The average intelligent person would start at the beginning. So either you have sub par intelligence or are being sarcastic. If it is the latter then can I suggest you leave it at the door as it often reflects badly on the author in that it suggest a weakness in the validity of what they are saying so they have to resort to ridiculing their opponent as a method of compensation. It also lessens anything of value you do say.
If you say so, surely the judgement is one made by those reading the thread, not those posting in it?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
How generous...
They either are, or they are not. There is no such thing as being partially pregnant. Likewise there is no such thing as being semi-illegal.
Yes there is, certainly in this case. It is perfectly legal to hold and express racist views. It is only illegal to incite hatred in others, or discriminate based on race in certain, specific and clearly defined situations. I really can't see how you can claim anything else.
Being racist is not illegal.
You can be as racist as you want? Erm, no you can't as their are laws against, including the ones you have just mentioned.
You can be as racist as you want when you aren't infringing the rights of others in the process.
Which is why it is important to be wary of authoritarian left wing governments as it to be wary of fascism.
Indeed.
I am glad now I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Exactly Dolph, it is important to let the BNP speak. Indeed it does show their flaws. The actions of UAF/Searchlight only bolster support for the BNP by making a martyr of the party.
Indeed the actions of the UAF certainly fall within the remit of being facists themselves.
Yes, I've never argued otherwise. The BNP can be argued against quite effectively without resorting to such tactics, simply because their party is institutionally racist, and their policies are at best, completely unworkable.
Assumptions are never fair. They are clouded by personal prejudice. With prejudice being the reason you are sticking it to the BNP.
Assumptions are fair, provided they are made on a fair basis. As I said, there are other anti-immigration parties without the endemic racism. That leaves two options, BNP voters are racist, or ignorant of the parties polices and purpose. The latter can be fought with education, the former is best described as a personality defect and left at that... As for personal prejudice, the only prejudice I have is against those who want to arbitarily infringe the rights of others, I believe they should be prevented from doing so.
It is not fair to assume people who vote BNP are rascist. As I stated many times, people vote on what party offers the BEST FIT for their immediate concerns. If you lived in an area blighted by illegal immigrants who for some reason the government is unable to deport even after being found they have no right to be in this country, would you not turn to the BNP?
No, I would never turn to the BNP, if I wanted a severe immigration crackdown, I'd chose one of the other, non-racist parties offering that as a policy.
It's all very well to live in an ivory tower looking down and assuming about people but you are not affected by these issues. Might be different if it was in your back yard eh?
No, because I have a strong set of principles, and thos principles have served me well, no matter what my current situation has been at the time.
Indeed. Both the far left and the far right are worrysome. Yet for some reason it is far more socially acceptable at the moment to be far left then it is to be far right.
That's mainly because, although far left authoritarianism is heavy handed, it treats everyone equally in that it doesn't discriminate on arbitary factors such as race, gender, sexuality or religion. It's authoritarianism comes from trying to forcibly eliminate those discriminations. The far right tries to discriminate directly against people based on which arbitary classification they fall into. It's fairly easy to see why one stance is much more acceptable than the other.
The anti-fascist UAF are just as much a menance as the BNP.
I'm yet to see that, we've only really had the egg pelting incident. I don't approve of them, but I'm yet to see as much concerning behaviour from them as I do from the BNP.
That depends on what you class racism to be. Unless of course your opinion of racism is the official and only valid version in the world I suggest you retract that my argument starts with a flawed assumption. Are you the world authority on the meaning of racism? Is yours the only 'right' definition? No, I didn't think so. And you claim to be against all kinds of Authoritarian behaviour. So no, my point does not 'fail from there'.
Racism is discrimination based on race. The BNP constitution explicitly discriminates based on race. I don't see how you can claim it to be anything other than racist.
Although the term 'racism' usually denotes race-based prejudice, violence, discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and hotly contested definitions. Racialism is a related term, sometimes intended to avoid these negative meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Definitions
The BNP directly restricts membership based on racial groupings, as well as advocating immigration and resettlement policies based on race. They are racist by any of the definitions above.
Note I have not advocated that action should be taken against the BNP for their racist views (beyond bringing their views into full view), so quite how you can claim this shows I have authoritarian tendancies I have absolutely no idea.
The number of voters across the board were lower for all parties Dolph. Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, BNP. I am astounded how much spin you are attributing to this by claiming they didn't get into power when blatantly they did otherwise they wouldn't have two EURO MP's would they? You should stand for an MP yourself, you have that knack of flatly denying the facts whilst claiming a victory in a failure.
They had perfect storm conditions (thanks Rich_L) for a large increase in their vote with the expenses scandal, the recession and so on, the fact that they failed to make any significant headway (I don't consider winning two seats by default because several hundred thousand Labour voters stayed at home headway) is very telling of how popular the party really is. These are the facts, as clear as day.
See the above post Dolph. A posters claims that a party didn't get into power at all when they blatantly did is not in any position to admonish anyone else about not presenting the facts correctly.
They didn't get into power, they gained 2 seats out of 72 seats. They are as relevant as the Green party (who incidentally got a higher share of the popular vote) in the Euro elections, and as relevant as Mebyon Kernow in the local government elections, as they won the same number of seats.
I don't see how this is not presenting the facts, again, I am being entirely honest about their standing and influence, by comparing them to other parties with similar numbers.
Now I regret giving the benefit of the doubt. However you are entitled to your opinion of me. My argument is poor because you don't like it would be a more honest answer.
No, your argument is poor because it's badly worded (see the 'in power' idea), trying to use semantic dodges (see the 'definition of racism' discussion and the 'racism is illegal' discussion) and generally is trying to dramatically overplay the BNP's value, presence and influence in the UK, as well as trying to twist definitions to try and present others as being the bigots by disliking the BNP...
don't worry.
