Jonnas Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 So yes it would be a protest vote. Not voting would simply imply that i coudnt be arsed to vote like the rest of the country. Blank votes exist in the UK, right? Those are still viable when none of the parties interest you, correct?
Haden Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Calling Danny a racist because he may use the BNP as a tool for registering disgust at the immigration system is stupid. Before people question me I vote Labour and I have no strong feelings about the immigration situation and if I did would vote UKIP not BNP. However I still feel to label someone a racist when they have clearly explained why they would vote BNP is stupid. You might not agree with what he is doing and I would never do it. But he has given an explanation everyone is ignoring. As for the protest issue I still think they are stupid I agree with protests but they physically intimidate BNP party members why not just stand there with banners. And before you say the BNP do the same Im sure they do and they should be arrested if they do.
navarre Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 I can't find anything recent where Gordon proposed it but here's something from last week on what the SNP think... lol. [url=]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7433479.stm[/url] Thank you. I definetly think this should go ahead.
Nicktendo Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Calling Danny a racist because he may use the BNP as a tool for registering disgust at the immigration system is stupid. There are much, much better ways to register disgust at the immigration system than voting for a political party you know is racist. It would help a lot if the immigration system wasn't mis-represented by the media and the BNP, becuase as I mentioned it's very strict. Looking into other political parties views on this would be a start, the Conservatives have a much stronger stance than labour, as do UKIP obviously. They're at the other end of the economic spectrum though... The English Democrats have a very strong stance on immigartion and they are not racist. However I still feel to label someone a racist when they have clearly explained why they would vote BNP is stupid. You might not agree with what he is doing and I would never do it. But he has given an explanation everyone is ignoring. He has explained why he would vote for the BNP. The reason ignores the fact that he is voting for a party he knows to be racist. If he actually sat down and thought about what would consititute as a more effective protest vote or researched other parties stances on immigration I'm sure he would come to a better conclusion. But because the BNP is constantly getting a boner over banning immigration people flock to them like sheep and see re-partition as a 'drawback.' I'm sorry but it just seems to me that the vast majority of people that vote for the BNP are openly racist. Those who hide the fact they vote for them know they are racist which is why they don't admit it (as I'm certain a couple of my friends do ). However, I respect Danny for admiting he would vote for the BNP and I guess it shows a lot of balls to admit that on a public forum but too me it just comes across as racist, and the onus is on him to convince us otherwise (but this would mean chosing another political party, that shares his views but isn't racist - English Democrats? UKIP? Socialist Labour Party? Free England Party? Failing that, start your own). Edited June 11, 2009 by Nicktendo
danny Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Right there are far two many things for me to quote and respond to them all indavidualy. Firstly to the person who said i shoudnt be dishing out insults. Saying lay off the drugs is far less of an insult than being labelled a racist in my eyes. So enough said there. I still dont see how you can claim that the BNP are one of the most evil groups on earth. Have you actually had a look at the groups that are banned in this country? We are talking about the group and not anything its members have said. As i have stated i would not vote for them since the storys about Gurkhas and johnson beharry VC came out. As for caring about the people i work with they would bassically be in the same boat as the gurkhas. I doubt the BNP would stop them coming here (the country coudnt defend itself without commonwealth and gurkha soldiers) but they would expect them to return after there service. So by the fact i woudnt vote for them for the gurkha reason extends to the commonwealth soldiers as well. I have sat down and thaught about it. So please dont insult my intellagence as to me coming to a different choice. I would vote for the Torys, yes i know it flies in the face of what i said about the working man, but it woudnt be a protest vote it would just be voting in the party who are most likely to get zanu labour out. The labour govenment are more or less compleatly to blambe for the mess the country is in. They were supposed to control and regulate banks they didnt. They have increased public spending to a stupid level and wasted billions on rubbish. Remember the millenium dome??? They have obliterated the british armed forces to a point that will take decades to rebuild. They have got us involved in two wars but kept defence spending bassically at a peace time level. Im not sure if the comments are true about the UK being one of the hardest countrys to get in to in western europe, it maybe, it may not be. But it should be harder still much more like australia. They take x ammount of people with little to offer a year. Then close the doors and take only who they want. Assylum seakers are supposed to stop in the first safe country they come to. Now i dot think there are many asylum seakers of Norwegian, French or dutch etc etc origin, therefore we shoudnt have any. I dont agree with us not taking any but until other countrys start doing there fair share then why should we. it just feels like there are rules set out in Europe and we will either follow them to the line or pass them. And other countrys will just do what they wish. The war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation. Yet there are only 3 countrys who are loosing lads on a regular basis UK, US and Canada. What is the point in us being in these things if other countrys arent pulling there weight. Britian needs to start caring about British (that dosent mean just white brits, but British citizens) Just because i would have voted BNP does not make me a racist. In much the same way voting Tory does not make me a toff.
