Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

The Republican Party

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    ha ha, christmas speech "they come here, they take our jobs..."
    Get enough Sherry in her and I bet she's more racist than Prince Phillip
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Get enough Sherry in her and I bet she's more racist than Prince Phillip
    probably, awkward moment when the BBC have to show the head of state's speech after watershed
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    NO.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    im gonna say what a lot people will say (and have already said) which is that while id support a republican party, yours just seems a bit ****... mixed in to many things that have absolutely no ties to republicanism and dont seem to have any proper understanding of how a capitalist economy works. sorry, but you wont get my vote.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    It is right that we help them because they are less fortunate than we are, by a country mile. It shouldn't be/shouldn't have to be survival of the fittest when it's possible to help as many people survive as possible, providing the right method is used.
    It's easy for you to say "let nature balance it all out" because you're here in a nice comfy enviroment with clean running water, food/access to food, shelter, transport etc etc. You have a democratic government that is always elected in and that cares about it's population and a government system where if you fall short or if your family fall short the government will step in and assist financially.

    But let me ask you this. What if the government didn't? What if there were no benefits, and if there were it's sporadic and unrealiable? What if you couldn't pay bills or your parents pay bills so you risk losing your home? You can eat because you can't pay for food as you have no money. You would, of course, find a job but then what if you lost that job and were unable to find another? Sooner or later you'd be on the streets with your handout asking strangers for pennies as they walked past. Should people not give you those pennies? After all, survival of the fittest.
    Survival of the fittest and your general attitude is backwards and inhumane. We shouldn't avoid helping out people simply because it would inconveniance us, or rather you (when actually I'm not sure it would. Not that much.) I've already explained why, twice in fact.
    When someone breaks one legs or both legs badly they have to learn to walk again. When they finally get on their feet they are given crutches. What you're proposing is that you don't give them anything and tell them "walk it off you pussy." Which is silly.
    We are the crutch until the country heals, however long that may be. Actually we most likely can afford it and I very much doubt it conveniances you either now or in the long run.
    You might think this is all a waste and that it's a wasted effort, but you'd be wrong, especially when you consider the wells that have been dug and the food provided to keep people alive.
    Thankfully I don't think we'll ever have a majority with your selfish, inhumane, greedy attitude so the aid goes on. I just hope it'll be dispersed and used properly, that's where the change must happen. Making sure it doesn't go to despots and leaders who spend it on nice houses and cars for themselves and their mates.



    If we don't need to trade with any country badly then that rather negates your previous comment of:



    Indeed there is often hypocrisy but that's the fault of the government and it doesn't negate the point of the sanctions itself. Some very important sanctions have been issued in the past, boycotts of South Africa because of Apartheid for example.

    Sanctions is defined as:

    "In international relations, a sanction is an action designed to control the conduct of a group or country. They usually take the form of a threat of possible punitive action agains a specific nation for conduct viewed as dangerous."


    What you seem to have issue with is the politics rather than what sanctions actually are. as I said they exist to send a strong poltiical message, and sometimes they exist to good effect.
    Our benefit and welfare systems exists to help British people who pay British taxes. It does not exist so that those that do not pay into get all the money. Of course there will be cases where British people don't pay into it, but this is an unintended consequence of the system. It is up to the people of their countries to build up their economies and make themselves strong. Look at the American war of independence the people stood up freed their nation. Of course they had some financial help. You could then argue that we should be giving people financial help so they too can become strong, but looking back at history France went bankrupt and had a revolution short after that. So if our government wishes to prolong its life it is best for it to not burden itself with too much debt.

    If we really want to control the conduct of a country we are better off becoming friend and influencing that country rather than making threats and placing sanctions. look at North Korea can you honestly say America has more influence there than China?
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Western countries would not be mining the resources and generally pay up these days.

    In the long run i think that a system similar to mine would be much better as all sides benefit.
    It really wouldn't work - not only would Western countries rip off these poorer countries, so would giants like China.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nickster146)
    im gonna say what a lot people will say (and have already said) which is that while id support a republican party, yours just seems a bit ****... mixed in to many things that have absolutely no ties to republicanism and dont seem to have any proper understanding of how a capitalist economy works. sorry, but you wont get my vote.
    1 issue parties cannot win elections they are simply throw away protest votes. I have developed a set of ideas to change it from a simple protest vote into a party with a genuine party ready to win an election. All ideas that have been expressed are ground breaking and would lead to a huge leap forward for this country. We can either take baby steps from left to right forever as the problems grow, whilst the main stream parties put their heads of in the sand and blame each other. Or we can take a giant leap forward and actually attempt a new approach to the problems.

