, a giant water pistol (at a push) then it makes logical sense for them to do it again.

 

[wait_out]

Oh grow up Danger. Anyway, did you guys hear this BBC sound clip? The economic issues are a bit of a distraction. There's no political or economic agenda... even ANARCHISTS are denouncing the riots. Yeah some kids are frustrated, but those kids could just as easily protest as riot. As well, there's a lot of well-off people with decent lives who've been caught by police, exactly the same as in Vancouver. The fact is, plenty of people enjoy smashing windows, burning cars, and getting $500 phones for free... yep some people won't do it, but short of developing better human beings the only practical way to stop this is a larger security presence and more severe consequences. Maybe I'm a little cynical but I think the world is always full of smart sociopathic people, who will be happy to blade others to get ahead if the opportunity presents itself. There is supposedly a bullying epidemic in our schools -- why would anyone assume that the same kids act differently on the streets? Western society is so safe and secure we have almost convinced ourselves that bad people among us don't exist, whereas I think the Turk and Kurdish communities still know this and thus managed to defend their neighborhoods.

I don't think the looting is really the anomaly. Those people will always be out there, rich or poor. The issue is we've created a Western society where we won't defend each other and depend on the state for protection, and now it's failing due to being under-resourced, poorly managed and legally handcuffed. The only real option is to unite your block with baseball bats, though its still discouraged despite its effectiveness.

What's also new, is that the looters organized over an encrypted network with enough mass and coordination to overwhelm the security reponse... then hacked and threatened the network when it pledged to cooperate with police. Flash mobs, organized for retail theft, have appeared in the states too.... law enforcement is not keeping up with the evolution of crime

 

[KarmaSutra]

Looks like the pageantry and extravagant excess of the Royal Wedding was all worth it.

Where's V when you need him?

 

[d!ckmojo]

I support you Danger, your arguments are unassailable, Leporello is a typical vagina squelshing leftard cvnt bag saggy tit worshipping fvck wit. The only reason leftards think that way is because of feminist influences corroding their brain. A real man know you build your wealth yourself, you don't rely on the government, you don't rely on socialism, you build it yourself and you defend it yourself.

 

[Quiksilver]

Danger, this is a dating forum on the Internet.

The mediocre of the world have no idea what it's like to be in the top tax bracket and to fund the drug habits and subsistence of the 'underclass'.

Capitalism is not so much an economic principle as a moral principle:

One should not be forced to support the values of anyone else except himself. His money, his property, and his life belong to him and him alone.

--

The riots in London do not appear political in nature and it looks like a seething underclass of dependents who are hungry and bored, destroying the civilization around them brick by brick.

Naturally the homeowners and shopkeepers have already voted in favor of disarming themselves, therefore they haven't really earned my pity.

 

[Drdeee]

NATO should give rioters in London an embassy and start bombing British Police and military targets.....just like they do in Lybia. :crackup:


By the way, watching a program yesterday, made by reporters on the ground. There so called rebels announce they took control of a city, western media repeats. Media on the ground drives through city, no rebels, no fighting, nobody ever fought there. It's propaganda about Lybia that you watching on your TV screens. Who to say that it's not propaganda there about British rioting.


I say there is a precedent, now let's repeat it and fund the rebels with arms and money, and drop bombs on queen. :yes:

 

[Strelok]

Danger, this is a dating forum on the Internet.

The mediocre of the world have no idea what it's like to be in the top tax bracket and to fund the drug habits and subsistence of the 'underclass'.

Capitalism is not so much an economic principle as a moral principle:

One should not be forced to support the values of anyone else except himself. His money, his property, and his life belong to him and him alone.

--

The riots in London do not appear political in nature and it looks like a seething underclass of dependents who are hungry and bored, destroying the civilization around them brick by brick.

Naturally the homeowners and shopkeepers have already voted in favor of disarming themselves, therefore they haven't really earned my pity.

Good points Quick. I am just shocked at the entitlement attitude of people anywhere, especially on a knowledge filled dating forum that despises the same entitlement viewpoint of women in modern society.

Guys we understood your point and hardly someone can disagree when it comes of a man who has the right to decide how to spend his hard earned money.
Trust me I know socialism very well and I know the damages it does to economy, as much as Im against all those form of legal robbery like alimony, funds for the cronically unemployed.
But what other posters are saying, is simply what leper hinted here:

Translation: People should be allowed to ruthlessly pursue their own self interest without regard to the welfare of other human beings and the affect their actions might have on them.

