Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[SkipRat]

With regards to population control, what have the Catholics ever done for us? Furthermore, what are the swathes of Christian fundamentalists doing for population control right now (with abortion bans spreading in the US anyway state by state)?

This is NOT a single-solution problem. I am perplexed as to why there is this laser focus on one specific area.

Best form of population control is education for women and access to contraception and family planning. As educated women in general choose to have smaller families.

I am against the chatholic church and their approach. Absolutly disgusting and it needs to change. Just hate religions full stop.

The pope is a c*nt and his decrees have screwed over places like the Philippines, where the use of condoms is illegal, unless you are a sex worker. Being so impoverished, All they do in the evenings is screw as there is nothing else to do in the rural areas.

So I don't give a f*ck about what the Catholics have done for us, all they have done is make things worse. So they are a massive part of the problem.

I stated my views on the abortion laws in American and called them insane nutjobs.

Feel free to check.

 

[Kompakted]

Labour'a self-set "working people" trap currently the political gift that keeps on giving. Following on from Starmer stating that people that earn most of their money from income from assets aren't working people, question this morning about whether a small-business owner is a working person initiated the inevitable cringe worthy response.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

What special kind of departed this post is.

I know more than what you do

Oh and as interesting fact, Maggie Thatcher for all her faults was bang on the money in regards to climate change, as she was a trained scientist and understood the scientific method and science as a whole.

Just a shame the rest of the party are as thick as shyte when it come to science and didn't follow her lead in this subject.

I'll tell you what you're really bad at. Evading questions. That was embarrassingly lame!

 

[Grays_1890]

Labour'a self-set "working people" trap currently the political gift that keeps on giving. Following on from Starmer stating that people that earn most of their money from income from assets aren't working people, question this morning about whether a small-business owner is a working person initiated the inevitable cringe worthy response.

I think he has killed himself with the wording but ultimately I understand the point he is making. People who work all week to scrap by, who if GHod forbid their car breaks down or their machine machine breaks and they are stuffed, they are the ones that need better in the country. Where their salary comes from though should not really matter in that respect which is where he is tying himself in knots. I like Starmer, I think he is a doer but I don't think he is being well advised PR wise. He could have cut this whole weeks rhetoric about who a working person is off at the neck days ago, but its been the main feature on every political programme today.....again

I am a small business owner and would say I am a working person because I work to earn BUT I can separate his meaning for what it is. I mean for me to take that plunge I had to have money put aside to do so and have the fall back incase contracts cancel, so I get what he means.

 

[Kompakted]

I think he has killed himself with the wording but ultimately I understand the point he is making. People who work all week to scrap by, who if GHod forbid their car breaks down or their machine machine breaks and they are stuff, they are the ones that need better in the country. Where their salary comes from though should not really matter in that respect which is where he is tying himself in knots. I like Starmer, I think he is a doer but I don't think he is being well advised PR wise. He could have cut this whole weeks rhetoric about who a working person is off at the neck days ago, but its been the main feature on every political programme today.....again

He reminds me of Theresa May. The policies aren't actually that bad in principle on occasion, but they're consistently horrifically explained or thought through politically and that means Labour ministers are consistently spending time in front of cameras being embarrassed and the creeping impression is one of general incompetence. They must be coming off those interviews furious with the advice they've been given behind the scenes.

 

[Grays_1890]

He reminds me of Theresa May. The policies aren't actually that bad in principle on occasion, but they're consistently horrifically explained or thought through politically and that means Labour ministers are consistently spending time in front of cameras being embarrassed and the creeping impression is one of general incompetence. They must be coming off those interviews furious with the advice they've been given behind the scenes.

They are just as bad, no one seemingly has the verve or the flair to explain off script. I think its easily put to bed as I say, no one seemingly has it about them to do so. BUT as I say, I get he point and I think Starmer is doing good work to unpick the mess we were in, he just needs a better PR machine behind him

 

[SkipRat]

I'll tell you what you're really bad at. Evading questions. That was embarrassingly lame!

If ya think so.

 

[Kompakted]

They are just as bad, no one seemingly has the verve or the flair to explain off script. I think its easily put to bed as I say, no one seemingly has it about them to do so. BUT as I say, I get he point and I think Starmer is doing good work to unpick the mess we were in, he just needs a better PR machine behind him

I think actually, that the fundamental problem is that Sunak and Hunt actually did an astoundingly good job in a short time of tidying up the country economically and so Labour's policies and campaign rhetoric are all about inheriting this "mess" when actually the UK is in probably one of the strongest positions in the developed economic world and actually, tax rises are probably not even necessary anymore as there's certainly the fiscal headroom to increase borrowing if the Chancellor can be led away from her self-imposed handbrake.

