In America leftists accuse Tea Party of terrorism…

In London, leftists are rioting and burning down the place for a third day. The crowds are primarily all minorities, mostly black, and it’s very obvious despite the LSM’s attempt to avoid that sore subject, and the fact what’s the problem again is multiculturalism gone haywire. I guess these peasants aren’t happy with thier share of the wealth redistribution anymore.

And it doesn’t end in London. I hear crowds of black youth have been running rampant in Wisconsin, Chicago, and Philly. Welcome to the new age, I guess.

UPDATE: Heard on the news this morning that someone died last night during the riots. Will provide details when i get them.

UPDATE2: I was not alone in linking this disaster to the damage done by liberal dogma fed to the masses for decades:

If you live a normal life of absolute futility, which we can assume most of this week’s rioters do, excitement of any kind is welcome. The people who wrecked swathes of property, burned vehicles and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame. Most have no jobs to go to or exams they might pass. They know no family role models, for most live in homes in which the father is unemployed, or from which he has decamped.

Nobody has ever dared suggest to them that they need feel any allegiance to anything, least of all Britain or their community. They do not watch royal weddings or notice Test matches or take pride in being Londoners or Scousers or Brummies. Not only do they know nothing of Britain’s past, they care nothing for its present. They have their being only in video games and street-fights, casual drug use and crime, sometimes petty, sometimes serious. The notions of doing a nine-to-five job, marrying and sticking with a wife and kids, taking up DIY or learning to read properly, are beyond their imaginations.

Multiculturalism and the liberal belief every choice or belief is fine and shouldn’t be judged, that there is not a better set of moral standards in one group compared to another, and that there is no distinction between what used to be considered dysfunctional at best and today passes for normal, have given us these people. We shouldn’t act surprised or shy away from saying how they came to be.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    I hear crowds of black youth have been running rampant in Wisconsin, Chicago, and Philly. Welcome to the new age, I guess.

    What? Crowd of protesters maybe but there isn’t really a racial component to it.

    Thumb up 1

  2. West Virginia Rebel

    I think it’s a combination of both the failure of multiculturalism and that English minorities are still expected to clean up after the upper classes. This is London’s version of the Rodney King riots.

    Also, if you mean the mobs in Wisconsin, they were apparently targeting people who were white. The rest seem to be organized flash robberies.

    I also have to wonder if this means that David Cameron is going to be sacked.

    Thumb up 1

  3. HARLEY

    This is kinda similar to the Wilding, type assaults in the northeast a few years back, but better organized… hopefully this fad too, will pass.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CzarChasm

    No racial component to it? Look, I’m no hater of any person simply by virtue of their race or religion or what have you, but Americans better wake up to the truth of what’s going on here. You’ve got a president and an Attorney General who have been very public in their opposition to extending civil rights protections to whites. The president describes white cops just routinely investigating a report of suspicious activity as having “acted stupidly” against a black home owner. Holder dismisses a case against the Black Panthers that had already accepted a plea deal in the voter intimidation case in Philly. These flash mobs are nothing more than trickle down thuggery. Their Dear Leader is as guilty of fomenting this atmosphere as the first punk on Face Book to suggest it to his gangsta wannabe cohorts.

    Anyone who can say with a straight face that there is no racial component to these mobs has either not been keeping up with the news, or feels the need to keep their readers’ heads forever buried in the sand. Please explain how the following stories could possibly be free of any racial component considering the respective races of the perpetrators and the victims:

    Wisconsin State Fair – Hundreds reported attacking whites and leaving blacks alone in the melee.

    Man beaten, taunted for being white on NY subway train.

    YouTube vid of local Detroit news report about flash mob destroying a convenience store. Just coincidence I reckon that all the participants have melanin-enriched skin? Yep, no racial component at all, right?

    How about a white victim getting jumped by two black females and beat into a seizure? Does that count as racially motivated? Notice also how much “help” is offered from standers by, or the grotesque thrill in the voice of the videographer as he warns the two attackers to get lost because the cops are going to be there soon to scrape the seizuring victim off the floor.

    I could go on for literally a hundred examples of animalistic barbarity being perpetrated by blacks against whites, all taken from just the last year or so, without repeating a single story.

    There are myriad explanations for why this is happening with such frequency right now. From the government-induced destruction of the black family, to the skyrocketing percentages of single motherhood in the black community, to the move away from faith, to the ultra high rates of unemployment in black neighborhoods, all of these things greatly contribute to the problem. But to say that just because there are valid explanations for it that you shouldn’t recognize that there is indeed a racial component to it is absurd, but more to the point, it’s dangerous.

    People better get themselves trained in vigilant employment of situational awareness as this economic crash worsens. We’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg as far as what animals all people can become, regardless of race or any other demographic considerations, when they become resource-deprived with no way on the horizon to improve it through legal means. This is only the beginning. The shit has only just begun to hit the fan. Ignore it, or call it something other than what it is, at your own peril.

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  5. CM

    I think what’s happeneing in London is that opportunitists and bored kids (it’s the holidays) have taken advantage of a situation that was originally a protest against the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police and the subsequent poor response to the shooting by the police. These opportunists have been encouraged by actual anarchists (via social networking). However 99% of Londoner’s aren’t involved and are appalled. I haven’t seen reputable reports suggesting there is any racial component to what is happening now. Given that most of the rioters are covered up, how can anyone say either way? I also haven’t seen any evidence of ‘leftists’ as Alex has suggested. Or that this is about multi-culturism. The anger appears to be directed more at authority (police, large companies). Although at this stage it’s difficult to distinguish between anger and opportunism.

    Alex in your link the author suggests that schools in the UK “made extra space for gang culture in children’s lives because they believe it is an authentic expression of Afro-Caribbean and Asian identity“.No idea what he actually means by that. I only heard the opposite while I was there. Certainly in the school system in Lambeth (which includes areas currently under attack) there was a strong campaign against gangs in schools (and on estates). I saw evidence of that first hand and often.

    I say get the rubber bullets and water cannons out and cause some actual physical pain. Of course the problem is that these groups are highly mobile and hard to pin down.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CzarChasm

    I haven’t seen reputable reports suggesting there is any racial component to what is happening now.

    I’m not sure if this was in reply to my previous post, but my previous post was in reply to Hal_10000’s short exchange with Alex (quoted below) about events happening in America, not in GB. I don’t claim to know anything about the racial politics there and my comments should not be taken as relating to what’s going on over there in recent days.

    AlexInCT said:
    I hear crowds of black youth have been running rampant in Wisconsin, Chicago, and Philly. Welcome to the new age, I guess.

    Hal_10000 said:
    What? Crowd of protesters maybe but there isn’t really a racial component to it.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  7. Poosh

    Can I just say, these aren’t ‘leftists’. They are just scum with almost no political views. They all want more free benefits, but that’s neither here not there, they have no political conception of that view. It’s unfair to call them leftists. They are peasants. The underclass. The kind of people who BY THEIR OWN HAND are the bottom of the barrel, the degenerate.

    The first riots were all by blacks.

    The rest were by everyone from what it looks like. The underclass, the peasantry – a stain on our country – are out in force. I’d be weary of suggesting it’s largely racial; multiculturalism may have something to do with this but this is about a bigger issue. This is about the decline of religion and the failure to fill in the void. The underclass are very immoral and devoid of even basic morals, let alone complex. No mechanism exists to bring morality to them. The schools do not teach morals – the teach political correctness, which is not the same thing, and is ignored.

