Milkshaking British Politicians

[rcarlson]

5 minutes ago, JohnS said:

For me, this below wasn't that long ago! My how times have changed, and quickly!

 

I believe that tune that came out near the pinnacle of 20th century violent crime in the U.S.   

[topdiesel]

Self-important milkshake cowards.  I am sure PETA has something to say about this.

 

[99call]

4 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

Vigilant protection of the expression of opposing viewpoints, especially from violence.  

I can largely agree with you, but if the the force you're attempting to protect, is actually trying to incite hatred and violence.....what then?

Nigel Farage my have had no Milkshake in his hand, or has been personally violent with anyone, but he seeks to radicalise and lead other people to violence and discord. 

Here's a different way of framing it.   Some cowardly terrorist, may not have the guts to blow himself up,   but seeks to radicalise someone else, so they do.    At what point do connect those who instruct someone to do something and the event itself.       

[rcarlson]

1 minute ago, 99call said:

Here's a different way of framing it.   Some cowardly terrorist, may not have the guts to blow himself up,   but seeks to radicalise someone else, so they do.    At what point do connect those who instruct someone to do something and the event itself.       

Inciting violence, true threats, and "fighting words" are not protected forms of speech in the U.S. But the threat of harm must be imminent.

Although I suppose it matters not, you're losing me on the power of a Bannon or Farage to "radicalize and lead others to violence and discord."  Not aware of their calls for violence, but the call to throw milkshakes is unmistakable.  

[El Presidente]

1 minute ago, 99call said:

I can largely agree with you, but if the the force you're attempting to protect, is actually trying to incite hatred and violence.....what then?

Nigel Farage my have had no Milkshake in his hand, or has been personally violent with anyone, but he seeks to radicalise and lead other people to violence and discord. 

Here's a different way of framing it.   Some cowardly terrorist, may not have the guts to blow himself up,   but seeks to radicalise someone else, so they do.    At what point do connect those who instruct someone to do something and the event itself.       

You address the issues utilising the tools/institutions your society has provided. Debate, legal, protest, media. 

The minute you start throwing dairy/ poultry or worse......those who are nervous in the centre.....scoot to the right. 

Have a little faith. 

[BoliDan]

5 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

The minute you start throwing dairy/ poultry or worse......those who are nervous in the centre.....scoot to the right. 

Have a little faith. 

This, the growing polarization left and right is mainly reactionary. When you're scared of the "other side" and legitimize violence, the "other side" follows suit. We have domestic terrorists on both sides of the spectrum in the US currently. This guy was just under the party's employ and doing his job so that he can pay bills. Poor guy. I guarantee this fuels more fire than any good of "sending a message".

[99call]

1 minute ago, El Presidente said:

Have a little faith.

Again I'm not suggesting I agree with 'milkshaking"

What I am saying, is that in the past people have sleepwalked into letting radical forces take power, in the same notion of "someone will do something"....and then it's too late.

I do believe in trusting in the rules and regs to serve justice.......but just look at current politics,  nobody seems held to account.  If you ask me I think the current climate if ripe for another rising of facist movements

[El Presidente]

58 minutes ago, 99call said:

  If you ask me I think the current climate if ripe for another rising of facist movements

We have some already 

Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,

While you have an unimpeded press, you are fairly safe. 

[Fuzz]

I cannot support the throwing of milkshakes.... I'm lactose intolerant.

[bpm32]

45 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

I cannot support the throwing of milkshakes.... I'm lactose intolerant.

Asians are disproportionately lactose intolerant. Why milkshakes, except as a racist dog whistle? I don’t know about you, but I feel victimized and triggered.

[PigFish]

5 hours ago, jackupster said:

When violent right wing's attack they use assault rifles (see Christchurch and dozens of others in the US) and kill dozens in minutes. Leaving scores of dead people not a dry cleaning bill. 

... it think a little fact checking is in order here.

I am not here often enough  these days to want to get into what I would normally consider a spirited debate of the policies and preferred tactics of the left and right. Both can hatch their share of crazies.

Take a moment to research those that attempt to kill presidents... mostly left leaning or right leaning? You mention Christchurch, so be it. How about the hoards of others who have a left bias? Want to talk about the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot up the Congressional baseball game. Lets start a list and look at the score card.

