Did you even read it.
Love Britain ? - Vote UKIP.
- Thread starter Moradin
- Start date
- Status
Did you even read it.
Rubbish. As if you need to earn the right to complain about the unethical and criminal behavior of people running these political parties.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
[TW]Fox;26223020 said:
But we back them to make sound economic decisions on our behalf. Can you name me a government who did this in the last 20 years? Between immigration fail, selling our gold at a low price, racking up national debt etc.
Are they more informed than us and if so who's informing them? Are they making rational objective decisions for our welfare or that fit in with their political ideals regardless of the reports in front of them?
The problem with an objective referendum on the EU is who can actually quantify what we will gain or lose? In who's best interest is it to show us only selective data?
Complaining about criminality is somewhat different than party policy.Rubbish. As if you need to earn the right to complain about the unethical and criminal behavior of people running these political parties.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
The problem with hindsight is that it's very easy to look back and say 'Well duh, that was obviously the wrong decision'. There will have been many other decisions made over the last 20 years, decisions that nobody knows or cares about because there were zero negative consequences.
Some obvious howlers in there of course but generally speaking it's very easy to sit there and say 'Well that wasn't a good idea'. Far easier than it is to make the decision in the first place without the benefit of hindsight.
Yes, they are obviously more informed than we are. They have access to higher level information we don't, they have access to official information far in advance of us and they have access to qualified, educated advisors. It is daft to suggest they are no more informed than we are, they quite obviously are.
I suspect what you mean is that do they use this information to the full effect and do they use it to make the right decisions. I don't know. Probably, most of the time.
I suspect a bit of both.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Yea but if I have the power to commission a report into xyz I know will give me the answer im looking for I will request that information, not zyb which might not. Therefore I can present a factual proposition supported by the research data I commissioned while omitting the data they don't want to see showcased.
For example immigration, parties are trying to show it im the best possible light i.e it's an economic boon. They might be doing so because to say otherwise might be detrimental to their popularity if they were the ones who allowed that immigration to happen. They might want to stay in Europe so only offer positive information on it, omitting the negative implications as they might boost support for UKIP policies.
How do you get around that and decipher who Is most and least economical with the truth?
for Instance, labour want to stay in the5 eu so will they present ucl report that immigration was a net 25 bill boost to the economy or migration watch s recalibration of the figure to a net cost of 25 billion between 01-11.
For example immigration, parties are trying to show it im the best possible light i.e it's an economic boon. They might be doing so because to say otherwise might be detrimental to their popularity if they were the ones who allowed that immigration to happen. They might want to stay in Europe so only offer positive information on it, omitting the negative implications as they might boost support for UKIP policies.
How do you get around that and decipher who Is most and least economical with the truth?
for Instance, labour want to stay in the5 eu so will they present ucl report that immigration was a net 25 bill boost to the economy or migration watch s recalibration of the figure to a net cost of 25 billion between 01-11.
Last edited:
Why are these people:
1) Less qualified to say what is best for the country than you?
2) Not entitled to a vote on a national issue if they wish to have one? It is a democracy after all.
Oh, I'm sorry - dear boy - what is it about "flooded with racial aliens" that you don't think is the very definition of racist?
Party policies and associated conduct are unethical.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,755
- Location
- Welling, London
I have to admit, the growing wave of UKIP support is starting to get absolutely massive. In the lead ahead of labour, tories and Llib dems in yougov poll. That's astounding!
Because it isn't the same as "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"
*The oxford dictionary version
"flooded with racial aliens" is saying how it seems to the person saying it, it does not suggest anything about anyone being inferior or superior because of their race.
As I said, you don't get it.
Oh yeah, and why are you any more qualified than anyone else to decide how you feel about something.
Lefties do my nut, they always think they views are the only ones to be considered and usually start smashing stuff up when others don't agree with them.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;26223020 said:
Democracy is all about feelings, and how something makes you feel I'm afraid, it always has been and it always will be.
If the majority of the population doesn't feel like inviting loads of non-english speakers to large parts of the country and they actually are allowed to say how they feel instead of being dictated to then so be it.
Democracy. I can guarantee the turnout for an EU referendum would be MASSIVE.
[TW]Fox;26223275 said:
It's a democracy and if you don't like it then leave....simples really.
Oh but don't move to the US were democracy is even worse
It's a representative democracy, which means we elect people to represent our views and vote on our behalf on issues. This is why we don't go to the polls for every decision a government needs to make.
Surely you must have realised this by the fact there has been only a single referendum for the entire UK (As opposed to the devolution ones) in the last 40 years?
If referendums were the way we normally did things in our democratic system why only one in 40 years?
[TW]Fox;26223789 said:
And this is were it fails. Cameron "I will give you the vote on the EU in or out" idiots believed him but then hie came back with..
"I don't think it's prudent to do so in this parliament" in other words You(voter) fell for it.I'm in power so kiss my ass.
- Status