Democracy my B0lllox!!!

P. Breathnach

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Look back over your own posts... how many times have you gone about dismissing and supposedly "debunking" others because you think they don't do homework, or conform to your style or thinking? Talk about projection! Don't like it when it's done to you!

Go, ahead, have the last work, you do that a lot, to a lot of people!

There is way too much nit-picking in this forum, and very little substance. Very sad.

If you have a problem with my posts, communicate with the moderators.

ButcherBoiz

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you have a problem with my posts, communicate with the moderators.

Why would you suggest that? I think you are being overly reactive and defensive.
:rolleyes:

Please let it rest.

g5fd6ow0hseima

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Why would you suggest that? I think you are being overly reactive and defensive.
:rolleyes:

Please let it rest.

We should all stop posting and let you continue on...

ButcherBoiz

Kingsley Muscular Blob wrote: »

We should all stop posting and let you continue on...

Meaning? It clearly has taken two to tango or in this case 4-5 to tango, i.e 3-4 against 1.

I agree, lets go our separate ways. There has been way too much in the way of attempts to shut down arenas of debate. Instead, let's all try to open up discussions.

tlev

We can open it up by you at long last responding to my posts.

ButcherBoiz

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Granted, I haven't phrased that well, but your suggestion that people should be reading Chomsky threw me off as to what you expect the discussion here to be about. [Especially as that particular post was a response to a very direct question, as outlined by ei.sdraob above]. Also, coming on here as a new poster and suggesting to others in your patronising tone about what to read and how this forum should work won't endear yourself to anyone.

Take the plank out of your eye...

This is a FREE SPEECH area. From the above, why not just state what you think of Chomsky, for example? Essentially all you say is Chomsky's political activism and writing is irrelevant, because it's irrelevant.

tlev

I give up.

Obviously my posts are not intellectual enough to warrant even the simplest of responses or indeed even be acknowledged by the person who told me to go research .

P. Breathnach

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

... This is a FREE SPEECH area....

No, it's not. Read the charter and the posting guidelines.

ButcherBoiz

tlev wrote: »

I give up.

Obviously my posts are not intellectual enough to warrant even the simplest of responses or indeed even be acknowledged by the person who told me to go research .

This comment, point blank, is unfair. Numerous people here have suggested links to sources of information. If you do not appreciate the particular sources that I suggested, that is your decision. Some people will agree, others will not. The point is I think it is a GOOD thing for people on different sides to post sources of information.

Hitman Actual

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Take the plank out of your eye...

You really don't seem particularly adept at using discussion forums, tbh. This is exactly what I was talking about with you pissing off other posters.

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

This is a FREE SPEECH area. From the above, why not just state what you think of Chomsky, for example? Essentially all you say is Chomsky's political activism and writing is irrelevant, because it's irrelevant.

I never said it was irrelevant (although referencing his works in that particular post made no sense), I was just making the point that that level of discussion wasn't the norm on this forum. But nor does it really matter to me, either. GL.

ButcherBoiz

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, it's not. Read the charter and the posting guidelines.

I meant it in a positive sense. Why do you take it in a negative sense? "freedom of speech" does not mean say anything, it's means reasonable freedom. I am sure the rules agree with me on this simple, basic point --and that's all that was in fact expressed.

tlev

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

This comment, point blank, is unfair. Numerous people here have suggested links to sources of information. If you do not appreciate the particular sources that I suggested, that is your decision. Some people will agree, others will not. The point is I think it is a GOOD thing for people on different sides to post sources of information.

Oh no I do appreciate the links you have given me. But I was more interested in what YOU have to say, not what Noam Chomsky has to say on the issue. Or if your views echo Noam Chomsky's then please share which of those views you share with him. Why do I have to go read the entire book of works to get a simple response from a poster on a forum?

ButcherBoiz

tlev wrote: »

Oh no I do appreciate the links you have given me. But I was more interested in what YOU have to say, not what Noam Chomsky has to say on the issue. Or if your views echo Noam Chomsky's then please share which of those views you share with him. Why do I have to go read the entire book of works to get a simple response from a poster on a forum?

This is unfair, and unclear.