    The Republican party would achieve this in the first day of power

    - Form a republic
    - Eliminate the national debt
    - Bring troops back from Afghanistan
    - Release all criminals for drug related offences

    In the long term we would achieve
    - Stronger economy
    - Lower unemployment

    I don't see your problems with these flawless ideas that help the British people.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    It really wouldn't work - not only would Western countries rip off these poorer countries, so would giants like China.
    China is already doing it as is the US.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lambert1)
    China is already doing it as is the US.
    Exactly.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    Exactly.
    What do you mean exactly? What are you suggesting?
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lambert1)
    What do you mean exactly? What are you suggesting?
    I'm agreeing with you.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lambert1)
    Our benefit and welfare systems exists to help British people who pay British taxes. It does not exist so that those that do not pay into get all the money. Of course there will be cases where British people don't pay into it, but this is an unintended consequence of the system. It is up to the people of their countries to build up their economies and make themselves strong. Look at the American war of independence the people stood up freed their nation. Of course they had some financial help. You could then argue that we should be giving people financial help so they too can become strong, but looking back at history France went bankrupt and had a revolution short after that. So if our government wishes to prolong its life it is best for it to not burden itself with too much debt.

    If we really want to control the conduct of a country we are better off becoming friend and influencing that country rather than making threats and placing sanctions. look at North Korea can you honestly say America has more influence there than China?
    Some of the people in those countries recieving aid need the money much more than the poorest people living in this country that recieve benefits, because the poorest people in this country still do not know poverty like that which exists in Africa.
    It is up to the people of their country to build up their own country through their economy and trade, however until they do they will need help. By just leaving those countries and cutting all aid, not only would you be condeming thousands, tens of thousands, potentially millions of people to their deaths (all because you think it inconveniances you and this country when in fact it does not) but it won't actually help the country. It'll most likely mean that country will never grow and improve, if anything it might spirial more into chaos.
    The American war of independence is so irrelevant it's laughable. That was a struggle for independence. It was a hostile colonial ownership and it was a hostile removal. It's irrelevant because it's in no way similiar to how our country today gives aid since...well..it's not hostile. Our country aren't occupying those countries, we're willingly giving them aid.
    As I've said before, if we are going to do some cost cutting we should do it elsewhere. After all not all of us believe in that "survival of the fittest" nonsense and not all of us are greedy and selfish like you. So no, cutting all foreign aid is a daft idea.


    Becoming friends? O Rly? You want to get friendly with North Korea and Iran? Super duper, maybe we can all go holiday there! Sounds like a lot of fun!
    Obviously America doesn't have a lot of influence with North Korea, but China's support of North Korea these days will be more words than actions. Things are different than in 1950/51. China won't sweep in to support North Korea because China is heavily involved in trade with the West as well as other countries and are members of the World Trade Organisation.
    I think it's a little simplistic to think we can be friends with them. Cosy up with them, put our arm around them and say "heeeeey you don't want to nuke the USA." There are times when that just won't work and when it's something serious it might prove to be the wrong tactic.


    If you believe:

    "We don't need to trade with any countries badly "

    That rather negates your point of

    "Removing sanctions = more trade and a strong economy"
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Some of the people in those countries recieving aid need the money much more than the poorest people living in this country that recieve benefits, because the poorest people in this country still do not know poverty like that which exists in Africa.
    It is up to the people of their country to build up their own country through their economy and trade, however until they do they will need help. By just leaving those countries and cutting all aid, not only would you be condeming thousands, tens of thousands, potentially millions of people to their deaths (all because you think it inconveniances you and this country when in fact it does not) but it won't actually help the country. It'll most likely mean that country will never grow and improve, if anything it might spirial more into chaos.
    The American war of independence is so irrelevant it's laughable. That was a struggle for independence. It was a hostile colonial ownership and it was a hostile removal. It's irrelevant because it's in no way similiar to how our country today gives aid since...well..it's not hostile. Our country aren't occupying those countries, we're willingly giving them aid.
    As I've said before, if we are going to do some cost cutting we should do it elsewhere. After all not all of us believe in that "survival of the fittest" nonsense and not all of us are greedy and selfish like you. So no, cutting all foreign aid is a daft idea.


