RugbyRebels

http://www.dpa-international.com/news/t ... 06292.html

So, ummm, yeah.

All that killing and mayhem for what was never on the table in the first place.

Heck of a job, neocons.

Juncker is a full on cnt

gthedog wrote:Juncker is a full on cnt

Erudite as ever.

Im not convinced that Junker speaks on behalf of NATO. However, given the current climate, I cant see much appetite for a formal alliance in the short or medium term.

Ukraine were a long way from joining the EU anyway. They were discussing an association agreement before Russia stirred the shit. With part of their country illegally annexed and another part under Russian occupation, they wouldn't be in any state to join the EU for a long, long time.
There was never any suggestion of Ukraine joining NATO either. This was a pure agitprop invention by Russia as part of their justification for the illegal annexation of Crimea.

Stones of granite wrote:Ukraine were a long way from joining the EU anyway. They were discussing an association agreement before Russia stirred the shit. With part of their country illegally annexed and another part under Russian occupation, they wouldn't be in any state to join the EU for a long, long time.
There was never any suggestion of Ukraine joining NATO either. This was a pure agitprop invention by Russia as part of their justification for the illegal annexation of Crimea.

LOLz. Straight from neocon central scriptwriting.

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Ukraine were a long way from joining the EU anyway. They were discussing an association agreement before Russia stirred the shit. With part of their country illegally annexed and another part under Russian occupation, they wouldn't be in any state to join the EU for a long, long time.
There was never any suggestion of Ukraine joining NATO either. This was a pure agitprop invention by Russia as part of their justification for the illegal annexation of Crimea.

LOLz. Straight from neocon central scriptwriting.

Putinbots transferring blame to neocons. That's new. Not.

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Ukraine were a long way from joining the EU anyway. They were discussing an association agreement before Russia stirred the shit. With part of their country illegally annexed and another part under Russian occupation, they wouldn't be in any state to join the EU for a long, long time.
There was never any suggestion of Ukraine joining NATO either. This was a pure agitprop invention by Russia as part of their justification for the illegal annexation of Crimea.

LOLz. Straight from neocon central scriptwriting.

Putinbots transferring blame to neocons. That's new. Not.

Oh you're just adorable.

Dutch referendum produces majority against EU-Ukraine Association Agreement
By Johannes Stern
8 April 2016
In a referendum held in the Netherlands on Wednesday, a clear majority of 62 percent of the voters rejected the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. Just 38 percent of voters voted in favour. Voter participation was 32 percent, meaning the referendum result is valid; the law requires a minimum of 30 percent voter participation.
The result deepened the political crisis in Europe and provoked extremely nervous responses from political and media circles. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who had called for a “yes” vote, felt compelled after the result to declare that the ratification of the EU agreement would have to be reconsidered. “If the referendum is valid, we can’t simply ratify the agreement as it is,” he said on Dutch television.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/0 ... c-a08.html

UGagain wrote:Dutch referendum produces majority against EU-Ukraine Association Agreement
By Johannes Stern
8 April 2016
In a referendum held in the Netherlands on Wednesday, a clear majority of 62 percent of the voters rejected the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. Just 38 percent of voters voted in favour. Voter participation was 32 percent, meaning the referendum result is valid; the law requires a minimum of 30 percent voter participation.
The result deepened the political crisis in Europe and provoked extremely nervous responses from political and media circles. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who had called for a “yes” vote, felt compelled after the result to declare that the ratification of the EU agreement would have to be reconsidered. “If the referendum is valid, we can’t simply ratify the agreement as it is,” he said on Dutch television.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/0 ... c-a08.html

Most people I spoke to hadn't much clue what it was about... maar ja...

Asking the electorate to make specific, yes/no policy decisions is daft, in my book. First, most people aren't very smart. Secondly, you can be sure that on complex issues most will be ill-informed. Thirdly, people are too easily swayed by marketing-style lobbying/fear-mongering and other circumventions of reason. Fourth, if the decision has long term ramifications, what gives the current electorate moral authority to make a decision that will affect future generations?

Government by representative democracy has some advantages - mostly maintaining stability by generating a broad consent to be governed. Direct democracy is a fucking stupid way to run things.

Hence Boaty McBoatface.

