The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538737/Popular-benefits-cap-slashed-Duncan-Smith-reveals-Tory-MP-suggests-cut-little-18-000.html

The decades long policy of outsourcing jobs to the slave labour east.
The deregulation of the financial sector so the banksters can run up debts so huge we are forced to bail the cunts out.
The funny money inflation drive designed to prop-up a bankrupt economy and drive the cost of living through the clouds.
The huge corporate welfare cheques, thousands of times in excess than the entire social welfare budget.
Corruption at every level, on a scale that makes the tiny number of benefit cheats appear saintly by comparison.
Wars, wars and more wars blowing billions down the drain.
Abdication of national sovereignty to our long standing European enemies so the borders can be opened up for more slave labour.

Tories like Blair and Cameron are vile in every sense, but this IDS bloke - apart from William Hague,.. Has a more foul creature ever been pushed out a whore's scabby cunt?

On the other hand...

He has seen a couple of propaganda hit pieces on C4 and C5 that highlight a carefully hand picked selection of layabouts to encourage the assumption ALL poor people are exactly like this. And supposedly 3 out of 4 people (no poll stats provided but they wouldn't lie, right?) support hitting the poor hard to try and protect their own fucked up bubbles that are increasingly under pressure not from benefits claimants (that's a drop in the ocean), but the fucked up policies listed above.

Inevitable conclusion: 3 out of 4 people are fucking stupid morons and inhumane bastards.

Or is that yet another divide and rule ploy?

Inevitable conclusion (take 2): Tories are fucking scum who delight in dividing people with their lies and propaganda and only a fool would buy into it.

Their mega rich mates fuck up the planet and the poor have to pay for it. There's the truth of it. Just like the American scum politicians blame a few blacks with mortgages for the engineered crash, so we in Britain are offered up a target for our hatred. Anyone but the guilty parties will do and the poor can't fight back. Ideal.

So who's buying it?

Anyone? And if so, why?

[Letters]

Hi :wave:
IMO you shouldn't be better off on benefits than not.
That is all.

[Niall_Quinn]

Hi :wave:
IMO you shouldn't be better off on benefits than not.
That is all.

So start with the poor and work up? Why not do it the other way around? Do it the other way around and we'd end up with more jobs, more opportunity, a functional economy. What exactly is shaking down the poor going to achieve in terms of the bigger picture?

[LDG]

I say, take all the money, and divide it by the number of people in the country, and then give each person the same amount.

[Niall_Quinn]

I say, take all the money, and divide it by the number of people in the country, and then give each person the same amount.

What would you do with your minus £2K?

[LDG]

What would you do with your minus £2K?

Give it to charity.

[Niall_Quinn]

Give it to charity.

Harsh

[Power n Glory]

So start with the poor and work up? Why not do it the other way around? Do it the other way around and we'd end up with more jobs, more opportunity, a functional economy. What exactly is shaking down the poor going to achieve in terms of the bigger picture?

Yep. You could see the agenda written all over that C4 programme and I'm just not buying into it. We have bigger problems.

[Letters]

So start with the poor and work up? Why not do it the other way around? Do it the other way around and we'd end up with more jobs, more opportunity, a functional economy. What exactly is shaking down the poor going to achieve in terms of the bigger picture?
That's nothing to do with what I said so I'll just wave at you again.

Here:

:wave:

[Niall_Quinn]

That's nothing to do with what I said so I'll just wave at you again.

Here:

:wave:

It has everything to do with what you said. If wages hadn't been systematically deflated they would be higher than benefits. If jobs hadn't been mercilessly stripped there would be far less need for benefits. You tend to analyse symptoms rather than causes.

[Letters]

If wages hadn't been systematically deflated they would be higher than benefits.
Nah.

Years ago my sister wanted to get a job but found it wasn't worth her while because the only jobs she was (at that point) qualified for would mean she was worse off. Where's the incentive to work if that's the case?

Obviously I don't buy into the Benefits Street propaganda but as a general principle there should be an incentive to get out to work and that incentive, for a lot of people, will be financial.

[Niall_Quinn]

Why do you think there is a benefits system?

[Letters]

As a safety net, but it shouldn't be such a comfortable one as to mean there's no incentive to better oneself.

[PGFC]

On the subject of Tory cunts...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25731328


Former miners' union leader Arthur Scargill tried to use laws introduced by Margaret Thatcher to buy a council flat in London, the BBC has found.

[Niall_Quinn]

"...Where's the corruption? Is it in their soul? Are they outright taking bribes, is it outright graft or are they just stupid? They're either stupid, they're on the take, or they're just incompetent. So those are the three choices."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umBL8Lklp_Q

[Niall_Quinn]

Thieving Tory Cunts Punish Amazon and Apple by Targeting Customers Instead.

Kerb Crawling, coke sniffing (true and verifiable) Tory cunt (true and self evident) George Osborne will fuck the public up the arse by taxing more of our taxed income to make up for the billions waved away through corporate tax evasion.

He's after your iTunes and Amazon downloads - digital fucking products that that whiz through thin air. Hot on the heels of taxing tramps for using newspaper as blankets the limp wristed cancer on humanity hopes to steal £300mill a year from already taxed to fuck workers. £300mill will replace a tiny fraction of the amount stolen each year through government sanctioned corporate tax evasion, payouts to crooked banksters and the counterfeiting/ inflation tax.

The British public was unavailable for comment and it is not known if they will hang this bastard up by his shrivelled balls and beat him to death with planks of wood, or watch Eastenders.

[Niall_Quinn]

Corporate thugs masquerading as public servants. Notice how the instigating tit slithers away and leaves it to his henchmen who are so thick and indoctrinated they are oblivious to the fact they are doing precisely the opposite of their duty.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gxI4ToNKGQ

[WMUG]

Bloody hell, totally brazen. He must know he's being filmed, as well. Either complete arrogance or total idiocy.

[Niall_Quinn]

Benefits cheats are at it again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10743455/Maria-Miller-expenses-report-MPs-conspired-to-save-Culture-Secretary.html

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538737/Popular-benefits-cap-slashed-Duncan-Smith-reveals-Tory-MP-suggests-cut-little-18-000.html

The decades long policy of outsourcing jobs to the slave labour east.
The deregulation of the financial sector so the banksters can run up debts so huge we are forced to bail the cunts out.
The funny money inflation drive designed to prop-up a bankrupt economy and drive the cost of living through the clouds.
The huge corporate welfare cheques, thousands of times in excess than the entire social welfare budget.
Corruption at every level, on a scale that makes the tiny number of benefit cheats appear saintly by comparison.
Wars, wars and more wars blowing billions down the drain.
Abdication of national sovereignty to our long standing European enemies so the borders can be opened up for more slave labour.

Tories like Blair and Cameron are vile in every sense, but this IDS bloke - apart from William Hague,.. Has a more foul creature ever been pushed out a whore's scabby cunt?

On the other hand...

He has seen a couple of propaganda hit pieces on C4 and C5 that highlight a carefully hand picked selection of layabouts to encourage the assumption ALL poor people are exactly like this. And supposedly 3 out of 4 people (no poll stats provided but they wouldn't lie, right?) support hitting the poor hard to try and protect their own fucked up bubbles that are increasingly under pressure not from benefits claimants (that's a drop in the ocean), but the fucked up policies listed above.

Inevitable conclusion: 3 out of 4 people are fucking stupid morons and inhumane bastards.

Or is that yet another divide and rule ploy?

Inevitable conclusion (take 2): Tories are fucking scum who delight in dividing people with their lies and propaganda and only a fool would buy into it.

Their mega rich mates fuck up the planet and the poor have to pay for it. There's the truth of it. Just like the American scum politicians blame a few blacks with mortgages for the engineered crash, so we in Britain are offered up a target for our hatred. Anyone but the guilty parties will do and the poor can't fight back. Ideal.

So who's buying it?

Anyone? And if so, why?

I thought you were a staunch libertarian

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Hi :wave:
IMO you shouldn't be better off on benefits than not.
That is all.

No of course not and that is the problem, it's all very well for Osbourne to talk about full employment in this country that would be desirable if the jobs were well paid enough. It's getting like in the states where many who are employed are also on food stamps and other welfare programs.
On the other hand we cannot have an indefinite welfare program for those unwilling to work, i volunteer a lot with mental health charities and a lot of people want to work but they are worried about having the safety net fully removed and being left to cope entirerly by themselves and they don't have the confidence to be able to do this.
I believe everyone within reason should work to some extent as i think everyone within reason has something to contribute, therefore benefits should be a leg up, assisting people like friends of my family who both work but struggle to make ends meet without child and housing benefits.

[Letters]

i volunteer a lot with mental health charities
Is that why you post on GW :rimshot:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Is that why you post on GW :rimshot:

Yep research

[Niall_Quinn]

I thought you were a staunch libertarian

I am. One of the pillars of libertarianism is the notion of rights with responsibilities. Freedom is not a charter to harm others and neither does libertarianism call for the dismantling of society or law and order. That's just shit put out by centralisation freaks and commies who view individual responsibility in such a dim light they equate it with anarchy. Even then they misunderstand anarchy. Basically they mean anything they don't control and manipulate is chaotic by default.

So, for example, pollution that cause harm to third parties and libertarianism are mutually exclusive. Rigging the courts and parliament to excuse and protect harmful business practices is the realm of the modern democrat or socialist (both communists in practical terms) - not libertarians.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I am. One of the pillars of libertarianism is the notion of rights with responsibilities. Freedom is not a charter to harm others and neither does libertarianism call for the dismantling of society or law and order. That's just shit put out by centralisation freaks and commies who view individual responsibility in such a dim light they equate it with anarchy. Even then they misunderstand anarchy. Basically they mean anything they don't control and manipulate is chaotic by default.

So, for example, pollution that cause harm to third parties and libertarianism are mutually exclusive. Rigging the courts and parliament to excuse and protect harmful business practices is the realm of the modern democrat or socialist (both communists in practical terms) - not libertarians.

I'm well aware of Libertarian philosophy, i read Nozick at University....and whilst he conceeds society is a form of truce gathering between individuals who know they can protect themselves collectively better than individually, i'm fairly sure there is no part of the libertarian philsophy that would advocate economic regulation.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm well aware of Libertarian philosophy, i read Nozick at University....and whilst he conceeds society is a form of truce gathering between individuals who know they can protect themselves collectively better than individually, i'm fairly sure there is no part of the libertarian philsophy that would advocate economic regulation.

Of course you can and should have have economic regulation, it's called contract law and criminal law and in an even handed society it should apply to all. Libertarianism is not a free for all. It is freedom built on personal responsibility which in turn provides collective responsibility without the need for a tyranny of the majority. There would still be criminals under a libertarian system. The mistake people make is to assume only government is capable of adjudicating the disputes in society. In fact it's government and its penchant for funding itself with a revolving door scheme administered by lobbyists that is the main driver for corruption. It's not lawful economic activity that should be stifled (as is the case under the existing system), but unlawful activity - the law operating in reverse and instead in the originally (maybe, probably) intended manner. But who is going to enforce that now when those who are breaking the law are funding those who write it? Regulation as a series of ground rules that operate on a single tier and are understood by and accessible to all is not comparable to the manipulated regulations and regulations in name only we see today. Surely the banking bail-out has cast any doubts aside? If not, the bail-ins will ice it. Even so, as imperfect as they are, you don't get a solution to institutional criminality by removing the last few sticks we were given by less brazen criminals, especially when criminals are still in charge. That's just opening the hen house wider for the fox. Kill the fucking fox first, it's just common sense and doesn't require an ideology other than self preservation.

[Allahrsenal]

It should be noted that The Tories have failed by their own economic measures be it growth, borrowing or the deficit.

Abject failure by their own measures but the utterly incompetent opposition fail to hold them to account for it.

The most sickening line is their 'making it pay to work' garbage.

They're not making it pay to work. They're making it impossible to survive on benefits. There's a massive difference.

If they were making it pay to work then they be looking at introducing a decent living wage and implementing a more progressive tax system. That would be making it pay to work. But no, what they're actually doing is squeezing those on benefits so much that they are forced to take jobs paying them almost slave labour wages. And all this is to appease their corporate paymasters who, due to the benefits squeeze, are under no pressure to actually align wages with productivity thus keeping the poor poor and the rich richer. In fact, Tesco will actually be subsidized to employ someone at minimum wage now.

