TheDimpleboy

I'd nationalise the rail and utilities - the latter two have nothing to do with left v right.

Them fuckers from 'Stop the War Campaign' I keep seeing shared all over my Newsfeed are literally the left's equivalent of Britain First. Some of the discourse and imagery being used by them on social media is nothing short of shameful. If they're so keen on entering negotiations with an organisation who are hell bent on the subjugation and murder of anyone who doesn't agree with their ideals, then may I suggest we fund their flights to Syria to begin peace talks. So far these enlightened individuals have: -Praised the 'internationalism and solidarity' of ISIS, drawing comparison with the Internationale Brigades -Victim blamed the Paris attacks: France were '​reaping the whirlwind of western support for extremist violence' -Opposed actions to save the Yazidis stranded on a mountain surrounded by ISIS forces. -Blamed the Charlie Hebdo attacks on the West. -Promoted Assad apologists. The list is pretty long tbh, I could be here all night. It seems Stop The War doesn't actually give a flying fuck about the genocide, murder or rape of people universally - they're only arsed about potential casualties from UK airstrikes. This is particularly funny considering UK airstrikes in Iraq over the last year have brought about a grand total of 0 civilian casualties, while no doubt saving 1000's of people from murder and oppression (this was ratified by the Kurdish ground forces chief). I have no issue with a non-interventionism stance, it's a perfectly valid one as there are other things we should be doing in co-ordination with airstrikes. But these fuckers are on a different planet. Oh, and comrade Corbyn loves them.

This. People that have a go at all Muslims are dicks, there's plenty of them on Facebook, generally their occupation is: 'works at footsoldier for North East INFIDELS' But at the same time there's a worrying number of people that think criticism of an idea is bad. Islam is an idea. It's an idea which fosters intolerance towards women, homosexuals, and people that don't follow Islam. For that reason I think it's pretty shit. The same of course is true of Christianity. The difference being, that Christians in this country have en mass drifted away from following their holy literature to the nth degree, and see it as something they tick off on their census, maybe go to church once a week, and that's about it. That hasn't happened as such with Islam.

[tweet] [/tweet]

The taxpayer pays for it mate. We already pay for a methadone treatment program for 150,000 people (that was in 2009, the number is almost certainly higher now), surely this would make more sense financially in the long run? Especially seeing as the methadone treatment programme doesn't seem to really be reducing the number of new addicts at all - where as this clinic in Liverpool did do just that, by removing the need for a dealer. Surely that's the thing that stops people getting into these new habits? I personally would never consider taking a drug like heroin even if it was legal and controlled, because I've been educated fully on how addictive it can be, and I've read testimonies of people who've just tried it once saying that a decade later the happiness that moment brought is the first thing they think of each day. That sounds scarily good. And is probably a better way of scaring off people from using such drugs than any amount of hyped-up overdose stories. I don't know mate, it just seems daft to ignore such evidence when the taxpayer is already forking out for extremely similar drugs to these people, and it doesn't seem to be working. The interesting thing about opiate addiction is the way that it's victims are stigmatised as being 'scum'. That baffles me a bit. The overwhelming majority of users of heroin find their way there after addiction to prescribed and legal opiates, as it's a lot cheaper. The rest have probably suffered more mental, physical and social trauma than most in life, and I'm not sure I can look down on them from my ivory tower. As a side note, I would bet everything I own in the world that drugs such as MDMA and LSD will be absolutely imperative in dealing with mental illnesses at controlled doses in the future, and it seems criminal that governments have made it almost impossible for scientists to carry out such research.

In fact on reflection, even the hardest drugs are better off legalised and regulated. This little excerpt is fascinating, I'd love to see the documentary itself if anyone knows where it can be found.

Can see excellent arguments both for and against the airstrikes. I would point out one thing though. It would be nice if the anti-interventionists would refrain from attempting to hold a monopoly on 'compassion', and acknowledge the fact that inaction will result in just as much, if not more innocent blood being spilled than UK airstrikes. So calling people 'child killers' and 'evil' for agreeing with the strikes is a bit simplistic. I know the Kurds appreciated them a hell of a lot in Iraq.

