1a2bcio8

Well, I can see why you might resign yourself to that view but that idea that we can do nothing, I am very confident, is an incorrect one. The history of positive change is frequently based on popular movement against powerful elites that want to maintain a status quo. The issue that blocks change at present is a lack of effort and organisation of people to make change through various forms of activism. Mostly we would prefer to ignore unpleasant information and distract ourselves with minor pleasurable activities. Ultimately, as a population, we are an almost absolute majority over politicians and big business elites and in that sense we hold the most power. Millions of people flooding the streets of London in protest would be very scary for any politician or elite. An important factor that inhibits this process is a general ignorance of what is actually going on behind the obvious fraudulence of mainstream political discourse. Having the right information is the first step, organisation and action follow that. That we do hold that ultimate power is evidenced by the fact that politicians and big business HAS to lie about what the situation is, knowing full well that their activities would not be possible if most of us knew what was being done to us and others. If we lacked the power to change the situation then the activities of politicians and big business could be completely in the open - explicit in the mainstream rather than requiring alternative sources of media. Just remember that resigning yourself to the idea that you can do nothing is exactly the attitude that is wanted by those in power. In fact, it plays a part of their propoganda in the way that all alternative options to mainstream politics are held as not possible, crazy, etc. In so much as we all believe that positive change is not possible then it won't happen. The moment we realise differently it becomes possible. Normally I try to hold this opinion to myself but I'm having one of my more frustrated days. I mostly feel that our culture and most other western cultures, in general, are quite insane. It's like we've discovered a lump, which is in actual fact a tumour, but we won't go to the doctor because we don't want to face upto to the reality of it and the process of getting rid of it despite the fact it'll kill us if we don't. But as long as we can distract ourselves with making money and status, and owning this or that, doing a sport, etc., etc. we can just about forget that tumour, almost as though it changes the fact of its existence. Distracting yourself from it won't stop it harming you though. You have my respect though Rusevelt for actually taking the time to find out something that was potentially new to you and to form a view on it, even if I disagree with that view

Check this video out for a brief introduction on UK foreign policy that informs us what we will receive most certainly from a Labour or Conservative government but also probably from a Liberal Democrat government. It's amazing to consider what really happens in our name across the world. Additionally though, knowing about foreign policy and its underlying motivations is greatly suggestive of the nature of broader mainstream goverment policy (education, poverty, business and so on). Is the general motivation of mainstream politicians a compassionate concern and appreciation of human beings or does it follow from other negative motivations such as greed and a desire for power? The video certainly suggests the latter and if so we shouldn't expect policies aside from foreign policy to have a different motivation and consequent structure. Clearly policy can't be explicit and all out in this sense but it will definitely play a substantial and/or hidden role within it where it can be gotten away with. edit: I just want to note how meaningful I would personally find it if somebody actually manages to watch the video and comment an opinion about it. I struggle to understand why anybody would not find this a very essential kind of information.

Always loved your past vids and this wasn't any different. Especially liking the bench to bin hop. Looks like you could pretty much manual it if you wanted to. You have the perfect approach anyway. Keep it up

I seem to be more Ghandi than Ghandi.

Alas, your irony is apt. Okay, but who hasn't actually done something like that in their history? If we say "everyone has" then we clearly have to see how unimportant this act is. Otherwise, this type of judgement outrules any and all politicians from good governance. At least, for once, a politician expressed how they actually felt, regardless of justification, rather than acting the perfect candidate which, as we all know, is fraudulent. Anyway, I wasn't aiming that at you, it was just a general jibe about the meaningless factors which clearly influence voting. It's like choosing between different brands of car purely because one has a leather steering wheel cover, ignoring all the variables that constitute a good car for your needs. It misses what's substantial and meaningful in the decision process. It's a love of the shiney.

In every relationship I've had those feelings. More specifically I often go in an out of a relationship feel good and feel not so good. I think it's pretty much the nature of relationships in any long term sense although we often have other unrealistic expectation (a myth) that a good relationship carries with it the same constant good feeling. I think we always need to give a good deal of time with the feelings you are describing because they often go away (and come back). And yeah, at least for me, sometimes the motivation is a selfishness that the female is getting in the way of all the great things I could better focus on if she weren't there. I guess that's the standard male commitment phobia.

Doesn't anyone else see this as a complete irrelevance? So what if he called a woman a "bigot"? He lost his temper and said something he ideally shouldn't but that's exactly like anybody else in this world. That doesn't mean it should mark a definining point in voting for or against Labour. Similarly with all these other unsubstantial points such as spelling mistakes in a letter and so on. Surely what matters is what political difference, in a broad sense, that Labour would make if in power. Questions like, "what of the environment?", "what of education?", "what of foreign policy?", "what of social equality?", "what of poverty?" etc. and related policy should be much more important than, "he called a woman a 'bigot'". As much as soap opera appeals, it's still an irrelevance to what actually matters most to us from the position of being humans on a planet, with certain fundamental needs. Argh.