Ultimately however there is a difference between criminal, citizen oriented hate and the crime that surrounds it, and the wholesale slaughter of entire states in events commonly referred to as genocide. Genocide is more commonly associated with socialism (national socialism for example), Soviet Marxist/Leninist socialism, and all flavors of other leftest dogma oriented governments from China, Cambodia and a host of other leftist run countries.

When comparing the right and the left, one might take note that the right offers one the opportunity to defend one's self and property, freedom, sovereignty. The left on the other hand empowers the state, creating the very possibility of an 'insane' leader killing millions. Venezuela, once the jewel of central America, where is she now? That is not the 'right' at work.

Me, I would prefer to go down fighting and rather not be left to starve as some leader would dictate as they try collective farming, or some other far out leftist idea to perfect man. I sit proudly on the right.

I have the right to protect myself and have both the self control and the respect for life, and property that keeps me from assailing anyone. That is because I still have at least some respect for the rule of law. When you are on the right you maintain that individuals can keep power and not abuse others with it. On the left they have no such believe or confidence. Yet it is on the left that the there is history of government sanctioned genocide, the very abuse of power that kills not a few dozen people, but dozens of millions of people. Yet the left, unwilling to acknowledge history and continues to press its agenda of central power, planning and distrust of the citizenry. 

Both sides carry some guilt for localized crime. One side carries the burden of millions of deaths and genocide.

I choose to believe history. I choose to empower myself and my fellow citizens to defend themselves, a mantra of the right. And the mantra of the left, high taxes, high regulation, a slow economy, poorly run healthcare, poorly run schools, frustrations of red tape... with no escape... and good old plain tobacco packaging... 

Look at LA, SF, NY, Chitown.... Needles in parks, homeless gangs on the streets, massive death counts due to crime, human shit in the subways...! Who runs those towns, right or left? Lawlessness! Look no farther than the left.

Case rests.

Cheers! -Piggy

[JamesKPolkEsq]

>Genocide is more commonly associated with socialism (national socialism for example)

Nazis are left leaning? ? 

[gcman68]

Piggy,

While you were fact checking I think you might have missed a few things. Before you literally shit (subway reference) on a leftist city like NY and mention "massive death counts due to crime" I would be interested in how you statistically defined "massive death counts die to crime". The NYC per capita murder rate within the last few years was its lowest in generations and it actually made some lists as one of the safer large cities in the world never mind just the US.  Crime in general in NYC pretty much has been going down since the 90's with the per capita death rate is at historic lows. I would be happy to be corrected though if your source that had a different interpretation. 

Back to the original post and while a small part of me finds it amusing I agree we are headed down a pretty bad road when people are o.k. with violent activity however minor people find it to be. I wonder if it is just because we seemingly used to elect statesmen and people of both sides could grab a drink or a cigar after a session and work together or has social media changed things and the people that seek office haven't changed but our opinion of them has?  

[Ken Gargett]

years ago in australia, two of the fiercest parliamentary performers were fred daly and jim killen. opposite sides and they went hammer and tongs stuff. afterwards, two great mates. regularly shared many a drink. many examples. today, not so much. 

murder rates can be a little skewed. when i lived in DC, it had the highest murder rate in the world - some 600 per year with the population of 600-700,000 people give or take. yet probably 97% of those were drug related. the guys i lived with could not believe i'd lock the house or my car. they thought it bizarre. for them, crime was nearly non-existent. i really doubt drug gangs think in terms of left and right. 

and yes, when did nazis become the left? 

sure, tossing a milkshake all over a knob is funny (as was a kid squashing an egg on that grub anning - our very own enoch powell, although with only a fraction of powell's intelligence and while it may go against what i am about to say, i'd give the kid a medal) but it is a bit thin edge stuff. next time it is a rock or a knife or a gun. they should be fully prosecuted. except for the kid. 

ray, you may have the self-control, but sadly many do not. and a quick read of this thread alone should show you that one side alone does not hold all the responsibility for genocide and mass murder. unless of course you think those commie bastard nazis really are from the left. both sides have more than enough blame to share. but it is a lot more complex than left v right. toss in charismatic, box-of-frogs crazy tyrants, hell toss in religion. 

idi amin? sure, he got support from the soviets at one stage but anyone really see him as communist or even left-leaning (remember that fidel first tried to worked with the united states but was rebuffed because they were miffed about batista - why wouldn't he look the other way?). rwanda? left or right to blame? or simply a clash of races? this is far from a black and white question. 

ray, without in any way excusing either side, pretty much, if you'll forgive the generalisation, all of the extreme left genocidal regimes we have had over the years have emerged from under the yoke of despotic, cruel tyrants and right leaning "governments" which tolerated no opposition, no free press, no dissent. that does not excuse what followed but one can understand that if you suffered in that way for decades or even centuries, the response ain't going to be tea and bikkies. 

