Bobby Hundreds Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: If they are on the breadline now, the breadline will move with their wages. Everything will just cost more. So it's pointless. So it's the system that needs binning off then, it patently doesn't work and isn't fair.
Guest Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 7 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: Hopefully nukes will work when Godzilla wonders out of the ocean. Finally may has a policy to get behind!
matty98 Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 3 minutes ago, Strokes said: If they are on the breadline now, the breadline will move with their wages. Everything will just cost more. So it's pointless. Of course the general price of goods would go up but the increase would be by less than that of wages going up. 4 minutes ago, MattP said: If the tea shop pays the extra 5k how much tea do you think they'll buy back? Small businesses won't survive that. "All deaths are wrong" - my favourite line of the night. Awful example, take it you don't go to many tea shops? Employees tend to be youngsters who as far as I'm aware aren't affected by the living wage.
bovril Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 11 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: Hopefully nukes will work when Godzilla wonders out of the ocean. Or when we need to deflect an asteroid away from the Earth's orbit.
Collymore Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 17 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: Neither of them came out of that particularly well. Corbyn failed on nukes and May failed on health. Bore draw. All these questions have been asked over and over again. There needs to be a rule across networks on these debates. There's enough subjects to talk about within both manifestos that they dont need to keep going on about the same bloody stuff. We know that May thinks no deal is better than a bad deal and we know Corbyn hates nukes. Seriously it's like watching repeats. He only failed if you are a 7 year old child looking for an answer. Check this out - Some of that audience, including (Dmbleby) would have launched 20 strikes already! http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm I really respect the fact that he refuses to answer as there are so many variables and scenarios to simply say "yeah I'd press the button straight away and blow the shit out of them" is disrespectful to the thousands of innocent people who have died or are genetically still affected by bombs released in the past. I seriously worry for our society as those people tonight genuinely seemed to be raging and wanting to fire a few nukes off, probably subconscious retaliation from all the recent terrorist atrocities.
foxy boxing Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 5 hours ago, bovril said: Or when we need to deflect an asteroid away from the Earth's orbit. Or when evil aliens invade!
Dr The Singh Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Just now, foxy boxing said: Or when evil aliens invade! Why has this not been asked to our future leaders, it is my number 1 concern
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 1 minute ago, Collymore said: He only failed if you are a 7 year old child looking for an answer. Check this out - Some of that audience, including (Dmbleby) would have launched 20 strikes already! http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm I really respect the fact that he refuses to answer as there are so many variables and scenarios to simply say "yeah I'd press the button straight away and blow the shit out of them" is disrespectful to the thousands of innocent people who have died or are genetically still affected by bombs released in the past. I seriously worry for are society as those people tonight genuinely seemed to be raging and wanting to fire a few nukes off, probably subconscious retaliation from all the recent terrorist atrocities. When I say failed, I mean he could have nipped it in the bud straight away. 'Only when every peaceful solution was exhausted and there was not a single possibility of avoiding the extreme loss of life and collosal damage not just to property but to the worlds society and an attack had been made on our people, with a heavy heart I would press the button.' Or something along those lines.
LiberalFox Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 At least he gave an answer, even if it was one some people wouldn't want to hear.
Collymore Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 2 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: When I say failed, I mean he could have nipped it in the bud straight away. 'Only when every peaceful solution was exhausted and there was not a single possibility of avoiding the extreme loss of life and collosal damage not just to property but to the worlds society and an attack had been made on our people, with a heavy heart I would press the button.' Or something along those lines. Funny if he sees this and quotes you word for word at his next speech!
Strokes Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 16 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said: So it's the system that needs binning off then, it patently doesn't work and isn't fair. What system? Capitalism? Maybe but that's a different conversation, still a minimum wage increase won't help those on minimum wage. They will still earn the lowest, in fact you could argue it could bring more people into poverty,
Bobby Hundreds Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 One guy made an analogy of launching a nuclear warhead with changing TV channels.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 1 minute ago, Bobby Hundreds said: One guy made an analogy of launching a nuclear warhead with changing TV channels. I feel he thought this was funny when in fact it was ****ing moronic. I think the audience was the only loser, failing to really grill either of them, failing to create an actual debate, and some were far too inarticulate that it would have been easy for anyone to bat them away.
leicsmac Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 56 minutes ago, Bryn said: He'll get slammed for his answers on nuclear weapons there but I fully back his stance. He's already said we'll renew Trident. He's said he won't use them first. He's not said he won't use them in retaliation, and frankly what ****ing difference does it make to those of us who are vaporised if he does? He's made a principled stand against relishing the annihilation of millions of equally innocent civilians by launching our nukes in return. He makes the point that if global politics descends that far, into nuclear war, we are absolutely and unequivocally ****ed and he's absolutely right. If you don't understand that you're a dangerous idiot. 9 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: When I say failed, I mean he could have nipped it in the bud straight away. 'Only when every peaceful solution was exhausted and there was not a single possibility of avoiding the extreme loss of life and collosal damage not just to property but to the worlds society and an attack had been made on our people, with a heavy heart I would press the button.' Or something along those lines. These are points that have been made on here before, and thank you for repeating them - especially the first one. They were salient then and they're salient now. The idea that anyone wins any kind of nuclear exchange (whether they have nukes themselves or not) is dangerous fallacy.
Guest MattP Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: The idea that anyone wins any kind of nuclear exchange (whether they have nukes themselves or not) is dangerous fallacy. Pretty sure the USA won the first nuclear war Mac.
Bryn Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Just now, MattP said: Pretty sure the USA won the first nuclear war Mac. Helps when you're the only one who has them ready to go.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Just now, MattP said: Pretty sure the USA won the first nuclear war Mac. Wouldve been interesting if the Japanese had them too.
Guest MattP Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Fcuk it let's nuke someone, Argentina or something. Can it go that far? Belgium if not.
Guest MattP Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 Just now, Bobby Hundreds said: Wouldve been interesting if the Japanese had them too. Well they wouldn't have done it then. Which is exactly the point of having them.
Guest MattP Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 1 minute ago, Bryn said: Helps when you're the only one who has them ready to go. Made my point for me, US wouldn't have done it to a country that could respond. It's the piece of history the anti-nuclear crowd are so desperate too but can't erase.
leicsmac Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 3 minutes ago, MattP said: Pretty sure the USA won the first nuclear war Mac. Hence my use of the word "exchange". The only reason they won was because there was nobody to fire back. Now, there is, and regardless of the UK having or not having nuclear weapons, there always will be. I've made this point on here at length multiple times - since Russia became the second nation to detonate a nuclear weapon and until there is some kind of outcome where only one power has nuclear weapons again, no one wins a nuclear exchange.
foxy boxing Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 5 hours ago, MattP said: Fcuk it let's nuke someone, Argentina or something. Can it go that far? Belgium if not. I've just nuked my dinner, does that count!
Foxxed Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 When would we use nukes first anyway? They are a deterrent: "If you launch on us, we'll launch on you". You don't use deterrents to start fights.
Strokes Posted 2 June 2017 Posted 2 June 2017 2 minutes ago, MattP said: Fcuk it let's nuke someone, Argentina or something. Can it go that far? Belgium if not. France
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.