Read recently that the majority of Ukranians are not for EU membership either. It's the corrupt oligarch Poroshenko who wants in, because that's the very reason his US puppet masters engineered a coup against the previous pro-Russian regime

Lizard wrote:Asking the electorate to make specific, yes/no policy decisions is daft, in my book. First, most people aren't very smart. Secondly, you can be sure that on complex issues most will be ill-informed. Thirdly, people are too easily swayed by marketing-style lobbying/fear-mongering and other circumventions of reason. Fourth, if the decision has long term ramifications, what gives the current electorate moral authority to make a decision that will affect future generations?

Government by representative democracy has some advantages - mostly maintaining stability by generating a broad consent to be governed. Direct democracy is a fucking stupid way to run things.

Hence Boaty McBoatface.

Like you and your ilk know how to run an economy. We'd have 50% unemployment in no time.

Meet Andriy Parubiy, the Former Neo-Nazi Leader Turned Speaker of Ukraine’s Parliament

https://off-guardian.org/2016/04/19/mee ... arliament/

UGagain wrote:

Lizard wrote:Asking the electorate to make specific, yes/no policy decisions is daft, in my book. First, most people aren't very smart. Secondly, you can be sure that on complex issues most will be ill-informed. Thirdly, people are too easily swayed by marketing-style lobbying/fear-mongering and other circumventions of reason. Fourth, if the decision has long term ramifications, what gives the current electorate moral authority to make a decision that will affect future generations?

Government by representative democracy has some advantages - mostly maintaining stability by generating a broad consent to be governed. Direct democracy is a fucking stupid way to run things.

Hence Boaty McBoatface.

Like you and your ilk know how to run an economy. We'd have 50% unemployment in no time.

Actually, bro, my ilk do run the economy and unemployment is nowhere near 50%. I have "ilk", including personal acquaintances of similar age, background and politics in both the legislature and executive branches of government and your "prediction" is wrong.

No doubt you will now redefine my ilk for me, or resort to childish name-calling.

Lizard wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Lizard wrote:Asking the electorate to make specific, yes/no policy decisions is daft, in my book. First, most people aren't very smart. Secondly, you can be sure that on complex issues most will be ill-informed. Thirdly, people are too easily swayed by marketing-style lobbying/fear-mongering and other circumventions of reason. Fourth, if the decision has long term ramifications, what gives the current electorate moral authority to make a decision that will affect future generations?

Government by representative democracy has some advantages - mostly maintaining stability by generating a broad consent to be governed. Direct democracy is a fucking stupid way to run things.

Hence Boaty McBoatface.

Like you and your ilk know how to run an economy. We'd have 50% unemployment in no time.

Actually, bro, my ilk do run the economy and unemployment is nowhere near 50%. I have "ilk", including personal acquaintances of similar age, background and politics in both the legislature and executive branches of government and your "prediction" is wrong.

No doubt you will now redefine my ilk for me, or resort to childish name-calling.

Yeah? Care to tell me what NZ's biggest export is?

I don't run the economy. I have ilk to do that for me.

In any case, by what measure are you ranking exports? In terms of earnings it's still dairy, but incoming travel isn't far behind, as far as I'm aware.

Lizard wrote:I don't run the economy. I have ilk to do that for me.

In any case, by what measure are you ranking exports? In terms of earnings it's still dairy, but incoming travel isn't far behind, as far as I'm aware.

No dude. It's unemployment.

By what measure is that our biggest export?

(Also, I note you have gone silent on your claim that my ilk would have unemployment at 50%).

Lizard wrote:By what measure is that our biggest export?

(Also, I note you have gone silent on your claim that my ilk would have unemployment at 50%).

By any measure. NZ doesn't manage its economy well enough to supply jobs to hundreds of thousands of its working age population and they go overseas.

Your ilk is an abject failure by any metric. Pitiful.

It's laughable when I see your friends patting themselves on the back for their 'rock star economy'.

They should be sweeping roads.

UGagain wrote:

Lizard wrote:By what measure is that our biggest export?

(Also, I note you have gone silent on your claim that my ilk would have unemployment at 50%).

By any measure. NZ doesn't manage its economy well enough to supply jobs to hundreds of thousands of its working age population and they go overseas.