    This is about the failure of a country to solidify its nationalist structure and provide a means of offering morality. Read Starship Troopers, it’s all there in black and white.

    To simply say “this is bored kids” is somewhat inaccurate, but misses the point. A MORAL bored kid does not do this.

    Thumb up 0

  8. AlexInCT *

    Not what I hear at all. The people I have talked to said that the rioting started completely as a minority thing Hal.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Poosh

    And David Cameron had nothing to do with this. It’s not his fault the people who were entrusted to sort this out are seeming to fail. He can make decisions to take control out of the police etc but that’s a different story. I think the public understand this. A lot of the public know exactly who these looters are, they know these vermin have existed for decades now.

    Thumb up 0

  10. AlexInCT *

    Can I just say, these aren’t ‘leftists’. They are just scum with almost no political views. They all want more free benefits, but that’s neither here not there, they have no political conception of that view. It’s unfair to call them leftists. They are peasants. The underclass. The kind of people who BY THEIR OWN HAND are the bottom of the barrel, the degenerate

    .

    So they are the parasites that live off the bounty provided by a state that robs the productive sector. They may not buy the ideology, but they are the primary beneficiaries and the ones the leftist intelligentia counts on to stay in power. They are mad the cops shot a crook and they are taking advantage of that to take a dump right on the table that feeds them. Ungrateful and always demanding more from their betters. That makes them leftists to me Poosh.

    Thumb up 0

  11. AlexInCT *

    Actually I am more worried about pussies like you being used as women by them CM than about them going after women & children. And that;’s because I think you would like it. There, now am I down at your level.

    Thumb up 2

  12. Poosh

    That’s accurate, sadly. But I still don’t think it’s fair to call them leftists (or liberals). They are the product and consequence of leftists and liberal policies.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Kimpost

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  14. sahrab

    The president describes white cops just routinely investigating a report of suspicious activity as having “acted stupidly” against a black home owner

    FIRST I AM IN NO WAY DEFENDING GATES AND HIS RACIAL IDIOCY, my arguments are SOLELY on a Private Law Abiding Citizen in his Own Home.

    In this case both the Cop and Gates acted stupidly. Obama ignores Gates racial antics, and Rightwingers ignore the Cops antics.

    The situation was a Catch 22 for both parties

    Gates was in his home, breaking no laws and was ordered to prove he was legaly in his own home. How many on here claim internet toughguy when discussing cops shooting a person in their own home, who were doing nothing more than defending their castle (after the cops go to the wrong home and invade an innocent citizens house) . Gates reaction, while in his own home breaking no laws, was no different. Gates had no compunction to prove he was the resident, as he was breaking no laws. Gates acted stupidly afterwards with his racial motivation BS afterwards.

    The Cop acted stupidly AFTER Gates showed him Identification. Before someone claims it was only a college id, it doesnt matter the Officer admits (in his own report) he was sure Gates was the residence of the home. At that point the Officer had no cause to stay in the home. But faced with an idiotic Gates, and his Racial BS, he escalates the conflict by asking Gates to step outside (also in his report), where he then arrests Gates for public nuissance (or something similiar). Instead, the officer should have left after Gates had established his right to be in his own home, and was not breaking any laws. Doesnt matter that Gates was making an ass of himself, he was doing it in his own home. The officer calling him out to the front yard (as he wrote in his own report) was nothing more than retribution (and maybe a little embarrassment) for facing a person upset about having to prove his right to be in his own home.

    Man beaten, taunted for being white on NY subway train.

    Funny comment from your link “There are still Goths around? I thought that trend was dead”

    How about a white victim getting jumped by two black females and beat into a seizure

    Was this the Transexual using the womens bathroom in a Baltimore Mcdonalds incident? This had more to do with a man in a womans bathroom than race. While i dont condone the beating, i wonder if it was the initial reaction of facing a man in a womens bathroom that then escalated beyond their control? (One of the perpertrators pled guilty btw, so its not as if they are getting away with it)

    Thumb up 0

  15. CzarChasm

    Would you mind explaining what your general problem is with what Alex said? I’m new here and trying to understand where folks are coming from. The only problem I can see in that quote is a slight break in logic between saying they might not buy the ideology, but then saying they’re leftists anyway, but I don’t think its difficult to infer what he means overall, and I have to say that I agree with his premise, assuming I’m getting it right. Anyway, just wondering why it’s “idiocy” to give one’s take on a segment of society that is at least partially the subject of this post. Thanks.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  16. Poosh

    I think it’s a bit unfair. But the more I think about it, technically, Alex is probably right. As into if you sat these subhumans down and asked them how government should work, they’d say tax the rich, lots of welfare, give me free stuff, give me a job, etc. In fact I heavily suspect that’s the case.

    I say it’s unfair cause if I was a leftist or liberal I would feel upset to be lumped in with them. That being said, if you want to talk about leftism (not liberalism), as into hard left, many will be happy to see businesses lose stock etc, and see the system break down. But that’s the hard left, the marxists etc.

    Ah, actually, I think maybe the issue is the rioters – who may well be leftists – are not rioting to promote any politics etc. They are just looting etc. Barbarians with blackberries. That might be why I take issue with it. These aren’t political riots. I think that’s how I feel.

    This IS the consequence of liberalism, leftism which includes multiculturalism in some parts – there are black gangs armed with knives etc, who are part of a “black” culture.

    Heard a good story of a Mosque and the scum came near it so all the Muslims came out and told them to get-the-fuck out of here. But then there were like a 1000 of them.

    One man tried to stand up to the mob, on his own, and was beaten and now in critical condition.

    Thumb up 1

  17. CzarChasm

    All fair points, except for what I believe is an omission in the Gates story. The cops were called because a neighbor saw 2 people trying to gain entry by means other than with a key. If I recall correctly, Gates had either lost or forgotten his keys and had to break into his own house. If that was the case, then I think it’s incumbent upon law enforcement to go a bit further than normal in ID’ing whomever they make contact with in the house. Your critique of the cop’s actions may be correct that he went further than needed by arresting him, but if Gates did not cooperate with the needed extra scrutiny, a charge (or arrest for) impeding an investigation might have been appropriate. He was, after all, trying to protect Gates’ property.

    Aside from that conjecture, when Obama commented on the case he said himself that he knew nothing about the details before he made his “acted stupidly” statement. But he did know Gates. They were friends, and that fact combined with Gates playing the race card at the scene seems to me to buttress my contention that there was a racial component to the incident that came from the black participants, not the white cop.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  18. sahrab

    It wasnt an ommision, you brought up the subject i apologize for figuring you were aware of the particulars. This is why i said it was a catch 22 on both sides.

    The Cop was reacting to a call, but once Gates established his identity (which according to the officers own report he was satisfied that Gates was the legal resident) the officer had no probable cause to continue with Gates. Asking Gates to step outside and then charge him with Public Nuissance (or whatever) is the officers stupidity. It wouldnt have happend if the officer left after Gates established himself.

    Gates was a legal law abiding citizen in his own home, now facing a man in his home demanding he show identification that he should be in his own home. (according the the officers report he entered through the front door without gaining permission). Gates racial bullshiat, after the officer described why he was there is Gates stupidity. But Gates was also in the right, in that he didnt need to cooperate with the Police. He had a reasonable expectation of Privacy, while in his own home and committing no crimes.