^^^
This

I posted somewhere in the second page saying that the people rioting are no different than a pressure cooker who reached the maximum point.

What I mean was that those in power (elitès) who happen to be the same people that own most of the wealth and influence society through media (which they own as well) actively put pressure on the average citizen in order to alterate his behaviour.

They want the average citizen to take part in the race for goods, they actively convince him through media that if he doesn dirve a fast car, doesnt own a 25' flat screen and doesnt waste dozens of euros in clothes and places he is nothing, he is actually a lesser human being who doesnt deserve credit, reputation or love.
Advertisments, tv shows etc.

They do this because the race for goods actually make them even more rich and powerful, they frustrate people into buying useless stuff and those who cannot are even more frustrated and need more entarteinment to keep their minds busy.

This frustration increase day after day just like the pressure on a pressure cooker and once there is a slight chance to release all the pressure is released with no intermidiate phases.

Nobody is bashing the average shop owner who does his best to feed his family, what some are saying (me at least) is that those big corporation or banks that got destroyed during riots asked for it, not the people that work there but the owners who are the same reason of their own damage.

Nobody is angry at someone else if he gets rich honestly, people is angry at those who get rich through manipulation, legal robbery and all those means who damage the simple people.

That doesnt mean the police doesnt have the right to use necessaru force to stop it.

To make it simple what about a girl who lead guys to get drinks, lead them with kissed to be escorted home and tease them in lingerie to have them massagging her feet then when satisfied command the guys to leave with blue balls.
Is she responsible in a certain misure about a rape?

 

[sstype]

Social,

A position never deserves insults, it deserves a reasonable counterpoint.

I expect a reasonable response to a post like this one I quoted below. Not to be called a "robber baron" and that I am not worth responding to.

It is a reasonable assertation to say that people have to learn to live within their means and there are ways to do it. There is nothing close minded about it, it is a simple fact.

Here's your counterpoint

I financed my own education, worked through college, own my own car free and clear, financed my CPA exam and study materials, no debt whatsoever, have 10 months emergency fund saved, pay my own health insurance out of pocket, pay about 25% of my take-home pay in taxes, plan on starting an IRA soon, plan on starting a part-time business in addition to my full-time job. So much for me being an "entitled non-producer"

All of that without being smug and elitist, having this obsessive paranoia about the "scheming poor underclass", or looking down my nose at others just because they didn't all work 3 jobs and walked uphill in the snow both ways to school....I'm not discounting your hard work and efforts but in a comparable 1st world country your education would have been provided to you without the need to worry how to pay for it. It's a worthwhile public investment: a highly educated/skilled worker equals a high paying job which equals higher taxes.


If you and others think we as a country are better off if everyone juggles 3 low-paying jobs and eats ramen noodles to afford education and healthcare then I hope you're ok when other countries eventually catch up and surpass us economically because they made the practical decision to invest in the health and education of their citizens.

I guess all of those soldiers returning home from WWII were entitled spoiled liberal pansies because the G.I. bill (aka the government) financed their educations. Anyone who didn't suffer like you is "entitled".....grow up.

 

[sstype]

Danger,

You see education as a privilege that must be earned, I see it as a worthwhile investment. That's why we have K-12 public education. I don't see it as something for nothing. A skilled, educated person pays off for society in multiples of the initial cost. The rest of the world understands and values the importance of an educated citizenry and are catching up accordingly, I'm baffled why we don't.

 

[wait_out]

I'm surprised you guys stick so tightly to social welfare as the only discussion point. If you don't believe in honest work or have some kind of a work ethic, social welfare becomes a black hole -- but the true issue is cultural or social. Subsidizing education or housing for a ghetto kid who is aspiring to become a GP, is totally different from writing a check for a wannabe gangster who considers work beneath him and views receiving benefits as outsmarting the gov't. If the kids want to be gangsters and not GPs you have a problem.

The issue here isn't whether social welfare is a good or bad thing; the question is if implementation is even possible, and what kind of cultural crisis exists if bad attitudes become prevalent. Government policies should ALWAYS be to protect a large middle class because it creates political and thus economic stability. That's the key to a developed nation and the GINI coefficient is roughly proof of that. If incomes become polarized, you end up with class war politics and eventually violence such as in Latin America from the 50's onwards.

