A few thoughts about the future of this planet
-
@mike lucey said:
The Irish people voted 'No' to two EU Treaties. They were then frightened and bullied into a 'yes' vote on both referendum re-runs. This was also the case with other member states.
There was diplomatic pressure from France and Germany on Irish politics. Which is a long way from the 'Irish people' as a whole being 'bullied'. And certainly no-one was forced to vote either way. As far as I know, the EU doesn't send menacing brownshirts to polling stations.
@mike lucey said:
As regards the 'Brexit' vote. The UK was not a full member of the EU as they stuck with their Pound Sterling. It looks to me that as the EU could not bring them fully into the fold they are not too worried about them leaving.
Sigh. This is sheer sophistry.
@mike lucey said:
I thought that should have been obvious with his nomination of Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State. This move looks to be a way of vastly reducing the $1,000,000,000,000 annual military industrial complex budget.
During his campaign, Trump advocated raising the military budget. Maybe the Donald was having a laugh?
EDIT:
Team Trump ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/carl-paladino-racist-obama-comments-will-not-resign
EDIT 2:
Trump and the common man ... Watch 'You've Been Trumped'. I did -my blood's still boiling.
-
@stinkie said:
There was diplomatic pressure from France and Germany on Irish politics. Which is a long way from the 'Irish people' as a whole being 'bullied'. And certainly no-one was forced to vote either way. As far as I know, the EU doesn't send menacing brownshirts to polling stations.
Ah, so according to your logic, its acceptable to have not one but two referendum re-runs when a 'yes' vote was required and a 'no' vote was delivered. If the Irish had voted 'no' a second time would there have been third re-runs?
'No' means 'No' in my vocabulary but it seems it means re-run for a 'yes' in the EU's elitists eyes.As regards my take on Brexit is concerned, a "Sigh. This is sheer sophistry" answer goes nowhere in convincing me otherwise.
@stinkie said:
During his campaign, Trump advocated raising the military budget. Maybe the Donald was having a laugh?
As regards Trumps comments on the military budget. This is what he actually said,
“I’m gonna build a military that’s gonna be much stronger than it is right now,” the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the Press. “It’s gonna be so strong, nobody’s gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less.”
I think his last sentence in that statement explains what I meant when I talked about cutting the budget. He has commented on heavy costs and massive budget overruns also in the sector. By getting 'value for money' this in effect will bring down the budget and in return more can be spent on other important things.
As regards some of his team's members PCness goes! People tend to be nasty sometimes and this will not change.
I think Trump's actions in Scotland were disgraceful. He should have done his homework before buying the land and developing the golf course. He clearly did not take into account the feelings of the residents that wished to remain in-situ and not sell out to him.
-
@mike lucey said:
Ah, so according to your logic, its acceptable to have not one but two referendum re-runs when a 'yes' vote was required and a 'no' vote was delivered.
I said nor implied that. Don't put words in my mouth. And again: circumventing my point.
@mike lucey said:
As regards my take on Brexit is concerned, a "Sigh. This is sheer sophistry" answer goes nowhere in convincing me otherwise.
I didn't think it would. But really, what would you have me say?
'The EU is evil! See ... they let the Brits leave!' To my mind, that's simplistic Hineininterpretierung.
@mike lucey said:
By getting 'value for money' this in effect will bring down the budget and in return more can be spent on other important things.
Experts say Trump's plans for the military would add $55 billion to $80 billion to the annual budget.
They could, obviously, be wrong. You seem to be in the know. Do explain, in detail, why they're wrong.
Anyone can make sweeping statements.
@mike lucey said:
As regards some of his team's members PCness goes! People tend to be nasty sometimes and this will not change.
Yeah ... People, eh? Boys will be boys, locker room talk, and all that.
@mike lucey said:
He clearly did not take into account the feelings of the residents that wished to remain in-situ and not sell out to him.
No, clearly he didn't. And he actually took revenge on said residents too. Look it up, if you will.
Watch the film.
