Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    So you support UAF and also government intervention abroard?

    I don't think they're laughing matters, really. Robinson here is much more amusing!
    No, they're not laughing matters, and I agree with most of the actual content of Griffin's speech, even if he is being a hypocrite by complaining about the use of violence against the BNP.

    However, how long do you think it will be before he makes some kind of gaffe?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    However, how long do you think it will be before he makes some kind of gaffe?
    "Let's sink Libyan boats!" wasn't a gaffe?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trichomania)
    "Let's sink Libyan boats!" wasn't a gaffe?
    Not to anyone with a bit of common sense.

    Hardline policies are required to deal with illegal third world immigration, and the statement did not advocate murder as most of the left-wing media suggested.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    No, they're not laughing matters, and I agree with most of the actual content of Griffin's speech, even if he is being a hypocrite by complaining about the use of violence against the BNP.

    However, how long do you think it will be before he makes some kind of gaffe?
    He just got a million voters - I doubt he can believe that himself, this is going better than he planned, and he isn't going to rock to boat now, and he isn't going to make a gaffe anytime soon. He has everything to lose from here and Nick wont let that happen. Like it or not, the bnp are good at what they do.

    In contrast the left-wing of this nation are awful at what they do, and even though on many issues they're correct and the bnp are incorrect, they're doing an awful job of portraying that to those who sympathise with the bnp. I suggest people start offering full and proper debates with them, rather than mock them and call them nazis.

    But hey, I'm just a guy, what do I know!
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Not to anyone with a bit of common sense.
    Riiight, and common sense is defined as what? Whatever-I-happen-to-agree-with?
    Hardline policies are required to deal with illegal third world immigration, and the statement did not advocate murder as most of the left-wing media suggested.
    Of course it did. You can't sink ships without killing anyone, even if you give them a rafft, as Griffin suggested in his infinite generosity, what about people who can't swim? What about babies, the elderly and the infirm who may be on those ships? And what if the ships are owned by private companies and the immigrants have stowed away? At the very least you'd be looking at some serious lawsuits.

    Anyway I'm pretty certain going around sinking other government's ships is an act of war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trichomania)
    Riiight, and common sense is defined as what? Whatever-I-happen-to-agree-with?
    Well,we all have individual interpretations, but I would have thought stopping illegal immigration by physical action is a pretty common sense policy.

    (Original post by Trichomania)
    Of course it did. You can't sink ships without killing anyone, even if you give them a rafft, as Griffin suggested in his infinite generosity, what about people who can't swim? What about babies, the elderly and the infirm who may be on those ships? And what if the ships are owned by private companies and the immigrants have stowed away? At the very least you'd be looking at some serious lawsuits.
    What was suggested wasn't sinking the ships at our shores, but instead going to their shores and sinking the ships there. This would result in minimal lack of life, if any, and would give a very clear message that they are not welcome at our shores.

    (Original post by Trichomania)
    Anyway I'm pretty certain going around sinking other government's ships is an act of war.
    They mostly are not government ships, to my knowledge.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    ... I suggest people start offering full and proper debates with them, rather than mock them and call them nazis.

    But hey, I'm just a guy, what do I know!
    I think there are some good reasons for regarding the BNP as neo-Nazi. Their origins, history, the details of their leadership, their various past and present associations, their central agendas and policies, and the various statements and slips they've made all reveal them to be a party of neo-Nazism as far as I'm concerned. I'm not suggesting it should be left at that, and I don't think it is, others and myself here at TSR regularly challenge BNP advocates on all kinds of issues. Speaking personally, however, identifying them as a party centrally racist in its aims is enough for me to regard them beyond any further necessary consideration. If I find out my flatmate is a rapist I don't spend too much time thinking about the nice cuppa they make in my assessment of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.ihateyounatalie.com/?id=1742316
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Well,we all have individual interpretations, but I would have thought stopping illegal immigration by physical action is a pretty common sense police.
    It would appear that your definition of 'common sense' is 'talking out of my arse.' What reason have you got to believe this will work? The people on those ships are fleeing poverty and persecution; I bet for a lot of them it won't be the first time they've been shot at. Do you think that once they've been helped on to their life raft and sent back to shore that they won't just get on the next ship? Do you have a precedent for this sort of policy working before?