 

[DTA]

But I have answered that question.

Just because you had women in power, it doesn't stop women from being treated as 2nd class citizens in general.

And "today," women are being beaten, imprisoned (and for being raped), stoned to death, lashed, and publicly humiliated.

You can point all you want to what you did in the past about your claims regarding women, but the truth is the opposite for many women, especially today, is entirely different. And we live in today.

You can't ignore what is going on and pretending that it is not happening.

And just America because hasn't had a women president means nothing, so what? The UK has had three and they have all been fecking vile and evil creatures.

The reason why Clinton didn't get voted in, wasn't because she was a woman, she didn't get voted in because she just represented corporate America and no change, when America was crying out for change after the 2008 crash. And despite America not having a female president, you don't see American's stoning women today in public, or sending them to prison for being raped and lashing them

Ruling Jolts Even Saudis: 200 Lashes for Rape Victim (Published 2007)

A Saudi court on Tuesday more than doubled the number of lashes that a female *struggle cuddle* victim was sentenced to last year after her lawyer appealed the original sentence.

www.nytimes.com

You don't see America refusing education to women.

And yes, despite America going full insanely stupid on, abortion laws, in general, the women in America are so much better off than most women in many Islamic countries today.

It's not my fault, I don't make the laws in many Islamic countries, and it's not my fault those countries are the way they are.

You are not answering the question though.

if as you claim that Islam is inherently Misogynistic how come rights were given to women in some Muslim countries before some countries in the west? How come women have been directly elected to heads of state in SOME Muslim countries.

now you use the example of Saudi to try to show that Islam is inherently Misogynistic.

Saudi is a Misogynistic culture, in fact I would go further, it actually practices gender apartheid and we should actually be placing sanctions on it the same way we did South Africa.

It also promotes a form of Islam (whabbism) which is akin to the puritans of the west past (mostly in the past anyway, at least in terms of rulers) and is actually responsible for promoting this around the world which has directly led (although not wholly) to terrorism.

You know what else Saudi is though, it’s a nation constructed on the basis of the ruling on the house Saud … a family installed in power and propped up by the British.

Now before you respond, I’m not saying that the British are responsible for the gender apartheid in Saudi because of sins of the past and the Saudis themselves are not.

That’s not what I’m saying. But we do have a hand in it. And we made a choice to support and prop up them rather than more moderate voices.

And why are we still trading with them? Why we selling them weapons? Why do class them as an ally?

But…

Saudi is not the only Muslim country it’s not a particularly populous one either. So why use Saudi to brand all Muslims with?

There are Muslim countries that absolutely do not have the same system as the Saudis, Iran, Sudan or Somalia. They do not have the same attitudes to women as you have claimed represent Islam. And these countries are in the vast Majority, these are the countries that in some instances gave women more rights than those in the west including the right to vote, these are the countries that actually elected women to heads of state.

You see all Muslims are not the same, not all Muslim countries are the same.

And if you want to have a “proper debate” then let’s do so, but let’s be honest with our comments

 

[Grays_1890]

I think actually, that the fundamental problem is that Sunak and Hunt actually did an astoundingly good job in a short time of tidying up the country economically and so Labour's policies and campaign rhetoric are all about inheriting this "mess" when actually the UK is in probably one of the strongest positions in the developed economic world and actually, tax rises are probably not even necessary anymore as there's certainly the fiscal headroom to increase borrowing if the Chancellor can be led away from her self-imposed handbrake.

I think Sunak was better than given credit for, he had a short time, but there are messes there still from Conservative government reign that hurts still. I became alot worse off at the end of the month by some distance from the beginning of 2022 - beginning of 2024 because of their decision making and the impact of their mini budget, thats despite my business scaling up.

 

[Kompakted]

I think Sunak was better than given credit for, he had a short time, but there are messes there still from Conservative government reign that hurts still. I became alot worse off at the end of the month by some distance from the beginning of 2022 - beginning of 2024 because of their decision making and the impact of their mini budget, thats despite my business scaling up.

The mini budget didn't have the long-term or even medium-term impact articulated by the press. As in, the mini budget was not the root cause of any economic shocks experienced on the ground.

Economic volatility and loss of market confidence was global and largely caused by the war in Ukraine and Russian/Chinese hybrid warfare related to global energy prices and the UK was not out of line with peers in where it ended up. If anything it's banking system particularly stood up much better to the stock and interest rate volatility that caused many small to medium-sized US banks to fold, the collapse of UBS and confidence in deutschebank to collapse.