    The Police Apologists state Gates should have just cooperated, this is akin to “If your doign nothing wrong, you shouldnt have a problem telling the Police what your doing”. The onus was on the Officer to have probable cause, he admits he didnt have it, and he escalated the conflict.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Kimpost

    The problem is the ridiculous hyperbole. His actual characterisation of a leftist might fit a caricature of one, but objective reality it is not. I wouldn’t even call it rational subjectivity.

    And I’d also ask what leftism’s got to do with this anyway? The connection is weak at best, but more importantly the connection is not demonstrated by his post or the links in it.

    It’s good to see new people around, so welcome.

    Thumb up 0

  20. CzarChasm

    I almost put at the end of my last post that I am anything but an apologist for overreaching law enforcement, but I was at work and had to get back to it. I feel pretty dirty to tell you the truth, whenever I think I have to defend cops. Not a big fan of them generally speaking, but even less of a fan of anything having to do with Obama and the way he and Holder (as well as several others in his administration) engage in blatant racial politics. But I see your point, and agree wholeheartedly that the “if you’re doing nothing wrong” meme is the basis for way too much unconstitutional demands on citizens who are perfectly justified in resisting it.

    Good post(s), thanks for it/them.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  21. CzarChasm

    And I’d also ask what leftism’s got to do with this anyway? The connection is weak at best, but more importantly the connection is not demonstrated by his post or the links in it.

    I don’t remember where I read it, but I think I remember reading that you are European? That may have something to do with not understanding what leftism has to do with the rioters in GB. We (American conservatives) see England as a pretty far left country to begin with. As I understand the “rationale” for the rioting, and as Alex alluded to, the rioters are pissed because their meal ticket is being subjected to austerity measures. Is this right? (Sorry, just got home from working a long shift – haven’t had time to fully read up on it, though I think I have that basic premise right.) If an at least left-leaning country drives itself to such an economic debacle that it can’t sustain transfers of wealth from producers to non-producers, American conservatives are undoubtedly going to see that as a major consequence of leftism as we struggle with trying to prevent the same kinds of debacles from happening here, without much success to this point I might add, as evidenced by the S&P downgrade and losing around 1000 points on the Dow in only four trading days.

    In short, if unsustainable social (leftist) programs are what’s causing the need for the austerity measures, and the beneficiaries (non-producers) of those programs are rioting in the streets because of those measures, the connection to leftism is undeniable to my way of thinking. Yes? No? Maybe?

    It’s good to see new people around, so welcome.

    Thanks.

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  22. Rann

    The riots are supposedly over the shooting of a man by the police. They pretty quickly became simply an excuse to either attack cops or, much more commonly, loot stores.

    From what I can tell, at this point it’s about 90% looting and 10% anti-police violence, and 0% about the dead man. Austerity measures may have something to do with it in the background, to be sure, especially in a larger sense of “How dare you deny me what I want?”, but that’s not the actual excuse that was used.

    Thumb up 1

  23. sahrab

    nah i wasnt accusing you of being an apologist, havent seen enough of your posts to make that opinion. sorry if you took it that way

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  25. CzarChasm

    Ah, thanks. I have worked 44 hours in the last three days – a 3rd shift straight into a 1st shift (16 straight), off for eight hours and then back again for another 16. Got home, head hit the pillow, the phone rings, it’s the boss telling me the guy that had just relieved me had a heart attack on the job (go figure, eh?) and I’d have to get back ASAP. Pulled another 12 and I’m fried. At this point, I’m pretty sure that we passed a debt deal to limit Greece’s spending so England would have enough surplus capital to pay their cops overtime to quell the riots that were triggered when the S&P lowered America’s credit rating, which they did the minute they heard a black crook in GB got shot by cops. I’m sure I got some of that wrong. No need to correct me though, I got the next 30 hours or so off and I’ll be back up to about 35% after I sleep most of them, which is where I was when you first heard from me a few days ago. Whoa! Did I really just type that?

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  26. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  27. Rann

    You know, your complaining about that would be slightly more compelling if it weren’t fairly obvious that you use it yourself.

    Also, nice attempts at engaging in compelling debate in this thread. Really making me feel foolish for not taking you at face value as an HONEST AND TRUE sort of guy, huh?

    Thumb up 2

  28. Poosh

    Leftism and liberal has EVERYTHING to do with this. This is entirely the creation of liberals and leftists. The construction of a massive welfare state that creates a mindset that the state is your cradle, whilst destroying your self-respect and self-reliance – buying votes in return for benefits (encouraging class-warefare, and spreading Marxist propaganda). It has to do – in part – with multiculturalism, our failure to create a unified nation, and instead create the idea that all cultures are equal: including ‘black culture’ which is entirely a culture of degeneracy, and nothing to do with race or skin colour; about allowing bullshit notions such as a “black community” and an “asian community” to exist (but “white” community is racist!) – and preventing a unified nation of BRITONS to exist – actively preventing us from being colour-blind – ALL WE SEE IS RACE! It’s about the decline of religion (in fact ANYTHING that is like a CHRISTIAN religious ethic) enacted by liberals (any religion apart from Christianity is ok however), leaving a void which is filled with liberal moral-relativity. God is dead! Long live whatever-the-fuck I want!

    Leftwingers and Liberals have MURDERED us and continue to do so. They destroy the best of us. And create the conditions for the worse of us to thrive. Now good subjects are cowering in their homes because LIBERALS do not want us to be armed (it’s *so* barbarian and american!).

    Is it even possible to stop these riots now that we’re signed up to the EU human rights act? A LIBERAL project.

    Yes, this is what the Norway Shooter said. Yes he was evil. But ‘half’ of his words were true and felt my many. He’s saying “I told you so” from his cell.

    *don’t commit murder, it’s wrong.

    *Rant over

    Thumb up 5

  29. CM

    I never claimed to be engaging in compelling debate in this thread. Have you actually read the opening post? It’s all about blacks and leftists and multi-culturalists. There’s no reasonableness or intelligence involved whatsoever. It’s just blatant nonsense.
    I did try to post something of substance in the other thread but it was made clear what a waste of fucking time that was. Unless it’s conservative-friendly it’s not wanted. You have your narratives and god forbid anyone post any different. Good luck making that tent larger bu abusing anyone who doesn’t comply. I don’t mean me, but there must be potential conservatives who are turned off by all the stupidity.

    Thumb up 0

  30. HARLEY

    Unless it’s conservative-friendly it’s not wanted.

    and see, here in lies the problem, the vast majority of us are libertarians, agonist/atheist, far as i know Alex it the last true Conservative here..

    Thumb up 3

  31. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  32. HARLEY

    so? its ok to keep them enslaved, as long as you are doing it for their own good?
    Now what if i object to the fed Gov forcibly taking my money, that i worked for, and giving it to those are are in this situation?
    personalty id rather give to the red cross, or such, maybe make a few calls see about helping them find a job, other wise…its up to them to pull them selves up.

    Thumb up 2

  33. CM

    Sorry yes add libertarian to conservative. Still applies. Any other thoughts or points of view are considered retarded. In which case you’re left to argue laregely meaningless differences between yourselves. Which seems kinda pointless. What do you get out of constantly seeking to confirm entrenched positions you already hold? What do you get out of blatantly ridiculous things posted by people but ignoring them because they are likeminded (or simply not liberal, therefore acceptable bedfellows)?