I have expressed my opinions enough already. Your turn, but don't tailor it towards me, please, anymore.

You are free to read or not read the suggested source, i.e. Chomsky. He also has delivered numerous televised lectures. There are documentaries. There are short articles by him...

tlev

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

This is unfair, and unclear.

I have expressed my opinions enough already. Your turn, but don't tailor it towards me, please, anymore.

You are free to read or not read the suggested source, i.e. Chomsky. He also has delivered numerous televised lectures. There are documentaries. There are short articles by him...

Fine, I still don't see how you answered my question about the EU being better worse than regimes across the world in your words but fair enough. I will drop it. And then go read some Chomsky.

P. Breathnach

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

I meant it in a positive sense. Why do you take it in a negative sense? "freedom of speech" does not mean say anything, it's means reasonable freedom. I am sure the rules agree with me on this simple, basic point --and that's all that was in fact expressed.

Have you read the posting guidelines yet?

I have the impression that if you have, you interpret them differently from how I do. You are skirting with getting personal; you are playing the role of arbiter of debate, which is the function of the moderators; you are deflecting discussions with contributions that are of questionable relevance.

Oh, and you seem to want to have the last word on everything.

Scofflaw

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

This is unfair, and unclear.

I have expressed my opinions enough already. Your turn, but don't tailor it towards me, please, anymore.

You are free to read or not read the suggested source, i.e. Chomsky. He also has delivered numerous televised lectures. There are documentaries. There are short articles by him...

Chomsky isn't here to debate the issues you've raised. All I can gather from reading the entire morning's debates is that you like Chomsky and Said, plan on using their names repeatedly, are able to copy and paste long lists of their books, but don't plan on actually defending or even discussing their arguments, while citing those arguments as absolutely superior to so-called "internet research".

My instincts, particularly given your rather wild posts last night, and the irrelevance of a lot of your contributions, are to ban you from the forum for a week, during which time you could perhaps prepare a defence of Chomsky and Said's claims. Reference to preferred authors as absolutely authoritative isn't discussion - it's a tactic designed to stifle discussion, something you've now accused everyone of.

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

I meant it in a positive sense. Why do you take it in a negative sense? "freedom of speech" does not mean say anything, it's means reasonable freedom. I am sure the rules agree with me on this simple, basic point --and that's all that was in fact expressed.

You'll find that they agree with you only within limits. Free speech has to be balanced against disruptive posting, tactical posting, soapboxing, trolling, copypasta, etc etc.

On balance, then, a ban, albeit a brief one.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Judith122

i think everyone has been making good posts and i don't see how Chomsky, or probably the other ones, is said to be not important for this treaty. All I see is a number of people getting a bit petty and your all to blame! :eek:

P. Breathnach

Judith122 wrote: »

i think everyone has been making good posts and i don't see how Chomsky, or probably the other ones, is said to be not important for this treaty. All I see is a number of people getting a bit petty and your all to blame! :eek:

Another arriviste seeking to be a moderator!

Judith122

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Another arriviste seeking to be a moderator!

all i said it some of this is a bit petty. Ban me too if you feel better. "moderators" how many of them still live at home with their mammies! :P

PopeBuckfastXVI

Judith,

Discussion of Moderation in this forum is strictly forbidden, there is a forum called 'help desk' which is the appropriate place to discuss Moderation.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

Regards,
Buckie

Judith122

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Judith,

Discussion of Moderation in this forum is strictly forbidden, there is a forum called 'help desk' which is the appropriate place to discuss Moderation.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

Regards,
Buckie

moderators, how many are still living at home with the mammies! I will reluctantly take it back then --but the idea just came into my head, don'tknow why:rolleyes:

Judith122

maybe i hit a raw nerve :P

ei.sdraob

in the hope of steering the topic back on track a question for OP

demakinz wrote: »

Why do we have to vote again to lisbon? we the people voted NO. i might be wrong but is that not how Democracy works?
will the powers that be in europe keep making us vote untill we get it right?

if Fianna Fáil lose the next general election and we were all made to vote again because we were misinformed on there polices there would be uproar.

surly this is not democracy.
if or when the treaty is ratified do we really want to be part of a Europe that treats the will of the people like this?