    Becoming friends? O Rly? You want to get friendly with North Korea and Iran? Super duper, maybe we can all go holiday there! Sounds like a lot of fun!
    Obviously America doesn't have a lot of influence with North Korea, but China's support of North Korea these days will be more words than actions. Things are different than in 1950/51. China won't sweep in to support North Korea because China is heavily involved in trade with the West as well as other countries and are members of the World Trade Organisation.
    I think it's a little simplistic to think we can be friends with them. Cosy up with them, put our arm around them and say "heeeeey you don't want to nuke the USA." There are times when that just won't work and when it's something serious it might prove to be the wrong tactic.


    If you believe:

    "We don't need to trade with any countries badly "

    That rather negates your point of

    "Removing sanctions = more trade and a strong economy"
    If our country can get here without help so can they.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lambert1)
    If our country can get here without help so can they.
    Nonsense. Different scenario's, different times, completely unlikely. Because of your greed and selfishness millions of people could die.


    By the way, just how many people have voiced their full interest and support in this so far?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Nonsense. Different scenario's, different times, completely unlikely. Because of your greed and selfishness millions of people could die.


    By the way, just how many people have voiced their full interest and support in this so far?
    1 British life is worth a million foreign lives. Oh is this line of thinking immoral? Well vegetarians have been saying animal and human lives are equal for centuries yet you still disagree.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lambert1)
    1 British life is worth a million foreign lives. Oh is this line of thinking immoral? Well vegetarians have been saying animal and human lives are equal for centuries yet you still disagree.
    As much as you might like the idea of letting people starve to death because of your silly Darwinian theory, us normal people who are actually humane disagree. Thankfully so does the government and probably most people. Therefore foreign aid continues. It is an immoral line of thinking.
    And what have vegetarians got to do with this? Yet again you bring up another irrelevancy.

    Your argument is full of irrelevancies and holes.

    Once again, if we just left the various countries to their own devices they would probably turn our worse and millions of people would starve to death.
    If you want to save money, try finding a way that won't result in mass deaths. That is, if you can be bothered.


    Oh and once again I ask, how many supporters have you got so far for your party?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    As much as you might like the idea of letting people starve to death because of your silly Darwinian theory, us normal people who are actually humane disagree. Thankfully so does the government and probably most people. Therefore foreign aid continues. It is an immoral line of thinking.
    And what have vegetarians got to do with this? Yet again you bring up another irrelevancy.

    Your argument is full of irrelevancies and holes.

    Once again, if we just left the various countries to their own devices they would probably turn our worse and millions of people would starve to death.
    If you want to save money, try finding a way that won't result in mass deaths. That is, if you can be bothered.


    Oh and once again I ask, how many supporters have you got so far for your party?
    No it is entirely relevant why is your idea that all humans are equal correct, whereas the vegetarian idea that all animal are equal wrong? The answer is all humans are not equal. Some are born into poverty and some are born with disabilities. It is the duty of each and every person to strive for greatness regardless of their situation. If they do not try then they only have themselves to blame.

    Why is it the job of British tax payers to pay for their food anyway? China and Brazil both have larger economies than us yet they do nothing. I say that we shouldn't pay out a single penny until other countries do their share. For years now Britain has been paying out disproportionate amounts of wealth in comparison to other nations, our country is on the way down while others are on the way up. Our turn of playing super heroes is over it is someone else's turn to carry the burden.

    If millions starve to death so what? Organisms have been starving to death for millenia. We all die at some point why does it matter whether they die now or at some other point?
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lambert1)
    No it is entirely relevant why is your idea that all humans are equal correct, whereas the vegetarian idea that all animal are equal wrong? The answer is all humans are not equal. Some are born into poverty and some are born with disabilities. It is the duty of each and every person to strive for greatness regardless of their situation. If they do not try then they only have themselves to blame.

    Why is it the job of British tax payers to pay for their food anyway? China and Brazil both have larger economies than us yet they do nothing. I say that we shouldn't pay out a single penny until other countries do their share. For years now Britain has been paying out disproportionate amounts of wealth in comparison to other nations, our country is on the way down while others are on the way up. Our turn of playing super heroes is over it is someone else's turn to carry the burden.