    What was suggested wasn't sinking the ships at our shores, but instead going to their shores and sinking the ships there. This would result in minimal lack of life, if any, and would give a very clear message that they are not welcome at our shores.
    They mostly are not government ships, to my knowledge.
    If someone was blowing up ships in our waters, regardless of whether they were privately owned or millitary, that would probably be considered an act of aggression, no? Hel it's considered an act of hostility when Russian planes are spotted on the edges of our aerospace.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    I think a lot of these things are common sense- in the cases of industries which clearly would not be best suited for Britain then protectionist policies would be loosened as necessary. However, maintaining a mostly protectionist policy results in the growth of British industry, which should be a priority yet would be harmed even more greatly by free trade and globalisation.
    It is common sense to know right now whether any particular good or servise will be best provided by Britain or by other nations in the long term? With circumstances constantly changing, which cannot be accounted for in anyway, and with multiple interpretations on what is a preferable good or servise anyway.

    You might call something a good British servise, but I think it's terrible. So I don't think it is common sense at all to define what good and servises we would be capable of providing ourselves in the long-term. What if new materials are found elsewhere, or if wars affect things, or if alternatives become available and so demand drops and so on. I could give you a dozen factors right now that make it literally impossible to predict the long-term of economics, and yet you're calling it 'common sense'.

    So not only do you have a frankly baffling take on basic economics, but you feel it appropiate to enforce your economics onto all members of the public, whether they agree with you or not.

    Protectionism also leads to self sufficency, which would be a benefit the government and people put before short-term economic deficit.
    A mere assumption that you are unable to prove to me - how do you know that with protectionism Britain will become self suddicient in all of these areas? They might all fail, and the public would see a huge increase in prices but a huge decline in quality. You're merely speculating: tell me what goods and servises would improve in the long-term and be self sufficient, it's "common sense" to know, so tell me. I'm here all day.

    Also remember that even if certain industries were supported which would later be deemed as failures, it should not receive total condemnation from the British public as it will have helped fight unemployment and created stability in the job market for millions of people with little employment prospects beforehand.
    You're really not debating well, that is an awful statement. You're honestly telling me that if the government nationalised an industry, and forced people to pay taxes towards that industry whether they wanted to or not, and the industry still failed - the people would be proud to have tried?

    What planet are you on? I don't think Gordon Brown actively TRIED to make everything go wrong, but nonetheless people aren't exactly thanking him for trying, are they. People are rightfully having qualms with how he did things instead. Believe me, people would be mightily annoyed at the government if they nationalised failing industries.

    I appreciate the mining example goes against this, however BNP policy does not always lead to the supporting of old, failing industries. It instead seeks for Britain to lead the way in modern and technology based improvements on certain problems,which would not only benefit future generations in Britain but would also be able to export on a mass scale.
    More speculation. Which industries are you talking about - what are we going to become huge in, and export our product to the whole world in? Incidently how would you feel if all other countries refused to import our goods even if they were superior, to protect the jobs in their own country?

    I would say, jokes on them - they pay more for bad servises. But you'd say good on them, apparently.

    I am suggesting this. By going into a research sector which looks at long-term viability rather than short-term gain, there could be a lot of money to be made from British industry being created in,for example, various environmental products. This would not only benefit British people in the future, but also provide very profitable export opportunities in the future.
    Again you talk about exports, even though that defies your trading philosophy, which is not based on the best product for the people but instead is based on locally produced products for the people.

    And I am shocked that you would use taxpayers money on research for industries. So if the research leads to nowhere, the publics money has been totally wasted? It is down to business to fund their own research with their own private money - with the incentive to do so being driven by competition and not wanting to lag behind others. How would the BNP government judge how much of the publics money should be spent on research, and within what areas, and within which businesses?

    Remember the solution to answering those questions is very simple: let the private market handle it independantly of taxpayers money. Would you say the best innovations in history came from government or from private individuals?

    He could be reinvesting money better by all means, but he is only under such scrutiny as a result of the recession at the moment ( as you pointed out). The recession was caused largely be greedy short-termist capitalism and this is another thing the BNP seek to combat,with future generations and economic stability in mind.
    Do you support Gordon Brown using your taxpayers money for bailouts to business which has proven itself to be failing? Yes or no please, don't give me spin. You're not a politician, you don't deserve to use spin yet.

