>> ^Porksandwich:

Couldn't understand a lot of what was said after the "drip" part.


There certainly was a lot of talking over each other, but this is what I heard:


Cox: "I think that just a drip of that quantative easing to the science budget would possibly transform our economy."

Campbell: "He could get into Downing Street anytime he wants, and why don't you stand for parliament?"

Cox: *Stammers*

Neil: "Good answer"

Cox: "Not much happens then does it, I think you've got to be ..."

Portillo: "don't you have a 15 year term in the House of Lords?"

Cox: " .. don't you have to be Prime Minister, at least, until you can get anything done?"

Yeah, it's this absolutely fucked thing that conservatives do... they say 'No, I have no issues with gays, or muslims, or evolution or whatever' only because they know that it's regarded as homophobic, racists or anti-logic. They DO have issues, they DO have issues with them, but the pussy foot around actually saying it, and just legislate against such things.

Well, that's what some of them do.

What other people do is they really DON'T have any issue with those things but vote against them due to fear of losing the ultra-conservative vote.

There was a time, way back, when Hockey and Rudd (before he was prime minister) used to face off against each other on a morning show each week... and I didn' t mind him then, he seemed ok.

But the more I hear him, the more I see he really is a conservative dick who thinks the rich should keep their money, the gays should be out of sight, and anyone who is poor is such due to their own fault.

Don't like him

Gervais for Prime Minister

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
(1) In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
(2) Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
(3) So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


(1) True, but nevertheless it is only ~11% of the world's proven oil reserves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

(2) Going from point 1, Iran hardly holds a control on the monopoly of oil. Furthermore all developed countries have an interest in ensuring steady supply to oil. If for example Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz, they would attract opprobrium from far more than just Israel and the US.

Oil trade in US dollars is surely a big part of the contributor to the strong US dollar, but the currency is used as a global trade and reserve currencies for its pre-eminence as a global economy not as a result of oil.

Also, even if the US dollar value were to collapse (which is hardly something likely in the next decade), I would bet that aid to Israel would be one of the last things to go because of the religious ties, the power of AIPAC in the US as a lobbying group and the history between the two countries.

(3) I think there's little denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I agree that geopolitics and influence in the region is surely a reason they are seeking it. But considered simply from the standpoint of Iran's autocratic leaders that it's simply a deterrence to outside intervention from the US.

Right now it seems implausible especially under Obama that the US itself would launch an attack on Iran, but when GWB invaded Iraq and the US economy was in much better shape that was hardly a fantasy. Iran's leaders have a genuine reason to fear this and while in the short term they risk a pre-emptive attack from Israel, in the long term they benefit immeasurably from the kind of deterrence that NK now has. Keep in mind that Iran's nuclear program is hardly the machinations of right wing ideologues like Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, the de facto leader of the green movement supports nuclear development and was instrumental in the inception of the program as previous prime minister.

So I really think it's that and not a long term play for energy independence. Oil is going to be with us for many decades to come and if this wiki is correct, Iran has a 100 years of supply available. With the economy the way it is and our current dependence on dirty fuels, we're hardly going to jump on the green train any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, firfighters, brussels, prime minster, water, hose' to 'police, firefighters, brussels, belgium, prime minister, water, hose' - edited by calvados

Canadians have a regressive conservative moron as Prime Minister, but at least he's not racist. +1pt for Canada.

QM, Mossadegh's effort to nationalize his nation's oil was not a threat to the United States. For one, they were not doing it to make a political point against any government; so, the Iranians had no interest in withholding oil from any customers. What they wanted were the revenues and profits from the oil coming out of their own land; which would have hurt British interests, or more specifically, the precursor to BP. The US got involved because of cold war ideology. Also, our governments were not in conflict at the time; Mossadegh even visited the states at least once.

Your proposition that they would have eventually overthrown Mossadegh is faulty on a number of points. First of all, Mossadegh was an elderly man who could not have lasted a couple of decades. Secondly, he was a prime minister in a democracy with many thriving factions. Like in all democracies, his administration would have eventually been voted out. Also, the Islamic fundies in Iran developed as a direct result of the Shah's brutality. The Persians had one of the richest, intellectual and tolerant cultures in the region, beforehand, IMO. If their democracy had had a chance to mature and thrive, they could have been a major positive force in the region. Why would people in possession of wealth and democracy overthrow their own government?

It's a very interesting story, documented in the book All the Shah's Men, if you are interested in learning more.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@ChaosEngine Thank you for your more civil tone of late. Am I surprised that someone reached for the mouse to downvote MY comment while ignoring THIS?

Stukafox: There's only two kinds of Republicans: Corporate tools and complete psychopaths.

