[tehFrance]

(Original post by paperclip)
If that is all you took from my post then you completely missed the point. I can quite effectively destroy this defence, by quoting numerous posts you have made that imply a certain level of addiction to both sex and cocaine but quite frankly i dont believe anyone within this house has an ounce of respect for you so i shall not bother. What i was getting at, however, is that perhaps you need to take life more seriously. I was attempting to bring the issue of cyber bullying into the foreground whilst in the background contrasting the hedonistic lifestyle you lead. Of course, taking life too seriously is not good, nor are the values you represent yourself as, namely being so concerned by the next high (either sex or cocaine) that you quickly forget the long term ramifications. You will not agree with any of this post, and a long time ago we established that we are extremely different people. I care not for the lifestyle you lead nor how proud of it you are, nor do i think that any sensible person within this forum does. All i ask is that you respect other people, something that i concede i havent always done with regards to Morgsie and have apologised for. If you care so little for other peoples feelings, then i will more than happily bring you down a notch at any opportunity i get and will continue ignoring your refutations.

Addiction I wouldn't say I am addicted, I have gone two days without both... addiction my arse. Who says I care little for others? I care I just don't care for people on the internet... why should I? I don't expect them to care for me after all this is the internet.

Okay... Morgsie, I am sorry, Je suis désolé, Es tut mir Leid.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by math1234)
perhaps, I am trolling again but I can't stop myself from saying that your profile pic really looks like
benazir bhutto

My profile pic is of Miranda Hart, who has a sitcom called Miranda, search for clips on YouTube

[RoryS]

Oh for god sake, everyone shut up about the Morgsie thing.

Morgsie was an excellent leader of the Lib Dems.

[JPKC]

Morgsie Morgsie Morgsie Morgsie Morgsie Morgsie

[Morgsie]

(Original post by RoryS)
Oh for god sake, everyone shut up about the Morgsie thing.

Morgsie was an excellent leader of the Lib Dems.

Well said,

I will be in my own world for a while, moving on: Transport, Europe etc. Toronto Speaks for the Government and this House whereas I speak for Europe.

I have decided to join your little group as a way to ease myself to full duties. When I take time out, I prefer to gradually get re-involved.

I am never going to a Department Store after last night without getting images of mannequins coming to life

[Morgsie]

Recent comments are complete crap, well done for pushing me further downwards

[internetguru]

(Original post by Morgsie)
Recent comments are complete crap, well done for pushing me further downwards

Downwards?

[Birchington]

Can we keep personal insults outside of this thread? It's for discussing policy, not the pros and cons of our leader.

[wizardtop]

If you genuinely wish to ask us anything on what policies we believe in or where we stand on other issues then free feel to do so as this is what this thread is about but it isnt about debating inparty matters.

[misterxninja]

(Original post by Birchington)
FAO

(Original post by Morgsie)
FAO

What is the Lib Dem position with regard to liberal dictators versus democratic religious illiberal fundamentalism. Referencing recent events in Egypt whereby Religious radical fundamentalists have won office. Does the party support democracy or support liberal society and human rights?

[Morgsie]

(Original post by misterxninja)
What is the Lib Dem position with regard to liberal dictators versus democratic religious illiberal fundamentalism. Referencing recent events in Egypt whereby Religious radical fundamentalists have won office. Does the party support democracy or support liberal society and human rights?

I don't know much about the first question so I cannot answer it.

To answer your second question, I support all three

[Birchington]

(Original post by misterxninja)
What is the Lib Dem position with regard to liberal dictators versus democratic religious illiberal fundamentalism. Referencing recent events in Egypt whereby Religious radical fundamentalists have won office. Does the party support democracy or support liberal society and human rights?

I support democracy, and I believe we should not pick and choose the democratically elected governments we support. The Egyptian people have spoken, and the election process was fair. As much as I personally wanted to see the secular liberal candidate elected, we have to respect the choice of the Egyptian people.

