The Student Room Group

UKIP V Greens

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheCitizenAct
£71 per week for every citizen in The UK at a cost of £200-odd billion for UK taxpayers, all to save on a £3 billion administrative burden?

Yeah, makes sense.


Compleley agree with you. This policy takes money off the poor, by replacing their current benefits with this much lower payment, to give it to the rich who dont't need it. It makes no sense. It's unafordable and the least progressive welfare policy in current politics.
Original post by Katty3
They're members of the labour party not the greens.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I know, I was deliberately changing the topic.
Original post by Andy98
I know; but what I'm saying is: as the Christians have calmed down and stopped trying to convert people through brute force, Islam will someday reach the same level.


It won't because wherever there is Islam, there will be the Qu'ran and wherever there is the Qu'ran there will be these verses: Have a read for yourself. Its totally different from the core message of Christianity:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
Christianity is a development of Judaism and if you ask Christian fundamentalists, everything in the bible must be followed. It's the same as with Muslim fundamentalists and the Qu'ran.
As much as I hate to say it, UKIP make some good points.
Reply 65
True, however the number of fundamentalists that follow the book to the letter are decreasing.
Original post by United1892
Christianity is a development of Judaism and if you ask Christian fundamentalists, everything in the bible must be followed. It's the same as with Muslim fundamentalists and the Qu'ran.


Christianity and Judaism, although they both worship the same God, are somewhat different, Jews believe in a singular omnipotent God that will someday return to earth to save them from their enemies. They believe, or have historically believed, in the power of sacrificed animals to atone for their sin. Christians believe God in the form of a human manifested on earth and died on a cross, to be risen three days later and that believing in him will absolve your sin.

Christians take into account the socio historical context of the Old Testament verses which is why you never see even the strictest fundamentalist Christians going around killing gays, witches, murderers or rapists. On the contrary gays are always being killed and hung in Islamic countries on a regular basis especially by groups like ISIS
Original post by Alexion
As much as I hate to say it, UKIP make some good points.


Re: Immigration they basically take the "whack-a-mole" approach.

I don't like that mole. I am going to whack it with my hammer. Do I care where it came from or why it is here? No.

Have I addressed the underlying causes of why the moles keep popping up? No.

Will I continue to whack them? Yes.


This is UKIPs immigration policies, as well as Tory policy to some extent.

Original post by Rakas21
Ukip.

Ukip are simply a more extreme version of the Tories on most issues while the Greens are dangerous radicals on the border between socialism and social democracy.

That said, i think that Ukip are a symptom of the UK's blame culture and i don't like Farage so it would take a lot for me to vote for them.


UKIP are not just another version of the tories, for example UKIP oppose TTIP, the Tories do not.

Political ideology these days is less and less defined by left or right, and more and more defined by the presence or absence of neoliberalist dogma.

Indeed, the rejection of neoliberalist objectives (i.e. TTIP) is seen on both the left (Greens, Labour) and the right (UKIP).
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Raiden10
Re: Immigration they basically take the "whack-a-mole" approach.
I don't like that mole. I am going to whack it with my hammer. Do I care where it came from or why it is here? No.
Have I addressed the underlying causes of why the moles keep popping up? No.
Will I continue to whack them? Yes.
This is UKIPs immigration policies, as well as Tory policy to some extent.


I didn't say I totally agree with them as a party. Which I definitely don't.
Original post by Alexion
I didn't say I totally agree with them as a party. Which I definitely don't.


In my defence you didn't say much so I ended up guessing.

For me, they make good policy on TTIP (to reject it).
Original post by Andy98
True, however the number of fundamentalists that follow the book to the letter are decreasing.


Ummm.. Really? ISIS. Boko Haram. Hamas. Al-Queadia. Probably more.
Reply 71
It looks like at least two of those are just using the religion as an excuse.
Their policies aren't racist, no. But the near-weekly scandals of some UKIP official (frequently an elected official) shooting their mouth off do raise questions about whether the repeated assurances of racists constituting a minority are genuine or not.

Put it this way: would I rather vote for an eco-loon with highly collectivist policies or somebody whom I suspect of being both economically incompetent and woefully undereducated about the biology of 'race?' My answer would be the former.

Original post by saxsan4
UKIp are not racists,

try to name a racist UKIP policy
Original post by Andy98
It looks like at least two of those are just using the religion as an excuse.


Gays are still executed in Islamic countries and lefties have the gall to say Christianity is the most homophobic though? Ridiculous!
Reply 74
At what point did I say that?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Niether idealy but Green probably.

Greens are left of centre moderate party however they believe in punitive taxes for those who don't agree with there policies, which is why i'll never vote for them.

UKIP are a bunch of right wing nut jobs with some terrifying American style policies for public control and punishing the worst off in society whilst economically crippling the country.
You're right, I'd feel much safer if I had a nuclear power station nearby, if a war started. It probably wouldn't get bombed or anything like that.

I also find the idea that we should spend the defense budget on defending ourselves (e.g missile defense) preposterous. We should make bigger missiles so we could bomb people bigger and bigger.
Original post by Raiden10
You're right, I'd feel much safer if I had a nuclear power station nearby, if a war started. It probably wouldn't get bombed or anything like that.

I also find the idea that we should spend the defense budget on defending ourselves (e.g missile defense) preposterous. We should make bigger missiles so we could bomb people bigger and bigger.


AH HA. AH HA HA HA. AH HA HA HA HA <Sarcastic laughter>

We don't even need our own nuclear power station; we just need to convince France to sell to us; they have more than sufficient. We are already in a war, silly, do you not realise that the only reason there hasn't been another World war is because of nuclear power? It's like a safety net.

Your attempt to sound clever failed.
Reply 78
Fixed your post.

Posted from TSR Mobile
With who? How do you know?

When do you plan on bombing Russia with nukes? Also, how do you intend to win the war (do you seriously think that the UK can outgun Russia?)

It takes a perverse narrative no portray missiles as a "safety net".

"Safety net" implies some sort of defensive capability. Missiles are not defensive. They are attacking. Grouping it under "defense/defence" is disingenuous.

And you have to be kidding yourself if you believe neither USA nor Russia has invested resources in just such defensive capability.

Quick Reply

Latest