After reading this, i think it further highlights the lack of knowledge of how democracy works or how europe work, or for that matter what Lisbon Treaty is about

Can the OP describe in his own words how he thinks "democracy" should work?

and fair play to the posters in the first few pages who despite a barrage of slogans, managed to quietly and politely explain to the OP some of the issues and answer questions

and another question for the OP after reading this whole thread are you still gonna vote No in order to punish FF?

nesf

Judith122, as you share an IP address with ButcherBoiz I'm banning you until I'm happy they you aren't the same person.

worldrepublic

demakinz wrote: »

Why do we have to vote again to lisbon? we the people voted NO. i might be wrong but is that not how Democracy works?
will the powers that be in europe keep making us vote untill we get it right?

if Fianna Fáil lose the next general election and we were all made to vote again because we were misinformed on there polices there would be uproar.

surly this is not democracy.
if or when the treaty is ratified do we really want to be part of a Europe that treats the will of the people like this?

I agree. Someone else said that if we had voted yes the first time, we would not have this choice to vote again. I think in the case of a no vote, again, other countries in Europe would be more inclined to voice their protest with the treaty, then it would come under real scrutiny and Europe could move forward, maybe starting from scratch.

The treaty is clearly extensive and will mean very significant changes to power structures. The EEC, then EU has been evolving for many decades and so why the rush to make such a scale of change. On this note, if was only last year that we voted, so too much pressure is being applied to Ireland. In fact, if we vote no, again, and then there is added opposition to the treaty, on foot of this, there might well be a third vote. This does not seem like democracy to me. I think the more opposition the better. You just have to look at the state of the world, the number of people starving to death, all the wars, the dole queues and all of the trillions that was fed to the banks in Europe, and America. Apparently, all of those trillions could have paid off a whole lot of morgages for the people, instead these banks and their cronies seem to get their way too much and there too little in the way of opposition to discourage a further round of bailouts. These are the big issues, and the general advice from leaders is to just get on with it and accept their explanations as to what the hell is going on in the world. The average worker did not create all of these problems, the politicians and banks did. Also they are talking about a new "world currency", as if that will solve anything. They introduced the Euro, and now we owe a hell of a lot more euros than we ever did punts, or pounds, or francs. EVERYONE is being screwed and the mess just keeps getting worse. When is enough, enough. Are people brave enough to draw the line?

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

I agree. Someone else said that if we had voted yes the first time, we would not have this choice to vote again. I think in the case of a no vote, again, other countries in Europe would be more inclined to voice their protest with the treaty, then it would come under real scrutiny and Europe could move forward, maybe starting from scratch.

The treaty is clearly extensive and will mean very significant changes to power structures. The EEC, then EU has been evolving for many decades and so why the rush to make such a scale of change. On this note, if was only last year that we voted, so too much pressure is being applied to Ireland. In fact, if we vote no, again, and then there is added opposition to the treaty, on foot of this, there might well be a third vote. This does not seem like democracy to me. I think the more opposition the better. You just have to look at the state of the world, the number of people starving to death, all the wars, the dole queues and all of the trillions that was fed to the banks in Europe, and America. Apparently, all of those trillions could have paid off a whole lot of morgages for the people, instead these banks and their cronies seem to get their way too much and there too little in the way of opposition to discourage a further round of bailouts. These are the big issues, and the general advice from leaders is to just get on with it and accept their explanations as to what the hell is going on in the world. The average worker did not create all of these problems, the politicians and banks did. Also they are talking about a new "world currency", as if that will solve anything. They introduced the Euro, and now we owe a hell of a lot more euros than we ever did punts, or pounds, or francs. EVERYONE is being screwed and the mess just keeps getting worse. When is enough, enough. Are people brave enough to draw the line?

Actually the average worker contributed to the problem we are facing today, it is simple most people in the Western world lived well beyond their means constantly piliing up debt which is part of the reason we are in this mess today. Sure the banks shouldn't have done what they did but we aren't entirely blameless, I mean I don't remember protesting on the streets when the government was lowering taxes.