    Thumb up 0

  34. Poosh

    Few conservatives believe in no welfare at all. Even Thatcher believed in a ‘welfare state’ – but the bare bones. The problem is the UK welfare state gives so much and asks for so little (illegal immigrants BYPASS France to get to England). I have no problem with someone who is disabled getting benefits, or someone who suffered an accident etc. But it’s take without give for many, especially the ‘people’ who are rioting. They take take take. and never once thought they had a duty or responsibility to their nation or the tax-payers who give them their money. But the other, harder, issue is what level of welfare is sustainable?

    Thumb up 2

  35. CM

    so? its ok to keep them enslaved, as long as you are doing it for their own good?

    I dont agree with your ‘enslaved’ premise. I think that’s idelogical theory that’s applied to ‘people on welfare’ or a system as a whole, but which in reality applies to a minority. And there are ways to minimise it within the system.
    You’re also assumed that I think making people slaves is “for their own good” which means you’re not even interested in accepting that I have sincere and honest thoughts on the issue. I.e. you’re unwilling (or unable) to actually discuss this objectively and like an adult.

    Now what if i object to the fed Gov forcibly taking my money, that i worked for, and giving it to those are are in this situation?

    That’s fine. I understand your position and (believe it or not) I do respect it. Hell I pay a decent amount of tax, and I sure as hell don’t get it all back in public services or credits or any sort of welfare. I want to make damn sure that it’s spent wisely. Fucked if I want it spent on beer so someone can sit on their porch and abuse people who get out of bed every morning and work for a living.
    The way I look at it is – there ARE unethical and immoral people out there, in all walks of life. Some of them steal millions in fraud, some of take welfare and have no interest in doing anything else. However I assume most finance company directors aren’t like that, and I assume most people using welfare to get by at a particular time aren’t like that either. I also see paying tax for welfare and services as a way of ensuring that societty doesn’t break down. I think there is enough obvious wealth in the world so that if we didn’t ensure that everyone was entitled to the basics of life, a shitstorm would result. I don’t want to be caught up in a shitstorm, I’d rather pay a hundred or so bucks and live in a more civil society where I can walk down the street and feel safe. Hell I don’t even see that money that gets taken as tax. I get what I get, so I’ve never felt like anything has been stolen. They can’t steal what I never had.

    personalty id rather give to the red cross, or such, maybe make a few calls see about helping them find a job, other wise…its up to them to pull them selves up.

    I’d rather it be done centrally where it’s more efficient. And I’d rather not have a Dickesian sitation where people have to stand outside benefactors houses and beg (and fight amongst themselves when coins get thrown out the window).

    I’m certainly a believer in personal responsibility. But I’m also wary of the difference between pure ideological theory and reality.

    Thumb up 0

  36. HARLEY

    Any other thoughts or points of view are considered retarded. In which case you’re left to argue laregely meaningless differences between yourselves. Which seems kinda pointless. What do you get out of constantly seeking to confirm entrenched positions you already hold?

    Why shoudl i change?
    look CM i did not hold these views my entire life, i went from a well, southern democrat, to mildly conservative, to very conservative, and on over to libertarian. all this was after i confronted, and experienced what was wrong with my former positions, hell i use to be anti abortion, and fairly religious, well sorta, i have come a long way baby.
    I have evolved to this condition, and i am quite convinced that i am right.
    Men are meant to be free or restraints of government, welfare, subsidys, taxes, regulations all work to keep one from experiences life’s successes and failures, even if they are fatal. It is not the governments job to hold you fucking hand.
    I personally have know lots of liberals, from the mild Reagan liberals to the out right bat shit leftist crazes. so to answer your question i came here in its hey day we had lib’s, some who were out right socialists, and hey i liked some of them, just thought their ideas were full of shit.

    Thumb up 3

  37. CM

    But it’s take without give for many, especially the ‘people’ who are rioting. They take take take. and never once thought they had a duty or responsibility to their nation or the tax-payers who give them their money.

    People keep saying this. Where is the actual evidence? I mean, you might be right, but what are you basing this on? Is it 100% assumption? I rather only make bold claims when the facts are in evidence.

    But the other, harder, issue is what level of welfare is sustainable?

    You mean in terms of it being economically viable for the country?
    Very very hard to answer (however you meant it!).

    Thumb up 0

  38. CM

    Why shoudl i change?

    Nobody is asking you to change. However it doesn’t say much for the quality of your opinion/argument if you can’t accept that other’s might have legitimately and sincerely held beliefs or thoughts that are different from your own. If your unwilling or incapable of having reasonable discussions with people who think diffferently (even if it means simply finding out the point at which you differ and why) it might mean you’ve reached a point where you’re ideological blinkers are on. But how do you know unless you test it? And how can you test it if you just treat everyone else as a moron and hold them in immediate contempt?

    i have come a long way baby.

    Well that kinda explains it. Ex-smokers are the last people to have reasonable discussions about smoking with….

    I have evolved to this condition, and i am quite convinced that i am right.

    Of course you are. And you were probably equally convinced as a southern democrat too.
    I respect your journey. I have no reason to think any less of you because of your current political/philisophical position. However I AM interested in exploring the ideas and evidence which support your current positions. If you have no interest in sharing them (other than with people who think similarly), that’s fine.

    Men are meant to be free or restraints of government, welfare, subsidys, taxes, regulations all work to keep one from experiences life’s successes and failures, even if they are fatal. It is not the governments job to hold you fucking hand.

    That’s fine. What I’m interested in is how that translates to reality on the ground. If we cut out all the antagonistic shit I’m sure we’d actually find some common ground when it comes to the details.

    I personally have know lots of liberals, from the mild Reagan liberals to the out right bat shit leftist crazes. so to answer your question i came here in its hey day we had lib’s, some who were out right socialists, and hey i liked some of them, just thought their ideas were full of shit

    There sure are some batshit leftist idiots. and they piss me off. However I get the distincty impression here that any sort of liberal means batshit crazy liberal. Which is just bizarre. Hey, I spent 6 years at MW forums and it was obiously overwhelmingly conservative/libertarian, but most of us got on pretty well and we were able to have long and detailed discussions about all sorts of issues and it didn’t degenerate into abuse from the get-go. Sure, sometimes it flared up, but not as regular as clockwork like it does here.

    Thumb up 0

  39. CM

    fine, you believe whatever you need to, while at the same time enabling rubbish to be constantly written by those engaged in a war against a common enemy

    Thumb up 0

  40. Poosh

    In Britain, and those who live in most parts see them, you have an entire underclass – the same who are rioting mostly – who live off benefits. They’re not very smart, immoral, violent etc. We call them these days ‘chavs’ generally (language changes, this term was not around ten years ago). Some of them literally have children FOR THE BENEFITS (and yes, this is a stupid idea, but these people are hardly of average or above intelligence). I have personal accounts of this, but I can assure you, you can find more than me to back this up. This is what a bloated welfare state produces. I think that is worse than abortion quite frankly.