That's why "no social welfare" capitalism *has* to be a moral argument -- it isn't practical and in the long run it's self-destructive vis-a-vis the global competition. "I intend to destroy the middle class so I'm richer and get more babes" isn't going to fly anywhere, though you can't rebuild the middle class if the underclass chooses self-destruction over self-improvement. So in this case looters emptying retail stores and execs destroying the economy through fraud are really just mirrors of each other. And yes Danger -- when people give up on the economic means of wealth (work, business) because the political means of wealth (theft, fraud, extortion) are more attractive, that society is going to go downhill. I'm not quite sure how bad things are but I feel like we are on the decline.

 

[user43770]

I'm surprised you guys stick so tightly to social welfare as the only discussion point. If you don't believe in honest work or have some kind of a work ethic, social welfare becomes a black hole -- but the true issue is cultural or social. Subsidizing education or housing for a ghetto kid who is aspiring to become a GP, is totally different from writing a check for a wannabe gangster who considers work beneath him and views receiving benefits as outsmarting the gov't. If the kids want to be gangsters and not GPs you have a problem.

The issue here isn't whether social welfare is a good or bad thing; the question is if implementation is even possible, and what kind of cultural crisis exists if bad attitudes become prevalent. Government policies should ALWAYS be to protect a large middle class because it creates political and thus economic stability. That's the key to a developed nation and the GINI coefficient is roughly proof of that. If incomes become polarized, you end up with class war politics and eventually violence such as in Latin America from the 50's onwards.

That's why "no social welfare" capitalism *has* to be a moral argument -- it isn't practical and in the long run it's self-destructive vis-a-vis the global competition. "I intend to destroy the middle class so I'm richer and get more babes" isn't going to fly anywhere, though you can't rebuild the middle class if the underclass chooses self-destruction over self-improvement. So in this case looters emptying retail stores and execs destroying the economy through fraud are really just mirrors of each other. And yes Danger -- when people give up on the economic means of wealth (work, business) because the political means of wealth (theft, fraud, extortion) are more attractive, that society is going to go downhill. I'm not quite sure how bad things are but I feel like we are on the decline.

The only way to expand the middle class is by creating job opportunities. You do this by creating an environment where businesses can thrive. I've always been under the impression that this is accomplished by lessening the burden on those that would be doing the hiring i.e. business owners.

The welfare state will never create a bigger middle class. If anything, the welfare state keeps poor people in their current situations. People tend to become dependent on those free handouts. Sure, some of them decide to pull themselves up by their boot straps, but as soon as they start making a little money they get put in a higher tax bracket, which in turn leads to the loss of the benefits they were receiving. Turns out life was a lot easier when they were getting free handouts, so they go back.

 

[romangod]

Socialism works perfectly until you run out of other people's money.


Cheers!

 

[sstype]

I see *higher* education as a privilege. Too many people in K-12 could not give two $hits about how well they do.

Hell, even now, there are huge numbers of kids who drop out of College because all they want to do is party. Imagine how much worse it would be if it were tax-payer funded?

This is a cultural issue we need to address. Developed countries with subsidized education like Japan and Germany don't allow students to get away with drinking and partying all the time. I agree that throwing money at education will do nothing unless we address the anti-intellectualism rampant among young Americans.

 

[element0]

This is a cultural issue we need to address. Developed countries with subsidized education like Japan and Germany don't allow students to get away with drinking and partying all the time. I agree that throwing money at education will do nothing unless we address the anti-intellectualism rampant among young Americans.

I agree, I think it has a lot to do with the way college is presented in America. It is presented as an experience (which is certainly is), but not enough as a means to an end, ie acquiring the skills necessary to obtain a job.

If you don't have any idea what you are going to college for, you probably shouldn't be going; take some time off and figure out what it is you want to do, unless you are getting a free ride for academics/athletics. If you are borrowing money to go to college, at least make it worth your while and take a math/science field.

We need more practical information about college, and less romanticizing about hookup culture/drinking/etc.

 

[joverby]

No matter how ambitious(Or whatever term you want to insinuate laziness) you are it is a fact that everyone can't be uber successful. You NEED a lower / middle class.