All of this is then reinforced on the public by the mainstream media showing programs such as Benefits Streets and the Immigrant Street and printing rubbish about the absolute anomalies who actually do rape the systems...all the while completely ignoring the demonstrable fact that by far the single biggest welfare drain comes in the form of corporate welfare where again, the rich are further enabled to get richer (and it's this that has just given the Tories more cause for celebration as pay levels are now ahead of inflation - the reality is that it is wages at the top that are seeing the increases, due to this corporate welfare, while those at the lower end continue to lag further and further behind).

The UK.

The 4th most unequal society in the developed world.

[Niall_Quinn]

But no, what they're actually doing is squeezing those on benefits so much that they are forced to take jobs paying them almost slave labour wages.

And helping their corporate mates ship jobs overseas to brand new slave markets, the very jobs people retrained in after the industries were savaged in the interests of "progress" and the modern economy, while importing impoverished eastern Europeans into domestic slave labour markets to drive down the cost of human ownership for Lord and Lady Muck. It's like farming, moving the livestock around from pen to pen to maximise the milk yield for the minimum feed bill. And if the cow gets sick or keels over from exhaustion, do a C4 documentary on Lazy Cows. Correct. This is what pure evil looks like.

[Allahrsenal]

I made the point about the opposition being too incompetent to hold them too account but that isn't the case. They are incompetent but they're actually complicit in this instance and that is why they're not holding them to account.

The Tory's, Diet Tories and Tory Lite are just one party with different colours of tie. That is the real issue here.

Westminster is a failed establishment.

The Scots have the right of it. Vote to withdraw from Westminsters foot.

[Allahrsenal]

Here's another example of benefit fraud.

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1959283_847110188648960_7871833998888162460_n.jpg

They turn up for a nap then claim their £300 expenses per day.

Where's the uproar?

That's right, it's focused on the single mum of 2 parents who claimed an extra £12 a week she wasn't entitled to so she could cover the bedroom tax.

[I am invisible]

Here's another example of benefit fraud.

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1959283_847110188648960_7871833998888162460_n.jpg

They turn up for a nap then claim their £300 expenses per day.

Where's the uproar?

That's right, it's focused on the single mum of 2 parents who claimed an extra £12 a week she wasn't entitled to so she could cover the bedroom tax.
Hey, you'd be tired too if you had a couple of beers at lunch!

[Niall_Quinn]

Somebody has managed to produce a scientific study to confirm the obvious. Which is fine, because most people need to see a scientific study before they will believe the obvious. So America is an oligarchy and a tool of the elite? And about as far away from having a system of representative government as, say, a shitty little tin-pot regime in South America.

Oh wait. South Americans in fact had genuinely democratic elected governments until recently. The Americans destroyed them though, for the benefit of oligarchs. Nothing if not consistent. Same as they are doing in the Ukraine. Of course in the UK we are above all this sort of shit. We have a monarchy that has no power to do anything except control the establishment class that in turn controls absolutely everything else. It's still an -archy, but classier.

It's Princeton and all so it's safe and approved to read:
http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

[WMUG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HetLxhI1txY

:)

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HetLxhI1txY

:)

Very good, except they missed the bit about the frog going to work for Lazard once the fuss has faded.

[WMUG]

In a similar vein: a bit long, but worth muddling through the terrible audio quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DrL24Vy6Go&feature=share&list=PLG-HIoih2imSLaXbVLPM-zA-6Vwx754Sj

[Munchies]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkJDSHduyrc

[Munchies]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3tuLhDC1L0

:lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

By a real journalist who refuses to whore for the western propaganda machine. I wonder what percentage of people are interested or even aware of this escalating crisis and who is responsible for bringing it about? Ever since the west (a collective term for the USA and its lap dogs) broke assurances to Russia that NATO (the NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organisation) would not expand into ex-Soviet states, this crisis has been inevitable. It's all well and good cheering for the fall of the Berlin Wall and liberation from the "Evil Empire", but the irony as the "Good Empire" rolls into the vacuum is always lost. When "they" do it they are evil, when we do it we are on a humanitarian crusade. Seriously though, is there anyone dumb enough to believe it?

Why do we tolerate it? Why don't we do something about the criminal state? Why do we listen to the shit they spout? Why do we tolerate their vile excuses for murder and mayhem? Why do we give them comfort and refuge? We should be hounding these cunts to the ends of the earth and stringing the bastards up. Them and every last cunt who has collaborated with them. And if violence doesn't suit you then ask yourself this - Who claims violence is not the answer? It's the same bastards who use it as a matter of routine. And when was the last time the state granted anything to the people without being threatened by force? We can all sit here and let these bastards get on and start a new war, which we will be expected to fight on their behalf of course. Or as an alternative to using "good" violence to kill their rivals, we could instead use just violence to wipe these warmongering cocksuckers off the face the earth once and for all. Let's not kill Germans or Muslims or Iraqis or Afghans or anyone else the criminal state volunteers us to exterminate. Let's instead focus a righteous fury and genuine humanitarian war on the greedy cowards who start and profit from death and always have done. Before they kill us. They won't have any qualms, we shouldn't either. Not if we want to survive. That really could be a war to end all wars.


In Ukraine, the US is dragging us towards war with Russia
Washington's role in Ukraine, and its backing for the regime's neo-Nazis, has huge implications for the rest of the world.

Why do we tolerate the threat of another world war in our name? Why do we allow lies that justify this risk? The scale of our indoctrination, wrote Harold Pinter, is a "brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis", as if the truth "never happened even while it was happening".

Every year the American historian William Blum publishes his "updated summary of the record of US foreign policy" which shows that, since 1945, the US has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democratically elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical and biological weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.

In many cases Britain has been a collaborator. The degree of human suffering, let alone criminality, is little acknowledged in the west, despite the presence of the world's most advanced communications and nominally most free journalism. That the most numerous victims of terrorism – "our" terrorism – are Muslims, is unsayable. That extreme jihadism, which led to 9/11, was nurtured as a weapon of Anglo-American policy (Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan) is suppressed. In April the US state department noted that, following Nato's campaign in 2011, "Libya has become a terrorist safe haven".

The name of "our" enemy has changed over the years, from communism to Islamism, but generally it is any society independent of western power and occupying strategically useful or resource-rich territory, or merely offering an alternative to US domination. The leaders of these obstructive nations are usually violently shoved aside, such as the democrats Muhammad Mossedeq in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile, or they are murdered like Patrice Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of Congo. All are subjected to a western media campaign of vilification – think Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, now Vladimir Putin.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger

[Niall_Quinn]

The latest from the Nazis:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632219/Now-ministers-try-censor-news-archives-making-website-remove-stories-criminal-past-people-facing-trial.html

Astonishing. I guess the tireless work to expose paedophiles and other deviants in the upper tiers of the British establishment is ruffling feathers.

[Letters]

https://www.facebook.com/BritiainFurst

:lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

"If you're scared your job can be taken by a man who doesn't speak the language and has absolutely no formal training, maybe you need to get a better job"

Little bit funny, not much but just a little.

[Niall_Quinn]

LOL. Morons.


Prostitution and drug dealing provide a £10billion boost to the economy, new research revealed today.

Bizarre new European rules mean that for the first time illegal activities must be included in the official estimates of the size of the economy.

It means a booming sex trade or an expansion in cannabis factories will provide a boost to George Osborne’s economic outlook.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2642728/Prostitution-drug-dealing-add-10billion-economy-bizarre-rules-mean-crime-boom-good-news-Osborne.html

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://i.imgur.com/9cv0ptk.gif

[Niall_Quinn]

LOL :haha:

MI5 have released another pathetic video with ham actors and dodgy accents. I think these are the castoffs that couldn't get into 24.

Please go Syria fight, Alan Akbar!

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/065/8/e/Admiral_Ackbar_by_quibly.png

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28341980

:rimshot:

[Niall_Quinn]

MPs being investigated for alleged abuses of their expenses will have their names kept secret, the Commons watchdog has announced.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will no longer release the names of MPs under investigation and the public will be barred from hearings.

The watchdog claimed that the move was intended to protect the MPs from the "reputational damage" they would suffer because of "public scrutiny".

It comes after Marcial Boo, the watchdog's new chief executive, said that MPs should get a 10 per cent pay rise next year because they do an important job.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11128702/MPs-investigated-over-expenses-should-not-be-named-watchdog-says.html

:haha:

Don't forget to vote, it's your duty.

[Injury Time]

:haha:

Don't forget to vote, it's your duty.

I have a reasonable belief that MP Expenses are an extremist organisation that should be banned :threaten:

[Letters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU

:d

[Syn]

:haha:

Cassetteboy :bow:

Made Cameron look like a right internet degree buying bumbling idiot.

[Letters]

Letters' catchphrases :bow:

I love Casstteboy I do.

[mr_brighterside]

is there a similar thread about labour or is everyone sucked in by what they say? :unsure:

seems to me that all three main parties have similar views and people representing them. none of them speaking clearly, especially when they begin a sentence by stating "let me be clear"!

[Xhaka Can’t]

Not true.

The Lib Dems are always clear.

They said they would scrap the £3k a year student fees.

And they did!

[Niall_Quinn]

is there a similar thread about labour or is everyone sucked in by what they say? :unsure:

seems to me that all three main parties have similar views and people representing them. none of them speaking clearly, especially when they begin a sentence by stating "let me be clear"!

They get the hump on here if I start threads for every political party ever, every corporation ever and every church ever. So I just pick on the tories because they easily provide the best comedy material and have/ had William Hague.

[Niall_Quinn]

YouGov poll after party conferences finds Conservatives would win 35% and Labour 34% if general election were tomorrow

Do they seriously think anyone is going to believe that, or are they just making an early announcement of a rigged vote like they did with the Scottish referendum? Remember when we had fairly honest pollsters, or at least pollsters that made a decent fist of pretending to be honest? I guess those exit polls got a bit tough to explain away though.

[Letters]

Quote du jour:

"I thought 'He's an MP - He's not going to lie'"
- the lover of disgraced MP Brooks Newmark, embroiled in the sexting scandal.

:haha:

[LDG]

"du jour"

It's back!!

:bow:

[Injury Time]

"du jour"

It's back!!

:bow:
If he "du jours" in China :rose:

[GP]

Do they seriously think anyone is going to believe that, or are they just making an early announcement of a rigged vote like they did with the Scottish referendum? Remember when we had fairly honest pollsters, or at least pollsters that made a decent fist of pretending to be honest? I guess those exit polls got a bit tough to explain away though.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/i-saw-mp-kill-boy-at-paedophile-party-says-alleged-victim-30749664.html#comments

[Letters]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/08/poor-cannot-cook-peer-eats-words

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/08/poor-cannot-cook-peer-eats-words

She's right, generally speaking. The consumer society is a piece of shit as is the "food" it shits out. But trust a Tory to focus on the need for cooking skills rather than dwell on their foul policies that assist so many more people into starvation.

On balance I haven't changed my mind, I want them all dead.

[Letters]

You should follow them to train stations and boo at them, tbf.

[LDG]

You should follow them to train stations and boo at them, tbf.

Silly.

They don't use public transport.

[Niall_Quinn]

You should follow them to train stations and boo at them, tbf.

I met Blair once, briefly. I was going to boo him and call him all sorts and probably punch him in the balls, but out of respect for the two tasty thugs he had on each wing I decided against it.

[GP]

Blair :bow:

Our greatest ever PM

[Niall_Quinn]

Another typical case of dirty, smelly, fat, sponging poor scum stealing a living. There are at least 30 couples like this down my street and probably thousands of them in my town. And millions more like them all over the country, having their weddings and whining on about zero hour contracts and student debt and free healthcare that costs 11% of already taxed wages plus £8 a bottle and disproportionate taxation and tax on taxes and bail-outs and bail-ins and such. Cunts!

At least the Mirror is responsible enough to get with the Tory agenda. Also, the slim Prince Andrew is being framed by these fat cunts. In the video of him banging that kid it doesn't really look like him at all. It looks a lot more like one of these fat bastards. That's the trouble with this country, people are so busy blaming bankers and politicians for stealing billions, starting wars and shagging children they completely overlook fat cunts like these.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/couple-too-fat-work-marry-4922866

[Letters]

In the video of him banging that kid
Do you have a source for that? #libel.

[Niall_Quinn]

Do you have a source for that? #libel.

FBI

[Letters]

No
Thought so.

[Niall_Quinn]

Thought so.

Erm, yes.

The perv who was scoring all the kids had his pad set up with cameras. Probably with the blessing of the intelligence mob, that's how they like to do things.