    Thanks for telling me what caused the recession incidently, you're clearly a genius in economics and know everything. Banks gave loads to low income families because they're greedy - it makes so much sense - their greed led them to support a policy that would lose them billions, of course. Or maybe the recession was caused because the government issued laws which forced banks against their will to give loans to low income families?

    What would the BNP have done differently to prevent the recession? And now we are in it, how would you get us out of it again?

    Again, I understand and sympathise with your sentiment regarding your right to buy what you want, however in reality under your system British industry would not exist in many areas for me to even have the choice to buy British products. Free trade does lead to a definite decrease in British industry in most areas, and helps foreign industry more than it does British, even if there are individual short term losses to the general population in various areas.
    Of course you would have the choice, under my system, to buy British products. Make up your mind, do the public have a demand for it or not? It would be more expensive, but if people like you exist, the option would be there. I would let home grown business flourish by not taking it to hell, remember, don't base the industries under my government on the current system, because I would make huge changes to the system!

    I know this won't go down too well, but I think the "right" to buy foreign produce is a right which people should,and would, be willing to sacrifice for the greater good of self sufficency and economic stability.
    So you think you have a greater claim over my own life than I do? That's all you need to say really, your view is literally fascist, you can't complain when people call you that. I've tried to debate you and the conclusion you made is that it is fair for you to dictate your own opinons onto me even if I disagree with them, really democratic, well done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Fantastic speech by Mr Griffin - keep up the good work!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    It is common sense to know right now whether any particular good or servise will be best provided by Britain or by other nations in the long term? With circumstances constantly changing, which cannot be accounted for in anyway, and with multiple interpretations on what is a preferable good or servise anyway.

    You might call something a good British servise, but I think it's terrible. So I don't think it is common sense at all to define what good and servises we would be capable of providing ourselves in the long-term. What if new materials are found elsewhere, or if wars affect things, or if alternatives become available and so demand drops and so on. I could give you a dozen factors right now that make it literally impossible to predict the long-term of economics, and yet you're calling it 'common sense'.
    By common sense I was referring only to goods and services which would obviously not be beneficial regardless of circumstance, such as certain foods influenced largely by climate.

    Obviously as circumstance changes BNP policy will be flexible enough to work around that. The basis of the economy should be protectionist in order for British industry to prosper and grow, however if something was clearly not going to be beneficial in either the short or long term then it would be deemed detrimental to British interests and disregarded.


    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    A mere assumption that you are unable to prove to me - how do you know that with protectionism Britain will become self suddicient in all of these areas? They might all fail, and the public would see a huge increase in prices but a huge decline in quality. You're merely speculating: tell me what goods and servises would improve in the long-term and be self sufficient, it's "common sense" to know, so tell me. I'm here all day.
    As Britain becomes protectionist, British people will again be working for and improving on themselves and their own industries- this puts them in charge of their own future once again and allows them to work on improving their own industry without having to worry about the movement of jobs and foreign competition. The first aims of protectionism have to be economic stability and self sufficency first, because only when we perfect our own industry for our own people and show the rest of the world how well we can do it,will they become interested in what we have to offer in terms of exports.


    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    You're really not debating well, that is an awful statement. You're honestly telling me that if the government nationalised an industry, and forced people to pay taxes towards that industry whether they wanted to or not, and the industry still failed - the people would be proud to have tried?

    What planet are you on? I don't think Gordon Brown actively TRIED to make everything go wrong, but nonetheless people aren't exactly thanking him for trying, are they. People are rightfully having qualms with how he did things instead. Believe me, people would be mightily annoyed at the government if they nationalised failing industries.
    It might sound awful in context of current British thought, but you must remember the Britain I envisage is a far more patriotic and nationalistic one, which would see the benefits employment wise of a nationalised industry even if the industry hadn't gone as planned.

    The government would be in no way immune from criticism for mistakes it made industry wise, but the alternative is effectively destroying aspects of British industry by introducing constant,cheaper foreign competition.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    More speculation. Which industries are you talking about - what are we going to become huge in, and export our product to the whole world in? Incidently how would you feel if all other countries refused to import our goods even if they were superior, to protect the jobs in their own country?

