|
Post by DaveTheRake on May 1, 2006 14:04:41 GMT 2
British National Party? Isn't it a party with Neo Fascism ideology? I read, when Le Pen almost get the govern in France, an article in a magazine about the extrem right political groups in Europe, and I think they said that party you say was a Nazi one. Be careful, Hitler also used immigration as an excuse to get the power in Germany.
By the way, do you think that people from right wing don't have sex while at work? DO you think right wing people don't take drugs? In Spain a guy called Ynestrillas was leader of a extreme right party, he always talked about erasing drugaddicts and things like that... he's in jail because he shooted a guy due to drug selling problems. I don't know if this exists in English, but we say in Spain one thing that I think it's wise: everywhere beans are boilt
|
|
MoonDancer
Clansman
"Voices are calling from somewhere below"
Posts: 384
|
Post by MoonDancer on May 1, 2006 14:37:35 GMT 2
MoonDancer. Well I can now understand the prnce for doing that, but not only is he trying to get back at his family, he is also offending people of the UK and other European countries who were involved in the war. And to be honest there are alot more sons in worse conditions than him. For instance my neighbour is fostering a boy who hasn't never seen his Mum. and I think His dad used to hut him. He is not dressing up as offensives people from history and he is not doing anything abnormal. So the prince should grow up a bit and realise there are worse off people. You're right Olli. A misguise and a 9-5 job would help Prince Harry to realize the effects of his behaviour and the fact that his problem isn't the worst in Britain. BNP-Britsh National Party? I've never heard about it. Sex at work - I think it's quite common where people should work a lot. It not because of their political identity, but because of the fact that they're human and they fail. I think if sex affairs are mentioned in a political campaign there should be something behind it. You might have heard abot Clinton's scandal. I think Monica Lewinsky wanted to have sex with Clinton, but than, for some reasons he got angry for the ex-president, and seargch the republicans with the story. And this sex scandal was a good reason for republicans to get rid of Clinton. I don't think that Bush differs from Clinton in this. By the way, if a woman/girl does not want sex at the office, there won't be sex, if she wants, there will be. And I think those politicians in the scandal are men.
|
|
|
Post by Humppaporo on May 1, 2006 15:36:29 GMT 2
I think it's bad if you are judged or expelled from the political game because of sex affairs. Sex affairs have no influence on someone’s political capabilities. As Moondancer said: politicians are human and they fail, or be tempted, whatever. The stress is also huge in this kind of job. I am not saying this is a good or bad behaviour, I only state it has nothing to do with politics. And honestly I don't care about it at all. Imo this mud throwing game that goes with every American election is far worse. If a guy (or woman) ever used drugs, is kicked out of military services, is gay, has had sex with I don't know how many women should be really off topic. Fascistic and other extreme parties can be a problem. If you forbid their existence they go underground, and everyone looses sight on their activities; on the other hand when out in the open they get more attention and maybe more people are joining without further thoughts. These kind of parties also have their real followers and believers, as said we are all human, and not the same (luckily ) Freedom of thoughts is one of the most important things in the world; the trouble with it is sometimes that the freedom of one individual interferes with the freedom of another. Everyone has to make up for him/herself what his/her political view is, and not run after one or another party without thinking, a phenomena that happens all to often.
|
|
|
Post by teuton on May 1, 2006 20:46:33 GMT 2
Yeah, I agree. The romans said "Errare humanum est". And this is totally right. People have sex, it's an undoubted law of nature. So such an unimportant affair is something that people mustn't deal with in that way.
|
|
|
Post by Olli The Drunk Bear on May 2, 2006 14:33:55 GMT 2
Well yeah, I understand but I suppose it was the way the media portrayed this activity. They was saying it was a sex SCANDAL with one of the secretaries and Charles Clarke is married but my point here is that he has been invovled with other scandles, which Tony Blair is now deciding if Charles Clarke should be fired or not.
I would like to vote for the right party when I am 18 but due to the media and the politicians stunts I just feel confused and who to trust. If i do not vote then I feel guilty because I have the right to becuase of the brave sacrifices given by everybody who fought against Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by Olli The Drunk Bear on May 5, 2006 10:05:21 GMT 2
I retract my previous post about mentioning the sex scandle, becuase now the secritary is going to the media and saying that he has very small, shall we say private parts. My point here is that I dont care about the scandles and all the mud slinging. What annoys me is that the media is too fast for their own liking and would print anything. I'm sure no one wants to know about Charles Clarke's private parts. Instead the media should be reporting more benificial stuff. And I have decided not to vote. I am not going to vote for a while I think. Politics is such a messy game, which I shouldnt be a part of.
|
|
|
Post by DaveTheRake on May 5, 2006 12:37:52 GMT 2
The problem is that after every party there's a press holding, that's the way the parties find to have the dirty work they can't do done. I mean, a politician cannot laught in public of the private parts of another one, but still that's effective, you need soebody to do it. The problem is that th media is a loud-speaker to the words and facts of the politicians, and there are never an independent media. That's why you always have the same news with two faces depending on who says what.
|
|
|
Post by Olli The Drunk Bear on May 5, 2006 15:06:25 GMT 2
Yeh, I supose. But do you think it is wise not to vote because the confusion of which party seems more appropriate?. Or is it wise to vote not knowing which one to go for and vote anyway becuase it is a right?. As the young boy said on the One music video for metallica: "What is democracy?" And his father replies "It has something to do with young men killing each other" I just think that politics is a dirty game becuase of the deceit and lies among with lie ridden propaganda. I know there are good points to politics but with me the bad points over rule them.