[Niall_Quinn]

Anyway, it's weird isn't it? How the latest thing could never have happened but the thing before becomes common knowledge?

[Letters]

Erm, yes.

The perv who was scoring all the kids had his pad set up with cameras. Probably with the blessing of the intelligence mob, that's how they like to do things.

That doesn't mean that a video of him actually exists. Does it? Have you seen it?
I'm not saying it didn't happen, or it did.
But last I heard it's innocent till proven guilty, not the other way around.

[WMUG]

free healthcare that costs 11% of already taxed wages plus £8 a bottle

Worth it.

[Niall_Quinn]

Worth it.

Maybe so, but they need to stop calling it free, for obvious reasons.

[Niall_Quinn]

That doesn't mean that a video of him actually exists. Does it? Have you seen it?
I'm not saying it didn't happen, or it did.
But last I heard it's innocent till proven guilty, not the other way around.

Innocent until influence is used to bury it, you mean? The royals are not subject to the law (they are the law), neither are they subject to statute that would normally compel disclosure. They can simply wave a wand and deny this ever happened and then make that the truth through omission, which is what they are in the process of doing right now and what they have always done. They are immune in this country. Only problem for them is the Yanks don't have to play along.

Really doesn't matter. There's so much more of this to come out yet, this will just be a minor footnote by the time everything has played out. When regimes collapse there's always dirty laundry left behind and the royals are filthy in every respect.

[Maestro]

Innocent until influence is used to bury it, you mean? The royals are not subject to the law (they are the law), neither are they subject to statute that would normally compel disclosure. They can simply wave a wand and deny this ever happened and then make that the truth through omission, which is what they are in the process of doing right now and what they have always done. They are immune in this country. Only problem for them is the Yanks don't have to play along.

Really doesn't matter. There's so much more of this to come out yet, this will just be a minor footnote by the time everything has played out. When regimes collapse there's always dirty laundry left behind and the royals are filthy in every respect.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-royal-family-are-exempt-from-freedom-of-information-requests-and-can-veto-bbc-programmes-why-do-we-put-up-with-this-9956702.html

[Letters]

Innocent until influence is used to bury it, you mean?
Nope, I mean what I said.

You have presumed guilt with no evidence to the contrary (speculation about footage which you have no actual evidence for the existence of isn't evidence).
Right now it's one person's word against another.

[Niall_Quinn]

Nope, I mean what I said.

You have presumed guilt with no evidence to the contrary (speculation about footage which you have no actual evidence for the existence of isn't evidence).
Right now it's one person's word against another.

I can't help getting the feeling you are serious.

Do you know how bad shit like this has to be before it ever sees the light of day? Have you followed this story as it breaks or are you just sticking you head in the sand until the next "everyone knew it" Saville proclamation arrives?

Get this. The British media is publishing stories about a member of the royals engaging in under age sex. Do you, for a second, believe they'd be out on that limb if it wasn't made of stone? Of course the small part of the story that has come to light is true. It's the iceberg below the water that may never see the light that's more interesting. For some anyway, because you can't even ski on the bit they've given you for free.

You're a reasonable guy Letters. That's your problem. A reasonable guy trying to make sense of unspeakably unreasonable cunts that think this world is their playpen and the people in it their toys. But if you need it expressed in terms of the law then even that falls flat on its face. Tell me how somebody who is not subject to the law is protected by it?

[GP]

the Royals :bow:

Pomp :bow:

Ceremony :bow:

[Maestro]

NQ you're the Jack Begosian of GW

[Niall_Quinn]

NQ you're the Jack Begosian of GW

Depending on who Jack Begosian is, you might be right.

[Maestro]

Depending on who Jack Begosian is, you might be right.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2083379/

a must watch if you get the chance

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2083379/

a must watch if you get the chance

Doesn't look hugely encouraging (maybe the release date was a state secret):

Box Office
Opening Weekend: $630 (USA) (4 January 2013)
Gross: $5,750 (USA) (25 January 2013)

But I'll give it a try.

[Letters]

Get this. The British media is publishing stories about a member of the royals engaging in under age sex.
No they're not.
They're publishing stories about a women claiming that.
It's clearly a story in the public interest (or, at least, one that the public will be interested in) and whether it's true isn't an issue, if it's not true then it's the woman getting sued, not them.
You know how much balls the press publish, often stuff they just make up and clearly they couldn't do that here, but when they have someone making claims it's gold for the press.


You're a reasonable guy Letters.

I like to think so, and when one person I don't know from Adam makes a claim against someone else I don't know from Adam I wouldn't presume which one is telling the truth.
I don't know anything much about this woman, I don't really know anything much about the royals on a personal level. Nor do any of us really.

[Coney]

I don't like the idea of a royal family and would rather have an elected head of state. I don't like what the monarchy represents - feudal. I don't like Prince Philips racist remarks.. etc.

BUT

Some woman in the US mentioning Prince Andrew in passing has no special credibility compared to anyone else. I see no reason to either believe or disbelieve her but unless something concrete is produced to suggest Andrew was involved in anything then he should be treated like any other person and presumed innocent. Assuming someone is guilty because they are accused with no concrete evidence is the behavior of the lynch mob.

[Niall_Quinn]

The "in-passing" mention is part of the court record, for the record. And Andy's mate was jailed after pleading on soliciting under age prostitutes. The royals waltzed away from their other mate Saville because they are protected under the convenience of national security. But they aren't covered for deviancy practised in the States. The cunt won't get prosecuted but the main point is he's on record. It might wake a few more people up to what these scum really are, and little by little their house will fall down along with the rest of the grubby establishment edifice.

More worrying than anything though, why do you need a head of state, elected or otherwise, to rule you? How about having a representative democracy instead? Admittedly it's never been tried but that's no reason to discount it out of hand.

[Letters]

The cunt won't get prosecuted.
Not if that's all the evidence there is, no. Nor should anyone.

[Niall_Quinn]

Not if that's all the evidence there is, no. Nor should anyone.

It has nothing to do with evidence. The evidence could be paper thin or a mile high and it would make no difference. Do you think these people are subject to the same laws as you and I? Whatever is being reported here will be the limited hangout. Part of Epstein's plea was immunity for anyone else rounded up in the net, so nobody else is being prosecuted anyway. The so-called jail time the scumbag served was more like an extended holiday, that's how it works for these guys. It's not how it works for you or me. The two tier justice system. Or maybe that's just a conspiracy theory. Eventually people are going to have to take their heads out of their arses.

[Letters]

It has nothing to do with evidence. The evidence could be paper thin or a mile high and it would make no difference.
Maybe, but IF the evidence that has been presented so far is all there is then no-one would (or should, at least) get prosecuted on that alone.
You cannot say someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt just because someone says something happened.

The evidence, or lack thereof, does affect my view on the matter and right now I've no idea - it's one person I don't know's word against another person I don't know :shrug:

If the video you speculated about exists of course then that would be a different matter but as there is zero evidence for it even existing it is entirely speculation so not relevant.

[LDG]

Maybe, but IF the evidence that has been presented so far is all there is then no-one would (or should, at least) get prosecuted on that alone.
You cannot say someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt just because someone says something happened.

The evidence, or lack thereof, does affect my view on the matter and right now I've no idea - it's one person I don't know's word against another person I don't know :shrug:

If the video you speculated about exists of course then that would be a different matter but as there is zero evidence for it even existing it is entirely speculation so not relevant.

I think what NQ is trying to say, is that there never will be any evidence. Certainly any which the likes of us, or indeed a court would ever see.

[Letters]

I think what NQ is trying to say, is that there never will be any evidence. Certainly any which the likes of us, or indeed a court would ever see.

In which case we're just left with one person's word against another with no real idea of who to believe.

[Niall_Quinn]

In which case we're just left with one person's word against another with no real idea of who to believe.

Ever thought about becoming a mob attorney?

[Letters]

Ever thought about becoming a mob attorney?

Ever thought about backing up any of your claims with actual evidence rather than wild speculating about things you can't back up?

[Niall_Quinn]

Ever thought about backing up any of your claims with actual evidence rather than wild speculating about things you can't back up?

...because once you whack the witnesses then the law clearly establishes innocence based on the lack of evidence. And quite right too. Otherwise all sorts of establishment types would wind up in jail.

The evidence is in the fact this is being reported at all. Told you that already. That's all the evidence you are ever going to get but it's in fact a massive amount of evidence speaking in relative terms. The evidence is in the fact this ever saw the inside of a courtroom before it was squashed by a whole stream of interested parties who are now being identified on the record. That's right, not enough by legal standards to convict (although why did Epstein need to cut a deal that included immunity for all other parties, I wonder?) But more than enough to say, look, there's item 950 in an emerging pattern. Reason is not the master of common sense, experience and memory even if the law says it must be. When you elevate reason above all else you can easily be driven into conclusions that run riot through reality (Tony Blair is a peace envoy for the Middle East, did you know?) This is the foundation of the injustices in the justice system that are dependant on wealth and influence. The law is not blind, it's one eyed. But you can't prove it, you can only glimpse it under your own nose with your own eyes. If you want to.

Of course yes, if you apply absolute conditions and strip away all context, the royals and all their grubby mates are whiter than white. In fact they'll be using the same argument as yourself. Revolutions never hung on legal declarations from the oppressor, they were the response to the direct experience of injustice and inequality. Most revolutions would have been thrown out by a court, unsurprisingly and conveniently. No revolution ever relied on establishment mandated proof that the rich fuck over the poor. The 2008 Florida lawsuit (not press rumour) states Epstein had his various pads rigged with cameras to video the proceedings. Applying common sense, experience and memory this should trigger a whole host of additional and frankly obvious questions, but that's a side road I doubt I could tempt you down even though it is probably the real story here. The official story is that's how he got his rocks off. Okay, can't prove otherwise (see previous). But if you have familiarity with points 1-949 then the question becomes, what would the point of NOT videoing him be? I mention revolution because that's what you'll need to get equal access to the law you apparently esteem. Then you get access to the evidence. Then you get justice. Otherwise, of course those with power are innocent or practically innocent by default (unless they fuck off somebody with more power).

I know what you are saving up to be. Somebody who is so reasonable, so middle of the road nobody could ever accuse you of standing for anything outside the approved framework. And that's not a crime by legal standards. The whole system relies on people like you and if you endorse that system then I wouldn't even say you are doing something wrong despite the horrendous consequences. If you are being driven by fear or complacency though, that would be very wrong.

Anyway, pointless debate. Nothing will be changing any time soon and not in our lifetimes. With a bit of luck and the endeavour of those who do stand up, your great, great grandchildren will look back at this period in our history and say wow, just wow.

[LDG]

...because once you whack the witnesses then the law clearly establishes innocence based on the lack of evidence. And quite right too. Otherwise all sorts of establishment types would wind up in jail.

The evidence is in the fact this is being reported at all. Told you that already. That's all the evidence you are ever going to get but it's in fact a massive amount of evidence speaking in relative terms. The evidence is in the fact this ever saw the inside of a courtroom before it was squashed by a whole stream of interested parties who are now being identified on the record. That's right, not enough by legal standards to convict (although why did Epstein need to cut a deal that included immunity for all other parties, I wonder?) But more than enough to say, look, there's item 950 in an emerging pattern. Reason is not the master of common sense, experience and memory even if the law says it must be. When you elevate reason above all else you can easily be driven into conclusions that run riot through reality (Tony Blair is a peace envoy for the Middle East, did you know?) This is the foundation of the injustices in the justice system that are dependant on wealth and influence. The law is not blind, it's one eyed. But you can't prove it, you can only glimpse it under your own nose with your own eyes. If you want to.

Of course yes, if you apply absolute conditions and strip away all context, the royals and all their grubby mates are whiter than white. In fact they'll be using the same argument as yourself. Revolutions never hung on legal declarations from the oppressor, they were the response to the direct experience of injustice and inequality. Most revolutions would have been thrown out by a court, unsurprisingly and conveniently. No revolution ever relied on establishment mandated proof that the rich fuck over the poor. The 2008 Florida lawsuit (not press rumour) states Epstein had his various pads rigged with cameras to video the proceedings. Applying common sense, experience and memory this should trigger a whole host of additional and frankly obvious questions, but that's a side road I doubt I could tempt you down even though it is probably the real story here. The official story is that's how he got his rocks off. Okay, can't prove otherwise (see previous). But if you have familiarity with points 1-949 then the question becomes, what would the point of NOT videoing him be? I mention revolution because that's what you'll need to get equal access to the law you apparently esteem. Then you get access to the evidence. Then you get justice. Otherwise, of course those with power are innocent or practically innocent by default (unless they fuck off somebody with more power).