    I would say, jokes on them - they pay more for bad servises. But you'd say good on them, apparently.
    I'll give you an example to clarify my arguement a little.
    One industry which we could be absolutely massive in,and would benefit from personally first, is our wave energy programme. In order for this to be most beneficial and reach a high quality of production, protectionist policies would be necessary to get rid of foreign gas being used in this country to heat our homes. As a result of this, it could be used and perfected at home so that in the not so distant future as oil supplies run out, every country in the world with a coastline would come to Britain for the generators that we have made and perfected in this country.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    How would the BNP government judge how much of the publics money should be spent on research, and within what areas, and within which businesses?

    Would you say the best innovations in history came from government or from private individuals?
    They would judge based on their own analysis and the actions of other countries.

    From private individuals, however they prosper best under the wing of the government to fund and help those with ideas which look to the long-term benefit of the country.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Do you support Gordon Brown using your taxpayers money for bailouts to business which has proven itself to be failing? Yes or no please, don't give me spin. You're not a politician, you don't deserve to use spin yet.
    I admire the principle, but feel it isn't the best way to get the country out of a recession,perhaps.


    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Thanks for telling me what caused the recession incidently, you're clearly a genius in economics and know everything. Banks gave loads to low income families because they're greedy - it makes so much sense - their greed led them to support a policy that would lose them billions, of course. Or maybe the recession was caused because the government issued laws which forced banks against their will to give loans to low income families?
    It did- the inability to see further than the end of their nose meant that their short-termist greed would lead to financial collapse. Even now, the banks get bailed out and saved, so they haven't really lost anything. It wasn't caused by the government issuing laws, it was caused by them taking away the laws which restricted banks from taking short-termist greedy initiatives designed to rob and con the people.


    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Of course you would have the choice, under my system, to buy British products. Make up your mind, do the public have a demand for it or not? It would be more expensive, but if people like you exist, the option would be there. I would let home grown business flourish by not taking it to hell, remember, don't base the industries under my government on the current system, because I would make huge changes to the system!
    Do you not see that by allowing foreign trade to undercut and provide an alternative you are not only encouraging a decline in British industry, but you are rendering some parts of it so useless that it would cease to exist. As a result of this, the products would not even be available for me to buy if I wanted to as a result of people like you avoiding short-term deficit.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    So you think you have a greater claim over my own life than I do? That's all you need to say really, your view is literally fascist, you can't complain when people call you that. I've tried to debate you and the conclusion you made is that it is fair for you to dictate your own opinons onto me even if I disagree with them, really democratic, well done.
    Please, don't stoop to that level, I thought you were above it.

    Of course I don't have a greater claim over your life than you do, however do you really think it is your "right" to buy foreign goods and services in Britain?

    In order for exports to flourish we need to sort ourselves out first, and that is the greater good of which I speak.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I think there are some good reasons for regarding the BNP as neo-Nazi. Their origins, history, the details of their leadership, their various past and present associations, their central agendas and policies, and the various statements and slips they've made all reveal them to be a party of neo-Nazism as far as I'm concerned. I'm not suggesting it should be left at that, and I don't think it is, others and myself here at TSR regularly challenge BNP advocates on all kinds of issues. Speaking personally, however, identifying them as a party centrally racist in its aims is enough for me to regard them beyond any further necessary consideration. If I find out my flatmate is a rapist I don't spend too much time thinking about the nice cuppa they make in my assessment of them.
    That's great, however the general public don't disregard them just because 'dereee racast'
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    By common sense I was referring only to goods and services which would obviously not be beneficial regardless of circumstance, such as certain foods influenced largely by climate.

    Obviously as circumstance changes BNP policy will be flexible enough to work around that. The basis of the economy should be protectionist in order for British industry to prosper and grow, however if something was clearly not going to be beneficial in either the short or long term then it would be deemed detrimental to British interests and disregarded.
    How can you possibly say that a protectionist system is more flexible than a free trade system? Under my government: the people would constantly have full choice of what good or servise is best for them, at all times. When circumstances change, they will alter who they buy goods from and will support whatever business has adapted best to the new circumstances. Surely you must concede that free trade makes the economy far more flexible?