[jackupster]

4 hours ago, PigFish said:

... it think a little fact checking is in order here.

I am not here often enough  these days to want to get into what I would normally consider a spirited debate of the policies and preferred tactics of the left and right. Both can hatch their share of crazies.

Take a moment to research those that attempt to kill presidents... mostly left leaning or right leaning? You mention Christchurch, so be it. How about the hoards of others who have a left bias? Want to talk about the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot up the Congressional baseball game. Lets start a list and look at the score card.

Ultimately however there is a difference between criminal, citizen oriented hate and the crime that surrounds it, and the wholesale slaughter of entire states in events commonly referred to as genocide. Genocide is more commonly associated with socialism (national socialism for example), Soviet Marxist/Leninist socialism, and all flavors of other leftest dogma oriented governments from China, Cambodia and a host of other leftist run countries.

When comparing the right and the left, one might take note that the right offers one the opportunity to defend one's self and property, freedom, sovereignty. The left on the other hand empowers the state, creating the very possibility of an 'insane' leader killing millions. Venezuela, once the jewel of central America, where is she now? That is not the 'right' at work.

Me, I would prefer to go down fighting and rather not be left to starve as some leader would dictate as they try collective farming, or some other far out leftist idea to perfect man. I sit proudly on the right.

I have the right to protect myself and have both the self control and the respect for life, and property that keeps me from assailing anyone. That is because I still have at least some respect for the rule of law. When you are on the right you maintain that individuals can keep power and not abuse others with it. On the left they have no such believe or confidence. Yet it is on the left that the there is history of government sanctioned genocide, the very abuse of power that kills not a few dozen people, but dozens of millions of people. Yet the left, unwilling to acknowledge history and continues to press its agenda of central power, planning and distrust of the citizenry. 

Both sides carry some guilt for localized crime. One side carries the burden of millions of deaths and genocide.

I choose to believe history. I choose to empower myself and my fellow citizens to defend themselves, a mantra of the right. And the mantra of the left, high taxes, high regulation, a slow economy, poorly run healthcare, poorly run schools, frustrations of red tape... with no escape... and good old plain tobacco packaging... 

Look at LA, SF, NY, Chitown.... Needles in parks, homeless gangs on the streets, massive death counts due to crime, human shit in the subways...! Who runs those towns, right or left? Lawlessness! Look no farther than the left.

Case rests.

Cheers! -Piggy

I’ll take the case from here. Let’s look at the statistics from 2017 where per capita ( the odds of you actually being murdered and the most recent year where numbers are posted) it was republican states that had the highest per 100k murders. Louisiana, Arkansas, Arizona, Alaska, Mississippi! All red states with lax gun restrictions. Anyone can pretty much park a howitzer on your front lawn legally. More total murders happen in Cali and NY but they have like 1000x the population.  

 

You bring up the Bernie supporter that shot the baseball field up but I can bring up 10 mass shooters in the last year that went after black churches, synagogues and peaceful marchers. 

 

You bring up drug needles but not a mention how the futile drug war has done nothing to stop drugs. Maybe you should read about the program Portugal has done where they spend the money on rehab and helping addicts collect their lives. The numbers of heroin addicts has plummeted! Stop incarcerating and start educating. 

 

Im not saying you can’t arm yourself...it’s in the Constitution! But maybe we should discuss how easy it is to acquire extreme firepower ? maybe we could discuss who shouldn’t be allowed to buy or own them anymore? The Sutherland Springs Church shooter had multiple domestic violence convictions and had been court marshaled by the Air Force yet he was able to buy a AR 15 legally? I own guns so I’m not a gun grabber. But we should be able to rationally discuss the issue. 

 

You talk all about schools? Well look no further than those same red states for the lowest levels of education. That’s a fact! The last 10 states listed on the link below are red minus 1.  

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1079181001

 

[bpm32]

Let’s get back on track here guys.