 

[Grays_1890]

You are not answering the question though.

if as you claim that Islam is inherently Misogynistic how come rights were given to women in some Muslim countries before some countries in the west? How come women have been directly elected to heads of state in SOME Muslim countries.

now you use the example of Saudi to try to show that Islam is inherently Misogynistic.

Saudi is a Misogynistic culture, in fact I would go further, it actually practices gender apartheid and we should actually be placing sanctions on it the same way we did South Africa.

It also promotes a form of Islam (whabbism) which is akin to the puritans of the west past (mostly in the past anyway, at least in terms of rulers) and is actually responsible for promoting this around the world which has directly led (although not wholly) to terrorism.

You know what else Saudi is though, it’s a nation constructed on the basis of the ruling on the house Saud … a family installed in power and propped up by the British.

Now before you respond, I’m not saying that the British are responsible for the gender apartheid in Saudi because of sins of the past and the Saudis themselves are not.

That’s not what I’m saying. But we do have a hand in it. And we made a choice to support and prop up them rather than more moderate voices.

And why are we still trading with them? Why we selling them weapons? Why do class them as an ally?

But…

Saudi is not the only Muslim country it’s not a particularly populous one either. So why use Saudi to brand all Muslims with?

There are Muslim countries that absolutely do not have the same system as the Saudis, Iran, Sudan or Somalia. They do not have the same attitudes to women as you have claimed represent Islam. And these countries are in the vast Majority, these are the countries that in some instances gave women more rights than those in the west including the right to vote, these are the countries that actually elected women to heads of state.

You see all Muslims are not the same, not all Muslim countries are the same.

And if you want to have a “proper debate” then let’s do so, but let’s be honest with our comments

I find it interesting the whole "misogyny" claim that seems easy to attribute to a number of people because of their religion but when you look at the western world and pick it apart, take religion out of it, we have a serious problem with it ourselves. The once leader of the free world is guilty of being a sexual predator, the rise of white lead *struggle cuddle* and sexual assault in the UK and US is stark, the Right Wing poster boys of Tate and Robinson are both well reported (in Robinsons case proven) abusers of women. Brand is under investigation of sexual assault, not to mention the ever presented issues that US and UK entertainment industries keep presenting up about *struggle cuddle* and sexual abuse, let alone noncery. We could even go into the deep religious led issues in the US about abortion, the oppression of women in Ohio and the bible belt. SO I find it laughable that anyone can point the finger at others when the west has as much, if not more to do about how we treat women than anyone.

 

[Grays_1890]

The mini budget didn't have the long-term or even medium-term impact articulated by the press. As in, the mini budget was not the root cause of any economic shocks experienced on the ground.

Economic volatility and loss of market confidence was global and largely caused by the war in Ukraine and Russian/Chinese hybrid warfare related to global energy prices and the UK was not out of line with peers in where it ended up. If anything it's banking system particularly stood up much better to the stock and interest rate volatility that caused many small to medium-sized US banks to fold, the collapse of UBS and confidence in deutschebank to collapse.

The mini budget killed my mortgage and went a long way to absorbing a large chunk of progress I made in growing my income, so I don't agree in real world terms. The immediate drop in pound and rise in cost of borrowing literally unpicked my work. I was doing very well in business and came out of the conservative government reign worse off. I have come out the other end but its taken another scaling up and additions of contracts to see real financial benefits of my hard work.

The last 4 years of conservative reign saw the UK in the worst state I have seen it in for a long time, yes you are correct there are variables in that like wat and covid, but its also their job to counter that. You can't say they never self harmed at times because they did and lets be frank, if they were any cop they would never have been slaughtered in the election

 

[SkipRat]

You are not answering the question though.

if as you claim that Islam is inherently Misogynistic how come rights were given to women in some *bacon dodger* countries before some countries in the west? How come women have been directly elected to heads of state in SOME *bacon dodger* countries.

now you use the example of Saudi to try to show that Islam is inherently Misogynistic.

Saudi is a Misogynistic culture, in fact I would go further, it actually practices gender apartheid and we should actually be placing sanctions on it the same way we did South Africa.

It also promotes a form of Islam (whabbism) which is akin to the puritans of the west past (mostly in the past anyway, at least in terms of rulers) and is actually responsible for promoting this around the world which has directly led (although not wholly) to terrorism.

You know what else Saudi is though, it’s a nation constructed on the basis of the ruling on the house Saud … a family installed in power and propped up by the British.

Now before you respond, I’m not saying that the British are responsible for the gender apartheid in Saudi because of sins of the past and the Saudis themselves are not.

That’s not what I’m saying. But we do have a hand in it. And we made a choice to support and prop up them rather than more moderate voices.

And why are we still trading with them? Why we selling them weapons? Why do class them as an ally?