chairdriver Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 The war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation. Yet there are only 3 countrys who are loosing lads on a regular basis UK, US and Canada. What is the point in us being in these things if other countrys arent pulling there weight. Probably because other countries have enough sense to keep their noses out of business which doesn't concern them. Britain has such an over-blown sense of self-importance that it feels it has to act as the World Police. (Obviously America is much worse for this than we are.)
danny Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Probably because other countries have enough sense to keep their noses out of business which doesn't concern them. Britain has such an over-blown sense of self-importance that it feels it has to act as the World Police. (Obviously America is much worse for this than we are.) Afghanistan isnt Iraq it does concern them. Its a NATO op they voted for it.
Haden Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Probably because other countries have enough sense to keep their noses out of business which doesn't concern them. Britain has such an over-blown sense of self-importance that it feels it has to act as the World Police. (Obviously America is much worse for this than we are.) Another issue entierly but frankly as danny said this isn't Iraq it has broader support and the future of that country effects so many things it can't just be ignored.
Nicktendo Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) I still dont see how you can claim that the BNP are one of the most evil groups on earth. OK, so denying the holocaust, hating Jews and Muslims, wanting to create a racially segregated society IN 2009 FFS, going to America and being associated with and giving speeches to the KKK, openly talking about how to brainwash the public and generally having a good old Nazi time isn't evil anymore... (I'll provide links for all if nessecary) Have you actually had a look at the groups that are banned in this country? We are talking about the group and not anything its members have said. No I haven't, can you please tell me more about them. As for caring about the people i work with they would bassically be in the same boat as the gurkhas. I doubt the BNP would stop them coming here. ARE YOU SERIOUS!? Go and read the BNP's own website. How incredibly naive... I have sat down and thought about it. So please dont insult my intellagence as to me coming to a different choice. Not one person has insulted your intelligence... I would vote for the Torys, yes i know it flies in the face of what i said about the working man. You would go against everything you stand for just to vote out labour... The labour govenment are more or less compleatly to blambe for the mess the country is in. They were supposed to control and regulate banks they didnt. So despite the fact The World is in a mess it's Labours fault? Financial regulation would have to come worldwide, initially from the US, otherwise the UK would be avoided by lots of institutions. They have increased public spending to a stupid level and wasted billions on rubbish. Remember the millenium dome??? Just because Labour have destroyed Britain doesn't mean you should go vote for the BNP. Look at the options I gave you in the last posts, Labour and the BNP aren't the only party that represent the working man. Plus the Tories would cut public spending, which is not really great for the working man. They have obliterated the british armed forces to a point that will take decades to rebuild. They have got us involved in two wars but kept defence spending bassically at a peace time level. The BNP would make Britain into a fortress, a fortress that would deter any company or corparation from ever coming here. They want a BAN on ALL foreign imports. That means: No Wii's, Playstations, iPods, Cars, food. The UK's economy would collapse overnight. Even North Korea imports (well their cunt of a leader does). No country can be self-sufficient and keep up with the rest of the globalised world. Yet more proof that the BNP's policies are ridiculous... I'm not sure if the comments are true about the UK being one of the hardest countrys to get in to in western europe, it maybe, it may not be. But it should be harder still much more like australia. They take x ammount of people with little to offer a year. Then close the doors and take only who they want. Well if you don't know, why don't you go read something that's not a published in the British Media. It's readily available from the Internet or the library and the general concensus amongst most statiticians and commentators is that the UK is much harder to get into than Australia and the US. Being an island helps massively. The UK media has a perception that Australia is impossible to get into and we should base ourselves in it's model, when in fact a much greater percentage of their population and economy is built on immigration. In fact no, scratch that the whole damn country is filled with immigrants. British immigrants. Assylum seakers are