From personal observation, there is actually a great deal of collegiality in the American government on all sides, probably almost as much as there was in the 1950s. The difference now is it has become unpopular to broadcast it to the public, whereas back then the public almost demanded it.

[El Presidente]

Piggy/Jacku...great posts

What I would like to see a continuation of (and you have both achieved it) is to keep this topic on the cerebral global level. 

The US is significant but proportional level of this global discussion. 

I have great mates on the left, right and centre of this divide.  To hop in a bar and argue/discuss intelligently (while maybe not agreeing) is a lost art. It is an art that the world needs to get back. 

Consider this forum that bar. 

 

 

 

[99call]

5 hours ago, PigFish said:

Both sides carry some guilt for localized crime. One side carries the burden of millions of deaths and genocide.

Ray, I've got a lot respect for you, but this reads pretty much like Holocaust denial.  I know you caveated it in the earlier paragraph as "government sanctioned genocide".  but that cuts little sway. Whilst the Nazi party were not formally elected by the people, they were written into power, and were a ruling government, to try and frame the atrocities of the past to make one side look bad and one side look good is pretty questionable.      Maybe i've read what you wrote incorrectly, I hope so,   and if so I apologise

There is no doubt failed socialism and failed communism has a huge amount of blood on its hands throughout the pages of history.  And the tyranny of it is largely caused by the simple principle that it's not in human nature to accept forced equality.   

I thought Ken made some great points.   Particularly in the fact that dictatorships are largely not about the left or the right, and more about some disgusting individual living in a palace with the army in cahoots.   I see little difference with these kind of people and the like of Pablo Escobar.

6 hours ago, PigFish said:

When you are on the right you maintain that individuals can keep power and not abuse others with it

Also this is utter, utter nonsense.  Big business is built on suffrage.   Yes the golden ideal is everyone on the ladder it treated well, and granted the social mobility to improve their lot in life, but this is not modern day capitalism, and has rarely ever been capitalism.    When you have the uber wealthy getting rich of the deregulated workplace, where things like zero hours contracts are the norm, you also have 'in work poverty' which is now widespread in the UK.  To suggest that people in a capitalist model do not abuse people with power is lunacy of the highest order. 

Ray I fully agree with you that communisim is a failed principle, and often leads to people doing terrible things to one another,  but your arguments would hold much more weight if you'd take your head out of the sand and accept, that todays capitalism is purgatory for the underclasses. 

[Ryan]

The Nazis, even though they used the word "Socialist" in their name, were not socialists.

Some of the first people to go to the concentration camps were German socialists, trade unionists and communists. Socialists were forced to wear a red triangle when they were sent to the camps. The first Nazi concentration camp, Dachau, was built for 5,000 socialists and communists in 1933. While saying this, I am not for a second denying or denigrating that fact that Hitler also killed one third of the world's Jews.

Having said that, I had a hard time until recently differentiating between communist dictators, like Fidel Castro and Fascist dictators, General Franco of Spain for example.

On paper there are a lot of similarities, suppression/corruption of elections, either no independent judiciary or strongly influenced judiciary, control or provoking suspicion of the press etc. But there is one big difference.

Communists and hard left socialists (there are centrist socialists too, such as those who believe in education for all) always place the blame, that is encourage the general populace to believe, that the "Bourgeois", the very rich and well-to-do middle class as the cause of society's problems.

Fascists blame the poor, the weak and the least represented, ethnic minorities, poorer immigrants, people who look different or worship their God differently and rile up the citizenry to believing that. That hasn't changed.

Have a think about how the rich and middle-class fared when Fidel Castro came into power. And then how the rich fared under Franco or Hitler.

[99call]

11 minutes ago, Ryan said:

The Nazis, even though they used the word "Socialist" in their name, were not socialists.

Some of the first people to go to the concentration camps were German socialists, trade unionists and communists. Socialists were forced to wear a red triangle when they were sent to the camps. The first Nazi concentration camp, Dachau, was built for 5,000 socialists and communists in 1933. While saying this, I am not for a second denying or denigrating that fact that Hitler also killed one third of the world's Jews.

Having said that, I had a hard time until recently differentiating between communist dictators, like Fidel Castro and Fascist dictators, General Franco of Spain for example.

On paper there are a lot of similarities, suppression/corruption of elections, either no independent judiciary or strongly influenced judiciary, control or provoking suspicion of the press etc. But there is one big difference.