|
|
MoonDancer
Clansman
"Voices are calling from somewhere below"
Posts: 384
|
Post by MoonDancer on May 7, 2006 0:21:35 GMT 2
Yeh, I supose. But do you think it is wise not to vote because the confusion of which party seems more appropriate?. I think it is always unwise not to vote. Not to vote means that you aren't interested in what will happen in your country. The problem is, that people always want to vote for the right party. The right party is the one which is closest to their ideals, so to say an ideal party. But ideal parties don't exist. Tnhere are many parties and amond them we should choose the best one. Which is the closest to our political ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Olli The Drunk Bear on May 8, 2006 11:01:27 GMT 2
Ok, thank you moondancer;) I just had confirmation that a peaodophile has been moved my little town, where there are more young kids than there is adults. What is going on here? I don't know why the local Government has moved the person here. also I'm not sure if you have heard of Maxine Carr who helped Ian Huntly to kidnapp Holly and Jessica about a few years ago, well she was moved to our little village aswell. Our town is nice and pleasant and for some reason the local government seems to think that it is ok to move these monsters here. Then moving to national government, Tony Blair has agreed to release the foriegn immigrants out of prison who were sentenced for child rape and murder.
|
|
|
Post by Humppaporo on May 8, 2006 16:52:12 GMT 2
When my kids were little there was such a man (paedophile) around in the neighbourhood. Schools gave warnings and parents picked their kids up at school. It is a real problem. But it's also bad to people who done this, they should not be punished all their lives for what they did wrong, they also need a home, and kids are everywhere. When the warning and description was given by school, some kids were taken away and sexually misused, but not by that man, another, 'respected' member of society did that... life is never safe. You always have to watch for your kids. We now live on the grounds of a former psychiatric institution. When we came here it was still active. Took some time to get used to the odd behaviour of the inhabitants, looking through your window (nose pressed against it, scaring the shit out of me, at first), rearranging our garden, taking things away, crying loud in the middle of (every) night, taking off all clothes when angry, even in the middle of the street. One man thought one of my (then 8 years old) sons was his' and always tried to get him in his house, another hated kids and ran after them with a knife. My daughter was waited for, and followed everywhere by a detained ex-prisoner (there were many of them here). It was just something to reckon with, not great, but 'normal' people are often also not the best. Misusing kids, or other vulnerable people/animals etc is really off limits, but also hard to fight. And now for something completely different, I read today: woman fashionIt is not just the outside that makes the inside free, but these kind of restricting measures...what do you all think about it?
|
|
|
Post by Olli The Drunk Bear on May 8, 2006 17:59:08 GMT 2
My point was Humppi' was that, the local government sends all these paeodophiles to our little village. wouldn't make more sense to send them to a much more suitible area?
|
|
|
Post by DaveTheRake on May 8, 2006 18:38:54 GMT 2
Yeh, I supose. But do you think it is wise not to vote because the confusion of which party seems more appropriate?. Or is it wise to vote not knowing which one to go for and vote anyway becuase it is a right?. I just think that politics is a dirty game becuase of the deceit and lies among with lie ridden propaganda. I know there are good points to politics but with me the bad points over rule them. I not only think voting is a right, but its a must to everyone of us simply because there were years ago people killed just because they wanted a fair system for public representation. Is our debt with those who died. It´s not that they struggled for something that can be judged as a right arbitrarily, is just that they struggled for the most fair system invented so far. If there's a better system to ellect your representatives and to have a voice in the system I will support it as well, but for now, democracy, with all its rubbish, is the best we've got so far. It has its weak points, but since we part from the begining that you can support freely who you think will rule best, and since the criterium to reach power is thanks to the support of the biggest number of votes collected, I think it's the most fair one. If you don't participate I don't think you've got moral right to complain. It's as if I enter in your room and start critizising everything without giving my advice when you asked previously for it. And another point is that I know it can be deceivious, but when you go to vote you must do it with the certainty that not everything done by the party you vote for will be ok for you. That's impossible because that would imply doing what everybody likes. Keep in mind also that parties are formed by individual people, and the wrong things and mistakes one member of a party does, won't necesary portrait the rest of the party. My problem when I face ellections is that I'm one of those oldfashioned guys who still have got an ideology; since that ideology was ok for 150 years ago, I vote for the party that I think is nearer to both times the old and the new. ideology makes you easier voting. When I don't like what the party I vote for is doing I just vote in blank, but I won't vote for the contrary ideology, ever. Still some people think that's suitable and it's ok, you can do that; if you vote for somebody and you see they've done less good things that bad, then think if the other party could satisfy you and then vote it. THat's also the polithics goal.
|
|
|
Post by Humppaporo on May 8, 2006 19:44:20 GMT 2
dave: sorry for the side jump, you are right; everyone should vote, it's a right many people fought for and by not voting, you deny responsibility. I got your point Olli, but what do you want then? put all pedo's in some sort of enclave? People make mistakes, this is one of the worst mistakes, it's terrible, I agree. But after all, we are all human, and we all make mistakes, you cannot expell pedo's from society because of it. You cannot always shit in someone elses garden ;D
|
|
|
Post by Olli The Drunk Bear on May 8, 2006 20:58:07 GMT 2
@humppi: Nono, I do not want to sepparate them, it is just that the local government is sending to the little village. I know people do make mistakes and no one is perfect, that was not my point, my point is that they always send them here and it gets alot of "villagers: worried. dave: i am not old to enough to vote yet, I just wanted some clarity and discuss politics with intellegant people- like you guys;) . I know I will vote but I am trying to make the right decision before I am old enough. ( I am sorry if I have offended you with my views, If I have then I do aplogize )
|
|