Your ilk is an abject failure by any metric. Pitiful.

It's laughable when I see your friends patting themselves on the back for their 'rock star economy'.

They should be sweeping roads.

What's your source on that? NZ has net immigration, not emigration.

Lizard wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Lizard wrote:By what measure is that our biggest export?

(Also, I note you have gone silent on your claim that my ilk would have unemployment at 50%).

By any measure. NZ doesn't manage its economy well enough to supply jobs to hundreds of thousands of its working age population and they go overseas.

Your ilk is an abject failure by any metric. Pitiful.

It's laughable when I see your friends patting themselves on the back for their 'rock star economy'.

They should be sweeping roads.

What's your source on that? NZ has net immigration, not emigration.

LOLz. It had one or two quarters of (notional) net immigration when seasonally adjusted. Now that unemployment is rising again and real wages are declining (also again) you can kiss even that statistical manipulation good bye.

I know plenty of people in the mover and shaker class in NZ as you do. I wouldn't call a single one of them economically literate. Most of them are just fast talking chancers. The rest are idiots.

Lizard wrote:Asking the electorate to make specific, yes/no policy decisions is daft, in my book. First, most people aren't very smart. Secondly, you can be sure that on complex issues most will be ill-informed. Thirdly, people are too easily swayed by marketing-style lobbying/fear-mongering and other circumventions of reason. Fourth, if the decision has long term ramifications, what gives the current electorate moral authority to make a decision that will affect future generations?

Government by representative democracy has some advantages - mostly maintaining stability by generating a broad consent to be governed. Direct democracy is a fucking stupid way to run things.

Hence Boaty McBoatface.

The answer is not less democracy, but more education.

UGagain wrote:

Lizard wrote:

UGagain wrote:
By any measure. NZ doesn't manage its economy well enough to supply jobs to hundreds of thousands of its working age population and they go overseas.

Your ilk is an abject failure by any metric. Pitiful.

It's laughable when I see your friends patting themselves on the back for their 'rock star economy'.

They should be sweeping roads.

What's your source on that? NZ has net immigration, not emigration.

LOLz. It had one or two quarters of (notional) net immigration when seasonally adjusted. Now that unemployment is rising again and real wages are declining (also again) you can kiss even that statistical manipulation good bye.

I know plenty of people in the mover and shaker class in NZ as you do. I wouldn't call a single one of them economically literate. Most of them are just fast talking chancers. The rest are idiots.

Again, give your source. We've had net immigration for years. Also, what is your source on rising unemployment? The latest figure I saw (Feb) was around 5.3% down from around 6 if I recall.

In any event, you have failed to back up your claim that my "Ilk" would have unemployment at 50%.

This is also all entirely irrelevant to my original point that making major decisions by popular vote is stupid. Your claim that the "mover and shaker" class are idiots would in fact seem to confirm that as it would be precisely those "fast talkers" setting the agenda for any discussion agenda prior to a popular vote.

I'll leave you now to keep changing the topic, making poorly-founded factual assertions, and name-calling. I'm going to have a beer and get back to the rugby forums.

Lizard wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Lizard wrote:
What's your source on that? NZ has net immigration, not emigration.

LOLz. It had one or two quarters of (notional) net immigration when seasonally adjusted. Now that unemployment is rising again and real wages are declining (also again) you can kiss even that statistical manipulation good bye.

I know plenty of people in the mover and shaker class in NZ as you do. I wouldn't call a single one of them economically literate. Most of them are just fast talking chancers. The rest are idiots.

Again, give your source. We've had net immigration for years. Also, what is your source on rising unemployment? The latest figure I saw (Feb) was around 5.3% down from around 6 if I recall.

In any event, you have failed to back up your claim that my "Ilk" would have unemployment at 50%.

This is also all entirely irrelevant to my original point that making major decisions by popular vote is stupid. Your claim that the "mover and shaker" class are idiots would in fact seem to confirm that as it would be precisely those "fast talkers" setting the agenda for any discussion agenda prior to a popular vote.

I'll leave you now to keep changing the topic, making poorly-founded factual assertions, and name-calling. I'm going to have a beer and get back to the rugby forums.

I understand that you're unable to back up your assertions with a cogent argument.