supposed to stop in the first safe country they come to. Now i dot think there are many asylum seakers of Norwegian, French or dutch etc etc origin, therefore we shoudnt have any. I dont agree with us not taking any but until other countrys start doing there fair share then why should we. Crossing into the UK is much easier and often cheaper on a plane than it is on a boat and much less dangerous than on a raft. Asylum seekers don't just walk to the country they're seeking asylum as that's sometimes even more dangerous. it just feels like there are rules set out in Europe and we will either follow them to the line or pass them. And other countrys will just do what they wish. This is a common misconception. Every country in Europe can ''do as they wish,' the UK is no exception. EU law is law across the whole region not just in select parts of it. Europe poses numerous political problems for many people and it's up to those people to say whether they want to be a part of it or not in elections. If only 32% of people vote then mis-representation can occur and racist parties such as the BNP and those found in Holland, Hungary and other nations can get an undeserving foothold. The war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation. Yet there are only 3 countrys who are loosing lads on a regular basis UK, US and Canada. What is the point in us being in these things if other countrys arent pulling there weight. I don't know enough about the war in Afghanistan to comment on this, but if you say it's a NATO operation then I agree, all NATO nations should have a presence. However, I thought that all NATO nations were fighting in Afghanistan and it was Iraq where the illegal war was taking place, where the only forces were the UK, US and Canada. Britian needs to start caring about British (that dosent mean just white brits, but British citizens) Britain has ALWAYS looked after it's own citizens above everyone else. Again just because the papers say it doesn't, doesn't mean it's true. Why do you think their is a commonwealth? Because Britiain has been on a world-wide raping mission over the past 400 years so it could start and maintain the industrial revolution and be the first industrial superpower. Read or research some stuff on the British presence in Africa, India/Pakistan, Australia, The South Pacific etc. and then come back and tell me that Britain doesn't look out for itself over everyone else. The main reason we get immigrants in this country is because of where Britain has been, had an often devastating influence and left. Most people in Fiji still call England 'The Mother Land.' It's pretty much the British Empire's fault everyone wants to come here and I'm sure (and I'd fully support) people who were pissed off at what the Emipre did in the past and felt like they were owed something. Just because i would have voted BNP does not make me a racist. In much the same way voting Tory does not make me a toff. What I am saying is this... "If you are aware, aware being the key word, (which you are) that the BNP is fundamentaly racist and you STILL choose to vote for them, you are a racist." There are no two ways about it. I've offered alternative political parties that suit and address your immigration and 'working man' issues and you have said that the BNP represents you best, so you are a racist. Edited June 11, 2009 by Nicktendo
danny Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 "If you are aware, aware being the key word, (which you are) that the BNP is fundamentaly racist and you STILL choose to vote for them, you are a racist." There are no two ways about it. I've offered alternative political parties that suit and address your immigration and 'working man' issues and you have said that the BNP represents you best, so you are a racist. Your not listening i have said i would not vote for the BNP. Not since certain remarks were made. I havent said they represent me best. I have said they would be the ultimate protest vote. Too me a blank vote isnt a protest vote as you havent voted for anyone so they dont need to worry about it. If you vote for the BNP and people do in numbers as they have been. The other partys need to worry. I don't know enough about the war in Afghanistan to comment on this, but if you say it's a NATO operation then I agree, all NATO nations should have a presence. However, I thought that all NATO nations were fighting in Afghanistan and it was Iraq where the illegal war was taking place, where the only forces were the UK, US and Canada. It is debatable as to the legality of the Iraq qar. I personally think it was moraly right. But not for the reasons that zanu labour gave. It was right to go as saddam had bassically broken the cease fire he signed after the gulf war. The problem was that the UN didnt have the teeth to follow through on its commitments, yet again another example of other countrys not willing to pull there weight. He had been given chance after chance for over 10 years. The Iraqi peopl were suffering. Yes they suffered during the war but how long would they have gone on suffering without the war?