I am hopeful the new Egyptian president will create a constitution that safeguards the rights and liberty of all Egyptians and avoids a descent into theocracy.

Given a choice, I would prioritise democracy as my preferred state, with the democratic system a means to furthering liberalism.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by Birchington)
I support democracy, and I believe we should not pick and choose the democratically elected governments we support. The Egyptian people have spoken, and the election process was fair. As much as I personally wanted to see the secular liberal candidate elected, we have to respect the choice of the Egyptian people.

I am hopeful the new Egyptian president will create a constitution that safeguards the rights and liberty of all Egyptians and avoids a descent into theocracy.

Which includes the Military handing over more powers

[Birchington]

The military will be reluctant to hand over power as they have been entrenched in Egyptian power politics for over 60 years. I am hopeful the creation of a new constitution will limit their role, strengthen democracy and promote the rights of minorities such as Egypt's Coptic community that may face persecution in future.

[misterxninja]

(Original post by Morgsie)
I don't know much about the first question so I cannot answer it.

To answer your second question, I support all three

(Original post by Birchington)
FAO

What happens when you cannot support all three and you have an Iran situation which Egypt is looking likely to end up in.

You have Democracy on one side legitimizing human rights abuses and illiberal policy. Then on the other you have less democracy but legitimate protection from human rights and more liberal policies. You must pick, are you a Liberal or are you a Democrat.

In Egypts case it seems likely the Burkha will be forced upon its female population despite Egyptian women enjoying years of liberal freedoms. Much like Libya, was Gadaffi so bad after all when Islamist extremism is being legitimized through democracy. Are dictators not sometimes liberal figures who stand up to Islamic extremism and a lesser evil we must tolerate? Has the West just gone in and laid the roots and opportunity for Islamic extremism to spread like wildfire using democracy to legitimize its actions and have we not just made more nations a threat for our future and security?

I think you both need to re-think your stance here it contradicts your beliefs. Democracy is not a belief it is a tool to govern, it is as much a tool for evil as it can be for good. Democracy only reflects the people and parties that wield it an use it for there own ends. Some countries are not, I repeat are not ready for Democracy and we should not encourage democracy where it is not ready and contrary to our interests (i.e. will likely damage our interests in the future, by creating a theocratic democracy that poses a new security threat). Beware of being blinded by spreading democracy like herpes around the world. It does not always harness or develop or produce a Liberal agenda in 50% of its history it has not. You have to pick in some cases Liberal or Democrat, personally I pick Liberal any time humans need protecting from the tyranny of the majority. Democracy is a dangerous tool for many countries that are better off without it until there ready. If it was me I would go use the military put myself as the dictator of Egypt and manage it in a Liberal manner until and reform it and use education to prevent radicalism then slowly transcending it to democracy step by step. Sometimes dictators are a force of unity, good a lesser evil or god forbid a force for good for humanity and all citizens interests not just majority citizens interests.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by misterxninja)

You were complaining the other day because a VoNC was called against Morgsie and you thought it was undemocratic, ranting about how the party is called the Liberal Democrats, and now you're saying that not everybody deserves democracy. Make your mind up.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Addzter)
You were complaining the other day because a VoNC was called against Morgsie and you thought it was undemocratic, ranting about how the party is called the Liberal Democrats, and now you're saying that not everybody deserves democracy. Make your mind up.

Time for you to learn the truth people only like democracy when it suits them.

[misterxninja]

(Original post by internetguru)
Time for you to learn the truth people only like democracy when it suits them.

He knows that, as he said if "I don't get my desired outcome in the VoNC I will make a splinter party." He plays the democracy when it suits card all too well, difference is he still thinks he is a democratic person when he bullies for his desired outcomes and uses threats and blackmail. "If you don't do what I want, I will do this, this and this to hurt you"

The guy has hypocrisy stamped on his forehead and a slow narrow mind that merrily goes along just as merrily as fly s eat sheit.