You're defending a man who has lied through his teeth for the entirety of his campaign, who has shown deep disdain for women, who has insulted minorities, who has flipflopped on a slew of issues (sometimes even in the course of a single day!), who peddled abject conspiracy theories (the birth certificate thing, the JFK thing ...), who has a record of bankruptcy and even fraud, who has called upon a foreign nation to hack his opponent's e-mails, who says he doesn't need daily security briefings because he's 'really smart', and who belittles/bullies/sues anyone who dares criticize him.
I find that bizarre.
-
@stinkie said:
@mike lucey said:
Ah, so according to your logic, its acceptable to have not one but two referendum re-runs when a 'yes' vote was required and a 'no' vote was delivered.
I said nor implied that. Don't put words in my mouth.
You said,
"There was diplomatic pressure from France and Germany on Irish politics. Which is a long way from the 'Irish people' as a whole being 'bullied'. And certainly no-one was forced to vote either way. As far as I know, the EU doesn't send menacing brownshirts to polling stations."
Yes, there was diplomatic pressure from Germany and more so from France with the visit of their president to Ireland to bully us. As I said, an electorate should only have to vote on an issue once! BTW, I think the 'brownshirts' comment is bordering on flippancy.
I would ask you again if you think its acceptable that the Irish were asked to vote again on the same issue?
@mike lucey said:
As regards my take on Brexit is concerned, a "Sigh. This is sheer sophistry" answer goes nowhere in convincing me otherwise.
@stinkie said:
I didn't think it would. But really, what would you have me say?
Its not for me to advise you what to say except, make your case.
@stinkie said:
'The EU is evil! See ... they let the Brits leave!' To my mind, that's simplistic Hineininterpretierung.
I only call it as I see it. Back in 1973 I voted to join the EEC as I thought open trade was and is a good thing. I have since voted against all Treaties that proposed a more in depth membership. I would not go as far to say "the EU is evil" but I do feel its very undemocratic and is moving more so in this direction.
@mike lucey said:
By getting 'value for money' this in effect will bring down the budget and in return more can be spent on other important things.
@stinkie said:
Experts say Trump's plans for the military would add $55 billion to $80 billion to the annual budget.
They could, obviously, be wrong. You seem to be in the know. Do explain, in detail, why they're wrong.
Anyone can make sweeping statements.
I can only advise what Trump said. I could also ask, do you have the figures / details from the so called 'Experts'.
@mike lucey said:
As regards some of his team's members PCness goes! People tend to be nasty sometimes and this will not change.
@stinkie said:
Yeah ... People, eh? Boys will be boys, locker room talk, and all that.
Have you heard of the saying, 'What goes away, stays away'. I'm a believer, are you?
@mike lucey said:
He clearly did not take into account the feelings of the residents that wished to remain in-situ and not sell out to him.
@stinkie said:
No, clearly he didn't. And he actually took revenge on said residents too. Look it up, if you will.
Watch the film.
I watched the film on TV some time ago, actually before Trump put his name in the hat. As I said, I think Trump's actions in Scotland were disgraceful!
@stinkie said:
You're defending a man who has lied through his teeth for the entirety of his campaign, who has shown deep disdain for women, who has insulted minorities, who has flipflopped on a slew of issues (sometimes even in the course of a single day!), who peddled abject conspiracy theories (the birth certificate thing, the JFK thing ...), who has a record of bankruptcy and even fraud, who has called upon a foreign nation to hack his opponent's e-mails, who says he doesn't need daily security briefings because he's 'really smart', and who belittles/bullies/sues anyone who dares criticize him.
I find that bizarre.
Stinkie,
I feel its you that are making broad sweeping statements. I do not defend Trump only listen to what he says he is going to do / implement. As I said, he is far from perfect but he is the choice (under the current system) of the US electorate and deserves a fair shot at, as he says, 'Make America Great Again'.
I have a feeling that Trump's presidency will surprise people in a pleasant way and he will get the required job done. Time will tell.
