|
|
Post by snowwiewolf on Sept 23, 2003 11:10:21 GMT -5
I've known one of the guys since 1st grade and he's always been like that  |
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Sept 23, 2003 13:29:01 GMT -5
Don't forget, there is a lot of anti american feeling in the government of late, in my opinion. You must be joking. Our government is sycophantically pro-American - it took us to war without UN support, it caved in to US demands for exemption from the International Criminal Court and it allowed the USA to get away with sacking the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons because he wanted to inspect America (though a while ago Blair did comment that the US wasn't doing enough for the environment; one might say that he was attacking Bush's rear from the inside). In the light of the phenomenally lucky aversion of most of the disasters predicted by the war's opponents, my position has shifted, since the fall of Baghdad, from firm opposition to grave doubt, but I remain in no doubt that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified: Kabul and its immediate hinterlands are liberated but the rest of the country remains under the control of various despotic warlords, some of them fronts for the Taliban. There's nothing wrong with pro-Americanism as long as one refers to the nation and not the government, a bunch of lying, fundamentalist, pro-pollution corporate crooks headed by an unelected president. Sadly most of the Democrats are little better. Long live Dennis Kucinich! Long live Ralph Nader! Long live the Green Party! Long live Michael Moore! www.kucinich.us/www.votenader.com/www.gp.org/www.michaelmoore.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by Malefact on Sept 23, 2003 14:40:34 GMT -5
My personal position is one of general apathy because I cannot do anything about it and there is no point in getting cut up about it. Moreover, I make it a general policy not to decide whether any particular action is 'good' or 'bad' because there are far too many pros and cons. Far too many possible viewpoints that can be adopted.
At the end of the day, all we can really do is watch the news and think 'I wish they'd play nicely'. So, I tend not to watch the news.
|
|
|
|
Post by Romana on Sept 24, 2003 3:49:47 GMT -5
I don't like watching the news much either - although I have to 'cause my mum watches it every day. There's far too much doom and gloom - the threat of terrorism (it's being constantly shoved down our throats), disease epidemics, famine, natural disasters, murder, war, things in food that could lead to getting cancer etc... I want to hear about good things, not bad! Sometimes I agree that ignorance is definately bliss...
|
|
|
|
Post by PhoenixFlame on Sept 25, 2003 3:45:51 GMT -5
Thanatos, I wasn't referring to the government in general, but a certain faction of it. Apologies if I didn't make that clear. I believe that there are certain factions of this governement are anti-american.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Sept 25, 2003 16:03:12 GMT -5
I believe that there are certain factions of this governement are anti-american. Such as? |
|
|
|
Post by Malefact on Sept 25, 2003 16:11:38 GMT -5
All those who want the votes of the portion of the general public who are anti-American!  |
|
MPK
Dungeoneer
Posts: 198
|
Post by MPK on Sept 25, 2003 17:30:36 GMT -5
I believe that on this war, and like a lot of things in politics, we are not told the entirety of the story!
What we read and see in the media is everything that they want us to see, or in other words everthing that makes them (the media) right! Even if they did find WMD's in Iraq, are you really expecting a report in the newspapers against the war from day 1?
The Hutton Inquiry proves this so much, if you watched BBC news talking about Dr.Kelly's death after it had just happened, they interviewed friends and family, but edited it to favor the BBC! However on ITV, they interviewed the same person with the same question but a full answer was given, which did not put the BBC in as great a light as previously mentioned!
This is the reason why I dont read newspapers anymore, they are full of opinions and I prefer to read the news facts and make my own opinions!
As for World Peace, I believe that if you like it or not, it is not possible! Good cannot exist without evil and vice versa, this is because if something were entirely good, how would you know if something like a future policy was truly good or really evil? As they would no longer be a scale to put it against, and people against this policy, although would be fighting for good, would be seen as evil! If u get my meaning!
|
|
|
|
Post by Malefact on Sept 25, 2003 17:45:49 GMT -5
Yup. It's all relative.
Look at the native American Indians, for example. They were sent to ghettos. Sorry! I meant 'plantations'!
|
|
|
|
Post by RoxxAatherton on Sept 26, 2003 5:57:01 GMT -5
What we read and see in the media is everything that they want us to see, or in other words everthing that makes them (the media) right! ... ...The Hutton Inquiry proves this so much, if you watched BBC news talking about Dr.Kelly's death after it had just happened, they interviewed friends and family, but edited it to favor the BBC! ... No way! what the tv channels manipulate stories to show who they want in a favourable light? Who would've thought?! hehe And I'm also pro USA and had no problems with the whole war on iraq, so lets face it you probably hate me! On an even better note i dont get the UN and just hate Europe in general because I AM ENGLISH DAMMIT! not Europoen! NOT British! ENGLISH! ( and if we join the Euro then I'm going to become American) Hurrah! Tally Ho! Let's go hunting! (Oops, no doubt another subject that some fo us will be strongly opposed to  ) ;D |
|
|
|
Post by snowwiewolf on Sept 26, 2003 9:29:05 GMT -5
I agree with you Roxx on the Euro. Why oh why? Why did we join!? I'm moving to sweden....atleast they were smart enough not to join the Euro...
