ReZourceman Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 @ rez : shame on you soiling this poor innocent mind!! Its practically my duty.
The fish Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 If anyone decides to do that be very, very careful I've heard stories of IP's being traced and people being hunted down and attacked. These people are dangerous, violent thugs. You know something is seriously wrong with you and your political message when you have to use violence to stop those who argue against you. Secondly, the IP thing can be gotten around - proxy servers, for a start, would probably solve the issue...
Pestneb Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 First thread I clicked: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=607656 This WhiteChick666 seems quite fiesty. I feel quite a few members here would agree with what that forum is saying... I think we should join. lol.. I think joining that site could be potentially unwise considering my current future career plans, even if it was just to disagree. I think this vote is either a damning reflection on the state of education (particularly on recent enough history) in those areas with strong BNP support, or a damning reflection on the culture/intelligence of the people in that area. People on my course were saying the other day about how their boyfriends were voting for BNP - makes me angry. I didn't manage to vote because I've been busy with uni work and didn't get everything sorted out, but I'm glad to say that the BNP didn't get in back home or at uni so my vote wasn't needed - I'd have been upset if they had gotten in though, as I've voted at every election I've been eligible to vote for so far.
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 By "I think we should join" I take it you mean "en-mass troll/forum rape"? I would never suggest such a thing.
BlueStar Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Stormfront is possibly the original internet hate site and it's been around forever, They're probably more experienced in dealing with board invasions than anyone else on the internet. The founder and admin of the Stormfront board is on that "Top ten list of people banned from Britain" that the government released recently.
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Stormfront is possibly the original internet hate site and it's been around forever, They're probably more experienced in dealing with board invasions than anyone else on the internet. The founder and admin of the Stormfront board is on that "Top ten list of people banned from Britain" that the government released recently. Tis a good read on the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website) [Didn't read it all] One thing I did notice was that one of the white-supremisists was called Donald Black.
Haden Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 I actually feel ashamed to be British this morning. Loads of Brits didn't vote for them though don't feel so bad! I'd never let those losers make me feel bad about my heritage cause they aren't a part of it they are a footnote.
Gizmo Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 The problem is not with the electoral system. The "fact" that "they got 2 of 69 with only 3% of votes, it's unfair" is entirely misleading: the system is Regionally based, and so it is their proportion in a single region which determines it. For example, the SNP will have a lower share of the votes at national level compared to regional level, because they won't have gotten any votes in England and Wales. So should they see diminished results because of this? No. If that was how it worked, how would any independents ever be elected? The system is entirely fair. The system is not the problem. The problem is the half-wits that didn't do enough research as to know what they were talking about and who they were voting for.
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 I've managed to come across this Russell Brand programme someone mentioned earlier about him with Mark Collett. I thought that Brand looked like a prick before, I have been amazed. I cannot believe I prefer his present appearance.
Nicktendo Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 I've managed to come across this Russell Brand programme someone mentioned earlier about him with Mark Collett. I thought that Brand looked like a prick before, I have been amazed. I cannot believe I prefer his present appearance. I absolutley despised Russell Brand before I watched that. Now I have a sort of semi-respect for him but still think he's a weirdo. And yes, he dresses like a tool. This is a bit of a lolworthy slip and slice of Sky News ownage... The fact that 2.21% of the entire electorate voted for the BNP actually makes me feel a bit more at ease about this. If only people would actually get out and vote then there would be much more chance of them being stopped.
navarre Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 I'm disgusted that a single vote was cast for the facists this very nation heroicly fought against 60 years ago- ironically, the BNP attracts elderly people who fought in or lived during WW2. What a bloody mess. Thankfully, seeing as people did turn towards the minor parties, UKIP did far better than the BNP, and at least some of their policies make sense. Imagine the chaos if the two parties swapped votes...
Zechs Merquise Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 I find it odd that people complain about the BNP getting seats. They won them absolutely fair and square in the system all parties have to operate under. Just because you personally don't agree with them doesn't make it disgusting and unfair that they have gained seats. The people that want to be represented have chosen them with their votes and that's that. I don't agree with the views of the BNP at all' date=' but to say its disgusting/a disgrace/unfair etc. that they have some seats is pretty much lowering yourself to their level.[/quote'] Spot on. This nonsense that it's unfair for people to vote for a party you don't like is pathetic! Maybe a lot of people think it's unfair that MPs like Shahid Malik spent taxpayers money on massage chairs and home cinema systems for their second home (which is also at the taxpayers expense).
Jonnas Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Spot on. This nonsense that it's unfair for people to vote for a party you don't like is pathetic! Maybe a lot of people think it's unfair that MPs like Shahid Malik spent taxpayers money on massage chairs and home cinema systems for their second home (which is also at the taxpayers expense). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought people were more disgusted with the non-voters than with the BNP supporters. And understandably so.