Mike
-
@mike lucey said:
You said,
"There was diplomatic pressure from France and Germany on Irish politics. Which is a long way from the 'Irish people' as a whole being 'bullied'. And certainly no-one was forced to vote either way. As far as I know, the EU doesn't send menacing brownshirts to polling stations."
I did. I did not say, however, as you implied, that 'its acceptable to have not one but two referendum re-runs when a 'yes' vote was required and a 'no' vote was delivered'.
Allright?
@mike lucey said:
Yes, there was diplomatic pressure from Germany and more so from France with the visit of their president to Ireland to bully us. (...) BTW, I think the 'brownshirts' comment is bordering on flippancy.
I used hyperbole to mock hyperbole.
@mike lucey said:
As regards my take on Brexit is concerned, a "Sigh. This is sheer sophistry" answer goes nowhere in convincing me otherwise.
@stinkie said:
I didn't think it would. But really, what would you have me say?
@mike lucey said:
Its not for me to advise you what to say except, make your case.
I did.
@stinkie said:
'The EU is evil! See ... they let the Brits leave!' To my mind, that's simplistic Hineininterpretierung.
@mike lucey said:
I only call it as I see it.
As do I.
@mike lucey said:
I would not go as far to say "the EU is evil" but I do feel its very undemocratic and is moving more so in this direction.
Agreed. Still, suggesting the EU let the UK out because 'they could not bring them fully into the fold' borders on conspiracy thinking, in my opinion.
@mike lucey said:
I can only advise what Trump said. I could also ask, do you have the figures / details from the so called 'Experts'.
'Do allow me, Stinkie, to swiftly shift the burden of proof.'
@mike lucey said:
As regards some of his team's members PCness goes! People tend to be nasty sometimes and this will not change.
@mike lucey said:
I'm a believer, are you?
Absolutely. I believe in not turning a blind eye.
@mike lucey said:
I do not defend Trump (...)
Noted.
@mike lucey said:
I have a feeling that Trump's presidency will surprise people in a pleasant way and he will get the required job done. Time will tell.
Er, okay.
Agree to disagree?
-
Yep! -
Cool.
Happy New Year.
-
-
Don't antagonize me now!
By the way, it was all Mike's fault. Yeah.
A happy New Year to you, too.
-
-
You too, mr. Bot.
Here's a New Year's pic:
-
...as a poster mentioned above. We have to put our faith in inventors and technology to come up with solid solutions to get us out of the mess.
Here are two such processes that look hopeful.
Pesticide alternative helps plants protect themselves from disease.
http://newatlas.com/bioclay-gene-silencing-plants-pesticide-alternative/47344/
New technique stores summer heat until it's needed in winter.
http://newatlas.com/renewable-energy-heat-storage-empa/47334/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers%26amp;utm_campaign=9d9703ba91-UA-2235360-4%26amp;utm_medium=email%26amp;utm_term=0_65b67362bd-9d9703ba91-76676071
The first looks promising as it will be alternative to GMO crops and the likes of Monsanto. It looks to be 'working' with Nature rather than destructively re-engineering Nature with a view to creating a monopoly situation,
The latter could be a great way of storing Summer energy for Winter use. I hope the R&D / trials continue and Big Oil / Money doesn't cull progress.
-
Anything that means working with nature rather than messing it up gets my vote. I would be nice to leave the planet in a nicer condition than we found it. I really hope Monsanto get a real shake up and call off their actions.
I also hope we can cull our population in a peaceful manner before things really get out of hand.
-
When I was born the earths population was 3.5 billion, today it's 7.5 billion, I understand that talking about this elephant in the room is not popular but c'mon here is the real problem and nobody wants to stand up and admit it, nor does anyone have a solution or even dare suggest one.
-
The best solution to get people to go along with (except people like the Taliban) is educating girls, but this is also a tall order in most parts of the world. Also I think governments need to discourage people, somehow, though you can't go making it harder for those that have children. You also need young people in the work force. More open immigraton can help that, but We are supposedly going to deport a big portion of our young work force in this country soon. So who's going to pay the social security?
