Wall of Mouths

I find it ridiculous to be honest - so much for democracy.

I think they are basically just going to keep asking us until we say “Yes”.

I will definitely do my best to educate myself before the vote (see if our gobshite politicians actually put in effort to educate the people this time around) and vote on what I think is right.

I bet it is going to be a big scare campaign stating that the future of our country in Europe is doomed if we don’t say yes.

Twas always going to get pushed through the throats regardless of the voting results. As happened in Holland before.
On the original vote , still think it was a referendum where most of the people that voted didn’t have any clue whatsoever what they voted against.

The illusion of democracy of course. They expected to get a yes, and if they didn’t, they knew they’d just be able to try again.

That’s very easy to say, but you do tend to veer towards paranoia! :p

It must have cost a fortune to run that first referendum. It seems to me much more likely that the government are being railroaded into having another one than that they actually want to.

Oh dear, mrs h :(

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you accept the existence of corrupt governments? Do you accept that Bush and the Neocons are fundamentally not good people, who were working to serve their own interests and the interests of corporations more generally?

I should add that the people who are planning a one world government have no intention of making it a democratic body taking in all countries of the world. It will be run by the same corrupt powers who are behind the corporate US and UK. The Western elite who want to implement a new world order have no cosy images of all different colours and creeds standing peacefully hand in hand, as you seem to imagine a one world government.

I must say I am very surprised that you think a one world government is a good idea, and you don’t see the potential for tyranny.

a global governmant is going to happen at some point but not in our life time. a single currency sounds handy though

I’m also surprised you dismiss my explanation of why they held a referendum in the first place as “paranoid”. You seem to have great trust in the people who are pulling the strings…the same people who have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq based on a manufactured lie. Naive isn’t normally a word I associate with you, mrs h ;_)

mr self destruct wrote:

I must say I am very surprised that you think a one world government is a good idea, and you don’t see the potential for tyranny.

I didn’t say it was a good idea, I said on the face of it it sounded like a good idea, and I stand by that. Of course there would be some potential for tyranny, but there would also be equal potential for world peace.

If you deliberately look for potential tyranny, corruption and abuse of power you are going to find it everywhere, you have to take a balanced view of things. Let’s suppose that there already WAS a world government, and someone suggested that it would be a good idea to break it up and give power to a tiny minority of people spread all over the world, but the countries that were in agreement with and/or publicly supported the principles of western democracy would be allowed to keep any nuclear weapons they might have. I don’t think anyone would go for it in favour of a government that represented every country and the interests of a global citizenship.

mr self destruct wrote:

I’m also surprised you dismiss my explanation of why they held a referendum in the first place as “paranoid”. You seem to have great trust in the people who are pulling the strings…the same people who have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq based on a manufactured lie. Naive isn’t normally a word I associate with you, mrs h ;_)

It’s not the same people that have murdered thousands of people in Iraq, that was us. And the Americans, and we didn’t have a referendum, the Irish did.

And why do you think it was a manufactured lie? I think they fucked up big time over Iraq, and there’s no doubt it was illegal but I don’t think it was manufactured. I’m surprised you say it as though it is a fact when there is no evidence whatsoever to support that. Our government is made up of a whole heap of ordinary people, and I think you are attributing to them a whole heap of motives and powers that they just don’t have.

mrs h wrote:

I think they fucked up big time over Iraq, and there’s no doubt it was illegal but I don’t think it was manufactured. I’m surprised you say it as though it is a fact when there is no evidence whatsoever to support that.

They used a dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that was a university essay they’d nicked off the net. I will not start on 9/11 ;-)

I’m not disputing for one second that the intelligence the government had on Iraq was a load of toss, but that doesn’t mean that Tony Blair KNEW it was a load of toss, does it? And I’m not disputing that they shouldn’t have invaded Iraq - everyone knows that they shouldn’t, including half of the government at the time. And I don’t think for one second that we would have invaded Iraq off our own bat even if they DID have WMD. I do suspect that Tony Blair could see a load of shit kicking off between America and the Middle East and thought he’d better not sit on the fence. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do, but I don’t think it was anything more than that.

If you are going to delve into all this stuff when you already have fixed opinions then it’s not ‘research’ is it ?- you might as well just seek out propaganda. The best description I’ve found of what is going on between America and the Middle East is all in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean I’m about to believe everything it says!

And I don’t doubt that governments are influenced by big business to some extent - how can they not be when local economies are so often built around big business? They have to look after whatever keeps the economy going, and with so much privatisation they would have to be pretty dense not to realise that working with big business is an essential part of keeping people in jobs and houses. If that’s what you mean by the ‘people at the top of the pyramid’ then I agree that they may well try to pull strings, but fortunately the public on the whole are not idiots, and companies and governments are not outside the law. They can try what they like, but the public and the press are far more powerful than I think you are giving them credit for! Not that I am happy about the press bit of it in many ways, in fact I think Government is swayed too easily by the press, but that’s another story … :)

Whoa!!!!! I’m not dismissing what you say, but you haven’t stated a single fact! If you’ve been researching this for 2 years I would think you would be able to provide something a little less vague and mysterious. I don’t think you are being paranoid in believing people pull strings, I think it’s paranoid to perceive it as some sort of threat. People have been banging on about stuff like that for 50 years and it hasn’t made a blind bit of difference to anything.

As for the public and the press, the government and the press run rings round each other in that the press want to sell papers and the government want people to vote for them. They obviously influence each other, and the ‘powers that be’ can prevent certain stories being printed at times but the press aren’t forced to abide by that. Either way, the press influence government policy all the time - we’ve had thousands of laws and policies introduced through public campaigns, and when the press support those campaigns all the better. What do you think pressure groups are formed for? And why would anyone lobby parliament at all if nothing ever happened? And the CAB and similar organisations lobby parliament constantly on behalf of the public, although this isn’t the public that are sat at home shitting themselves and watching the X Factor - these are the people who are homeless or disabled or up to their eyeballs in debt and have more pressing things to think about than Al-fucking-Quaeda.

Incidentally I find your description of ‘the public’ patronising and offensive. I certainly count myself, my family, my friends and my colleagues as members of the public, and not one of them could be described as such using your definition.

It’s pretty simple - just give me a name of someone who is involved. Or of an organisation. Everything you’ve said sounds like it has come straight out of ‘Stark’.

I’ve just had a look at the engineering aspects http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml and there is no reason whatsoever to think that there was anything even vaguely similar to a controlled explosion, especially when you consider the number of weeks that the demolition experts would have had to be in the buildings weakening the structures. I expect you are going to tell me that Sydney University have been forced to write all that by some unknown power. Can you tell me why I should believe what you have been reading and not what I can read for myself? It mentions in there that the twin towers were the only structures of that height ever to have been built without any masonry, so I’d be interested to know what we are supposed to use as a basis for comparison in the way they collapsed?

Added to that, why the fuck would someone who wanted to bring down the twin towers WANT to do a controlled explosion? I think the nasty terrorists flying the planes into the damn buildings would be more than sufficient to convince the dumbed down ‘audience’ you talk about of the terrorist threat.