Communists and hard left socialists (there are centrist socialists too, such as those who believe in education for all) always place the blame, that is encourage the general populace to believe, that the "Bourgeois", the very rich and well-to-do middle class as the cause of society's problems.

Fascists blame the poor, the weak and the least represented, ethnic minorities, poorer immigrants, people who look different or worship their God differently and rile up the citizenry to believing that. That hasn't changed.

Have a think about how the rich and middle-class fared when Fidel Castro came into power. And then how the rich fared under Franco or Hitler.

Brilliant.....brilliant post.  Hats off to you Sir, well said indeed

[rcarlson]

Authoritarianism always resides on the extremes.  One thing for sure: there's common ground on both sides opposing authoritarianism.  However, it is fairly easy to explain how small-government conservatism prevents authoritarianism. It is impossible to successfully argue that big-government liberalism prevents it.  

Of course, we've digressed.  Milkshakes, right?  But I might say to 99 (who is among my favorite commentators here despite political disagreement), have you considered the irony of arguing that suppression of speech from the likes of Farage and Bannon in the name preventing authoritarianism is itself authoritarian?  

I am discouraged by the polarization and pitched rhetoric that defines politics today on both sides.  I don't fear it though.  Anyone familiar with U.S. history knows we are nowhere close to the extreme polarization and demonization we have experienced at other times in the past without utter destruction.  But at the same time, I do find the "fear of fascism" trope absurd hyperbole intended to justify attacks against political adversaries for their views rather than actions, and therefore of greater concern than what is supposedly feared.          

[99call]

1 hour ago, rcarlson said:

Authoritarianism always resides on the extremes.  One thing for sure: there's common ground on both sides opposing authoritarianism.  However, it is fairly easy to explain how small-government conservatism prevents authoritarianism. It is impossible to successfully argue that big-government liberalism prevents it.  

Of course, we've digressed.  Milkshakes, right?  But I might say to 99 (who is among my favorite commentators here despite political disagreement), have you considered the irony of arguing that suppression of speech from the likes of Farage and Bannon in the name preventing authoritarianism is itself authoritarian?  

I am discouraged by the polarization and pitched rhetoric that defines politics today on both sides.  I don't fear it though.  Anyone familiar with U.S. history knows we are nowhere close to the extreme polarization and demonization we have experienced at other times in the past without utter destruction.  But at the same time, I do find the "fear of fascism" trope absurd hyperbole intended to justify attacks against political adversaries for their views rather than actions, and therefore of greater concern than what is supposedly feared.          

I completely hear you,   I would not normally be putting up the beacons of "fear of fascism", but the UK is in a massive mess currently, tempers of frayed through 10yrs of brutal austerity, homelessness, child poverty,  lack of housing.  In my lifetime, it never felt so much like a touchpaper could be lit.    

I'm a Northerner and have seen this Tory government treat my part of the country like some sort of backwater that can be run into the ground. People are angry, and unfortunately in poor communities, usually what goes with it is a poor education.  The likes of Farage and Banon, seek whip these poor communities into a frenzy, and frequently suggest to their followers that violence is an option.

Again, I support protection of free speech, and I don"t support violence or 'milkshaking'...........But my point was there has to be a line drawn in the sand.  where we differenciate between genuine political parties, and those who have more in common with the likes of Abu Hamza, who was rightly jailed for inciting hatred in public places.     It's a fine line, and one thats very difficult to police...but it must be policed in order that we do not revisit the most devastating days in our recent history. 

 

[99call]

I think we should come up with some halfway house, where you're only allowed the throw the politicians favourite drink at them.........and its up to them to see if they can get any of it in their mouths........lord knows some of them look like they need it. 

Mines a tequila.......but not on the rocks!

[Colt45]

If one throws something at someone, harasses someone, walks down a busy street with their face buried in a cell phone bumping into people, one should, at the very least, not expect those who were assaulted to sit back and take it.

 

[BoliDan]

The continued and worsening push to far-right and far-left is highly unconscious. I think some content in this thread is actually proving that. ?

I have some faith that rationality will take hold eventually (This is mostly out of necessity, as I have a one-year old son to bring up in this world). But, it may come down to some developed nation going down a very catastrophic path to teach us a lesson in becoming more rational. I hope that is not the case that it gets to that point.