I was considering turning him into wine so I could sell him and get my money back. But yeah, being seen as an unreliable businessman can hardly be good for your business. I can imagine some karmic action going down. Certainly if the motivation is greed then that's never good for your well being.

Unfortrunately no. I did the work with a friend though, so at least somebody can support the fact I actually did work that day. I also have an e-mail with the employer stating that he will get my invoice processed for payment. I'd imagine that most people that do a days work like this don't get any sort of contract. I hope our legal system isn't unjust as to exclude my chances of getting paid due to the nature of the work. Thanks for trying anyway Okay, I'll do that. I wasn't sure where to go to get relevant advice so thanks. I've not lost any money through not being paid. I just want the money I worked for!

Yo! Nearly 10 weeks ago I did a days work delivering leaflets. For this work I am owed £82.50. Despite stating on my invoice for the work that I expected payment within 3 weeks, I was not paid within that time. After 6 weeks I sent an e-mail asking what was happening where I received a quick repsonse stating that he would look into it asap and get back to me. 3 weeks later, with no repsonse or payment, I contact him again. 10 days later with no response I have sent another e-mail asking if he has any intention to pay me and that if I do not receive a very quick resolution to my recieving the money I am owed, I will pursue a legal means of getting it. Basically, has anyone been in a similar situation of trying to get a small amount of money they are owed, and how did they do it? What are my legal options? It's really annoying because I'm struggling for money because I'm only really able to get irregular work at the moment. £82.50 may not seem like much but I could really do with it.

I'm not sure how they are seprable, except in the sense of politicians going against their stated public policy. I'm also wary of the idea of reducing our political problems simply to politicians or any one thing for that matter. No doubt they play a role but so do the population who effectively allows them to govern. We are all involved in the political process in the sense of being allowed to vote. How much we choose to learn about and act towards politics contributes to the political condition we find ourselves in - i.e. what type of people become the politicians that govern us. The media also relates to problems in the political process. They are supposed to be the source from which we gain important information that helps us choose how to vote but the mainstream media is a form of big business and as such has vested interests which leads to forms of censorship and bias . Altnernative forms of media with less bias or, at least, alternative viewpoints and information are available but most people aren't really aware or motivated to learn about them. The situation is complex but it involves everyone, whether we are a politician, a voter, a non-voter, journalist, etc. although being that the population actually wields the greatest potential power and that good understanding is possible (regardless of difficulties getting it), those of us who are apathetic and ignorant may actually need to take the brunt of the blame.

The thing is, I think the vast quantity of conservative and labour voters are equally as ignorant of the respective party policies in any comprehensive sense. Voting choice is typically dependent on fashion/following the group you perceive yourself to be a part of, finding appealing a single or few minor, emotive and selfish policies or a superficial interest in a party through liking the personality of its leader. This type of motivation and understanding really lacks a good foundation for healthy and sane political choice and it's a great shame. We lack the motivation to properly understand politics, and the media system which should make it more accesible is massively biased. The range of important information we are exposed to is narrow, supporting the political status quo within which the media system is enmeshed. It seems to me that our democracy is only a potential at present. It's fulfilment will follow only and if we achieve a properly informed, motivated and interested voting population. The democracy potential of our country exists on the back of great conflict and suffering. We all take for granted our freedom and relatively easy living in many senses but none of it is guaranteed. We're especially prone to this when ignorant and apathetic.

No I would agree that it's not as simple and as absolute as cancelling a phone bill but that's why I said "influence". And yes I would say vote for a minority party, if you find some agreement with what they say. The argument against doing so on the basis of either, I as an individual have no influence or a smaller party will never win are, I would suggest, bad or limited forms of logic. Every party that wins, wins on the basis of a collection of individuals. Just because it is a large collection, doesn't mean there are no longer individuals forming it. Individual attitudes can potentially change. You could change your view that it's pointless trying and so can others. Trends in large groups of individuals do change over time as is easily evidenced by history. But with regards to the specific thought form, in so much as you and others say because it is this way now, it will always be this way, I won't act, then the process becomes entirely self fulfilling. Naturally if we think it won't work, don't try, then it definitely doesn't happen. This is not to say that such a process would be instantaneous and that leads me to the other statement you made. Saying that a minority party will never win, thus I will never vote for it also becomes self-fulfilling. It also relates to short sightedness. Just because your actions won't cause the result you want right now, doesn't mean they don't form some sort of investment for the future beyond any kind of immeadiacy. Regarding certain changes, sometimes we need to accept that it will take a while and that that's okay if it means we get there in the end. This seems to be a general theme in our culture of instant gratification regarding our actions and disinterest if something doesn't reward us straight away. Pretty much, people have continually across history been faced with hugh tasks relating to social and political change, ones that greatly surpassed any current process of getting a minor party into power, but who have despite this, succeeded in their attempts. That's because individuals repeatedly made efforts against something that was bigger than they were. Social and political change usually starts with an individual or individuals and it takes time, but it's all possible as is clearly evidenced by history. That is, unless we decide it's not possible and don't try. How can you not see that change is possible but that it requires you? If everyone recognised that fact, democracy would work a lot better.