    The fact that they take benefits but give nothing back is a very easy inference to make. The fact that they cause crime and unrest, make life bad to horrific for normal citizens. The fact that they display antisocial behavior as their culture. I don’t know if you have the same in America. They take from the state but give nothing back. And if you want to talk about demographics it’s these guys who are breeding. The rest of us are on 0/1 child between two of us. There is no possible means of stats to ‘prove’ this – life proves it. You live somewhere you know the kinds of people around you – and then you hear a repeated pattern form your friends who live in different parts of the country.

    The side of these riots not covered is that many of those rioting now, will – in their spare time – make life hell for the people in their areas. There are thousands of horror stories for you to chose from, all ending in “the police did nothing / or could not do nothing”. The riots will go – but the scum will continue to live and make life hell for the people around them, whilst taking in Job Seekers etc (which is being improved).

    None of these sorts of people give anything back. I’ve never seen them, or heard of, any of them giving back to their communities during their jobless existences. Nor trying to educate themselves (if school failed you, you’d find a way to better yourself, hell the government provides ways). This is what I speak of. Obviously there are many on benefits that are good people, many forced to. The recession, for example, sent lots of professionals out of work, and they had to take benefits.

    Thumb up 2

  41. CM

    And that, young Jedi, is why you fail.

    I fail? At what? Why the need to be so deeply condescending. Are you replying in kind?

    It IS more efficient to have a central organisation dealing with keeping society to at least a minimum standard. I certainly don’t have spare hours each day to do all the research to decide how much to give to which people, and then attempt to monitor it to see how it performs. Let alone the inefficiency of 200 different charities all trying to administer various types of welfare to those who they decide qualify.

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    In Britain, and those who live in most parts see them, you have an entire underclass – the same who are rioting mostly – who live off benefits. They’re not very smart, immoral, violent etc. We call them these days ‘chavs’ generally (language changes, this term was not around ten years ago). Some of them literally have children FOR THE BENEFITS (and yes, this is a stupid idea, but these people are hardly of average or above intelligence). I have personal accounts of this, but I can assure you, you can find more than me to back this up. This is what a bloated welfare state produces. I think that is worse than abortion quite frankly.

    Yeah I know the types you are talking about. You can’t spend almost 5 years working in South London without having a fairly good idea.
    What I’d like to see is some sort of evidence which shows what proportion of those on welfare are taking the piss, are welfare dependent, are having kids just to get more welfare, etc etc. Because otherwise you can claim it’s 80-90% and I can claim it’s 5-10% but at the end of the day we’re just speculating.

    The fact that they take benefits but give nothing back is a very easy inference to make. The fact that they cause crime and unrest, make life bad to horrific for normal citizens. The fact that they display antisocial behavior as their culture. I don’t know if you have the same in America. They take from the state but give nothing back.

    Since you seem to be applying the general theory that welfare breeds welfare, you’d have to agree that one welfare state is going to be much like another. If that’s the case, then why did we in NZ have a unemployment rate of 3% only a few years ago. Where did all those on welfare-for-life go? Given the tight labour market, presumably nobody could even argue that the entire 3% were welfare-for-lifers? So how to explain it?

    Obviously there are many on benefits that are good people, many forced to. The recession, for example, sent lots of professionals out of work, and they had to take benefits.

    Right, we know the rise in unemployment numbers isn’t due to an increase in people turning to welfare to get rich (still confused as to how that happens) or because they’ve decided to be welfare-for-life types. So, what was the lowest unemployment percentage? And then what percentage of that number comprises the welfare-for-life no-hopers? And how do you get that figure?

    Thumb up 0

  43. HARLEY

    I dont agree with your ‘enslaved’ premise. I think that’s idelogical theory that’s applied to ‘people on welfare’ or a system as a whole, but which in reality applies to a minority. And there are ways to minimise it within the system.
    You’re also assumed that I think making people slaves is “for their own good” which means you’re not even interested in accepting that I have sincere and honest thoughts on the issue. I.e. you’re unwilling (or unable) to actually discuss this objectively and like an adult.

    those that submit themselves to living on welfare are making themselves beholden to a system that will offer them more “stuff” in exchange for vote, all the while not realizing that they have given up the fundamental right of self determination, that is slavery.
    as for me not to discuss this as a adult, wow, what a way to dodge, but here i am typing to you when i could be doing far better things.

    I also see paying tax for welfare and services as a way of ensuring that societty doesn’t break down. I think there is enough obvious wealth in the world so that if we didn’t ensure that everyone was entitled to the basics of life, a shitstorm would result. I don’t want to be caught up in a shitstorm, I’d rather pay a hundred or so bucks and live in a more civil society where I can walk down the street and feel safe. Hell I don’t even see that money that gets taken as tax. I get what I get, so I’ve never felt like anything has been stolen. They can’t steal what I never had.

    cant steal what you never had? so your they could take all your pay, before it arrives in your banking account, and distribute it as needed,because you never had it?.. hmm i do not think im making sense her, but i do hope you get my drift…. entitled to the basics< by whos standards?
    Why would there be a shitstorm? if there was no handouts or welfare, maybe be some of these people would get off their asses and do something, maybe in their life they would be encouraged not to fuck up and make bad decisions. and failing those if life is so unfair, and they are so downtrodden, maybe they will find the energy and convection to try to tear down the whole system, and build it up to their standards. or they could just die quietly in the gutter, a sanitation crew will be along shortly, to collect the remains.

    I’d rather it be done centrally where it’s more efficient.

    you mean the providence of a governments control?
    I do rember some posts some time back show that random associations,and organized associations,all non-government, were far more efficient. oh and less prone to corruption and graft.

    And I’d rather not have a Dickesian sitation where people have to stand outside benefactors houses and beg (and fight amongst themselves when coins get thrown out the window).

    wow, have you actually seen that?

    ideological theory and reality.

    Teh reality of which you speak,is being demonstrated today in England,oh and has been seen in other nations that decided that the central government was the end all and be all of providing for the welfare.
    Oh how old England has changed

    Thumb up 2

  44. CM

    This idea of a mob mentality can be found in football hooliganism. Former Manchester United hooligan Tony O’Reilly, says there is a similarity between this week’s looting and the football violence he took part in for three decades.

    It boils down to the buzz, he says. “It’s an excitement. You can’t take away that thrill – the roar of the crowd. That sense of a group of men, something’s happening.”

    For most, the motivation is the thrill, with the “free stuff” just a bonus. But not for the ringleaders who manipulate the mob to target high-value shops.

    He recalls a rampage through Swiss Cottage in the 1980s when Manchester United fans ended up looting a jewellery store. “The mob itself wasn’t looking for jewellers but a few of the bright criminals used the mob and bystanders and the mob joined in because of the buzz.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14463452

    For this to be about ‘entitlement’ the looting would be the primary impulse/trigger. However it appears to be secondary; an opportunitistic byproduct/benefit of the thrill and desire to strike out against authority.

    Thumb up 0

  45. HARLEY

    Well that kinda explains it. Ex-smokers are the last people to have reasonable discussions about smoking with….

    Oh fucking jesus on a pogo stick, i was never a smoker.

    Oh yes i accept that you have a different point of view, andi accept the you belief in all your heart that you are right, but im here to tellya, you are wrong, sorry man, there is no tooth fairy, there is no Santa, there is no sky pixie, and the government is NOT your friend.

    d it didn’t degenerate into abuse from the get-go. Sure, sometimes it flared up, but not as regular as clockwork like it does here.