Coolness Bears Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Its practically my duty. Don't cry for me. I'm already dead...
jayseven Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 So how many of you guys actually voted? I think Jonnas is on the right track. BNP got a seat because people like me didn't bother voting at all - I admit I didn't even know anything was happening, but still.
Platty Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 It seems we were not the only country to let far right parties get seats in Europe. Far right parties in coutries such Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Holland and Romania all won seats. Somethings gone seriously wrong if all these european countries are voting for far right parties. Immigration and the financial crash are obviously big issues in not only our country but around Europe. A lot of these parties are lot worse than the BNP. I'll let you all read up on their policies and be shocked by what they say but just take a look at the Dutch one who are so anti-islamic it's unreal. The party is run by Geert Wilders who you may remember was banned for entering Britain for his offensive views. The scary thing is his party only came second to the current Prime Ministers party out there. Worrying times for Europe. Hopefully the main parties will now ask themselves why people are voting far right and address the issues that people have concerns over which lead them to vote for a far right party.
MoogleViper Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 How is it unfair? They got those seats because people voted for them. They have every right to be in that seat whether you agree with their views or not. I can't stand the Tories, but I don't say that it's unfair that they cleaned out at the locals. I cannot fathom anyone saying it's "fair" for someone with those kind of views to get into the political system. It's like we've just taken a 50 year step back. I'm aware people voted for them, and I'm away it's a democracy, but I don't give a toss to be quite honest. Whoever thought voting for a party such as them deserves no respect whatsoever. Because we live in a democracy. You complain about them being facists yet you say that somebody with those views shouldn't be allowed in politics? Enough people agreed with their views so they clearly deserve those seats. You can't live in a democracy but then whinge and cry when somebody with views that aren't PC come into power. Instead of complaining that people are voting for BNP why don't you take a look at why they chose to vote for BNP. And don't give any "only thick people vote for BNP" bullshit. Whatever happened to freedom of thought? Just because people don't agree with you and your PC views it doesn't make them wrong and uneducated.
Shino Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 There goes my European dream. I hope this continent doesn't implode again.
Haden Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 There goes my European dream. I hope this continent doesn't implode again. It wont this is nothing dramatic.
The fish Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 A lot of these parties are lot worse than the BNP. I'll let you all read up on their policies and be shocked by what they say but just take a look at the Dutch one who are so anti-islamic it's unreal. The party is run by Geert Wilders who you may remember was banned for entering Britain for his offensive views. Actually, he was banned (which is awful in itself, I don't think anyone should be outright banned for their beliefs, even the KKK guy or the Phelps family) because the government didn't want to have "certain communities" react in a disruptive manner because of his presence. This isn't speculation or my personal spin, this is what the government said, and the grounds on which they banned him.
chairdriver Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 Actually, he was banned (which is awful in itself, I don't think anyone should be outright banned for their beliefs, even the KKK guy or the Phelps family) because the government didn't want to have "certain communities" react in a disruptive manner because of his presence. This isn't speculation or my personal spin, this is what the government said, and the grounds on which they banned him. Which is fair enough, IMO. You're as much at fault for being provocative as you are doing the actual crime.
Zechs Merquise Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 Actually, he was banned (which is awful in itself, I don't think anyone should be outright banned for their beliefs, even the KKK guy or the Phelps family) because the government didn't want to have "certain communities" react in a disruptive manner because of his presence. This isn't speculation or my personal spin, this is what the government said, and the grounds on which they banned him. Spot on, the guy isn't a criminal, so he has views some people don;t like - that's life. If the people who don't like what he has to say react in a violent way it is them who should be punished.
Nicktendo Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 Spot on, the guy isn't a criminal, so he has views some people don;t like - that's life. If the people who don't like what he has to say react in a violent way it is them who should be punished. What's ironic is that if the UK hadn't banned him and he recieved no media attention if and when he came then no-one would have batted an eyelid. Yet it's the media dictating where and when the public need to direct their hatred and outrage with their over the top coverage on matters such as this. All the while the governemnt is subtly censoring society by banning certain individuals from entering the country and taking away their right to freedom of speech, no matter how outlandish and out of date their views may be. Instead of having a balanced public discussion with the man in question, the government and the media would rather kick up a hysterical fuss because a few ethnic minorities might kick off and start rioting. When surely if this man would allowed to speak in an unbiased atmosphere, the minute he opened his mouth everyone would be able to dismiss and laugh at his barbaric views and challenege him to defend them, which he probably wouldn't be able to do very eloquently.
ipaul Posted June 9, 2009 Author Posted June 9, 2009 Which is fair enough, IMO. You're as much at fault for being provocative as you are doing the actual crime. And the Government provoked a lot of rage and generated huge publicity for him. They should have just let him in quietly, I found it quite patronising that the government did not let him in.
Recommended Posts