[misterxninja]

(Original post by Addzter)
You were complaining the other day because a VoNC was called against Morgsie and you thought it was undemocratic, ranting about how the party is called the Liberal Democrats, and now you're saying that not everybody deserves democracy. Make your mind up.

Spoiler:

Show

I said it was democratically restrictive actually to have a democratic vote and force people into a box that neither option do they fit. Thus it would be a farce in the interests of true pluralistic democracy, since you know nothing about democratic theory or politics we have learned recently as a headstrong newbie and cannot comprehend the complexities of it.

I suggested we have a leadership election option in the VoNC, you said no, where is the democracy in what you did the democracy was on my side because I created more options, more choice is thus more liberal and also more democratic. Standing up for liberal values so that Morgsie was not restricted in his ability to stand in a leadership election and revoked his rights and treated like a criminal and was innocent of wrong doing anyway.

I also said the manner and the tonne of the VoNC was aggressive, personal and wrong. I laid out what the purposes of a VoNC are for, not a vote for because we don't like Morgsie's centrist (righty in your mad head's) policies or because we fancy a new leader, there only to deal with misconduct and repeatedly ignored concerns. You went about the VoNC in the wrong way and used it as a political weapon, rather than in the name of justice you used it for political gain and opportunism. You wanted a lefty elected so you went and called a VoNC against Morgsie, you had intent all along behind a mirage that crumbled when you rejected Morgsie in his compromise of let's call the damaging the parties interest VoNC in return for a leadership election where he tried to have a chance to persuade you guys back round. The problem was you were rebels with an agenda, you was not persuadable because you had a conspiracy plan to take the party or usurp enough members to make one to pursue your own selfish agenda.

You have the nerve to call me un-democratic. Well least I have my liberal principles intact and stood up for what was right and just. You are a democratic dictator, it makes me sick illiberal as they come. Hide behind democracy and pretending you like it when it suits you as much as you like, but what you did to Morgsie was plain and simply wrong. You fooled a lot of people you never fooled me not from day 1, not ever. You are a snake and it's quickly becoming apparent to more people day by day - you will soon find yourself isolated and up the creek without a paddle chained to a kayak heading for oblivion off the edge of a waterfall. There is nothing Lib Dem about you, your a socialist with an agenda and the Lib Dem's will day by day wake up to your fusard and realise I was right to go for you the way I did.

My above point is legitimate and supported. If you have to pick between liberal society and democratic society, you should always pick liberal. No matter who was in charge and whether it was democratic you would be more free to do what you wanted in a liberal society than a democratic fundamentalist one that uses democracy to legitimize illiberal extremist agendas. I still believe in democracy, but it is not a natural human right nor is it always the best thing for every situation nor is it the answer to human kind. Democracy is only as good as the people in it, it makes good societies better and bad societies worse. Everyone in time will have there democracy but not before they understand the implications of it and have the education to realise that it is wrong to stone women in the name of Islam and force Burkhas through democracy upon its people. I will stand up and protect the individual against a state that democratically legitimises sexism, breaking of human rights, forces Burkhas, stones those who don't agree.

Everyone deserves liberal pluralistic democracy, where there is competition of politics and basic human protection and freedoms to stop majorities beating and bullying minorities. Democracy as a concept on its own without the liberal bit is of no use to anyone, the liberal bit is more important than the democrat bit. The difference is some nations are not ready for democracy yet because they need to develop the liberal and pluralism first, to allow healthy competition between ideas and politics to stop tyranny of the majority. So in some cases a liberal dictator for a foreseeable future is the better option for all the people and there rights. Or a mildly abusive dictator where there is progressivism and reform, is the lesser evil compared to a democratic theocracy that publicly stones women to death who don't want to wear a Burkha. Friedman says once the dictators let the market in slowly the market will bring the people a democracy without a revolution or rebellion or need for blood shed or as much bloodshed, with the market comes liberalization. Chile was Friedman's example he is still a liberal. This way you get liberal roots embedded in a society and eventually a natural democracy occurs and the dictator cannot do anything about it as there legitimacy is sapped away by the free market forces penetrating it.