The Blame America First mindset is very real. It's taught in our public schools government indoctrination centers from K thru kollij. "Anarchist" Gnome Chompsky has made millions off this bizarre worldview, which glibly ignores the 100 million murdered by communist regimes and the defeat of fascism (and rebuilding of Europe) by the United States.
As for the charge of US meddling in Iran, the reality is we have interests around the world, things we want to buy and nations that want to sell. Glancing at wikipedia: when the elected government nationalized the Iranian oil industry, that was a threat to both Britain and the US.
Yeah, the Shah was an a-hole, but he was replaced with an even bigger a-hole, an islamic fundie. So instead of utopian perfection, we had an evil replaced with a greater evil. (And who's to say had Prime Minister Mosaddegh kept power through the 1970s, he wouldn't have been overthrown by Khomeini anyway)?
There is not any one era when international relations was superior and reasonable, just brief burps where there was an odd peace.
If you want to celebrate red china for "putting America in its place" like our idiot excuse of a president does, you better damned well understand what you're favoring: a ruthless communist regime that kills people as easily as you throw away coat hangers.

@ChaosEngine Thank you for your more civil tone of late. Am I surprised that someone reached for the mouse to downvote MY comment while ignoring THIS?

Stukafox: There's only two kinds of Republicans: Corporate tools and complete psychopaths.

The Blame America First mindset is very real. It's taught in our public schools government indoctrination centers from K thru kollij. "Anarchist" Gnome Chompsky has made millions off this bizarre worldview, which glibly ignores the 100 million murdered by communist regimes and the defeat of fascism (and rebuilding of Europe) by the United States.

As for the charge of US meddling in Iran, the reality is we have interests around the world, things we want to buy and nations that want to sell. Glancing at wikipedia: when the elected government nationalized the Iranian oil industry, that was a threat to both Britain and the US.

Yeah, the Shah was an a-hole, but he was replaced with an even bigger a-hole, an islamic fundie. So instead of utopian perfection, we had an evil replaced with a greater evil. (And who's to say had Prime Minister Mosaddegh kept power through the 1970s, he wouldn't have been overthrown by Khomeini anyway)?

There is not any one era when international relations was superior and reasonable, just brief burps where there was an odd peace.

If you want to celebrate red china for "putting America in its place" like our idiot excuse of a president does, you better damned well understand what you're favoring: a ruthless communist regime that kills people as easily as you throw away coat hangers.

The Conservative government have done everything they could to undermine Kyoto since coming to power in 2006. They, along with their Oil Patch backers, have delayed implementing key strategies until indeed now it is too late, too expensive, and completely unfeasible to reach the targets that BY LAW our country had committed to. At the same time those same political and financial interests have waged a propaganda campaign to convince Canadians that Kyoto was too expensive and unfair to our national interests in that it put too large a burden on developed nations like ours while developing nations such as India and China were not obliged to lower their own emissions.

I remember being angry that the United States, under then President George W. Bush, refused to ratify Kyoto which the previous President Clinton had agreed to do. However Canada DID ratify the treaty, making our offense much, much worse.

The recent talks at Durban, known colloquially as Kyoto II, failed for the same reasons. The Canadian Government deliberately sabotaged the talks and bullied smaller nations to do the same with threats to withdraw financial aid and impose trade and travel barriers. Our government is behaving like an Imperial power forcing other nations to do what we, and more specifically our business interests, want them to do.

We Canadians have a certain view of ourselves- we think the world sees us as peacemakers and conciliators. This may have been the case in the time of Trudeau and Pearson, but is the case no longer. Harper is quickly leading us down a much darker path where we are increasingly being seen as obstructionist, militant and bullying.

Shame on our Prime Minister, shame on the Conservative Government.

Shame on all of us.

That list of American crimes in the video is just the beginning, America's assassination of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Congo in 1960 and subsequent installation of a dictator (Mobutu) has led to countless millions of deaths. Just in the decade between 1998-2008 there were 5.4 million deaths from Malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition.

"Most of the deaths are due to easily treatable and preventable diseases through the collapse of health systems and the disruption of livelihoods,"

from http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/22/us-congo-democratic-death-idUSL2280201220080122

These figures also don't shed light on the fact that the Congo is the rape capital of the world, and the absolute greed of Mobutu (when he was alive) - "Besides what Mobutu siphoned off and stole, he paid himself generously. His personal salary was 17% of the state budget. By 1989, he officially received $100 million a year to spend as he wished, more than the government spent on education, health and social services combined."

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/08/news/mn-30058

Here is a list of some other regime changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

I feel very sad for you.

But on a happy note, this video has gone wonderfully for Get Up, and one can only hope our darn Prime Minister legalises it...

I don't have anything against gay people. It isn't as if homosexuality is so much worse than any other sin, although all the baggage that comes with it can cause a society to become totally degenerate. Take the greeks for example.

I don't label it sin because I am afraid of it, or for a feeling of superiority. I don't think I am superior to any other human being. I call it sin because that is what God said it is. It's immoral and goes against Gods design, and nature itself. You call me intolerant but you aren't tolerant of my beliefs, so I don't think you have anything to say about tolerance.


