Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Record labels are historically high risk, obviously they shoot for a diverse selection of potentially profitable bands but many don't produce. I thought it was common knowledge they lost money on most bands.
The record industry as a whole is high-risk, absolutely, but my argument is that the big RIAA labels are inherently low-risk, because the bands have already proven themselves with the high-risk labels.

And who signed the contract, no one held the a gun to the artists head. And all this profit isn't showing up in their quarterly reports?
Up until a couple of years ago, that's just how the game was played. Signing with the RIAA was "making it big", so you had to go along with whatever they said, if you wanted to make it into that "next tier" of music.

And I don't see how you can ever go by a quarterly report of an RIAA label, judging by how they deem the value of some things. I'm sure it's showing up in quarterly reports, but likely being drowned out by the "millions" they're losing from home downloading.

That is the RIAA, and that was pretty dispicable, that stunt they pulled with the, "for hire," copyright law was pretty low too.
Agreed. It's this part of the reputation that the rest of the parts follow, to be honest. They went about trying to solve their supposed money problems in the worst possible ways, and now they have an absolutely abysmal image.
 
Last edited:
[YOUTUBE]JkSIerYCXOA[/YOUTUBE]
 
yeah.. because nothing good will come of EU as a project... nothing at all..... /irony
 
yeah.. because nothing good will come of EU as a project... nothing at all..... /irony

His concerns are entirely legitimate.
 
He sounds a bit like a traditional liberal-conservative-british-patriot. Nothing spectacular by his views, nothing spectacular by what he says, he's not spectacular in any way.

But it's a legitimate point, though. Can't say I'm getting too exited being both tired, sick and an undecided regarding the EU as a whole.
 
Funny how he spends all that time criticising the European Parliament, whilst using EU offices, collecting all those expenses and being paid by the EU.

Kind of like Nick Griffin of the BNP, whose avowed policy is to take Britain out of the EU, yet standing for and getting elected to the European Parliament.

Money talks and these bullshitters walk.
 
It's like with the NRA. If you disagree with it, sign up for membership, get all your friends to sign up, get them to get all their friends to sign up...

Given time, you might get enough people in the NRA to change it.

Nothing radical in that per say.
 
A good idea in principle, but in practise, you will always be outnumbered by the people who believe in it.

I firmly believe Griffin did so because of the money that both he and his party will get.

Whereas Hannan is a brilliant speaker, as anyone who saw his speech skewering Gordon Brown will attest. However, I suspect he is an MEP because he is somewhere far to the Right of Genghis Khan and David Cameron can't have the likes of him too close if he wants to get elected. (IIRC, Hannan appeared on Faux News saying the NHS had failed and the UK should adopt the US model, which is as close to electoral suicide as you can get.)
 
Well, I get the point of him being to far to the right. Our largest oposition party, the Progress Party have distanced themselves from a local politian who's called Africans "Half-apes" a couple of times on Facebook, it's just bad business having those people in your ranks..

:)
 
Hannan isn't that far right.
 
Depends on your perspective. He is much more right wing than Margaret Thatcher. From a UK perspective, that is bloody terrifying.
 
Depends on your perspective.
And that's much of the essence of Euro/US political discussions. The European middle is so far left it falls off the US scale, while the US "lefties" are actually right of the European middle.
 
Hannan is right wing enough to be a Faux News darling. So you can see what he is like from the US perspective as well.
 
I have yet for anyone to tell me why we should be in it? What is in it for the UK? I look at my pay packet and I can say I am nn GBP better off because of Europe - er not. I can say I am several percent poorer on everything I buy because of the VAT levey mind you.
 
Last edited:
The Social Chapter, the Court of Human Rights, the minimum wage, the imposition of maximum working hours. Then you add in the benefits to business of easing trade across country borders, disallowing protective/punitive taxation both internal to a country and external to a country.

And yes, free movement of workers. Just because we in the UK are bloody insular isn't the rest of Europes fault.

The problem with the perception of "Europe" is that it has given great benefits to ordinary UK citizens. Conservatives like Hannan hate it, because as far as they are concerned, if they can pay some guy ?1/hour to do a job then they will (and it is their own stupid fault). Remember how the minimum wage was going to kill business?

We complain about trucks from Eastern Europe ("Get of the way with your load of Latvian milk!" J Clarkson) and then conveniently forget about the cheap price we pay for it at the till. So bits of rural Eastern Europe get handouts - well, oddly enough, they are poorer than us, so they get a helping hand. And besides, a shit load of regeneration funding in the UK comes from Europe, partially because the UK won't fund it itself. I bet you could find projects in your town that have benefitted from EU funding.

And look at which courts it was that are investigating monopoly pricing by Microsoft, Apple and so on and so forth. It isn't the UK Monopolies and Mergers Commission or whatever it is called these days.

All these things are invisible to most people and that is the problem. They should be shouted about as shrilly as the anti-EU mob do.

Always remember than Hannan, Cameron et al are interested in globalisation but only for the big guys. The EU has a nasty habit of reining them in and trying to protect the little guy.
 
Well ok.....where without a prime-minister, AGAIN!

Here comes another 6 months of bickering.....
 
Tony Blair not going to be President of Europe.
Of course not, he is too well known for that. Do you think the aseembled prime ministers, chancellors and presidents of all 27 EU countries let someone be EU President who is likely to stand in the spotlight due to his persona? Or who even has an opinion of his own?
 
That and they don't want a US lapdog to be president.
 
Of course not, he is too well known for that. Do you think the aseembled prime ministers, chancellors and presidents of all 27 EU countries let someone be EU President who is likely to stand in the spotlight due to his persona? Or who even has an opinion of his own?

His well-known (almost 'celebrity') status was one of the main plus points for him, according to some of the newspapers.

Some of the countries involved were looking for a "more visible" president that would be a "clear figurehead". And it can't be argued that Blair was the most well-known of the candidates.
 
Top