[Thunder and Jazz]

(Original post by misterxninja)

Spoiler:

Show

I said it was democratically restrictive actually to have a democratic vote and force people into a box that neither option do they fit. Thus it would be a farce in the interests of true pluralistic democracy, since you know nothing about democratic theory or politics we have learned recently as a headstrong newbie and cannot comprehend the complexities of it.

I suggested we have a leadership election option in the VoNC, you said no, where is the democracy in what you did the democracy was on my side because I created more options, more choice is thus more liberal and also more democratic. Standing up for liberal values so that Morgsie was not restricted in his ability to stand in a leadership election and revoked his rights and treated like a criminal and was innocent of wrong doing anyway.

I also said the manner and the tonne of the VoNC was aggressive, personal and wrong. I laid out what the purposes of a VoNC are for, not a vote for because we don't like Morgsie's centrist (righty in your mad head's) policies or because we fancy a new leader, there only to deal with misconduct and repeatedly ignored concerns. You went about the VoNC in the wrong way and used it as a political weapon, rather than in the name of justice you used it for political gain and opportunism. You wanted a lefty elected so you went and called a VoNC against Morgsie, you had intent all along behind a mirage that crumbled when you rejected Morgsie in his compromise of let's call the damaging the parties interest VoNC in return for a leadership election where he tried to have a chance to persuade you guys back round. The problem was you were rebels with an agenda, you was not persuadable because you had a conspiracy plan to take the party or usurp enough members to make one to pursue your own selfish agenda.

You have the nerve to call me un-democratic. Well least I have my liberal principles intact and stood up for what was right and just. You are a democratic dictator, it makes me sick illiberal as they come. Hide behind democracy and pretending you like it when it suits you as much as you like, but what you did to Morgsie was plain and simply wrong. You fooled a lot of people you never fooled me not from day 1, not ever. You are a snake and it's quickly becoming apparent to more people day by day - you will soon find yourself isolated and up the creek without a paddle chained to a kayak heading for oblivion off the edge of a waterfall. There is nothing Lib Dem about you, your a socialist with an agenda and the Lib Dem's will day by day wake up to your fusard and realise I was right to go for you the way I did.

My above point is legitimate and supported. If you have to pick between liberal society and democratic society, you should always pick liberal. No matter who was in charge and whether it was democratic you would be more free to do what you wanted in a liberal society than a democratic fundamentalist one that uses democracy to legitimize illiberal extremist agendas. I still believe in democracy, but it is not a natural human right nor is it always the best thing for every situation nor is it the answer to human kind. Democracy is only as good as the people in it, it makes good societies better and bad societies worse. Everyone in time will have there democracy but not before they understand the implications of it and have the education to realise that it is wrong to stone women in the name of Islam and force Burkhas through democracy upon its people. I will stand up and protect the individual against a state that democratically legitimises sexism, breaking of human rights, forces Burkhas, stones those who don't agree.

Everyone deserves liberal pluralistic democracy, where there is competition of politics and basic human protection and freedoms to stop majorities beating and bullying minorities. Democracy as a concept on its own without the liberal bit is of no use to anyone, the liberal bit is more important than the democrat bit. The difference is some nations are not ready for democracy yet because they need to develop the liberal and pluralism first, to allow healthy competition between ideas and politics to stop tyranny of the majority. So in some cases a liberal dictator for a foreseeable future is the better option for all the people and there rights. Or a mildly abusive dictator where there is progressivism and reform, is the lesser evil compared to a democratic theocracy that publicly stones women to death who don't want to wear a Burkha. Friedman says once the dictators let the market in slowly the market will bring the people a democracy without a revolution or rebellion or need for blood shed or as much bloodshed, with the market comes liberalization. Chile was Friedman's example he is still a liberal. This way you get liberal roots embedded in a society and eventually a natural democracy occurs and the dictator cannot do anything about it as there legitimacy is sapped away by the free market forces penetrating it.

I imagine people would care about what you had to say if you used these.