>> ^spoco2:
Damnit SB... come here and fucking rain on a damn beautiful video.
I got into work this morning and saw the email from GetUp (the advocacy group who created this), and thought I'd give the video a watch, having no idea what it was about. I could tell there was a twist at the end... but, I guess I just don't even consider a gay relationship to be a 'twist', that it wasn't something that crossed my mind. (probably should have been, if I'd been thinking about it I would have thought what the hot topics in Australia are currently around relationships).
But really well done, really great.
It's so very sad that anyone can watch this and feel anything but joy for this 'couple' (I only put couple like that as they're actors, not real). @shinyblurry, you are filled with hate born from fear. You fear gay people because you fear anything different from your little world. You label it 'sin' to make yourself feel righteous about condemning it, but it comes down to you feeling 'icky' about two men lovin' it up because you haven't been exposed to it...
I feel very sad for you. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">
But on a happy note, this video has gone wonderfully for Get Up, and one can only hope our darn Prime Minister legalises it...

Damnit SB... come here and fucking rain on a damn beautiful video.

I got into work this morning and saw the email from GetUp (the advocacy group who created this), and thought I'd give the video a watch, having no idea what it was about. I could tell there was a twist at the end... but, I guess I just don't even consider a gay relationship to be a 'twist', that it wasn't something that crossed my mind. (probably should have been, if I'd been thinking about it I would have thought what the hot topics in Australia are currently around relationships).

But really well done, really great.

It's so very sad that anyone can watch this and feel anything but joy for this 'couple' (I only put couple like that as they're actors, not real). @shinyblurry, you are filled with hate born from fear. You fear gay people because you fear anything different from your little world. You label it 'sin' to make yourself feel righteous about condemning it, but it comes down to you feeling 'icky' about two men lovin' it up because you haven't been exposed to it...

I feel very sad for you.

But on a happy note, this video has gone wonderfully for Get Up, and one can only hope our darn Prime Minister legalises it...

>> ^bobknight33:

Jon rips the RIGHT all the time and you just laugh and have a good time nodding you heads saying yes John yes you are right.
Now on this piece he does the same but to a socialist type movement that you are for and you get all pissed about it . How two-faced.


It's not the right, it's money hungry lunatics backed by corporations attempting to destroy the country (and many others) so a few can profit. Saying you are pro-gun, anti-choice and pro-christian does not make you right-wing when your intent is to siphon tens of millions of dollars in corporate donations and public money so you can afford a jet for your niece to get to preschool. Personally I'm sick of the clips ragging on GOP as well, it's just picking low hanging fruit. With few exceptions, the Dems are just as bad, and in some cases worse (Obama).

As an example, your president just flew to our country (Australia) to tell us we're going to be getting a bunch of troops permanently stationed in Darwin, he said that America is "a Pacific power and we are here to stay"

Our Prime Minister lapped it all up, so we'll apparently be getting two and a half thousand more permanent US troops soon. At a time when your school systems are crumbling, your $14 trillion + in debt and your plan of action is to spend millions on new military bases and personnel in a foreign country?

Really?

>> ^Hastur:

>> ^Asmo:

Umm, isn't that the very definition of democracy? Getting the most votes, one person one vote.
So is the UK not a democracy? Canada? Australia? Germany? France? All have a head of government who is not elected by one person, one vote. In any of those cases, it's quite possible to choose a prime minister not favored by a majority. There are different flavors of democracy, some of them pre-dating the US, many of which do not directly elect their executives by one-person, one-vote.
The philosophical point of democracy is to best represent the will of the majority. In the US, we have the additional task of doing so while protecting the rights of the minority. The best way to do that is not always one-person, one-vote.
And like I said: even if you abolish the electoral college you still don't get the will of the majority, since there are many people who cannot legally vote and many others who choose not to.


Yes, they are democratic systems built on the principle of democracy. However, "equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times" (from the Wiki). Most modern democratic systems are not equal.

Btw, a person who chooses not to vote does in fact cast a vote, a vote to abstain. Because they choose to exclude themselves from the process does not mean they weren't given their democratic right to have their say.

As an Australian, I'd prefer a Prime Minister voted in by popular vote. During the last term, the sitting PM Kevin Rudd was deposed and replaced by Julia Gillard in an internal coup due to his poor polling results (ie. it was looking like Rudd was riding the Labor party in to the ground). They replaced him as party leader which also meant he was no longer PM. That was not democratic in the slightest. At the following election, Julia Gillard won government by securing the votes of independents/crossbenchers, but achieved less of the popular vote than Tony Abbott from the Liberal party. Incidentally, voting in Australia is compulsory and you're fined if you don't show up (so much for that 'freedom' principle)

Our system is built on democratic principles, and is a form of democracy, but it's far removed from the method used by the Greeks who coined the term (Demos = "people", kratos "people"). The US electoral college is in the same boat. Someone said it earlier, the founding fathers didn't trust the average moron to get it right and put in a system to leave the true voting to 'wiser' minds.

When you can achieve 50+% of the EC votes for less than 20% of the popular vote, the system is broken, end of story. Keeping the EC seems more a matter of convenience (eg. "there will be too much rorting", it'll be too hard, waaah etc) than a matter of fairness.