I know what you are saving up to be. Somebody who is so reasonable, so middle of the road nobody could ever accuse you of standing for anything outside the approved framework. And that's not a crime by legal standards. The whole system relies on people like you and if you endorse that system then I wouldn't even say you are doing something wrong despite the horrendous consequences. If you are being driven by fear or complacency though, that would be very wrong.

Anyway, pointless debate. Nothing will be changing any time soon and not in our lifetimes. With a bit of luck and the endeavour of those who do stand up, your great, great grandchildren will look back at this period in our history and say wow, just wow.

:gp:

[Letters]

The evidence is in the fact this is being reported at all. Told you that already.
Yes. And I told you that from the press's point of view this is gold. Nice juicy allegations they can print ad infinitum with no potential legal repurcussions for them because all they're doing is reporting what someone has said on record.

You can speculate endlessly about a video but it is all speculation.
You have no actual evidence of it even existing.
I can't prove it doesn't exist (and I'm not trying to),
But the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

[Letters]

:gp:

Seriously? :lol:

[Letters]

NQ's new favourite show

http://www.jonconwayproductions.com/truth_lies_diana.php

[Niall_Quinn]

NQ's new favourite show

http://www.jonconwayproductions.com/truth_lies_diana.php

Why the half measures? Just go for this one:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes. And I told you that from the press's point of view this is gold. Nice juicy allegations they can print ad infinitum with no potential legal repurcussions for them because all they're doing is reporting what someone has said on record.

You can speculate endlessly about a video but it is all speculation.
You have no actual evidence of it even existing.
I can't prove it doesn't exist (and I'm not trying to),
But the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=2700&p=438846&viewfull=1#post438846

[LDG]

Seriously? :lol:

He's right :shrug:

[Letters]

Nah. Anyway, this argument is going round in more circles than the ones I have with MrsL :ilt:

[Niall_Quinn]

Max Hastings manages to produce an article in which every sentence, bar two, is a childish lie. Fucking impressive if you ask me.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904237/MAX-HASTINGS-liberals-defended-traitors-like-Snowden-Assange-look-photo-admit-deluded-fools.html

Comments are interesting too. It shows that while the average citizen still has a moderate capacity to figure when they are being bullshitted there is an increasing number lost beyond recovery. The real threat is if this latter group achieves majority.

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wsv6BM4AY8

"Are we morons?"

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_30-8ZlmQ

[mr_brighterside]

What's funny about v for vendetta is it is about Christians taking freedoms from others when in real life it's securalist media, pressure groups and politicians doing this to others. Hollywood has a sense of humour.

[Niall_Quinn]

What's funny about v for vendetta is it is about Christians taking freedoms from others when in real life it's securalist media, pressure groups and politicians doing this to others. Hollywood has a sense of humour.

I was more trying to compare the differences in style and presentation between the (ahem) factual Fox News and the fictional Hollywood, of which there are none. We've finally got there, news is Hollywood and Hollywood is the news.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What's funny about v for vendetta is it is about Christians taking freedoms from others when in real life it's securalist media, pressure groups and politicians doing this to others. Hollywood has a sense of humour.

And what freedoms have been taken from you?

Historically speaking religion has always been there to curtail the freedoms of others and invigilate their lives. If there is a cabal between shadowy government and secular media (media should be secular shouldn't it?) than they are only following the blueprints left for them

[Niall_Quinn]

If there is a cabal between shadowy government and secular media (media should be secular shouldn't it?) than they are only following the blueprints left for them.

They were meant to be the antidote though, not just to religion but also monarchy. The God given right to rule was supposed to be replaced by representation in the form of government, the media's role being a light to shine on that process to ensure it functioned as intended. Both have failed as spectacularly as it is possible to fail. The comfortable arrangement they operate which directly harms the people they are supposed to serve is certainly a conspiracy, but not of the type whispered in secret rooms. It has everything to do with self preservation, one scratches the back of the other and vice versa in order to maintain the status quo that affords both the influence and privilege that are now their primary reason for being.

You can listen to any honest journalist and you'll hear the same thing. You go along to get along and if you step outside the tight confines and actually start doing your job then you are out on your ear. And interesting story today, apparently the Home Office will be given access to the little black books the political whips use to keep their charges in line. Think about that for a moment and try to tally it with the alleged purpose of a representative democracy.

Which feeds into the third branch, the intelligence services. Increasingly these bastards operate independently within their own little kingdoms and they have their little black books too, only they aren't so little.

It's a mess, a system that uses a mask of service to the public so they can play a numbers game to transfer a little bit from each citizen which makes a big pile to share between the few. That's the purpose of government, the media and the other establishment entities. Inheritance still plays a big role. Daddy went to this school, daddy was associated with so and so.

Every 5 years the people get to decide how their masters shuffle the chairs, same arses different seats.

Underpinning it all is the notion that regular people are too dumb or too unreliable to govern themselves. It's not in the human nature. So we turn to these super human beings who apparently are immune to these debilitating conditions. The likes of Cameron and Blair and Piers Morgan. You have to laugh. The motley crew convincing the rest they are the only ones qualified to make decisions on our behalf. Because they love us and they want to serve. Sounds a bit religious.

If we as an intelligent species can't snap out of this then we deserve what we get. Religion, monarchy, government, makes no odds at all. They are all in the game for the same reason.

At least V for Vendetta was a decent film in terms of entertainment. That's what we get and that's all we get.

[Letters]

And what freedoms have been taken from you?
I'd say in this country it's not too bad right now, but it's coming.

France passed this law:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28106900

And while I'm not a big fan of full face veils (apart from on your mum, lolz), and I don't believe Islam commands the wearing of them, one could argue that this ban is targeting their religious freedoms.

This used to be a Christian country (whatever that means, I'm not sure a country should have a religion really, that should be a personal decision), right now it still is nominally but not in reality. Christians are tolerated in this country but I can see a day coming where it will become difficult for us to legally tell others what we believe.

[Xhaka Can’t]

The shitwinds of change are coming.

[Letters]

Finally, some sanity
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-30819779

[mr_brighterside]

And what freedoms have been taken from you?


the right to believe what I want, not believe or support what others do, access to various jobs amongst others.

It isn't stonewall activists that get arrested in the street, but several Christian preachers have been for speaking from Bible in disagreeing with homosexual acts.

Also just look at what the liberal politicians and Ofsted are doing in imposing their beliefs on faith schools when it comes to homosexuality for example. you'd be blind to pretend this isn't where we are heading.

[Heisenberg]

What's funny about v for vendetta is it is about Christians taking freedoms from others when in real life it's securalist media, pressure groups and politicians doing this to others. Hollywood has a sense of humour.

That's because Norsefire is based, both in a real world artistic sense and an in universe ideological sense, on far right groups in the UK that involve Christian identity politics. For a corollary see the likes of the BNP, Britain First etc, and what they have to say about Britain's identity as a Christian country. It isn't the same as what the Church of England has to say.

[Heisenberg]

This used to be a Christian country (whatever that means, I'm not sure a country should have a religion really, that should be a personal decision), right now it still is nominally but not in reality. Christians are tolerated in this country but I can see a day coming where it will become difficult for us to legally tell others what we believe.

Britain's status as a Christian country depends mostly on the metric that you use. In a purely legalistic sense, the answer is yes, because it has a state religion, established church that enjoys preferential privileges etc. Contrast that with the United States which does not have any state religion, and wrote that into the constitution - Jefferson did it as much as anything to stop religious persecution of minority groups by larger ones. Of course, you may say that America is a far more Christian country than the UK in terms of population and attitudes, and you'd be right. Christianity is less relevant in public life than it is in the States where failing to conform to a particular level of religious devotion, at least overtly, is a major impediment to running for political office.

The best I can come up with is that Britain is a Christian country in sociological and historical terms. The significance and power of the church has waned in the last centuries but it remains an integral part of the fabric society, inasmuch as the festivals and events that break up the year are derived from its calendar. Whether or not you celebrate or care about them, Easter and Christmas are known to you. Lastly the literature and historical writings from nearly the last 1500 years in the island are unintelligible without at the minimum a working knowledge of the Bible.

[WMUG]

the right to believe what I want, not believe or support what others do, access to various jobs amongst others.

Being generous and taking your words at face value, and not assuming you feel that your religion entitles you to discriminate against whomever that religion's leaders have decided to oppress recently, it is difficult to express in words just how wrong that sentence is. It's just not the case. Like, at all. In any way conceivable. When was the last time you were arrested for being a Christian? Or privately disagreeing with whatever it is you disagree with? Or were explicitly denied a job based on your religion?


It isn't stonewall activists that get arrested in the street, but several Christian preachers have been for speaking from Bible in disagreeing with homosexual acts. Examples? And not examples of people being arrested for hate speech, I mean examples of people literally being arrested for stating their opposition to homosexuality.


Also just look at what the liberal politicians and Ofsted are doing in imposing their beliefs on faith schools when it comes to homosexuality for example. you'd be blind to pretend this isn't where we are heading.
Ah no! Teachers aren't allowed to tell their pupils that the way they were born is unnatural and make them suffer their formative years experiencing nothing but hatred from inside and out for a fundamental part of who they are! Soon everyone's going to be forced to burn the Bible in the streets while swearing allegiance to Richard Dawkins, all while wanking to an effigy of Gok Wan!

[Syn]

Finally, some sanity
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-30819779

I would've thought Al Murray's stand up is probably subtle enough to get support from UKIP supporters. Reckon a big minority of his audiences are EDL that don't understand it's a parody. If they didn't completely take the piss with the party symbol, he could've split the UKIP vote.

[Letters]

Teachers aren't allowed to tell their pupils that the way they were born is unnatural and make them suffer their formative years experiencing nothing but hatred from inside and out
Whoa, hang on. I agree with a fair amount of your post but a Christian can take a view on homosexuality without 'hating' homosexuals or being unkind towards them (or anyone, actually). Apart from the 'God Hates Fags' loonies (who aren't representitive of most Christians) I don't think Christians who take a conservative Biblical stance on homosexuality are out there oppressing homosexuals.

all while wanking to an effigy of Gok Wan!
Urgh! :sick:

[LDG]

You can hate gays, and not even be religious.

[WMUG]

Whoa, hang on. I agree with a fair amount of your post but a Christian can take a view on homosexuality without 'hating' homosexuals or being unkind towards them (or anyone, actually). Apart from the 'God Hates Fags' loonies (who aren't representitive of most Christians) I don't think Christians who take a conservative Biblical stance on homosexuality are out there oppressing homosexuals.



Yeah, hatred was a strong word, but it reeks of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. I don't hate you, I just hate the way you are. :console:

I don't think schools should be allowed to teach that something is wrong because a book says it is. Not just any book, Leviticus. You know what else Leviticus says, right?

[Niall_Quinn]

Not sure why we need theology to work this out. Gays can do whatever the fuck they want provided they don't force their choices on others and provided they don't harm others. Christians can believe whatever the fuck they want provided they don't force their choices on others and provided they don't harm others.

There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with homosexuality, or Christianity. Nothing at all. There's everything wrong with taking that disagreement and transforming it into harmful action. Homosexuals are fully protected against all forms of related violence by the law. If the argument is the law should extend to protecting them against speech and thought then that is entirely wrong. I would have thought this would be extremely simple to understand. Free speech provided it does not cause tangible harm and certainly free thought.

Similarly, if the Christians have a club with rules and those rules have been established and understood for millennia then those are the rules. Nobody outside the club has the right to demand those rules be changed. If homosexuals can demand the rules of the Christian club be changed then it must be equally legitimate for Christians to demand the rules of homosexuality be changed. In reality neither has the right. If you don't like a club then don't join it, again a simple concept.

As for government, it has no right whatsoever to grant or remove rights. Rights are inalienable. Rights can be suppressed by violence but that does not destroy the right, it merely suppresses it. Also rights cannot be conjured out of thin air and granted by decree. Again, violence can be used to enforce a demand masquerading as a right, but that's coercion and nothing more significant. All "human rights" campaigns of the past did not "grant" new rights, instead they removed the violence used to suppress inalienable rights that existed by default.

The moment you accept that government or any other form of tyranny can grant or remove rights is the moment you declare yourself a slave.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don't think schools should be allowed to teach that something is wrong because a book says it is.