    If millions starve to death so what? Organisms have been starving to death for millenia. We all die at some point why does it matter whether they die now or at some other point?
    The idea that someone who falls behind because of disability or poverty is "weak" is elitist. I'm pretty sure your elitist attitude is in the minority which is most probably a good thing. I would say that if a person is less fortunate in life and if those who are fortunate are able to help the less fortunate, it is our duty to do so.
    I would say that most people have probably had a helping hand in one way or another, it is not a bad thing to offer such a thing to those less fortunate in a less fortunate position. I'm not sure how many times I need to say it but I'll keep on saying it. If we just left them there is a good chance things won't get better at all. In fact it could potentially get worse. Crime, disease, poverty, corruption, it would all increase (potentially.) Meanwhile you're suggesting we just stand by and do nothing?
    Your comparison with vegetarians and their beliefs is pretty irrelevant because the ideals of the vegetarians isn't really related. It's not especially applicable. Believing there is equality between humans and animals and believing there is equality for all humans are two seperate issues in this case.
    Some of those countries are trying to better themselves, as are the many charities working out of them, however because of a few bad apples it's becoming increasingly more difficult. Corruption in governments sows a bad seed.

    That said, because of those minority of bad people should everyone currently benefiting from foreign aid suffer? Of course not. It's like cutting off the head to cure a headache. A complete over reaction with terrible consequences. Should it ever happen (God forbid) the blood will be on the hands of those that believe it to be right, like you.

    You really wouldn't be saying "so what if people starve to death" if you actually knew what it was like or if you had seen places and people who were starving. So either you don't know what you're talking about or you have and you're just ignorant and selfish.

    Either way I'm glad I'm not like minded.



    P.s How many members have you got for your party so far?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    The idea that someone who falls behind because of disability or poverty is "weak" is elitist. I'm pretty sure your elitist attitude is in the minority which is most probably a good thing. I would say that if a person is less fortunate in life and if those who are fortunate are able to help the less fortunate, it is our duty to do so.
    I would say that most people have probably had a helping hand in one way or another, it is not a bad thing to offer such a thing to those less fortunate in a less fortunate position. I'm not sure how many times I need to say it but I'll keep on saying it. If we just left them there is a good chance things won't get better at all. In fact it could potentially get worse. Crime, disease, poverty, corruption, it would all increase (potentially.) Meanwhile you're suggesting we just stand by and do nothing?
    Your comparison with vegetarians and their beliefs is pretty irrelevant because the ideals of the vegetarians isn't really related. It's not especially applicable. Believing there is equality between humans and animals and believing there is equality for all humans are two seperate issues in this case.
    Some of those countries are trying to better themselves, as are the many charities working out of them, however because of a few bad apples it's becoming increasingly more difficult. Corruption in governments sows a bad seed.

    That said, because of those minority of bad people should everyone currently benefiting from foreign aid suffer? Of course not. It's like cutting off the head to cure a headache. A complete over reaction with terrible consequences. Should it ever happen (God forbid) the blood will be on the hands of those that believe it to be right, like you.

    You really wouldn't be saying "so what if people starve to death" if you actually knew what it was like or if you had seen places and people who were starving. So either you don't know what you're talking about or you have and you're just ignorant and selfish.

    Either way I'm glad I'm not like minded.



    P.s How many members have you got for your party so far?
    Why should someone be forced to give their money to random foreign people? If people want to give them money to help then that is fine but forcing them is wrong. The purpose of government is to help the people that pay into it by forming collective security. Enforced charity is not moral or a characteristic of a free nation. If you care about these people so much why don't you sell all your belongings and give the money to them? The fact that you haven't means you have condemned several to death.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lambert1)
    Why should someone be forced to give their money to random foreign people? If people want to give them money to help then that is fine but forcing them is wrong. The purpose of government is to help the people that pay into it by forming collective security. Enforced charity is not moral or a characteristic of a free nation.
    Because those foreign people are in a dire situation. Technically the people aren't giving individually, I assume the aid is taken from the budget which is from collectives taxes and other things. I think.
    Why do we do it? Because as a first world nation we shouldn't ignore the suffering of those less fortunate than us. And we certainly shouldn't take a Darwinian attitude.

    If you care about these people so much why don't you sell all your belongings and give the money to them? The fact that you haven't means you have condemned several to death.
    :lol: That could well be the most ridiculous thing you've said so far, which is saying something.
Updated: April 2, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.