Therefore, it only makes sense to ensure those people are able to get good jobs(via education and not allowing corporations to move out of the country w/ the same tax breaks, but benefits of being a US corp.) So they can keep buying goods and services to keep the machine running.

The elite will always be there, on top. The problems start when they start getting more greedy and tilting the limited amount of money more and more in their favor.

FDR was a real president , actually for the good of the country and the country-men. Rich on his own accord, but saw the big picture. He knew what it took to keep the machine running. FDR called the elites "economic royalists".

We desperately need another FDR. I believe Sen. Bernie Sanders is close, but probably not rich enough to make it happen. Although he is an independant. Which is the only reason he is such a honest / legit politician that actually wants the country back on track. He's got no favors to pay and no backs to stratch.

[Edit]: You can also add stipulations to public funded higher education guys. Don't act so black & white. i.e cutting it off for poor performance. Also, as sstype said and I was explaining it's about maintaining our "machine" and improving it. What we're doing now clearly isn't working and if you think otherwise just because your individually well off, youre a moron.

 

[user43770]

[Edit]: You can also add stipulations to public funded higher education guys. Don't act so black & white. i.e cutting it off for poor performance. Also, as sstype said and I was explaining it's about maintaining our "machine" and improving it. What we're doing now clearly isn't working and if you think otherwise just because your individually well off, youre a moron.

There are already plenty of college grads who can't find a job. How is publicly funding millions more going to solve anything? Seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars to me. I agree with you about keeping jobs here in the states, though.

 

[joverby]

Not allowing to work would be defined as handing out trillions of free money(No interest & No other stipulations like forcing them to cap interest) to mega-banks. Instead of letting them fail. That my friend is stolen money from the tax payers if you want to talk about stolen money.

"If they're too big to fail, they're too big to exist." -Sen. Bernie Sanders (A rough quote)

It would've been much better served giving it to the people to pay off their back loans. Eliminating(albeit temporary) two problems at once instead of just one problem. That problem being people didn't have money to give the banks. So we put a band-aid on it by giving the banks the money. Instead of giving the people the money to pay them, killing two birds with one stone.

 

[element1286]

No matter how ambitious(Or whatever term you want to insinuate laziness) you are it is a fact that everyone can't be uber successful. You NEED a lower / middle class.

Therefore, it only makes sense to ensure those people are able to get good jobs(via education and not allowing corporations to move out of the country w/ the same tax breaks, but benefits of being a US corp.) So they can keep buying goods and services to keep the machine running.[/QUOTE]

I definitely agree about the tax breaks, for big corporations in general, not just the ones shipping jobs overseas. Most companies structure their businesses in ways so they don't have to pay taxes. Flat tax corporate profits, no loopholes. But considering government and big business go hand in hand, this will never happen. And it is both parties at fault.

The elite will always be there, on top. The problems start when they start getting more greedy and tilting the limited amount of money more and more in their favor.

Greed will never go away, there isn't much we can do about the human condition to always want more.

FDR was a real president , actually for the good of the country and the country-men. Rich on his own accord, but saw the big picture. He knew what it took to keep the machine running. FDR called the elites "economic royalists".

Meh, he at least had a spine and did what he believed, not sure I'd argue his policies were correct, but that's immaterial.

We desperately need another FDR. I believe Sen. Bernie Sanders is close, but probably not rich enough to make it happen. Although he is an independant. Which is the only reason he is such a honest / legit politician that actually wants the country back on track. He's got no favors to pay and no backs to stratch.

You can't get elected without incurring favors to pay back, politics is an ugly business. But it would be nice to get a guy in there that said f-it to all the favors, and did what was best for the country.

[Edit]: You can also add stipulations to public funded higher education guys. Don't act so black & white. i.e cutting it off for poor performance. Also, as sstype said and I was explaining it's about maintaining our "machine" and improving it. What we're doing now clearly isn't working and if you think otherwise just because your individually well off, youre a moron.

[/QUOTE]

A better idea would be to get the universities to cut back on some of their spending, and start accepting less kids for more purposeful degrees; math/science majors type where college is actually necessary. There are just too many people are getting degrees and expecting a 50k a year job within 3 years.

Taking some practical software classes and actually learn how to use everyday programs like Acess, Excel, Lotus, etc will get one just as far in business than a 4 year degree from a state university.