Schools teach all sorts of evil shit, not least of which is conditioning to authority. They also excel at teaching by omission - or propaganda if you prefer. My 10 year old came home yesterday and asked if Mandela was a good man. I said it was difficult to give a simple answer to that because he had performed good deeds as well as awful deeds. "What awful deeds? - He blew people up, did they not tell you that?" Of course they didn't. That would ruin the simplicity of the propaganda. The argument then goes that Mandela and his people were driven to desperate measures by the great evil they faced. Fair enough if that's the way our morals roll. Which makes roadside bombs in Iraq a tool for justice - true or false? False, of course. Because they don't fit the narrative.

All in all schools are more harmful than religion.

[Marc Overmars]

You can hate gays, and not even be religious.

Gays. :lol:

Awful abominations.

[Niall_Quinn]

Gays. :lol:

Awful abominations.

Soon it will be illegal to say that. Precedent has already been set.

[Letters]

Gays can do whatever the fuck they want provided they don't force their choices on others.
Yeah! I don't mind gays, so long as they don't shove it down my throat.



:rimshot:

:dance:

[Niall_Quinn]

Yeah! I don't mind gays, so long as they don't shove it down my throat.



:rimshot:

:dance:

I think they are a pain in the arse.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11346889/Stealth-cameras-to-be-installed-on-motorways.html

95% admit to speeding. Does that mean the other 5% won't admit to it? Anyway, 95% speed and 0.001% say no. Democracy in action. Why do cars have top speeds above 70mph at all? If safety was the real issue, then why not limit cars to 70mph? Of course if revenue is the main goal we should really be making cars that can't go slower than 78mph.

[Letters]

I don't think schools should be allowed to teach that something is wrong because a book says it is. Not just any book, Leviticus. You know what else Leviticus says, right?

Leviticus bans all kinds of things - it's interesting how people (often Christians, to be fair) focus on homosexuality and use Leviticus to back that up when it condemns eating shellfish and all kinds of shizzle.

It's explained in the New Testament that the law was not given simply to be followed, but more to show mankind that there's no way they can follow it. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and that's bad because "the wages of sin is death", but luckily...well, John 3:16. Christianity's USP is that salvation doesn't rely on our own efforts, it recognizes that there's no way we can do it by ourselves. But luckily...well, John 3:16.

As for 'a book', obviously we don't believe it is just a book. It's not just a person's opinion. Personally I'd prefer to base my morality on Jesus' example and teachings. From the horse's mouth, as it were. I fail, obviously, but luckily...well, John 3:16.

[GP]

Austin 3:16 :bow:

[Marc Overmars]

Austin 3:16 :bow:

Says I just whooped your ass!

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11346889/Stealth-cameras-to-be-installed-on-motorways.html

95% admit to speeding. Does that mean the other 5% won't admit to it? Anyway, 95% speed and 0.001% say no. Democracy in action. Why do cars have top speeds above 70mph at all? If safety was the real issue, then why not limit cars to 70mph? Of course if revenue is the main goal we should really be making cars that can't go slower than 78mph.
But that would make kerb crawling nearly impossible.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Leviticus bans all kinds of things - it's interesting how people (often Christians, to be fair) focus on homosexuality and use Leviticus to back that up when it condemns eating shellfish and all kinds of shizzle.

It's explained in the New Testament that the law was not given simply to be followed, but more to show mankind that there's no way they can follow it. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and that's bad because "the wages of sin is death", but luckily...well, John 3:16. Christianity's USP is that salvation doesn't rely on our own efforts, it recognizes that there's no way we can do it by ourselves. But luckily...well, John 3:16.

As for 'a book', obviously we don't believe it is just a book. It's not just a person's opinion. Personally I'd prefer to base my morality on Jesus' example and teachings. From the horse's mouth, as it were. I fail, obviously, but luckily...well, John 3:16.
Fuck.

I just had seafood paella.

[Letters]

Fuck.

I just had seafood paella.

10 SIN
20 GOTO HELL

#Futurama

[Niall_Quinn]

But that would make kerb crawling nearly impossible.

Politicians and BBC presenters would have a dispensation under any just law.

[WMUG]

Leviticus bans all kinds of things - it's interesting how people (often Christians, to be fair) focus on homosexuality and use Leviticus to back that up when it condemns eating shellfish and all kinds of shizzle. Indeed. Clothes made of more than one fabric, as well, I believe.


It's explained in the New Testament that the law was not given simply to be followed, but more to show mankind that there's no way they can follow it. :blink:

Gosh. Not sure where to begin with that. So I won't :lol:


As for 'a book', obviously we don't believe it is just a book. It's not just a person's opinion. Of course (and I realise I'm not arguing against anything you've said here), but to non-Christians, it is just a book of unknowable virtue. From an outsider's point of view, somebody's just taken what some book says and expects me to follow it. Do what you like mate, but leave me out of it.


Personally I'd prefer to base my morality on Jesus' example and teachings. From the horse's mouth, as it were.

I suppose the biggest problem I have with religion is that I've never been able to see how you can believe something that leads to one person getting all the influence. I mean sure, if reckon the bloke gives some good advice, go for it, but cast your net a little wider than one man who lived 2000 years ago, surely?

Would you believe in what he says if he'd said something else? Do you do what you do because Jebus said so, or are you a Christian because his teachings struck a chord with your own morality?

[WMUG]

Schools teach all sorts of evil shit, not least of which is conditioning to authority. Ok. Why's that a reason to add homosexuality being wrong to that list? Shouldn't the aim be to improve, rather than give up and let anything in?


All in all schools are more harmful than religion.

Even if that's true (it's not), it isn't a reason to mix the two.

[Niall_Quinn]

Ok. Why's that a reason to add homosexuality being wrong to that list? Shouldn't the aim be to improve, rather than give up and let anything in?



Even if that's true (it's not), it isn't a reason to mix the two.

I was responding to this:


I don't think schools should be allowed to teach that something is wrong because a book says it is.

[Letters]

I suppose the biggest problem I have with religion is that I've never been able to see how you can believe something that leads to one person getting all the influence. I mean sure, if reckon the bloke gives some good advice, go for it, but cast your net a little wider than one man who lived 2000 years ago, surely?

I think that's a pretty good problem to have with religion - if it's just some bloke then well, he might have said some things which are pretty wise and might strike a chord with me, but he was just some bloke, it's not much of a basis for a whole religion.

But Jesus wasn't just some bloke. He claimed to be more than that.
I couldn't really put it better than this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzqTFNfeDnE

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."
- C. S. Lewis

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

the right to believe what I want, not believe or support what others do, access to various jobs amongst others.

It isn't stonewall activists that get arrested in the street, but several Christian preachers have been for speaking from Bible in disagreeing with homosexual acts.


Also just look at what the liberal politicians and Ofsted are doing in imposing their beliefs on faith schools when it comes to homosexuality for example. you'd be blind to pretend this isn't where we are heading.


Oh so you mean you want the freedom to tell other people how to live their lives

If you think Homosexuality is wrong that's up to you and I see no reason that you need to be forced to believe otherwise, it's when you start to proseltyise this to other people (such as school pupils who don't need to be stultified with your backward superstition) then it becomes problematic.

[Niall_Quinn]

In fact I think the Church should be condemned from the highest mountain for not telling certain "people" a few home truths whether they want to hear them or not. So should unions and activist movements and any collective that supposedly has human interests at heart. It's because the organisations of the people have been rendered virtually useless by the state that we are seeing the rise of the ultimate preacher, one that also brings violence to enforce what is being preached, the fucking government. We should all be united against those cunts, not fighting with each other. The establishment loves it when we splinter over trivial issues like who's fucking who and who's blacker or whiter. We should all be pointing in the same direction saying fuck off to government. Wouldn't even need violence. And sure, that's me telling people what to do same way as I would shout get out of the road you stupid cunt if somebody was about to be run down.

[Marc Overmars]

Hey Letters, what are your thoughts on church folk who knock on doors to preach? We seem to get them quite a bit round my way.

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzqTFNfeDnE

This should be in the WWE thread.

Which Jesus is he talking about? There were hundreds at the time, and hundreds prior to that in older civilisations. I'm pretty damn sure that if Jesus was around today he'd spend most of his time kicking Christian arses. Considering they have forsaken him in almost every way.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm confused, where there really hundreds of Jesus of Nazareths' or do you mean there were literally hundreds of people claiming to be the Messiah? (Which there were)

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Hey Letters, what are your thoughts on church folk who knock on doors to preach? We seem to get them quite a bit round my way.

That's mostly the domain of Jehovah's witnesses and The Church of Latter Day Saints (which even most Christians know is a complete racket)

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm confused, where there really hundreds of Jesus of Nazareths' or do you mean there were literally hundreds of people claiming to be the Messiah? (Which there were)

Hundreds of competing Messiahs. The video doesn't mention the name, just wanted to make sure. The historical record, such as it is, strongly suggests Jesus was a revolutionary in the true sense, somebody prepared to go to prison or be murdered in defence of his message. You only get the full treatment if you represent a genuine threat to the system. He must have been seeking change through knowledge and/ or action or else he'd have ended up as insignificant like most of the other Messiahs. You compare that to the Church and its congregation today. Certainly there is a tiny minority of Christians putting their body where their mouth is and actually helping on the ground. What about the rest of them? What's the point of a 2 billion strong army if only a few of them will fight? If they really believe that the time here on earth is an audition for heaven the why are they cleaning their cars and mowing their lawns as millions die or suffer by injustice? I don't get it. Well I do really.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

More importantly what does it say about them even if did take action against injustice in the hope of divine reward rather than purely out of solidarity with a fellow human being?.

[Letters]

Hey Letters, what are your thoughts on church folk who knock on doors to preach? We seem to get them quite a bit round my way.

I think you have to be very careful about that kind of thing as it can be counter-productive.
I personally wouldn't be comfortable doing it.

When the minister of my old church was new at the church he went round the area putting little notes through people's door saying he was the new minister and he'd like to call another time to introduce himself, he then followed that up with a visit. It was all very light touch, just to say hello and ask if there's anything the church could do for people. If people didn't want to talk, as I suspect most didn't, then that's fair enough and he certainly didn't go around preaching at them.

My church do 'street work' occasionally in a public place. Again, you have to be careful with that sort of thing but I guess if you're doing it in public then people at least have the option to stop and listen or not. I know that people have come to faith through that work but I don't think I'd want to get involved in it.

[Letters]

I'm confused, where there really hundreds of Jesus of Nazareths' or do you mean there were literally hundreds of people claiming to be the Messiah? (Which there were)

If he means the latter then there certainly were others - don't know about hundreds - but the rest are forgotten by history.
There's a reason for that.

[Niall_Quinn]

That's mostly the domain of Jehovah's witnesses and The Church of Latter Day Saints (which even most Christians know is a complete racket)

It's actually a duty of Christians to minister to unbelievers as well as believers as well as to strive for conversion of the unbelievers. Matthew 28 18-20

There are no grey areas with this one, it's not optional and it's a central pillar of Christianity.

[Niall_Quinn]

More importantly what does it say about them even if did take action against injustice in the hope of divine reward rather than purely out of solidarity with a fellow human being?.

I don't think it would say anything less acceptable than the notion of duty to country or some other tribal ideal. In many ways it makes a lot more sense because the physical is temporary while the spirit is eternal. And the commission itself implies solidarity with mankind so that's covered by default and can only provide a beneficial outcome if the doctrine is adhered to. I don't have a problem with that, I view it as literally infinitely more worthy than the pursuit of currency which is the modern day alternative.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

If he means the latter then there certainly were others - don't know about hundreds - but the rest are forgotten by history.
There's a reason for that.

The prominence of Christian Theology?

[Niall_Quinn]

The prominence of Christian Theology?

Or book burning, to use the correct terminology.

[Letters]

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/19/james-blunts-letter-chris-bryant-in-full

:d

[Coney]

My church do 'street work' occasionally in a public place. Again, you have to be careful with that sort of thing

Yeah - people don't like people hanging around on street corners in my area too. They should work at the local brothel like all the other hookers.

[Niall_Quinn]

Leon Brittan dead. Died from a long running battle with cancer - which must have been kept secret as a search reveals nothing. I suppose the same mad conspiracy theory bastards will be out in force again, spouting the same old stuff as they did with David Kelly, Robin Cook, etc.

[Letters]

I suppose the same mad conspiracy theory bastards will be out in force again

Yeah! Don't you hate them?



:whistle:

[Coney]

:d

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5464/leon-brittan-was-under-met-probe-over-claims-of-child-sex-abuse

[Niall_Quinn]

http://youtu.be/bVF7U8stRIU

:haha:

Are they firing in or firing out? :haha:

Biased Broadcasting Corporation at its best.