Of course drugs should be legalised/regulated. It's the most frustrating topic in the world to debate. No matter how much empirical, logical or medical evidence you put forward, you'll get shouted down with abuse/emotive blackmail/told you're wrong just 'because'. It's not because I think drugs are cool, or because of any underlying psuedo-libertarian ideals that 'the state shouldn't tell me what I can and can't put in my body!!!!' (although I do agree with that somewhat). It's because I want less people to die. Drug policy within a nation should focus on what has the best possible outcomes for society. Now quite clearly, the best possible health outcomes for society would be if nobody at all touched any drugs (alcohol and tobacco included), but unless your name is Peter Hitchens, I think most people will admit that it's just not feasible, and people that want drugs will get drugs. So what is the next best possible outcome for society? Harm minimization/death reduction due to a policy of education and regulation. Let's take MDMA as an example, but it's a similar story for pretty much any prohibited drug (other than very soft i.e. weed or very hard i.e. crank/crack/smack): MDMA itself, the stuff you get in 'ecstasy' tablets, is no where near as unsafe as the media make out (it's not risk free either like as some online would have you believe). Potential death from MDMA can occur in the following ways: 1. Approximately 2/100000 people simply cannot properly process MDMA, and even small amounts can be toxic, it's comparable to an allergy, and unless immediate medical attention is sought then death is likely. If MDMA was a regulated substance, then anyone wishing to use it would be able to get a simple 'allergy test' prior to using it, to see whether it will be deadly for them. Easily avoidable. 2. Too much water. I think everyone's heard of the case of Leah Bett's - hell it was brought up on a debate I saw on TV last week. But what most people fail to mention is that her death was a result of her taking an ecstasy pill, and then consuming 7 and a half litres of water in the space of 90 minutes. A lack of education killed Leah Betts. Her friends were under the impression that you need to drink bucket loads of water if you consume MDMA - but in face it increases water retention in the body, and too much water will dilute sodium levels to the point permanent brain damage as a result of swelling occurs. Tragic, and preventable. 3. Heatstroke. Once again preventable with basic education. The substance raises body temperature and blood pressure while active, and as a result it's important to take breaks from dancing and consume sensible amounts of water. Now for the more common, and easily preventable ones: 4. Overdose due to purity. When someone consumes MDMA unless they have a testing kit at home (sort of an admission of guilt) they have no idea what they're putting in their body. They might be used to really 'weak' stuff, but if by chance they get their hands on much higher purity drugs than usual without realising, then taking their 'usual' dose could be fatal, as their body just isn't used to it. It's like accidentally drinking a 70cl instead of 3 double vodkas, which is easy in tablet form. A regulated market allows you to identify your purity, and choose your dose safely. 5. This is the one that's responsible for the overwhelming majority of ecstasy related deaths - overdose due to different chemical. MDMA has a toxic LD50 dose (the median dose which will kill 50% of the population) of over 1 gram (although obviously consuming that much anyway would be absurd due to risks of neurotoxicity which would cause potential loss of concentration/memory in future). Chemicals which can produce almost identical 'euphoric' effects such as PMA/PMMA have a lethal dose of less than 1/10 of that, (anything over 60mg can be deadly). Just one of these can kill, and would once again be avoided if the product was regulated. The same is true for almost any drug, although I recognise the horrendously addictive nature of the likes of heroin, crack, and methamphetamine means those 'hard' substances are best decriminalised, as opposed to the legalisation and regulation I support of the likes of Weed/speed/MDMA/coke/LSD etc. And if you're worried about the effects of such a policy move on society as a whole - look no further than Portugal. Prohibition of drugs is resulting in 1000's of needless deaths each year. The war on drugs has failed.

Out. 100%.

Anyone that thinks Corbyn can win in 2020 - play around with this. https://moreknownthanproven.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/new-improved-model-to-see-if-corbyn-can-win-a-general-election/ You win elections by appealing to middle england - not the greens.