Yet there exists the potential of influencing the way those taxes are being spent and you don't do it? I understand the complaining but then if there's a problem, why the lack of engagement to help the problem? This kind've reminds me of my ex who always wanted to complain about a problem but was never interested in taking the action to resolve it, which I never really understood.

Well yeah it can be. I've not really used OTN though so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I do think that censorship has sometimes related to an over sensitivity or personal disliking to some style of expression that other people enjoy. Sometimes I think things are taken a bit too seriously about what constitutes nonsense and what is acceptable. I wish I could remember the term that was always used about a thread or post that wasn't acceptable. I don't mean something that has porn, torrents, etc. but something that's a bit daft. In the absence of daftness/silliness thing can get a bit dry, I think.

I kind've feel you vote for the entire package of leader, party, policy, etc. but at the same time feel that personality is most likely irrelevant, unless it relates to something obviously bad. I guess it could be an indicator of what will follow but is essentially less important than other facts. Unfortunately I can imagine that voting often falls down to things like personality (the states is terrible for this) and a few minor but emotive or selfish policies. Alas. On that note, I remember seeing a tory poster, with a "plumber" saying how he's now voting tory because the tories will be good for the "economy". What does that even mean? It's not rational, it's just emotive. The economy is such a broad and abstract term which means so much, and different things to different people, that we really need to narrow down what the tories have to contribute to our economy to make any sense of it. Argh. I remember two previous posters as well. A Labour poster suggesting that the then tory candidate was essentially evil, using a literal image of some evil eyes. The tory poster said something like "you wouldn't trust..." something or other. Both emotive tactics using fear, absent of proper rationale which is essential to a valid democratic process. It's no wonder people become apathetic when these are the tactics they observe.

Personality contest?

I don't think you come across like that but still, at the end of the day, realistically we should respect the fact it is your forum and ultimately you will do what you think is best. I'm not sure that I've given props before but I actually think this forum is really good, in the sense of structure and the people that use it. Obviously, like anybody with anything, I have minor gripes but overall I give it a . That's the reason I continue to lurk and occasionally post despite having a much reduced passion for trials these days. edit: Might even be worth saying thanks for all these years actually! I guess you guys have a pretty thankless job.

For the reason I put above. Just wasn't very keen on the attitude that senior membership seemed to inspire. You can see how senior membership might do that to you, when you observe how people without it, act toward it. Clearly people want it as though it's something quite special. I was even pleased to get it at the time but then that's what hierarchies can do to you. And although I probably do it anyway in various parts of my life, I do try to avoid situations that promote that sort of feeling. The thing is, they're all still nice chaps in there, but there's just this one element I don't like. It's hardly the end of the world either

One thing that made me change my mind about criticising censorship on TF, is the fact that is actually somebodies forum (i.e. Tom and Danny's). It may be accesible to the public but it isn't publicly owned and nor is it democratic. It really is entirely upto them what they do. It's like if somebody offers you a lift in their car, you don't tell them how they should be driving or that their car should have a certain decor. Of course, if the forum completely ignores public opinion, then it risks dying, but I imagine that type of censorship allows, as implied, younger members to access it and if anything increases popularity. Senior membership though, in my experience of that section of the forum, seemed to have a degree of self-grandeur. The most popular thread in SM chat in my time was one that bashed "annoying members", as though a kind of specialness allowed for a looking down on others in that way. I guess that happens regardless of SMship but there seemed to be more of an excuse for it with the title. It kind of reminded me of the cool kids at school you just ripped it out of everybody who wasn't cool. It wasn't everyone though. That was four or five years ago though so it might be different now? Anyway, seems a bit of a farce either way. Again, it's cool in the sense that it's somebody elses forum and it's upto them what they do.