But…

Saudi is not the only *bacon dodger* country it’s not a particularly populous one either. So why use Saudi to brand all Muslims with?

There are *bacon dodger* countries that absolutely do not have the same system as the Saudis, Iran, Sudan or Somalia. They do not have the same attitudes to women as you have claimed represent Islam. And these countries are in the vast Majority, these are the countries that in some instances gave women more rights than those in the west including the right to vote, these are the countries that actually elected women to heads of state.

You see all Muslims are not the same, not all *bacon dodger* countries are the same.

And if you want to have a “proper debate” then let’s do so, but let’s be honest with our comments

FFS!

You say you want a serious debate then post complete lies and fabrications about what I said.

I have not used Saudi to label all Muslims. I even stated in previous posts, countries like "MALAYSIA" are "PRETTY MODERATE AND COOL," despite not perfect.

I have also pointed the finger at Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sudan, and more for example and clearly stated "MANY COUNTRIES." so, "NOT ALL" is it.

Furthermore, as I had included the like Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan and many of the others, it's not such a small population now is it?

And finally, I have answered your question, but just because I haven't given you the answer "YOU" want, doesn't mean I haven't answer it.

So you wouldn't know a proper debate on it, even if it punched you in the face.

Always have to lie and make claims the were never said.

 

[Kompakted]

The mini budget killed my mortgage and went a long way to absorbing a large chunk of progress I made in growing my income, so I don't agree in real world terms. The immediate drop in pound and rise in cost of borrowing literally unpicked my work. I was doing very well in business and came out of the conservative government reign worse off. I have come out the other end but its taken another scaling up and additions of contracts to see real financial benefits of my hard work.

The last 4 years of conservative reign saw the UK in the worst state I have seen it in for a long time, yes you are correct there are variables in that like wat and covid, but its also their job to counter that. You can't say they never self harmed at times because they did and lets be frank, if they were any cop they would never have been slaughtered in the election

I don't think the drop in the £, nor the rise in the cost of borrowing had anything to do with the mini budget in the way the press articulated.

There was a loss in confidence in the UK economy because the primary economic risk at the time was inflation and the budget was seen to add significantly to inflationary pressures by dumping a tonne of money into the economy and force the BoE to take corrective measures to raise interest rates, giving the impression of a disconnect between government and central bank policy.

However, the idea that the loss of confidence and the £ dropping and interest rates rising were because of the tax cuts and not primarily because of the open-ended energy cost support package announced in the same budget (which made up by an order of magnitude made up the bulk of the reasons why interest rates had to rise), is in my opinion nonsensical.

Germany announced a £300 billion support package soon afterwards and experienced similar risk pricing volatility. Obviously being a member of the euro shielded them from any major currency value fluctuations but fundamentally the UK ended up in line with its peers as a result of the mini budget.

There was a particular short-term "idiot proofing" in the UK's risk positions likely brought about by confidence in Truss herself but those positions vanished almost as soon as Hunt had been installed and I don't think Truss had any longer term impact from her decisions other than to destroy her own career.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think actually, that the fundamental problem is that Sunak and Hunt actually did an astoundingly good job in a short time of tidying up the country economically and so Labour's policies and campaign rhetoric are all about inheriting this "mess" when actually the UK is in probably one of the strongest positions in the developed economic world and actually, tax rises are probably not even necessary anymore as there's certainly the fiscal headroom to increase borrowing if the Chancellor can be led away from her self-imposed handbrake.

If you've ever been in/on a school, hospital, university, train, road etc. lately, tax rises are very necessary. Our entire infrastructure is crumbling after Long Tory.

 

[P.D.]

They are just as bad, no one seemingly has the verve or the flair to explain off script. I think its easily put to bed as I say, no one seemingly has it about them to do so. BUT as I say, I get he point and I think Starmer is doing good work to unpick the mess we were in, he just needs a better PR machine behind him

They're terrible communicators and don't seem very organised behind the scenes, I'm sure they'll grow into it. I do think some of their policies look naive but I did read that none of the cabinet have any real business experience, I don't think any of them have started or run a business for example which might come back to bite them.

I get the point that they're trying to say good public services cost money with the rumored tax rises but that's not what they told the electorate a few months back.

 

[Mikey10]

I get the point that they're trying to say good public services cost money with the rumored tax rises but that's not what they told the electorate a few months back.

Unfortunately, if they had, they’d be sitting on the opposition benches now.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

If ya think so.

Well, I asked a very specific question, and you refused to answer it. That says a lot.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Unfortunately, if they had, they’d be sitting on the opposition benches now.

Yeah, the newspapers would have been screaming about communism and calling them Mao's mates.