[Letters]

I'll just leave this here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31589202

:lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

I'll just leave this here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31589202

:lol:

Not even news any more is it? Just par for the course. Only notable part of this story is they got caught out.

[Letters]

It's kinda funny/depressing that they were both caught on camera, completely red handed, and they're both "denying any wrongdoing" :doh:
And it's noteworthy that it's one from Labour, one from the Tories. So it's not like Tories are the 'bad guys' and Labour are a shining example of propriety.

UKIP, ftw? They're *****, but at least they're honest about it.

[Heisenberg]

UKIP, ftw?
No! Good heavens, no.

[Letters]

How about the Greens then?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31600331

We really are spoilt for choice. :ilt:

[Niall_Quinn]

How about the Greens then?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31600331

We really are spoilt for choice. :ilt:

Don't vote for any of the cunts. You have no right to complain if you vote.

[Xhaka Can’t]

The only people that will get exactly what they want from those they vote for are UKIPpers. They may be hideous, but at least they are honest about it.

[Niall_Quinn]

The only people that will get exactly what they want from those they vote for are UKIPpers. They may be hideous, but at least they are honest about it.

Don't even think that will be true. If they win any seats they'll soon get comfy in their new surroundings.

[Injury Time]

The only people that will get exactly what they want from those they vote for are UKIPpers. They may be hideous, but at least they are honest about it.


Don't even think that will be true. If they win any seats they'll soon get comfy in their new surroundings.

They're the new Lib Dems, remember what happened to them once they got a whiff of power :blow:

[Heisenberg]

I'm not sure that you can be terribly sure of what you'll get with Ukip. Their policy selection an development is extremely erratic. Even their flagship issue, for which they were formed, has become a sideshow or subset of the immigration debate.

[Nozza!]

Don't even think that will be true. If they win any seats they'll soon get comfy in their new surroundings.


Oi, geezer, surely not, I wouldn't expect a financial adviser and ex-public schoolboy to get cosy in the Commons and get his snout firmly in the corporate trough...pig to man, man to pig...

[GP]

...to ManBearPig

[Letters]

Don't vote for any of the cunts. You have no right to complain if you vote.

Good idea. 'Cos complaining on an internet forum virtually no-one reads is making a big difference.

[Niall_Quinn]

Good idea. 'Cos complaining on an internet forum virtually no-one reads is making a big difference.

What's complaining on an Internet forum got to do with it? Are you trying to change the subject?

If you vote then you endorse the political system and it's participants, do you not? By default. You;re willingly part of it. So if the system ends up shafting you you can't legitimately complain, can you? Not even if you are ignorant.

Don't endorse the system and your right to complain remains intact.

Just because this concept gets illogically inverted by those seeking to prop up the self serving political system doesn't void the reality.

[Letters]

If you vote then you endorse the political system and it's participants, do you not?
No, you do not.

Our political system is nonsense, with first past the post the vast majority of people's views are not represented. But, it's the only system we have and I don't see any realistic way of changing it. So you either join in and vote - either for someone you actually think would do a decent job, or if you can't find one for the least bad option or maybe a protest vote - or you don't and don't have any say at all.

If you don't vote then you certainly have no right to complain about the MP who represents you - not only did you not vote for them but you didn't even try to stop them getting in by voting for someone else. That was the only thing you could have done and you didn't even do that.

[Niall_Quinn]

No, you do not.

Our political system is nonsense, with first past the post the vast majority of people's views are not represented. But, it's the only system we have and I don't see any realistic way of changing it. So you either join in and vote - either for someone you actually think would do a decent job, or if you can't find one for the least bad option or maybe a protest vote - or you don't and don't have any say at all.

If you don't vote then you certainly have no right to complain about the MP who represents you - not only did you not vote for them but you didn't even try to stop them getting in by voting for someone else. That was the only thing you could have done and you didn't even do that.

Crazy logic and no doubt you know it. But you defend it anyway.

The system sucks, peoples' views are not represented, there's no realistic way of changing it. That's your argument? Good job the civil rights movement didn't hold that opinion, or the Suffragettes. If the slaves on the plantation had all been as accommodating in their view then they;d still be picking cotton today and we could write it off as the best of a bad situation.

The media has told you that failure to endorse the political system is the same thing as apathy. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of young people across the world actively engaged in civil resistance. That means they are getting off their arses and registering a genuine protest against a system that is self-evidently corrupt. But they are apathetic because they don't go ahead and endorse a candidate they disagree with on every major issue. Yeah right.

In the States Ron Paul won more than enough grass roots support to claim a seat at the table, if not the head seat. In response the party changed the rules and threw out that support base. This was an example of everyday people organising on a massive scale to propose and support a candidate they actually wanted. They played by the rules, played the game and the rules were changed when the anticipated outcome threatened the status quo. And this is always the case when genuine candidates are introduced. By genuine I don't mean crap like the Greens or UKIP who have every intention of operating within the broken framework so they can dabble with a few of the shop window ornaments. Even these mainly conformist operations can't get a look in on the grander scale so how would a real representative of the people be expected to fare in this country? Fairly obvious to figure that out.

People are smart enough (well most I suppose) to know their votes stands no chance of changing anything of significance. Maybe it'll win them a few quid here at the expense of some bloke over there. Maybe it means they can ease their consciences a little following on from prior horrors perpetrated by the last lot they voted for. Primarily it's apathy thought, isn't it?

People vote because they are apathetic. They don't have the balls to fix politics so they just pretend it can never be fixed, hold their nose and make a pointless mark on a ballot. Seriously, how apathetic is that? How irresponsible?

[Letters]

People vote because they are apathetic. They don't have the balls to fix politics so they just pretend it can never be fixed, hold their nose and make a pointless mark on a ballot. Seriously, how apathetic is that? How irresponsible?
And what are you doing? Aside from ranting on an internet forum no-one of any importance reads.

The fact is there isn't mass support or the depth of feeling for a civil rights style movement.

[Niall_Quinn]

And what are you doing? Aside from ranting on an internet forum no-one of any importance reads.

The fact is there isn't mass support or the depth of feeling for a civil rights style movement.

What does it matter what I am doing? How does that affect the principals being discussed, or do you believe issues should focus on the messenger rather than the message?

"The fact is there isn't mass support or the depth of feeling for a civil rights style movement."

Precisely. You can almost smell the apathy. And not only do these voters disgrace the memory of those who fought so hard to secure the vote, they also relinquish all authority to complain about the actions of the corrupt regimes they endorse. This is obvious. If you say to somebody, go ahead, you can hardly complain when they take you up on your offer. The fact they take a mile when they were awarded an inch should be grounds to challenge the system rather than further endorse it, you might think.

If the majority refused to endorse the current political system then it would probably carry on anyway, because that's what authoritarians do, even when their fig leaf of legitimacy is stripped away. But that would still be a significant step whereby society removes the legitimacy. It would mean far more than rubber stamping five more years of the same. As legitimacy ebbed away cycle after cycle then the true nature of government would be revealed, as other nations have seen it only to clearly. It's at that point real change could occur. Change is not possible in the current climate. Voters prevent it.

[Letters]

What does it matter what I am doing?
Because you are criticising me for voting, saying my logic for doing so is flawed and that it is irresponsible and shows apathy. Your alternative seems to be sitting on your backside ranting about it all on a forum no-one of note reads and basically doing nothing. I'd say that's worse.
If you criticise people then you should at least present a valid alternative. Sitting around doing nothing isn't one.

If there was some rule that if the turnout is below 'x'% then the result is null and void then what you're saying makes sense - if people didn't vote en masse in protest then no-one would get elected, the whole thing would descend into farce and they'd be forced to reform the system. As far as I'm aware though there is no such rule. You not voting doesn't mean no-one will get elected and people not doing so en masse only serves to benefit the more extreme parties whose support is more likely to turn out. A low turnout would lead to questions of legitimacy but the obvious counter argument is that people could have voted but chose not to and so have no right to complain about the outcome.

I think there are rules in some countries that you have to vote and there's a 'none of the above' option and if that options wins they have to have another vote. That's a brilliant idea, we should have that here, but we don't. If you vote you do have some right to complain about the outcome because you did the only thing you can do, in the current system, to produce a different outcome.

[Injury Time]

And what are you doing? Aside from ranting on an internet forum no-one of any importance reads.

and the GW recruitment juggernaut crashes ever forwards <_< should put it on instead of the usual banner tbh. :scarf:

[Niall_Quinn]

Because you are criticising me for voting, saying my logic for doing so is flawed and that it is irresponsible and shows apathy. Your alternative seems to be sitting on your backside ranting about it all on a forum no-one of note reads and basically doing nothing. I'd say that's worse.
If you criticise people then you should at least present a valid alternative. Sitting around doing nothing isn't one.

No, I suggested that people shouldn't vote if they want to retain a legitimate right to complain. That doesn't just apply to you it applies to everyone who votes. You introduced the the personal note. In reply I pointed out that what I'm personally doing has no bearing on the argument, but you've ignored that. You have no way of knowing what I am or am not doing as I haven't disclosed the details. Why you feel my undisclosed activity disqualifies the argument I'm making you don't say. You suggest I haven't offered a "valid" alternative. You don't reveal who gets to judge what's valid or not. Instead of addressing the argument you attribute actions to me and then criticise me for your own inventions.


If there was some rule that if the turnout is below 'x'% then the result is null and void then what you're saying makes sense - if people didn't vote en masse in protest then no-one would get elected, the whole thing would descend into farce and they'd be forced to reform the system. As far as I'm aware though there is no such rule. You not voting doesn't mean no-one will get elected and people not doing so en masse only serves to benefit the more extreme parties whose support is more likely to turn out. A low turnout would lead to questions of legitimacy but the obvious counter argument is that people could have voted but chose not to and so have no right to complain about the outcome.

What does it matter if the state ignores the outcome of an election? They do that all the time (Bush vs Gore, EU referenda as a couple of notable examples). Their purpose is power and they aren't going to relinquish it just because their own rules demand. You think they'd abide by a turnout rule? Not a chance. If you want a classic demonstration of an illegitimate party abusing power then take a look at the Lib Dems. Absolute charlatans who have done the exact opposite of what they promised to every person who cast a vote for them.

The counter-argument you suggest is anything but obvious. It is counter-intuitive and deeply illogical. That's not to say I disagree about such an argument being used anyway. I'm sure it would be just as it has been used in the past. Repetition doesn't imply logic though. To say you have no right to complain because you failed to endorse something you disagree with is bizarre.


I think there are rules in some countries that you have to vote and there's a 'none of the above' option and if that options wins they have to have another vote. That's a brilliant idea, we should have that here, but we don't. If you vote you do have some right to complain about the outcome because you did the only thing you can do, in the current system, to produce a different outcome.

Yes brilliant. Enforce endorsement and then keep on voting until you get the result required. I can't think of a better way to cement corruption. Again you suggest there is only one possible solution to solving the problem of political system you already admit is unrepresentative and that is to endorse it. That way, you suggest, if it all goes tits up (which it does every time without fail) you have a right to be critical because you were part of the unrepresentative process. You know it's a rigged game so in order to change it you keep playing. Whereas those that tell the house to stuff their game have no right to complain because they don't produce a different outcome.

Well they could produce a different outcome, but they'd have to be part of an increasing majority that refused to play in the first place and then used that majority to create a new game. But we can't get to that stage while the majority keep defending the old game, can we?

[Letters]

and the GW recruitment juggernaut crashes ever forwards <_< should put it on instead of the usual banner tbh. :scarf:

We should have some fliers, tbh.

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFlJgF1fmNU

[Niall_Quinn]

What was only a suspicion is now confirmed. How the Tory cunts come up with their economic policies:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-adviser-chancellor-george-osborne-5251411

[Letters]

http://order-order.com/2015/03/02/green-party-take-cash-from-tax-efficient-westwood-3/

Looool, as the kids are saying.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'd never vote Tory but fair play to Nick De Bois, what a prat this bloke is.

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLMYgb7xs38

[Slacker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLMYgb7xs38

Not been on this thread before so I thought I'd point out I don't think all Tories are cunts, or that they should be dead, although I do think a fair proportion deserve that mantle...