Ireland would not be anywhere without the EU, even if we look at the simple fact that Ireland got their act together because they wanted part of the EMU, it gave them motivation.

So what do you propose? That we all take to the streets, anarchy? That doesn't really sound like a solution. Our generation has had it pretty easy, really we didn't know how good we had it. Now there is a problem albeit a big one and all this blaming of other parties will get us nowhere.

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

The EEC, then EU has been evolving for many decades and so why the rush to make such a scale of change.

rush?

our diplomats and EU diplomats were working on this for the better part of this decade

no rush at all

and our boys had a big hand negotiating it

worldrepublic

There is a huge amount of poverty in europe. I think in most cases people are not simply living beyond their means, but are struggling to survive. This has really nothing to do with deregulation or the banking system itself. The system is dysfunctional, but this has made the people at the very top of society richer than ever. Trillions are being taken off workers and handed over to banks. By the way, banks are mostly privately owned, by enormously wealthy families and dynasties. I think that without some form of protest, by Ireland and other countries that might follow suit, there will actually be even more in the way of massive bailouts. Really, workers are being asked to do alot of handing over. Handing over money to banks, and handing over power via the Lisbon Treaty. Retaining power, not giving it away is the answer now, and it is the answer in the future. How much more do you want to give up?

ei.sdraob

worldrepublic wrote: »

There is a huge amount of poverty in europe. I think in most cases people are not simply living beyond their means, but are struggling to survive. This has really nothing to do with deregulation or the banking system itself. The system is dysfunctional, but this has made the people at the very top of society richer than ever. Trillions are being taken off workers and handed over to banks. By the way, banks are mostly privately owned, by enormously wealthy families and dynasties. I think that without some form of protest, by Ireland and other countries that might follow suit, there will actually be even more in the way of massive bailouts. Really, workers are being asked to do alot of handing over. Handing over money to banks, and handing over power via the Lisbon Treaty. Retaining power, not giving it away is the answer now, and it is the answer in the future. How much more do you want to give up?

where in the Lisbon treaty does it mention banks or handing over power to them?

sink

worldrepublic wrote: »

There is a huge amount of poverty in europe. I think in most cases people are not simply living beyond their means, but are struggling to survive. This has really nothing to do with deregulation or the banking system itself. The system is dysfunctional, but this has made the people at the very top of society richer than ever. Trillions are being taken off workers and handed over to banks. By the way, banks are mostly privately owned, by enormously wealthy families and dynasties. I think that without some form of protest, by Ireland and other countries that might follow suit, there will actually be even more in the way of massive bailouts. Really, workers are being asked to do alot of handing over. Handing over money to banks, and handing over power via the Lisbon Treaty. Retaining power, not giving it away is the answer now, and it is the answer in the future. How much more do you want to give up?

Actually the major banks of the world are all publicly listed companies and are therefore owned by many diverse shareholders including pensions funds. If you have a private or public pension there is little doubt that some of your pension is invested in the banking sector and therefore by proxy you own a stake in a bank, congratulations for berating yourself. If the major banks collapse you can wave goodbye to your pension and any savings you have.

If in the future at any stage you go looking for a mortgage or a loan, good luck. Unless you have 20% capital and can afford to pay 20%+ interest rates you wont be able to get credit. Are you employed or do you own a business? Either way be prepared to see a massive drop in your income as the economy grinds to a halt. People who can no longer afford credit can no longer spend money on big ticket items like houses, cars, home extensions, furniture, holidays etc,. Virtually all business will see their gross income plummet and many closures and staff lay-offs and will follow. In turn these newly unemployed will have to cut back on their weekly expenses and local business bars, restaurants, shops etc. will feel the impact leading to more layoffs.

The decrease in tax revenue along with the increase people seeking unemployment benefits will cause the government exchequer to rampage even further out of control. The government will be forced to further cut social welfare, public services and raise taxes. It will have to pay more to borrow money as the countries credit rating will go down the toilet. Before long the country will end up with an economy not unlike that of Russia's after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Be prepared to spend hours queuing for bread and canned food and buy warm blankets and clothing as you won't have heating for a while.

\Rant