    I’m sorry, when did i abuse you> was it when i called you a twat,or was it after you made a assholeish remark?

    Thumb up 0

  46. Poosh

    One form of welfare is certainly NOT like another. It can be radically different. As I said, most if not almost all Conservatives support some form of welfare. There are a host of things that can radically change things, culture especially. Immigration another. One countries welfare is radically different to another. Here is a starting point.

    Britain’s benefits generation: State handouts now a ‘way of life for six million’

    I sense some sort of obfuscation so let me clear this up by saying two points. Firstly that ‘general welfare’ and by this I mean lavish welfare systems like the UK encourage bad cultural tendencies. The second and main point here, is that those chavs etc who live off welfare, i.e the tax of others, whilst giving nothing in return, I should imagine is the low end of maybe 5%. Something low, but 1% of six million is a lot. Read what Iain Dunan Smith has concluded in regard to welfare and his Centre for Social Justice. I am not necessarily saying that all these bad types are “taking the piss”, it is probable that many of them cannot get jobs due to the simple fact that they are useless and ill-mannered etc, – but instead of being grateful for the money they receive, they repay with violence and crime.

    What Iain Ducan Smith concluded was that certain areas were indeed stuck in a welfare loop. I’m sure in one of the articles there it will mention that it is more profitable to stay on welfare then actually gain employment for some. Certain clusters of areas, especially Scotland, are awash with this, so the poverty is more ‘highlighted’.

    Thumb up 2

  47. CM

    those that submit themselves to living on welfare are making themselves beholden to a system that will offer them more “stuff” in exchange for vote, all the while not realizing that they have given up the fundamental right of self determination, that is slavery.

    Right but what sort of numbers are you talking about? Is it significant enough to able to consider welfare as a while as slavery. Seems to me to be drawing a rather long bow.
    Are they actually doing it in exchange for a vote? How many of these people actually vote?
    If they are actively deciding to live on welfare and not get a job, then they HAVE made a conscious choice and therefore are engaging in self-determination.
    Even though I understand why it’s used I think it belittles actual slavery to use that term. There ARE still people in the world held in slavery. They’re not the poor and unemployed in the West. Slavery implies no choice. I am not aware of a welfare system where people have no choice to stay on it. Even if there is no employment (100 people applying for every attainable job) then they can generally choose to undertake some sort of training.

    as for me not to discuss this as a adult, wow, what a way to dodge, but here i am typing to you when i could be doing far better things.

    How else am I meant to take what you said? You implied that I believe people are becoming slaves for their own good. What is an appopriate way to respond to that?

    cant steal what you never had? so your they could take all your pay, before it arrives in your banking account, and distribute it as needed,because you never had it?.. hmm i do not think im making sense her, but i do hope you get my drift….

    I think I’d notice if they took all of it! What I mean is that I know how much is taken out and I’m ok with the percentage, but because I’ve never actually had that additional amount I don’t miss it (I don’t feel the sense of ownership over it that you nd others obviously feel). I figure that so long as it’s spent in a transparent way and the people spending it are accountable then it’s a fair price to pay for living in a society without too many homeless people begging at my door. And I’d rather pay and control how it’s spent via my vote than dedicating a whole day every week agonising over who to give to and how much to give, and then trying to work out whether what I gave last year/month/week wasn’t just wasted. I can live with some government inefficiency (to a certain level) to avoid the alternatives.

    entitled to the basics< by whos standards?

    Well my standards, but ultimately I’ve passing over the ability to set the standard to the government, which is ultimately controlled by the general voting population. If the standard gets out of control (one way or another) then I’ll vote (or take other democratic action) accordingly.

    Why would there be a shitstorm? if there was no handouts or welfare, maybe be some of these people would get off their asses and do something, maybe in their life they would be encouraged not to fuck up and make bad decisions. and failing those if life is so unfair, and they are so downtrodden, maybe they will find the energy and convection to try to tear down the whole system, and build it up to their standards. or they could just die quietly in the gutter, a sanitation crew will be along shortly, to collect the remains.

    I’m sure a certainly percentage of people WOULD say ‘ah fuck it, better actually try and get a job then’. And that would be awesome. Those aren’t the people I’d be concerned about. Even if that applied to half, it would be the other half hat would be sufficient to make it not worth it. Those would be the people who would need to rely on charity, and/or whom decide that riots every night is the way to go because what have they got to lose now? I’d prefer to live in a place where people begging on the streets is kept to a minimum. And I’m not saying that ONLY other people should pay to keep them to a minimum, I’m certainly prepared to pay my share to ensure that. Which is why the idea of paying tax doesn’t get me too upset.

    you mean the providence of a governments control?

    Yes, one faceless transparent body accountable to everyone, with publisged rules/criteria that apply to everyone.

    I do rember some posts some time back show that random associations,and organized associations,all non-government, were far more efficient. oh and less prone to corruption and graft.

    I’d certainly be interested in reading about it. Of course efficiency is only one aspect why I prefer welfare etc to be administered by a single central non-political accountable and transparent body with set criteria that applies equally to everyone. Even if it’s equally as (or even slightly less) efficient that would be good enough.

    If Iconsider the amount of duplication that would be involved in numerous organisation all doing a similar thing then it doesn’t take too long to stop considering it because the answer seems obvious. However if I’m wrong I’d rather know why and how so I can alter my view on it.

    wow, have you actually seen that?

    No, it’s speculation. It makes sense to me that if people who actually need assistance can’t get it from a neutral central body then they’ll need to get it from some sort of charity, or wealthy benefactor. We could assume they’d all be fair and even-handed and not fraudulent and/or not require anything in return, but I’m not sure that would really be the case. We’re dealing with human nature after all. If there is money to be made in charity, and the need for charity increases exponentially, it’s fairly obvious what would happen I think.

    Teh reality of which you speak,is being demonstrated today in England,oh and has been seen in other nations that decided that the central government was the end all and be all of providing for the welfare.

    I think you’ve got a lot of work to do to demonstrate that. I would consider this sort of thing to be far more frequent if there was no welfare state. I would guess there would be ‘risings’ (attempts at some sort of revolution) in an attempt to get government back in control of basic welfare. Particularly as the very rich would be seen to be even more rich and even more removed from the rest than they already are.

    Thumb up 0

  48. HARLEY

    For this to be about ‘entitlement’ the looting would be the primary impulse/trigger. However it appears to be secondary; an opportunitistic byproduct/benefit of the thrill and desire to strike out against authority.

    Agreed, time to break out the grapeshot.

    Thumb up 0

  49. HARLEY

    I got to take my hairy ass to bed, but thanks for this conversation, how ever i do want to get one thing in here.

    If there is money to be made in charity, and the need for charity increases exponentially, it’s fairly obvious what would happen I think.

    ? how is this any different from a government organization, the only real diffiance is repalceinf “profit” with “power”.and remember, they are the ones that legally have the guns.

    Thumb up 1

  50. CM

    Oh fucking jesus on a pogo stick, i was never a smoker.

    It was an analogy Harley. I’m not literally saying that you used to smoke cigarettes.
    It also wasn’t meant to be particularly serious either (I failed to include a smiley which is certainly my bad, particularly under current conditions).

    Oh yes i accept that you have a different point of view, andi accept the you belief in all your heart that you are right, but im here to tellya, you are wrong, sorry man, there is no tooth fairy, there is no Santa, there is no sky pixie, and the government is NOT your friend.

