The Political Thread

[ZenArcade]

Oh sauchie.....the man; the polemic and the laughter and the approving nod. Z

[8-Ball]

Ah, come on now sharky, you know it isnt quite that simple.

It is though. What Rich says above is true - it will be fine, but that applies equally whether the vote goes YES or NO. Anyone arguing that Scotland's political class would be incapable of running their affairs as well as Norway, Denmark, Belgium, or any number of small and unremarkable European nations is clearly an idiot or a fucking cunt. Similarly, those arguing that the English have been conspiring to steal our cash and hold us back for centuries are dangerous morons who are looking for someone to tear them a new arsehole.

The Nation is a threadbare concept that looks like it's reaching the end of its usefulness after a little less than 150 years, and squabbling over whether we belong to the UK or Scotland at a time when both of those constructs have never mattered less is preposterous. It really wouldn't make any difference.

The hysterical level at which the debate has been conducted has given the impassioned wankers on either side the opportunity to demonstrate what colossal pricks they really are. If you've spent the last few months furiously arguing that if the vote doesn't go your way Armageddon awaits, or that paradise is promised to anyone who agrees with you, you're a fucking LIAR. I've no interest in sharing ANY country with you or in having the ideology driven, self serving cocks you would elect taking the decisions that affect my life.

I'm going to print this out and put it up on my wall. 

[Proudhuff]

Agreed: No Armageddon (nor paradise), just a long slow slide into Tory/UKIP isolation and more of the same Neocon nonsense, or we could try another way, we thankfully have a choice.

[Richmond Clements]

From the 'You couldn't make it up' file: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/03/tony-blair-gq-awards_n_5757280.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

[The Legendary Shark]

You only get choices over things that don't matter. How many of us were given the choice over whether to invade Afghanistan or not after 9/11? Just those few of us who own and are in thrall to the military industrial complex and the war profiteers (banks). If we hadn't started invading all over the place when the US went mad, those few of us who got a vote would have missed out on earning trillions.
.
Whether Scotland votes Yes or No makes not one scrap of difference to the money men - for whichever way you go they'll still be fleecing you. You can rest assured that if a Yes vote meant their Scottish revenue dried up and a No vote meant their fleecings continued then there's no way you'd get anywhere near a ballot paper.
.
There is a huge difference between freedom and freedom of choice. Freedom is hard work because you have to devise and implement your own choices whilst tolerating and respecting the (lawful) choices of everyone else. Freedom of choice is piss easy because other people devise and implement your choices for you and boil it down to a couple of simplified options, neither of which is designed to change anything at the top of the societal pyramid. All you have to do is legitimise this bogus process by endorsing one or other pointless option.
.
I really don't care whether countries are independent of each other or not. What I do think is that people, all people, should be independent of countries.
.

[TordelBack]

What I do think is that people, all people, should be independent of countries.

Testify.

[The Legendary Shark]

.

From the 'You couldn't make it up' file: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/03/tony-blair-gq-awards_n_5757280.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

.
Cute link, Rich, thanks.
.
Thought I'd do a little checking on who owns GQ and it turns out to be a company called Conde Nast - which is itself owned by Advance Publishing, a holding company. Researching on this 'phone is a tedious and frustrating affair so that's as far as I got. I don't know who owns Advance Publishing but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be Disney or CBS or News International or even some of the old familiar Bilderberg names like Rothschild, Morgan, Greenspan, Rumsfeld, Koch or even Blair himself.
.
This award is, in my opinion, just one example of "news engineering". The vast majority of people won't think too deeply about this - we adore awards these days and even those who snort at this news might quietly believe that there's no smoke without fire, or no award without merit.
.
The award's also on the record now so, in 20 years when us old duffers have forgotten all about it students will be Googling Tony Blair for a project and hey presto! Look at all these awards he won - he must have been a heck of a good guy! This is how monsters are turned into heroes, one lie at a time.
.
Reminds me of the time Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for the things he might do. News engineering, that's all this is (and maybe part of Blair's reward for toeing the line - the lifestyle of a globetrotting multi- millionaire all-round-good-guy - the thinking idiot's James Bond, a man to admire and emulate).
.
Blech

[IAMTHESYSTEM]

Philanthropist of the year?