-
The Chinese have been tackling the population problem for some time now and have only recently been allowing SOME two child families. Why we in europe et al cannot do the same is beyond me. Here in the UK the number of children in a family has been used as a method of acquiring a better council home and more benefits. The need to work has for a long time been negated by this practice which has been allowed to go unchecked by politicians for decades is OUR part in the great lemming race.
-
The Chinese approach was totalitarian and the result was resistance, oppression, and worse. I think it's obvious Europeans would not go along on principle alone. When you are talking about Europe, there is already a much lower birth rate and very different attitudes than China had when they imposed the law.
-
If we can control OUR population growth via education and setting limits on immigration, we can at least do our part. If other nations are unable to control their birth rate there WILL be greater pressure via immigration if we allow this. SOMETHING has to be done before we literally reproduce ourselves into an extinction level event and wars will be part of that.
To do nothing is to state that we are happy to see ourselves evolve out of existence.
-
This is a very so called 'delicate' matter. Its one that we discussed here on the forums before.
I suppose the question should be, why do people have children? This sounds simplistic but nevertheless I feel it should be throughly looked at.
From my perspective there are many reasons. In my case, married at 26, my wife and I waited a little over 2 years before having a baby as the 'nest needed to be feathered'. I, as a typical man, went along with the 'feathering' thinking that I was making things more comfy for both of us.
I feel its women that really pushes for kids. It seems the sexual act for men is all done a dusted in a very short time whereas for the woman its not complete until they deliver a child!
In Ireland over the past twenty years there has been a huge growth in 'single mothers' in many cases having a number of children that they are unable to support and receive no support from either the 'sire' or their family. The State picks up the tab on the child rearing and from what I can gather the 'sire' is not even identified let alone required to support his child.
People can't drive cars without having a driving licence, all for a good reason! Yet they can produce offspring at will with little or no consequences. In fact their standard of living often increases and this can often encourage them to produce more children.
Ireland will shortly be holding a referendum on abortion. I will be voting 'Pro Choice'. In fact I don't believe men should be voting on this issue at all. I'd leave it up to women. If vasectomy was the voting issue I bloody well would not like women having a vote on the matter!
Maybe we should also be thinking about ways of introducing responsible parenthood whereby women are require to get a license before producing children. The main condition could simply be that they can financially support the child or be seen at the time to be able to do so, themselves or with others. And, of course retrospective licenses would be issued as standard if the criteria is met. Not meeting the criteria would mean no State support for the woman or child. State / Public supported charities would have to pick up the slack and I believe this would be the case.
As I said, if you don't have a driving licence you either take a taxi or public transport (if affordable), have someone drive you or walk / cycle (if you have a bike) to where you need to get.
-
I met my wife during the withdrawal of forces from Saudi Arabia at the end of Op granby in 91. Not sure whether or not to blame the various inoculations etc but she developed cancer within a year of getting back. Children were a contentious subject due to the highly religious nature of her family her inability to have children was seen as a message that we should adopt. I was working in the NHS at the time, two or three nights monday to friday on call and three weekends out of four. The MIL (stone) suggested that her daughter and I should adopt several disabled children as part of our duty to her faith. So, I get that faith and social pressure are a driving force and that is before you get to the biological clock and "our friends are having kids" etc. After Sara developed MS kids were just not on the cards but I do not say we need to control population because of jealousy or feeling superior but we must do something. Population increase is going to be the bane of any future this species has and it is taking more and more species to the brink of extinction with us. I do though, admit to feeling pretty brassed off that the numbers of people who have never and probably will never work having massive families on the social with all the things I consider a luxury like Sky television etc and sports without lifting a finger to get them apart from signing on. Perhaps we could start something like a citizenship requirement. Maybe just working for the community to get to qualify. I do not know and this is sounding like a rant or wanting to win an argument but I have to admit the standard of debate is very high and I trust the people I talk to. Feel free to totally ignore what I have said as the delusions of a mind with too much free time.
Advertisement