    The big problem with all that is that I don’t consider them to be my ‘friend’. I’m not sure what this constant need to reduce everything to binary is all about. The government must either be your friend or your enemy? Bollocks, they’re neither.

    I’m sorry, when did i abuse you> was it when i called you a twat,or was it after you made a assholeish remark?

    Disagreeing or asking for simple clarifications (like I would hope someone would do if they didn’t want to rely on assumptions about something I said) appear to be automatically considered ‘assholeish’.

    Thumb up 0

  51. CM

    I got to take my hairy ass to bed, but thanks for this conversation…

    Have a good sleep. Thanks to you too. Heartening to know that reasonable discussion IS possible.

    ? how is this any different from a government organization, the only real diffiance is repalceinf “profit” with “power”.and remember, they are the ones that legally have the guns.

    It does depend on transparency and accountability. All government levels should be 100% transparent by law and accountable at every step. However relying on non-government organisations means potentially 0% transparency and 0% accountability. It all depends on how a charity structure itself, but I can’t imagine many would want to open themselves up to as much scrutiny as I would want to see. And who’s not to say they’re not just making it all up? I think the potential is much greater for governments to be held accountable and open. Only governments can be made to not link basic minimum welfare with anything else. They can be made inherently more ‘disinterested’ than the alternatives. And what would stop a charity simply moving an internal fraudster along, in much the way the Catholic Church sends child molesters to a different parish)?
    Why wouldn’t charities have guns (in this alternative scenario)? I would imagine they’d have as many as possible to protect those collecting it, to protect it where it’s held, and then to protect it being distributed. Without the power of the state behind them they’d be vulnerable in all sorts of different ways.

    Thumb up 0

  52. CM

    Water cannons and rubber bullets at least. And where’s the comedian with the cream pie gone all of the sudden huh? He could be out there throwing them. He’s clearly an Ivory Tower Creampie Thrower.
    No, not that sort of cream pie. Get your mind (face) out of her gutter.

    Thumb up 0

  53. HARLEY

    it looks as if things are calming down, my friend in London is back at work, but still hearing sirens and some racket..
    Grapeshot would have been more effective, violence does have its place, and these “yobs” need to understand that they will not get away with this kind of action, and for the most party, they have, till the next time.

    Thumb up 2

  54. AlexInCT *

    Nobody is asking you to change. However it doesn’t say much for the quality of your opinion/argument if you can’t accept that other’s might have legitimately and sincerely held beliefs or thoughts that are different from your own.

    This gave me a chuckle CM. Liberals always say this when talking to those that don’t agree with them, meaning if you don’t agree with what the liberal believes in you are the close minded one and borderline insane for doing so. But then, they never afford anyone that doesn’t think like them the same courtesy, though. Especially if you point out the reality of how liberalism and what it wants to do has worked out like in the real world. And do not dare point out that their supposed concerns for the disenfranchised always brings forth “solutions” which conveniently assume the ones they have to punish and fleece are greedy and evil and thus not deserving of whatever bounty they have. And certainly do not bring forth the obvious fact that liberals seem to be driven by massive envy and jealousy, constantly concerned about what others have, especially those with more than them, and this need to have everyone cross the finish line at the same time. Don’t go there. Because if you do, you are accused of harboring some vile intention for pointing out that mantra they hide behind of meaning well, isn’t enough. Case in point your assertion that because I pointed out that the riots had started after a black man was shot, and involved black people looting and burning things, that I was a racist. Because the only reason to point those things out was racism. Hence the need to joke about black men raping everything in their path.

    Here is another revelation for you. I have gone round and round with liberals that wanted to “discuss” things like you do. Most of them eventually broke down and showed their true colors when the facts and logic shamed them into submission. You however seem immune to facts or logic, and just keep shifting goal posts and pretending you are arguing in good faith. I tried for the longest time to debate with you, but you were just playing at it. That’s why most of us don’t even bother anymore.

    Thumb up 0

  55. AlexInCT *

    I think it’s a bit unfair. But the more I think about it, technically, Alex is probably right. As into if you sat these subhumans down and asked them how government should work, they’d say tax the rich, lots of welfare, give me free stuff, give me a job, etc. In fact I heavily suspect that’s the case.

    Decades of class warfare & other liberal teachings about self esteem, practiced on weak minds, and this is what you are left with.

    Here in the US, with all but a few exceptions, people used to be ashamed to have to ask for any kind of welfare or food stamps, to make due. And I am talking just a few decades ago. They would only ask for these when all else failed. Most wanted nothing but a chance to work hard to provide for themselves and their family. Handouts where a thing of shame, and only the truly needy used them.

    Fast forward. Liberals remove the shame associated with state assistance, and convince people they are not just entitled to all this, but that they don’t even have to put any kind of an effort in to earn this bounty – work is for the stupid – and that those that they will take the money from to pay for this are the ones that should be ashamed of their success or bounty. And a ton of people start believing this nonsense that work is for suckers, others owe them a cushy existence, a roof, cloths, food, and their Play Station or X-Box so they can spend all day playing, and that their lot in life is always someone else’s fault. That attitude explains the riots. I am sure the left will tell us that they are doing this because they feel disenfranchised and left behind, but that’s bullshit. Nothing but an excuse for people that should be grateful instead of feeling they need to have others give them more, to hide behind while showing us how dysfunctional they are.

    Thumb up 0

  56. HARLEY

    Why wouldn’t charities have guns (in this alternative scenario)? I would imagine they’d have as many as possible to protect those collecting it, to protect it where it’s held, and then to protect it being distributed. Without the power of the state behind them they’d be vulnerable in all sorts of different ways.

    This sounds like you are implying that people, in general, or the people that are given thisad, are naturally very dangerous and will attack you for your “stuff”, now i have no problem with people having guns, but your scenario seems to imply that the police forces do not exist. Which really bothers me since i made no claim or demand for that.

    Thumb up 0

  57. CM

    Fuck it now takes half an hour to scroll up to click ‘Reply’!

    This sounds like you are implying that people, in general, or the people that are given thisad, are naturally very dangerous and will attack you for your “stuff”, now i have no problem with people having guns, but your scenario seems to imply that the police forces do not exist. Which really bothers me since i made no claim or demand for that.

    Sorry, no intention to imply you suggested anything like that. I just don’t expect that the police would be used for such work (private protection/security).
    It’s not that I think ALLpoor people would rise up and get violent etc if welfare was privatised. I just think ENOUGH would to make things uncomfortable (or worse) for ALL of us. In addition to the other issues I have mentioned.

    Thumb up 0

  58. HARLEY

    Fuck it now takes half an hour to scroll up to click ‘Reply’!

    yeah its fricking annoying.

    I just think ENOUGH would to make things uncomfortable (or worse) for ALL of us. In addition to the other issues I have mentioned.

    then id say they are not deserving of charity then, only deserving of aq whiff of grapeshot, so they would be no different than those we was in London, and other English cities.
    Those that commit violence to take other peoples properties, or steal from others in similar situations are wastes of DNA,a nd shoudl be cut out of the gene pool.
    Think of it as Evolution in action.