If not many people in government know what's going on, does that in anyway form a basis for war? The fact is, however, that Blair is clearly the individual with the greatest access to all the relevant information for going to war. Although he has to gain majority governmental support for going to war, he is the individual that initiates a proposal for war, regarding a motivation and information/evidence. The claimed motivation for war was a pre-emptive strike on Iraq for supposed possession of WMD's yet no WMD's were found. Prior to the war, experts that denied the existence of WMD's in Iraq were ignored and any evidence in support of WMD's was highlighted. Iraq's invitations for weapons inspectors to investigate WMD's were ignored by the USA, Britian, etc. because that simply was not the motivation. A modern historical consideration illuminates a different motivation. Breifly, the gulf war and following UN sanctions which saught to systematically ruin Iraq and its people are evidence of motivation aside from self defence or some kind of altruism (the west couldn't care for the Kurds, seeing as it delibrately motivated them to cause Iraq to invade so that there was an excuse for war). In the gulf war our armies specifically targetted hospitals, water treatment facilities, schools, powerplants etc. which had no military value but desimated the resources required for basic living and a healthy society. The UN sanctions that followed the gulf war caused the deaths of either 0.5-1 million children, plus an amount of adults (I forget how many in total) over the 4-5 years (about that time I think) they were in place. The sanctions blocked medical supplies, food, water, materials to rebuild the infrastructure, etc. Two high UN officails, who worked in Iraq, resigned over the sanctions, because they were essentially a form of "genocide" - their words. The sanctions were lessened when a scheme called "food for oil" was introdcued, which forced Sadam because of the dire situation, to trade oil as a ridiculously low price. He was unable to trade anywhere else because of the sanctions. The sanctions and war were basically a way of getting the people of Iraq to overthrow Sadam, to avoid what was being done to them, where thereafter a more agreeable regime could be installed that followed the wishes of western power. All of this relates to the nationalisation of oil by Iraq, so that oil profits serve the people of the country that the oil comes from and not instead the western multinationals. This is such a broad theme, not only in oil but also with resources in general across the world. Unfortunately, our apathy supports it. We are all implicit in the actions of our governments, ignorance not really being an excuse. Governments and most specifically, leaders, are not blind to these facts, they are involved in them because they bring some monetary or power gain. Why assume that somebody in government actually has good motivations? If we take a look at the alternative version of history that never makes it into mainstream media, we get a quite different idea of what mainstream government tends to be about. We all seem to recognise that Politicians talk shit, but we usually don't investigate what lies beneath that shit. It's actually pretty outrageous. Anyone actually interested should check out a online resource such as Z-net.

I'd suggest that such qualities were only superficial relating to his charisma, great acting and rhetoric skills, something which Brown clearly lacks. The guy happens to be a war criminal though as he took us to war on knowingly false premises and even if those false premises were true, he was still involved in breaking interenational law that led to great atrocity in Iraq. I'd suggest that he's definitely very dishonest, just like most individuals involved in mainstream governmental politics. It makes me really quite angry just thinkiing about him and our foreign politics in general.

Take a look at the link I just gave, you might find that the Green Party holds some views you appreciate. They are a fairly unique party and, I think, the only relatively sane one. The trouble is if we give up without properly exploring our options we risk further losing our power to change the political situation we find ourselves in. We easily take for granted that the things that benefit us will stay the same but this isn't so. There are always people wanting to oppress and exploit us for their own gain. We forget that our current benefits are on the back of great oppression and exploitation that was fought against for the majority of 'civilized' times. It is true however that our democracy is a bit of a farce in the sense that not each party has equal resources to advertise itself but then this also relates to the apathy of voters who aren't willing to properly explore alternatives. Our actions that contribute to the political condition have ramifications potentially for ourselves, but more likely for future generations in terms of the environment. Most of you will have kids but nobody seems to manage the forsight about how they will feel bringing their children into a broken world. What sort of life are we cultivating for future generations? Our political influence also relates to foreign policy in the now and the explotation of other countries relating to the profits of big business. When these things are just abstract ideas people easily brush them aside but if each person was exposed to it as a reality, I suspect they would each change their mind and feeling. It's a shame that not many seem able to recognise that.

If I do vote, it will be Green. The first three parties are of little difference; in terms of foreign policy and the environment. The Green Parties policies certainly seem the sanist, and I'm more inclined to believe what they say over the rhetoric we hear from the three main parties. They seem to have a grasp on the fact that human health requires a broader consideration beyond monetary health and also that our place on this earth shouldn't be of one exploitation but of living sustainably with other life or the ecosystem as a whole. It's also great to hear a political party willing to admit America's support for various tyrannies across the world. It would be preferable to hear them mention America's (and the UK's) installation of tyrannical regime but they're nearly there at least. Check out the Green philosophy here.

That is indeed bad religion. I can imagine an implied pressure coming in the form of, "your Christianity is measured by the openess of your wallet". I'd be curious to see exactly how donations are spent as well. My God, Dave; we've actually agreed on something in a thread!