Satire is dead.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

You only get choices over things that don't matter. How many of us were given the choice over whether to invade Afghanistan or not after 9/11? Just those few of us who own and are in thrall to the military industrial complex and the war profiteers (banks). If we hadn't started invading all over the place when the US went mad, those few of us who got a vote would have missed out on earning trillions.

Interesting that you pick Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

I supported the toppling of the Taliban, who were pretty convincingly talked about as both partly culpable for 9/11 and a direct threat to UK security.

Iraq, on the other hand, I flatly opposed, as it was nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with the settling of old scores, as was obvious to most people at the time. Blair was clever though, he kept the Toreis to the right of him, so there wasn't a credible peace-loving option for UK voters to back at the following election.

[Proudhuff]

You only get choices over things that don't matter. How many of us were given the choice over whether to invade Afghanistan or not after 9/11? Just those few of us who own and are in thrall to the military industrial complex and the war profiteers (banks). If we hadn't started invading all over the place when the US went mad, those few of us who got a vote would have missed out on earning trillions.

Iraq, on the other hand, I flatly opposed, as it was nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with the settling of old scores,

and er, oil?

[The Legendary Shark]

I chose Afghanistan because it was first, I seem to recall. The alleged mastermind of 9/11, Osama Bin Liner, was from Saudi Arabia, whose reportedly brutal ruling royal family are backed by the US and bristling with state of the art weaponry and sitting on oceans of cheap oil. Some of the alleged bombers may have been Afghans, the footsoldiers, so I guess it made sense to invade piss-poor Afghanistan rather than super-rich Saudi Arabia.
.
Point is, we never got to vote on it or even pick a target and look how many people have been killed and how much money has been made since. The Scottish vote is unlikely to result in so much murder, mayhem and moneymaking and so you can't do any damage no matter which way you decide to go - so you're being permitted to get involved but within strict parameters decided by others.
.
I don't envy you people north of the border, you're being asked to vote for your favourite impediment - and a lot of you will do it, too.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

and er, oil?

I wouldn't argue.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

I chose Afghanistan because it was first, I seem to recall. The alleged mastermind of 9/11, Osama Bin Liner, was from Saudi Arabia, whose reportedly brutal ruling royal family are backed by the US and bristling with state of the art weaponry and sitting on oceans of cheap oil. Some of the alleged bombers may have been Afghans, the footsoldiers, so I guess it made sense to invade piss-poor Afghanistan rather than super-rich Saudi Arabia.

I think it was more that Afghanistan was harbouring and supporting Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden, that meant they were first on the invasion list.

The Scottish vote is unlikely to result in so much murder, mayhem and moneymaking

Optimist!

[The Legendary Shark]

Also, drug exports from Afghanistan to the US fell dramatically under the Taliban. After the invasion, those poppy farmers were soon back in business again and doing better than ever.
.
Some claim that the CIA (or rogue elements within and around that agency) are responsible for most illegal drug imports to the US - both to fund black-ops and keep the underclass addicted, ruthless, stupid and fragmented. Divide and rule. Whether this is true or not I can't say but I do find it depressingly possible.
.

[Professor Bear]

Some of the alleged bombers may have been Afghans, the footsoldiers, so I guess it made sense to invade piss-poor Afghanistan rather than super-rich Saudi Arabia.

Was it Farenheit 911 that had the segment with the banker explaining that if the Saudis ever withdrew the vast amounts of money they store in US banks, it would bankrupt the US overnight?  And supposedly after the attacks, Bush Jr walked into his first security meeting and asked how soon they could invade Iraq.