    Thumb up 0

  59. CM

    No, they wouldn’t be deserving of charity, and if they didn’t get any (in this alternative world where welfare is determined and administrated by private charity groups) the cycle would therefore continue and intensify and I’m not sure it would be a nice place to live, for anyone. And it make people even less likely to give to charity. And round and round we go.
    And how much marketing/advertising would charities need to spend each year to compete for the charity dollar? Many many millions surely.
    So overall I share frustrations over much of the current set-up, but I haven’t yet figured out an alternative that would be any better (they all would seem to be worse).

    Thumb up 0

  60. HARLEY

    11:41PM BST 10 Aug 2011
    given the time stamp on that story, the change in position was just today…

    Actual cannons not yet in frame. ;-)

    Its a shame imagine some redcoated cannonaders, with a 12 pound field cannon, rolling out on to the street, and the reaction of the mob as the first shot , rips a hole in their ranks….

    Thumb up 1

  61. HARLEY

    Take the US RED CROSS or the salivation army
    very well funded, very well run, and unlike many other charities, are well known and respected.
    Other wise you are back to the Fed gov pointing a gun at your head and telling you to give, where their overhead is massive…

    Thumb up 0

  62. CM

    What’s the overhead for the Red Cross and Salvation Army? How much more would it be if they had to take on a much much bigger workload? Multiple that by how many other charities that would be required for different aspects. I know that central govt overhead can be large, but at least they can cut down on duplication. And there is at least the opportunity to constantly analyse the fat and cut it at appropriate times. You don’t get to do that with private charities/companies no matter how well respected and benign.

    Thumb up 0

  63. CM

    Liberals always say this when talking to those that don’t agree with them, meaning if you don’t agree with what the liberal believes in you are the close minded one and borderline insane for doing so.

    Well I’m sorry that you’ve had that experience. There’s no reason for me to defend nonsense others have apparently told you.

    But then, they never afford anyone that doesn’t think like them the same courtesy, though.

    I’m also not surprised that you seem to run into the same problems over and over again.

    And certainly do not bring forth the obvious fact that liberals seem to be driven by massive envy and jealousy, constantly concerned about what others have, especially those with more than them, and this need to have everyone cross the finish line at the same time.

    Well there we go, that’s what I’m talking about. Perhaps some aren’t driven my massive envy and jealousy? Did you ever stop for even a second to consider that possibility?

    Case in point your assertion that because I pointed out that the riots had started after a black man was shot, and involved black people looting and burning things, that I was a racist. Because the only reason to point those things out was racism. Hence the need to joke about black men raping everything in their path.

    But you see
    (1) You didn’t point out that the riots started because a black man was shot
    (2) You’ve provided no evidence that it’s “leftists” that were rioting and burning the place down.
    (3) You sought to make a point that the crowds “are primarily all minorities, mostly black” when there was (and is) no evidence that this was the case. On this very page someone has linked to Coulter’s latest blog where she points out that they’re mostly white.
    (4) You sought to conclude that “the problem again is multiculturalism gone haywire” but provided nothing whatsoever to back it up.

    In summary you posted another steaming pile of reactionary ideological horseshit which all falls over immediately under even the most basic scrutiny.
    My response was as idiotic and reactionary as your initial post.

    Here is another revelation for you. I have gone round and round with liberals that wanted to “discuss” things like you do. Most of them eventually broke down and showed their true colors when the facts and logic shamed them into submission

    I imagine they probably pointed out that you appear to be allergic to facts and logic but that was water off a duck’s back to you. Your powers of self-delusion are mightily impressive. It also must be comforting to ‘know’ all ‘truths’ as you make all square things fit into your round holes.

    You however seem immune to facts or logic, and just keep shifting goal posts and pretending you are arguing in good faith.

    You’re also the master of projection Alex. What facts and logic about blacks and multi-culturalism would they be now?

    I tried for the longest time to debate with you, but you were just playing at it.

    Come now Alex don’t tell such blatant lies. You’ve never got even close to trying to have a reasonable discussion with me. I doubt you’ve been capable of holding a reasonable discussion with a moderate liberal for many years now. No need to try kid yourself or anyone else about that.

    That’s why most of us don’t even bother anymore

    Well that’s pretty ironic that I’ve had a damn decent and reasonable discussion with Harley in this very thread then ain’t it? I can’t imagine you would be capable of anything of the sort.

    Thumb up 0

  64. CM

    In London, leftists are rioting and burning down the place for a third day. The crowds are primarily all minorities, mostly black, and it’s very obvious despite the LSM’s attempt to avoid that sore subject, and the fact what’s the problem again is multiculturalism gone haywire. I guess these peasants aren’t happy with thier share of the wealth redistribution anymore.

    The picture that began to emerge cut across age, race and gender, ranging from preteens to men and women in their 20s and 30s. Some were unemployed; some had legitimate jobs at supermarkets or schools. Some were accused of toting away jewelry and electronics items worth thousands of pounds, while others allegedly were stealing items that were practically worthless.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576500693872289366.html

    No worries Alex, just more to flush down the memory hole. BTW did you ever think of becoming a Catholic?

    Thumb up 0

  65. CM

    UPDATE2: I was not alone in linking this disaster to the damage done by liberal dogma fed to the masses for decades….etc etc

    No surprise that you’d find someone at the Daily Mail to support you. Unfortunately the news has moved beyond you and Hastings now as we find out that these people aren’t minorities and mostly black, and who have an issue with multi-culturalism as you claimed. As posted above:

    The picture that began to emerge cut across age, race and gender, ranging from preteens to men and women in their 20s and 30s. Some were unemployed; some had legitimate jobs at supermarkets or schools. Some were accused of toting away jewelry and electronics items worth thousands of pounds, while others allegedly were stealing items that were practically worthless.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576500693872289366.html

    And thus did they become the inkblot in a kind of national Rorschach test: Everyone sees in them the political issue they care about most, whether it’s welfare dependency, budget cuts, the decline of public education, or—my personal favorite—the rise of a vulgar and amoral public culture.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2301233/

    Indeed.

    Thumb up 0

  66. CM

    Which specific quote are you referring to in your linked piece Alex?

    You have a choice between:

    “Initially the police treated the situation too much as a public order issue—rather than essentially one of crime,” he said.

    In Parliament, Mr. Cameron said the government was working with police, intelligence services and the communications industry to see whether it was right to stop people communicating via social-network sites “when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

    This one isn’t a quote but I’ll be generous:

    Mr. Cameron said ministers would work to develop a strategy to combat gangs. Measures to be considered include handing powers to landlords to evict troublemakers from public housing, a crackdown on the use of face masks and wider use of special injunctions against gang members. The gang injunctions now apply only to adults but will be extended to children as well.

    Mr. Cameron said he would seek further advice on gangs, including from Bill Bratton, former commissioner of police in New York and Los Angeles.

    So, in which of the three has Cameron supported your claim that this is about “the damage done by liberal dogma fed to the masses for decades”?

    Also waiting on your acknowledgement that the rioters weren’t even close to being all minorities, or blacks, and that there is no evidence whatsoever that this is anything to do with multi-culturalism.

    You ever going to get tired of being proven the idiot? I don’t think so.

    Dude, you can’t even quote from a linked article (or even pick an article with a quote that even remotely aligns with what you’ve claimed). You’re not proven me wrong once the entire time I’ve been here, but you’ve provided good evidence in the very same post that you’re an idiot. That’s a special kind of idiot that is.

    Thumb up 0