Nicktendo Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Your not listening i have said i would not vote for the BNP. Not since certain remarks were made. Ok, had those remarks not been made, would you have voted for them, despite being aware of their questionable policies? I havent said they represent me best. I have said they would be the ultimate protest vote. Too me a blank vote isnt a protest vote as you havent voted for anyone so they dont need to worry about it. If you vote for the BNP and people do in numbers as they have been. The other partys need to worry. You are correct that the other parties need to worry but I don't think it's the best way to go about it. It's a sad day for politics when something our ancestors faught so bravely to defeat has come back to represent us only 2 generations later. It is debatable as to the legality of the Iraq qar. I personally think it was moraly right. But not for the reasons that zanu labour gave. It was right to go as saddam had bassically broken the cease fire he signed after the gulf war. The problem was that the UN didnt have the teeth to follow through on its commitments, yet again another example of other countrys not willing to pull there weight. He had been given chance after chance for over 10 years. The Iraqi peopl were suffering. Yes they suffered during the war but how long would they have gone on suffering without the war? While I agree to an extent with what you're saying I think this should be disucssed in the War thread. I'll happily discuss it with you and I think we'll agree more on it lol.
MoogleViper Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 You are correct that the other parties need to worry but I don't think it's the best way to go about it. It's a sad day for politics when something our ancestors faught so bravely to defeat has come back to represent us only 2 generations later. But the BNP aren't going to gain enough power/support to make a difference. But by them gaining some popularity it shows the other parties that people are fed up with them.
BlueStar Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) The labour govenment are more or less compleatly to blambe for the mess the country is in. They were supposed to control and regulate banks they didnt. So the main thing Labour got wrong was becoming too much like the Tories and all other fiscally conservative parties and not regulating business tightly enough? It was Thatcher who started the deregulation of financial institutions. You can blame New Labour for abandoning their socialist roots in not reversing it, but you can't blame them for it happening in the first place. More regulation = Left/Socialist/Liberal Less regulation = Right/Capitalist/Conservative Voting Tory because you don't think Labour haven't regulated financial institutions strictly enough is like voting Republican because you don't think Obama supports gay marriage enough. Edited June 12, 2009 by BlueStar
Gizmo Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Probably because other countries have enough sense to keep their noses out of business which doesn't concern them. Britain has such an over-blown sense of self-importance that it feels it has to act as the World Police. (Obviously America is much worse for this than we are.) Article 5 says it is their business.
The fish Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 Two things @ Danny: the BNP are not, and never can be, a good idea in any way, shape or form. Secondly, please stop referring to Labour as "Zanu Labour" - I don't give a shit how bad you perceive the Labour Party to be, but they cannot, should not, and never can be compared to the racist, evil thuggishness that is Zanu PF.
jayseven Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 Iota 1: The BNP are, as Dan Dare said, sly bastards who use rhetoric and national emotions to overshadow their intentions. I listened to a speech that was made by the dude elected for a EU seat, and he made some interesting claims -- I mean, someone like me who pseudo-believes in conspiracies, he said that he wants to get a team in to investigate the actual actions of the EU and its confederation of governments. In respect to the recent scandal with our own national MPs, I think this is a valid concern to many individuals - that our governing bodies are honest. (which is why I like teh Lib-Dems, for they do honesty the proper way, unlike Cameron and his conservative bullshit) I don't think that people should be out on the streets booing or mugging BNP MPs or anything. They can just use their oppression as some sort of parallel to other oppressed minorities over the decades, and I also think that it would be akin to lowering ourselves to 'their (perceived) level if we allow for any such anger to be released. In one sense, it is good for the EU to have right-wing parties in the parliament. It means that all issues will be contended and debated thoroughly. If the EU was 100% comprised of the same party system then I would be far more worried than I am about one back-bencher getting in. The BNP dude will cause a ruckus when and where he can - and I do believe that he will pick his moments as such to increase domestic party support - but ultimately the new support he seeks is found through highlighting the beurocratic system's faults. people who encourage violence or censorship of the BNP are scared that the BNP will eventually gain some sort of real power. They need to just learn to sit back and laugh at the BNP, and instead address the reasons behind why voters elected 'facist' MEPs rather than more conservative, or liberal, individuals. My earlier question was not answered; how many people here complaining about the results actually voted? (p.s. I mentioned the whole zanu labour thing before, too. I think it's like saying "gaystation poo.")