However, Michael Sheen has got it right here. The NHS is being privatised by the back door. If there were legislation to prevent Members of Parliament (including Labour and LibDems, as these days they're all on the bandwagon) from having any cronies, friends, family or acquaintances involved with private suppliers to the NHS and any other national institution paid for by the taxpayer, they would be running shit scared whenever they were investigated for fraud by an organisation they could wield no control over (so you'd probably have to create an organisation to do it and the Tories seem wilfully incapable of appointing any leader who isn't one of their establishment peers).

Sadly that ain't gonna happen, so we're gonna have to live with it until somebody with big balls and no fear of assassination comes along and decides she'll take them on. Margaret Thatcher clones need not apply...

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32295970

All :dance:. I'm one of them! Yaay!

[Niall_Quinn]

Main pledgeslies


Eliminate the deficit and be running a surplus by the end of the Parliament

Decoded this means reduce and reverse the rate at which catastrophic government debt is growing by stealing from the poor to compensate for the excess of the super wealthy. There is no mention whatsoever (from any of the parties) about the fundamental nature of debt and how the entire economy is built on it. Due to the banking mechanism there can never be an actual surplus as the money supply would entirely disappear. Until the people understand this they will always be slaves.


Extra £8bn above inflation for the NHS by 2020

To give to his privatising mates.


Extend Right to Buy to housing association tenants in England

Another debt policy.


Legislate to keep people working 30 hours on minimum wage out of tax

More like legislate to keep more people on the minimum wage. This is the cuntservatives in a nutshell, keep the unwashed masses in beer and fags in order to sustain the real business of wealth and never talk about the real issues. We're so far down the road now that the obvious is entirely missed. Tax is a crime by its very nature. If a mobster demanded money with menaces he would go to jail. When the government does it sheep say oh well, you have to have tax or there would be no roads. This ignores the fact 50% of our economy somehow (by magic I assume) survives without the criminal confiscation of the proceeds of labour.


30 hours of free childcare per week for working parents of 3&4-year-olds

Destroy the family, a tory favourite which reinforces the inversion of terminology common with all politicians. If workers got to keep the proceeds of their labour then they could raise their own children rather than pay strangers to do it for them. Again people don't bother to look at the roots of the (so-called) education system in the west. It is based on an (at the time) overt admission of authoritarianism and religious doctrine founded in the Reformation and the model hasn't changed since, although the window dressing is regularly swapped out. Children have their natural curiosity and enthusiasm for learning destroyed by the education system. To suggest they be subjected to such abuse at the age of 3 is quite literally demonic. Only an evil fucker would send a 3 year old to school and surely it is only those oppressed by an economically imbalanced society that sends their children into the non-care of child minders. Maybe I'm wrong in that. Maybe some parents just don't give a fuck about their kid's well being or development.


Referendum on Britain’s EU membership

Big wow. In a democracy (obviously said with tongue in cheek) we finally get to have a say on something that has already changed the country beyond recognition. This is like creating blueprints for a barn that needs to be built and have a door fitted so it can be closed after the horse has bolted, galloped unrestrained until old age and died. Most of the cunts who signed away the country are still alive. As citizens we should be looking to remedy that.

[Niall_Quinn]

Meanwhile... The Green Party has pledged to build half a million new homes. You really couldn't make it up.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Cameron is getting hammered on the BBC debate. :lol:

Shame they didn't literally empty chair him.

[Niall_Quinn]

Cameron is getting hammered on the BBC debate. :lol:

Shame they didn't literally empty chair him.

Is that with an actual hammer or are you speaking metaphorically? If it's a real hammer I'll happily watch (and record) it.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

He wasn't there to actually hammer, sadly.

[Niall_Quinn]

He wasn't there to actually hammer, sadly.

That's cheating isn't it?

Though Tory, so expected.

[Xhaka Can’t]

That's cheating isn't it?

Though Tory, so expected.

Hopefully he won't be there on May the whateverth when we get to choose whether we want five years syphilis or gonorrhea.

[Letters]

:lol:

[mr_brighterside]

interesting article on the SNP here

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9501602/the-snp-has-replaced-the-church-of-scotland/

[adzzzbatch]

cameron dressing up as a Sikh, fucking cunt.

[Letters]

Why is he an effing 'c' for wearing a headscarf when visiting a Sikh temple? :unsure:
He was hardly in fancy dress.


Ps: I'm not necessarily disputing he is an effing 'c' but this seems Zim level making up a reason to have a go at him.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Well he did look like one.

But then he also looked like someone who was told what he'd be doing about 5 minutes before he got there.

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ is mildly interesting, if you can pretend to ignore things you might already have heard e.g. 'Northern Powerhouse' :sick:

[Niall_Quinn]

Well he did look like one.

But then he also looked like someone who was told what he'd be doing about 5 minutes before he got there.

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ is mildly interesting, if you can pretend to ignore things you might already have heard e.g. 'Northern Powerhouse' :sick:

Very interesting. I like the way the lies are all clearly summarised. I like the way each party has entirely contradictory policies within the same manifesto. It's revealing how none of the parties say anything about the fundamental issues of debt, liberty and genuine justice. You can see from this that each party has one primary aim, perpetuation of the corrupt system.

I came out as 33% Greens, 33% Lib Dem, 33% Labour. I wouldn't vote for any of those bastards even with a gun to my head.

The stupidity of UKIP was also revealed. It was so easy to spot their manifesto. Same with the cuntservatives.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Who are you going to vote for?....are you going to spoil or indeed soil your ballot?

"The stupidity of UKIP was also revealed. It was so easy to spot their manifesto"

Pretty much my thoughts on doing the Survey, i came across 60% Labour and 40% Lib Dem but i pretty much knew from the off set which policies belonged to which party

[Niall_Quinn]

I can't vote, I'm not registered.

Only way to be sure.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I can't vote, I'm not registered.

Only way to be sure.

I didn't vote last year, couldn't be bothered to fill out the form to register at a different address.

[Niall_Quinn]

I didn't vote last year, couldn't be bothered to fill out the form to register at a different address.

I think they register you automatically now using data they illegally obtain through privacy violations. I feel slightly ashamed of not voting because good men died in wars (sic) so politicians could renege on their pledges.

Still, election fever and all that. Serious stuff, in some countries (mainly the ones we are bombing or politically undermining) people don't even get the vote. Sometimes (apart from when I'm being threatened by the tax fascists tbf) I forget and take for granted the benefits of living in a free consumer society.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Fuck it, a democracy gives you the right not to vote as well as the right to vote (unlike somewhere like Zimbabwe where you have to prove to someone who is probably holding a bat that you have an ink stained finger....oh and obviously that you voted for Uncle Bob as well)

Fining people for not voting like they do in Australia seems counter intuitive to me, if people feel motivated to vote or feel they are voting for something worthwhile than they will and if they don't, although arguably you can say they don't have the right to complain if they don't vote it's also up to them.

[Niall_Quinn]

arguably you can say they don't have the right to complain

It's the other way around. If you endorse shit and by your participation bring about shit then you can hardly complain when the very shit you asked for happens. Conversely, if you say fuck you and fuck the horse you rode in on and I reject you on all counts and under all circumstances on principle and without respite, then it is kind of your duty to complain relentlessly thereafter.

[Niall_Quinn]

Who do you think brought the notion that failing to vote denies you the right to express an opinion? The very cunts (and their media) demanding you endorse them. It would be very interesting to see the true face of the state if people woke up and finally did the responsible thing and withdrew their endorsement. I think you'd see the true nature of state unmasked in that moment.

[Letters]

I can't vote, I'm not registered.

Only way to be sure.

Go on then...
Sure of what?

[Letters]

Fuck it, a democracy gives you the right not to vote as well as the right to vote (unlike somewhere like Zimbabwe where you have to prove to someone who is probably holding a bat that you have an ink stained finger....oh and obviously that you voted for Uncle Bob as well)

Fining people for not voting like they do in Australia seems counter intuitive to me, if people feel motivated to vote or feel they are voting for something worthwhile than they will and if they don't, although arguably you can say they don't have the right to complain if they don't vote it's also up to them.
I think you should have to go and vote, even if you choose to spoil your ballot paper.
In the last election more people didn't vote than voted for any one party

http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5432384.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/NOVOTE.jpg

If those people all bothered to get off their arses and vote then they could make a real difference. Our political system is rubbish and none of the parties are trustworthy but like it or not we are all going to have an MP representing us and government running the country. Not voting doesn't change that and apathy only helps the more extreme parties.

The only easy thing any of us can do is vote, at least that way we've had as much of a say as we can have under the current system. We could try and become more politically active I guess, get involved in a party we believe in and try to make a difference that way. What else is there? Sitting around not voting and moaning about it all on the Internet changes nothing.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Whilst I think everyone should vote that's not a prescriptive opinion. Democracy is about choice and if you are compelling people to vote you are removing that choice.
I also don't necessarily buy the assertion that everyone who doesn't vote is too disillusioned by the lack of choice, it's because they don't care.
When the result is uncertain people turn out, in 1992 the turnout was 77% which is quite possibly a post war record. I think the turnout will be reasonably high this time for the same reason.

[Niall_Quinn]

The only easy thing any of us can do is vote

LOL

What else should people be forced to do? Why stop at legitimising crooks? People could be forced to stand outside crooked banks and clap. Maybe we should all be forced to do national service so we could all chip in committing terrorist acts overseas? The possibilities are endless. I like the sound of this compulsory democracy. There's a special name for it I think but I can't remember what it is. Has something to do with moustaches and jack boots.

It's amazing you can draw the conclusion from your graph that voting should be compulsory. What your graph actually shows is the government is illegitimate and represents a minority over a majority. Solution? Force the majority to legitimise the minority.

It's not the farmer who is the main problem. It's the sheep.

[Niall_Quinn]

Go on then...
Sure of what?

Sure that even if they simulate my vote by registering me against my will it is not lawfully binding because there's no consideration on their part and no consent on mine. I'm a genuine non-voter under the law and until they subvert the law there's nothing they can legitimately do about it.

[Niall_Quinn]

I also don't necessarily buy the assertion that everyone who doesn't vote is too disillusioned by the lack of choice, it's because they don't care.

Certainly there is a body of apathy - little surprise really when you think about it. But the media and the crooks in office and "opposition" make a leap when they insist all resistance is based in apathy. In their dreams. There are plenty of people who have a keen sense of why they refuse to engage.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Certainly there is a body of apathy - little surprise really when you think about it. But the media and the crooks in office and "opposition" make a leap when they insist all resistance is based in apathy. In their dreams. There are plenty of people who have a keen sense of why they refuse to engage.

True but I don't think people like yourself are in the majority, they are the kind of people like my friend whose response was when asked if they will vote was "nah can't be bothered". Whilst its not exactly an admirable attitude, I don't think anyone has the right to forcibly correct it.
Frankly when I speak to a lot of people, I sometimes wonder if they deserve the right of suffrage in the first place,

[Letters]

Whilst I think everyone should vote that's not a prescriptive opinion. Democracy is about choice and if you are compelling people to vote you are removing that choice.
They'd still have the choice to spoil their ballot paper. So you're not forcing people to vote for any of the candidates, but at least they'd have made a conscious decision to do that rather than just not bothering to do anything.

[Letters]

Sure that even if they simulate my vote by registering me against my will it is not lawfully binding because there's no consideration on their part and no consent on mine. I'm a genuine non-voter under the law and until they subvert the law there's nothing they can legitimately do about it.
That'll show 'em!

[Niall_Quinn]

I think I'm in the majority in terms of what most people would like to see. Where I differ is in my refusal to call a spade a representative democracy. With a lot of people the media will say the government is there to represent them. They just accept that without thought and without considering the evidence of their own eyes. Worse, there are plenty who know how corrupted the state is but they still vote for one of the main parties. It's hard to reconcile that sort of behaviour with any definition of sanity. You hear them claiming, "all bloody parties are the same and nothing changes no matter who gets in". You ask them who they will vote for and they answer, Labour. :doh:

So yes, in a way you should only be allowed to vote if you are sane. But then nobody would vote anyway because there's nobody to vote for.

[Niall_Quinn]

That'll show 'em!

I don't need to show them anything because I'm not in thrall. But I do accept that commonly agreed laws are a good idea.

[Niall_Quinn]

They'd still have the choice to spoil their ballot paper. So you're not forcing people to vote for any of the candidates, but at least they'd have made a conscious decision to do that rather than just not bothering to do anything.

What's the purpose behind this compulsion you are so keen on? So you force everyone to vote and 15 odd million people go and tick a box or spoil a ballot or whatever - it's meaningless because they don't give a fuck. Now what? What sort of conclusion are you seeking to draw from this meaningless exercise? Or should I more rightly say what sort of legitimacy are you trying to simulate?