It's fucking awful this, and the worst part is there isn't any obvious answer. Social media has went batshit mental. On the one hand we have groups of people making astonishing statements like 'these people have phone chargers - they are not refugees!!!!!' as if a middle class lifestyle and electrical goods mean they are safe from the threat of IS. On the other hand I've also seen plenty of people who have came to the conclusion that anyone who does not think allowing tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into the UK is a good idea is therefore a racist devoid of any compassion. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. We can't take a 'nothing to do with us attitude' because nobody should be denied the ability to seek refuge when in danger, not to mention the West's involvement in undermining Assad. But at the same time I'm hardly surprised that there's also an 'anti-refugee' sentiment clearly visible on the internet. That happens when you smear and tarnish anyone with an opposing view on mass-immigration as a bigot for the best part of two decades. I'd also point out that the people most enthusiastic in welcoming as many refugees as possible on my Facebook/Twitter are also the people who are least likely to feel any resulting negative impacts on housing, social services etc. I think we should be proud of the financial support we've already offered - unless I'm mistaken we've completely dwarfed the rest of Europe in terms of such aid. And despite detesting the bloke, Cameron's speech was pretty much perfect in dealing with what is a particularly delicate issue. He offered to accept a reasonable number of refugees, but also stressed that these would only be people in refugee camps, meaning he clearly dissuaded people from risking their lives crossing the Mediterranean. That will almost certainly save lives, and in fact the much nicer 'REFUGEES WELCOME' line which I'm seeing everywhere could well have actually done the opposite and encouraged more people to embark on that extremely dangerous journey. So credit where it's due for Cameron. Not a nice situation at all, and it would be nice if people on both sides stopped trying to take the moral high-ground and attempted to work towards the best possible solution with the best possible outcomes for everyone - including the UK population.

Was meant to be me but I gave it to a lad off Twitter as I was still feeling rough from the previous night.

Getting pretty boring on Twitter seeing people that actively campaigned for/were members of the SWP, Greens, Communists, SPG, Respect etc at the general election act outraged at being denied a vote in the leadership election.

Off to see Corbyn tonight in town, still no idea which way I'm going to be voting to be honest. There's no way Corbyn will win in 2020, however I wouldn't be adverse to him taking charge for a couple of years to challenge a lot of the one-sided rhetoric in the media, before parachuting someone a lot more electable in such as David Miliband or Dan Jarvis. The way he's portrayed in the media is his biggest problem, as someone earlier in the thread mentioned the majority of the public support nationalisation of key industries, but such a proposal by Mr Corbyn is being portrayed as 'extreme' and 'militant' when it's anything but. The fact he seems to be eurosceptic anarl is a massive plus in my eyes, however he seems a bit 'liberal lefty' for my liking socially. Cooper is the other person that's impressed me a lot, and tonight's going to decide whether her or Corbyn get my 1st preference. I am slightly worried by the amount of people that seem to be happy to posture from the sides with a 'rather principles than power' stance, which is all very well, but you can't really do a good job of protecting the most vulnerable in society while sat on the opposition benches.

If the Tories want a minimum % for a Union strike ballot to be valid then all they have to do is allow workplace ballots again, and I'd have no problem with it. They won't though - they want to have their cake and eat it. I'd understand if this was '77 and Jimmy from Leyland has just took the shopfloor outside because the coffee provided by the management wasn't up to scratch - but FFS it's 2015 and the Tube strike aside, the only other strikes that have occurred over the last 5 years have been in direct opposition to Tory policy, and have had full legitimacy. (FWIW I support the Tube strike anarl). As for a Labour leader I'm praying to god it's not Corbyn - the Twitter echo chambers would love it but in the real world that's an instant Tory victory in 2020. Mind, looking at the other contenders the same is probably true for all of them. Dan Jarvis is the man I would have thrown my hat in the ring with but sadly he (understandably due to personal reasons) ruled himself out. Burnham's a good man but seemingly still hasn't learned any lessons with his comment to O'Neill yesterday: 'I absolutely support the free movement of people' - aye mate that's really going to benefit the low paid in this country.