MoogleViper Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 I don't get why people are making a fuss over it. BNP are never going to get much power. There are far too many people of other ethnicities in this country to stop them from getting any sort of majority.
Will Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 All very serious at the moment this thread, just seen this and it made me chuckle. Sorry if it's been posted before:
BlueStar Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 White supremacist gunman James W. von Brunn had links to BNP http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6481475.ece
navarre Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 White supremacist gunman James W. von Brunn had links to BNPhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6481475.ece I hope he's suffering now. These are the sorts of people we need to eradicate from society, most probably down to better education and harsher prison sentences.
Eenuh Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 it just feels like there are rules set out in Europe and we will either follow them to the line or pass them. And other countrys will just do what they wish. The war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation. Yet there are only 3 countrys who are loosing lads on a regular basis UK, US and Canada. What is the point in us being in these things if other countrys arent pulling there weight. Britian needs to start caring about British (that dosent mean just white brits, but British citizens) These three countries are -not- the only ones who have soldiers in Afghanistan. I know for a fact that Belgium has soldiers there too, but since we're such a small country the amount of soldiers we can send is a lot less compared to the UK, US and Canada. And I'm pretty sure there's soldiers from other countries there as well.
The fish Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 These three countries are -not- the only ones who have soldiers in Afghanistan. I know for a fact that Belgium has soldiers there too, but since we're such a small country the amount of soldiers we can send is a lot less compared to the UK, US and Canada. And I'm pretty sure there's soldiers from other countries there as well. Indeed, a couple of months back a group of French soldiers were ambushed near Kabul, and quite a few (IIRC 13) were killed.
Shino Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 Yeah, even Portugal has a few there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#Contributing_nations Sorry danny, you're a bigot.
danny Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 These three countries are -not- the only ones who have soldiers in Afghanistan. I know for a fact that Belgium has soldiers there too, but since we're such a small country the amount of soldiers we can send is a lot less compared to the UK, US and Canada. And I'm pretty sure there's soldiers from other countries there as well. I never said that other countrys didnt send troops there. But sending a few troops to Kabul is very very different to sending troops to the south close to the Pakistan border. Infact i forgot a country Denmark are in Helmland and they are very up for it. Which is proof smaller countrys can provide true support in the way bigger countrys. Indeed, a couple of months back a group of French soldiers were ambushed near Kabul, and quite a few (IIRC 13) were killed. They got very unlucky. France are probably the biggest culprits for a country not pulling there weight. They took those casulaties but they were very very unlucky to. Yeah, even Portugal has a few there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#Contributing_nations Sorry danny, you're a bigot. Yeah from someone who has been to afghan recenttly i do know what countrys make up ISAF. Im also aware of which countrys are pulling there weight and which arnt. United States - 26,215 United Kingdom - 8,300 Germany - 3,465 Canada - 2,830 France - 2,780 Italy - 2,350 Poland - 2,000 Netherlands - 1,770 Turkey - 1,300 Australia - 1,090 Romania - 860 Bulgaria - 820 Spain - 780 Denmark - 700 Czech Republic - 580 Norway - 490 Belgium - 650 Hungary - 370 Sweden - 290 Croatia - 280 Slovakia - 230 Lithuania - 200 Macedonia - 170 Latvia - 160 New Zealand - 150 Albania - 140 Estonia - 140 Greece - 140 Finland - 110 Azerbaijan - 90 Slovenia - 70 Portugal - 180 United Arab Emirates - 25 Singapore - 20 Ukraine - 10 Luxembourg - 9 Iceland - 8 Ireland - 7 Jordan - 7 Austria - 2 Bosnia and Herzegovina - 2 Georgia - 1 Even looking a the numbers dosent give a true representaion of what nations are doing. Germany and France are the main sources of bad feeling as to people who arnt pulling there weight. Both are large nations which could do a lot more. Germany has some issues though with its laws and the fact it still has a form of nation service. France has no such issues. The UK and US govenments are a bit pissed with Germany though as they were happy for huge numbers of our troops to sit on the rhine etc for the latter half of the 20th centuary to stol a red invasion but now that threat has largely disapeared a NATO has a new rold they are unwilling to do there share. I will pretnd i didnt read the biggot remark. If you cant understand that i have different views to you and have to start calling names whos the facist?
Recommended Posts