[Letters]

There should be a none of the above option and there should be PR so the representation is...well, proportional. But there isn't. But not voting doesn't mean no one will get in. It just means you have had no say. So there's no point in moaning about it because you didn't do the only thing you could have done to prevent them getting in.

[Niall_Quinn]

There should be a none of the above option and there should be PR so the representation is...well, proportional. But there isn't. But not voting doesn't mean no one will get in. It just means you have had no say. So there's no point in moaning about it because you didn't do the only thing you could have done to prevent them getting in.

Have you ignored my response to that fallacy so you can pose it all over again and imply it has substance this time around?

[Letters]

What's the purpose behind this compulsion you are so keen on? So you force everyone to vote and 15 odd million people go and tick a box or spoil a ballot or whatever

Not all 15 million would spoil their ballot paper. Most wouldn't. So you would get a parliament that is a bit more representitive. (As far as is as possible with FPTP, which isn't very unfortunately)
It would make people more think about who they want to represent them.
SOMEONE is going to be my MP. I might as well vote for the person I want it to be. If that person doesn't get in then there's nothing I can do about that but at least I've done the only thing I can do under the current system.

[Letters]

Have you ignored my response to that fallacy so you can pose it all over again and imply it has substance this time around?

I can't even work out what your argument is. Is it that no-one should vote?
If so then as that's clearly not going to happen I'm not sure it deserves much of a reply.

[Niall_Quinn]

Not all 15 million would spoil their ballot paper. Most wouldn't. So you would get a parliament that is a bit more representitive. (As far as is as possible with FPTP, which isn't very unfortunately)
It would make people more think about who they want to represent them.
SOMEONE is going to be my MP. I might as well vote for the person I want it to be. If that person doesn't get in then there's nothing I can do about that but at least I've done the only thing I can do under the current system.

So enforcement could be used to consolidate "the only thing" that can be done under the current system? Handy that. Why bother if it's the only thing that can be done anyway? In fact why bother with the whole election sham? All it achieves is a bill for the taxpayer and healthy revenues for advertising firms. When you force everyone to endorse a facet of the same system then the vote becomes a procedural exercise with no inherent purpose beyond continuity. At least there is a meaningful choice at present, those who endorse the system and those who refuse to endorse it.

I think the way you automatically dismiss the reasons why some people consciously choose (as in choice as in free will) not to engage in what they consider to be an illegitimate process is pretty heavy handed. It tallies with your other ideas on compulsion. One way is right, all other ways are wrong. Four legs good, two legs bettermandatory.

[Niall_Quinn]

I can't even work out what your argument is. Is it that no-one should vote?
If so then as that's clearly not going to happen I'm not sure it deserves much of a reply.

My argument is counter to your claim that anyone who fails to endorse a minority government relinquishes the right to an opinion on government. Clearly there is no tangible argument to support such a claim. It is an illogical and ill informed opinion at best.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Not all 15 million would spoil their ballot paper. Most wouldn't. So you would get a parliament that is a bit more representitive. (As far as is as possible with FPTP, which isn't very unfortunately)
It would make people more think about who they want to represent them.
SOMEONE is going to be my MP. I might as well vote for the person I want it to be. If that person doesn't get in then there's nothing I can do about that but at least I've done the only thing I can do under the current system.

Another thing i totally disagree about PR....would i guess correctly that you voted Lib Dem in 2010 and gravely regret it now?.

I think Proportional Representation is an absolute farce, it does nothing but create weak governments....if people want a better system they should have gone for AV in the referendum (a system that is used in France and as far as i'm concerned the best electoral system there is as it guarantees that every elected official wins a majority of the vote), but the British people rejected it so the clamor for electoral reform is largely overstated anyway.

The majority i still maintain is not an apathy resulting from certain political realities, it's an intellectual malaise a coalition of ignorance and stupidity if you will rather than a antipathy towards Bourgeois Democracy.
If people care enough they will vote, this trendy form of abstention propagated by muppets like Russel Brand doesn't reflect the reality. NQ is someone I assume whose political beliefs would be catered for only by a complete restructuring of the entire system, and i don't see why he should be made to march down to his local church hall, infant school etc in order to demonstrate this by creatively spoiling his ballot paper in a way that no-one will actually care about.

[Niall_Quinn]

Another thing i totally disagree about PR....would i guess correctly that you voted Lib Dem in 2010 and gravely regret it now?.

I think Proportional Representation is an absolute farce, it does nothing but create weak governments....if people want a better system they should have gone for AV in the referendum (a system that is used in France and as far as i'm concerned the best electoral system there is as it guarantees that every elected official wins a majority of the vote), but the British people rejected it so the clamor for electoral reform is largely overstated anyway.

The majority i still maintain is not an apathy resulting from certain political realities, it's an intellectual malaise a coalition of ignorance and stupidity if you will rather than a antipathy towards Bourgeois Democracy.
If people care enough they will vote, this trendy form of abstention propagated by muppets like Russel Brand doesn't reflect the reality. NQ is someone I assume whose political beliefs would be catered for only by a complete restructuring of the entire system, and i don't see why he should be made to march down to his local church hall, infant school etc in order to demonstrate this by creatively spoiling his ballot paper in a way that no-one will actually care about.

My compliance might make some other people feel better though. So maybe there is merit in forcing me to do what they demand. Especially if it reinforces their notion of inclusive democracy. Seriously though...

I don't want a complete restructuring of the system as I'm in a tiny minority in that respect and it's so unrealistic to expect it to materialise in this phase of human evolution it's not worth expending thought on the idea, let alone action. What I want is unrestrained choice in all things. Choice with natural consequences of course. I believe I'm grown up and evolved enough to handle it. I'm happy to go and live away from everyone else if that makes them more comfortable or they are afraid I'd benefit from their roads or fire service or "free" education (really, people do make these arguments). But when I have left, don't chase me with a fucking poll tax demand.

But our leaders aren't advanced enough to comprehend liberty yet. Give them a few thousand years, maybe after the novelty of chasing bits of paper around and murdering the defenceless has worn off.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I would agree with your ideas if i thought many people would behave responsibly with unrestrained choice, and whilst i'm happy for people to have said choice if their choices only affect themselves it's when it adversely affects other people that i object.

[Letters]

My argument is counter to your claim that anyone who fails to endorse a minority government relinquishes the right to an opinion on government.
I've certainly never said that. You can have an opinion, sure.
But not voting is not a logical response either because whether you vote or not, someone will get in and that person (is supposed to) represent you in your area.

[Niall_Quinn]

I would agree with your ideas if i thought many people would behave responsibly with unrestrained choice, and whilst i'm happy for people to have said choice if their choices only affect themselves it's when it adversely affects other people that i object.

That's where the consequences arise. Liberty is impossible without consequence. What's more irresponsible? Localised chaos or organised war? Both are undesirable but at least the removal of the centre in favour of the promotion of the individual would place significant limits on the scope of the calamities humans are capable of creating. Plenty of people are being slaughtered or poisoned or dispossessed by our "orderly" society as we speak, but they are pixels on a screen so their suffering has no immediate bearing. We compartmentalise it as a form of fear. If we don't play along then there lies our fate and don't imagine for a second this isn't intentional. Is it a third of the world still starving? 30 wars. Child labour all over the place. Pollution on a biblical scale. Could liberty possibly be any worse, or even in the ballpark in terms of the chaos? I think it would be impossible to exceed the current levels of carnage. There is no perfection but I think our current system is on the verge of achieving absolute imperfection.

[Niall_Quinn]

I've certainly never said that. You can have an opinion, sure.
But not voting is not a logical response either because whether you vote or not, someone will get in and that person (is supposed to) represent you in your area.

Then all Germans were Nazis because it would have been illogical for them to be anything else. Hitler was getting in anyway, so what was the harm in voting him in? Mind you, a lot of the "apathetic" types who refused to endorse him are viewed quite favourably with the passage of time.

[Letters]

Godwin's Law :bow:

But you know that comparison doesn't stand up in the current political climate, so stop being silly.

[mr_brighterside]

a choice between one party intent on taking the freedom of belief from people and another that wants to do the same.

if those things matter then there isn't much choice over the parties.

[Letters]

Another thing i totally disagree about PR....would i guess correctly that you voted Lib Dem in 2010 and gravely regret it now?.
No, I didn't. I actually wanted to but in my area the Lib Dems are a distant 3rd. Realistically it's either going to be either Labour or Conservative so my view is I might as well vote for one or the other. And I know that's ridiculous, but that's a problem with the current system. It makes it a defensible logical position to vote for the least bad viable candidate. Under PR I could just vote for the party whose policies best match my views and know that my vote counts towards some representation. As unpalatable as UKIP are, if 10% of the population endorse their views then why shouldn't they get 10% of the representation in a parliament?

Germany have PR, don't they? I don't think they've had weak governments. I did vote for AV because I thought it was a step in the right direction towards a more representative parliament but the Tories were quite clever in that they knew they could offer the Lib Dems a referendum on that and that it would be too complicated for most people to understand and that, combined with people just generally not liking change, would see it fail to get through. I don't think people rejected it because they think the current system is OK, they rejected it because they didn't understand it well enough to understand how it would make things better.

That's a big problem with democracy actually, too many stupids. IMO there should be a test before you are allowed to vote.

[Niall_Quinn]

Godwin's Law :bow:

But you know that comparison doesn't stand up in the current political climate, so stop being silly.

It absolutely does stand. History is prepared to consider the full scope of Nazi atrocities while modern history and the establishment apparatus airbrushes the extreme crime of contemporary regimes. We had the great fortune of being born at the epicentre of global atrocity so we are affected to a much lesser degree and therefore we can con ourselves into thinking we are civilised. We can easily ignore the true cost of our privilege. I'm sure the German's consoled themselves in a similar way.

And for your next trick you'll say, but Tories don't murder Jews. Because that's what a Nazi was, right? That's what defined them. Everything else can be brushed away.

Again, it's just a response to conditioning. What would be the point of murdering 600 million slaves? We're so much better at this shit now.

This all goes over your head. I know that. Talk to your priest and ask him to tell you the truth for a change.

[Letters]

I don't have a priest.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don't have a priest.

Well get one. You're going to need him.

[Letters]

No, I'm not :)

[mr_brighterside]

I don't have a priest.

Jesus is your priest : pedant :

[Letters]

Jesus is your priest :pedant:

You know what I mean!

:lol:

Ken, the bloke who started our church, said one Sunday
"I'm sometimes asked if I believe in female priests...I always say 'I don't believe in male priests'".

[Niall_Quinn]

No, I'm not :)

You're going to represent yourself? Ballsy.

[Letters]

You're going to represent yourself? Ballsy.

No. What Mr B said :good:
#Romans8

[Niall_Quinn]

No. What Mr B said :good:
#Romans8

And Jesus went among them and said, "Thou shall endorse the common criminals and petty thieves and glorify their names for they are your lords and masters."

[Letters]

Yeah. Again. Whether I vote for any of them or not, someone is going to get in.
So I might as well have my say, even if I feel I'm voting for the least bad option.

If there was one candidate standing who was going to get in regardless of what I do then what you're saying would make sense, but that's not the case.
So I might as well vote for the one I feel I can live with. The options are depressing, and depressingly similar, but they're not identical

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5432384.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/NOVOTE.jpg

That graphic proves you CAN'T change anything other than providing an endorsement of one of the static categories (the choices).

Everyone is compelled to vote in Australia, and look at the knob they ended up with.

[Letters]

Is there any electoral system where you can do that though?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

"Germany have PR, don't they? I don't think they've had weak governments"

.

No but your not really getting what you voted for, government by negotiation between one big party and several others to get a rainbow coalition....for instance Angela Merkel is currently in partnership with the SPD the party that ostensibly lost the election.
I believe in Unitary governments it doesn't get bogged down in negotiation after negotiation to get legislation passed.
Personally i think it's totally unnecessary to have a multi party system anyway, most western democracies function as a voting pendulum between centre left and centre right....choice is largely an illusion and 95% of governments are either social democratic or conservative.

[Xhaka Can’t]

That's a big problem with democracy actually, too many stupids. IMO there should be a test before you are allowed to vote.

I agree.

The test should consist of one question.

Q: Do you think your vote will actually change anything?

If you answer Yes, you are too stupid to vote.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Unfortunately since Reagan and Thatcher de-regulated their respective economies, the difference between social democratic governments and conservative are largely cosmetic

Because our representatives are now beholden to their donors and not to us