|
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Sept 26, 2003 14:16:25 GMT -5
All those who want the votes of the portion of the general public who are anti-American! The government does just the opposite - this is what their opponents (the Liberal Democrats and real Labour back-benchers) do. ITV News, MPK, is rubbish. It's the tabloid of TV news. BBC and Channel 4 News are immeasurably superior in every way. I can understand your attitude to the EU and the Euro (the latter seems a very good idea politically and a very bad one economically, and, believing though I do that everyone has a duty to vote in all elections, a Euro referendum is the one election I wouldn't vote in), Roxxy, but I'm quite disturbed by your reference to the UN. It's this kind of attitude from the inner circle of the Thief-in-Chief that threatens to destroy international order and pave the way for an American empire. Furthemore I loathe patriotism and can see no reason whatsoever to be proud to be British or English (or European). The Americans are even worse - I want to vomit every time I hear the words, "God bless America" (though, like just about every nation on Earth, they have a better national anthem than us). As for hunting, I'm very much looking forward to a ban, though I can see the point of the Countryside Alliance (the moderate wing of the BNP) who say that it'll be unenforceable - how on Earth are the police supposed to spot a hundred and fifty people in red blazers on horseback, blowing bugles, talking very loudly and surrounded by baying hounds? What really pleases me, though, is that a ban would enable the police to chase the Huntryside Alliance across the country with police horses and dogs, which will be wonderful, because fox-hunters, quite frankly, are pests. Snowwiewolf, I agree that Sweden would be a good place to go but for different reasons: high taxes and decent public services. That's what Britain needs. Finally, abolish the monarchy! |
|
|
|
Post by Malefact on Sept 26, 2003 14:22:37 GMT -5
I can do nothing better but quote from Yes, Prime Minister:
"Taxation isn't about what you need! The Treasury don't work out how much it needs to spend and works out how much to tax. They pitch for as much as they think they can get away with and THEN decide!"
Regarding the monarchy: would you honestly prefer to live in a republic? No-one votes for the monarchy, or most of the lords (although that is changing, dammit) so they have no vested political interests and are not in it for the money. Despite the decidedly dated feudal stylings of it, they are infinitely better than a government in that respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Sept 26, 2003 16:22:29 GMT -5
Yes, I would rather have an elected head of state. The position needn't have any power - the presidents of such countries as Germany and India are just figureheads. They'd be like the Queen but with a democratic mandate and immeasurably cheaper.
David Lloyd George described the House of Lords as "five hundred men chosen at random from amongst the unemployed". Tony Blair has changed "unemployed" to "retired". Do you want such people to be part of the legislature or do you want democracy? The entire upper house, like the lower, must be democratically elected. However, I belive it is wrong to look at reform of either house in isolation - both must be reformed.
I think the House of Commons should be elected by pure proportional representation using a national party list system (an open party list if it is practicable). MPs would thus not represent constituencies. Members of the upper house should be elected by the same constituencies as those of the current House of Commons (with the continuation of periodical boundary reviews) by alternative vote. Under this system, voters rank as many candidates as they wish in order of preference. The first-choice votes are counted and, unless one candidate has the majority of them, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated and his votes are transferred to the second choices of each voter. This process continues until one candidate has over half the votes. Furthermore, members of the upper house would be barred from holding government positions and people who had ever been a member of one house would be forbidden to stand for the other.
Under this system smaller parties would flourish, paving the way for greater democracy and more representative government. The upper house would be able both to be a check on the power of the lower, as is its function now, and to be the forum for local issues requiring parliamentary attention; private members' bills judged by the Speaker to pertain entirely to local issues would only be read and debated in the upper house unless a certain percentage of MPs (say, 15%) raised an objection, in which case there would be a debate and vote in the Commons. Since upper house members would be barred from ministerial office, they would have an incentive only to represent their constituents, not to seek power for themselves.
As for being in it for the money, I believe MPs' pay should be cut (though they'd need an expenses allowance, since they have to maintain two offices and, unless their constituency is in or near London, travel a lot) and that their salaries should go down as they rise in government or oppositon rank, with the Prime Minister himself receiving only the minimum wage plus expenses (though the latter would have to be pretty substantial for someone like the Prime Minister).
I admire your taste in comedy - Yes, Minister is a classic. Other wise words:
"Suppose you want to stop a major government plan; what do you do?"
"Join the Civil Service."
"What's wrong with sex education?"
"Well, I'm not against children being taught the facts of life in school, but not homosexual technique. Or heterosexual technique, for that matter."
"Where should they learn it, then?"
"Behind the bike sheds, like we did!"
"Did you?"
"When there is a Labour government we say that comprehensive schools abolish the class system, and when there is a Conservative government we say that they are the cheapest way of providing mass education. To Labour we say that selective education is divisive and to the Tories we say that it is expensive. That way we keep everyone happy, have a good relationship with the unions and educate our own children privately."
"He said lots of people wanted to know."
"Lots of people? Hardly anybody's ever heard of you."
"Maybe they meant 'lots of Radio 3 listeners'."
"Well, that's a contradiction in terms."
|
|
|
|
Post by RoxxAatherton on Sept 29, 2003 4:22:04 GMT -5
Clearly we're gonna have to agree to disagree thanty (and I know you hat me calling you that! ) Perhaps we should let this thread lie low for a while, we dont really need some mass political debate going on and now everyone's aired their views there's not a lot more to say on the subject. All I can say is Hurrah for England, the monarchy, foxhunting and the House of Lords and God Bless America! hehe  *edited to include 'bugger europe' |
|
)