    I ask you again - how do you decide which industry should be disregarded as not in British interests to persue, and which industries do you justify pumping everyones money into? If you're going to advocate making decisions on other peoples behalf, I'd like to know on what basis you make these decisions - and the entire British public must know and be behind the decisions, don't you agree?

    It might sound awful in context of current British thought, but you must remember the Britain I envisage is a far more patriotic and nationalistic one, which would see the benefits employment wise of a nationalised industry even if the industry hadn't gone as planned.
    So your vision and your policies would only work if everybody thought like you do? I go back to my point that under a libertarian government, people would be free to exercise nationalist tendancies on the market, if that is what they were into. There is no need for everybody to be a libertarian to have their way in society.

    The government would be in no way immune from criticism for mistakes it made industry wise, but the alternative is effectively destroying aspects of British industry by introducing constant,cheaper foreign competition.
    I have presented an alternative to you numerous times now, and you have consistently failed to address this point: I would reduce taxes and regulations on business which hinders local business and industry. So my alternative is promoting British industry whilst also giving the British public choice, the best of both worlds you could say.

    I'll give you an example to clarify my arguement a little.
    One industry which we could be absolutely massive in,and would benefit from personally first, is our wave energy programme. In order for this to be most beneficial and reach a high quality of production, protectionist policies would be necessary to get rid of foreign gas being used in this country to heat our homes. As a result of this, it could be used and perfected at home so that in the not so distant future as oil supplies run out, every country in the world with a coastline would come to Britain for the generators that we have made and perfected in this country.
    Again I must ask, what if all nations did this? What if we has this awesome technology and members of other nations decided that importing British goods wasn't a good idea and instead they should impose strict tariffs against us to promote home-grown industry. Your plans would be scuppered, they would. You seem to want everyone else to have free trade, to want British goods if they're cheap and high quality.

    If there is a potential for this market then that is great and I support it. But the best way to bolster that is to deregulate the industry and let private markets cater for it. They would compete against eachother to constantly drive prices down. Why would a private market be inefficient and waste money? That plays into the hands of their rivals - in contrast if a public industry is wasting money it doesn't matter because they're a monopoly anyway, and they have a constant source of funding. Nationalisation is a breeding ground for ineffeciency and waste.

    From private individuals, however they prosper best under the wing of the government to fund and help those with ideas which look to the long-term benefit of the country.
    That is not true at all, the thousands upon thousands of acts of genius throughout history have been done independant of government, and often directly in conflict with the ideas of government at the time, e.g. Newton, Darwin and so on.

    Trying to nationalise innovation makes absoltely no sense, you're creating problems that simply don't need to be created. The private sector is naturally designed to innovate. Why taxpayers money needs to be wasted for no reason is beyond me, when the same effects could be achieved without using taxpayers money at all.

    I admire the principle, but feel it isn't the best way to get the country out of a recession,perhaps.
    You admire Gordon Browns principles? Well, I do not. He has ruined this economy, and he is making it worse - and he is doing so in a very arrogant manner by using our money and spending it how he believes is best. That is wrong in principle to begin with, but when he then spends it on failing banks who just lose the bailout money and the economy gets worse still, it becomes laughable.

    It did- the inability to see further than the end of their nose meant that their short-termist greed would lead to financial collapse. Even now, the banks get bailed out and saved, so they haven't really lost anything. It wasn't caused by the government issuing laws, it was caused by them taking away the laws which restricted banks from taking short-termist greedy initiatives designed to rob and con the people.
    The government has partially nationalised some of these banks now, so they have lost something! And I still refuse to believe greed caused the banks to bust themselves, the concept of greed is that you make money from it, not lose it.

    Can you actually back up your side with evidnece? Because there was actually an Act passed by congress forcing banks to give loans against their will to low income families. What greedy initiatives designed solely to con people are you talking about? That is a vague accusation.

    Do you not see that by allowing foreign trade to undercut and provide an alternative you are not only encouraging a decline in British industry, but you are rendering some parts of it so useless that it would cease to exist. As a result of this, the products would not even be available for me to buy if I wanted to as a result of people like you avoiding short-term deficit.
    You're again avoiding all of my points about making the market more free and able to meet the demands of people. There is also a striking contradiction in your logic, you make these two opposing points:

    1. The people of Britain want British manufacturing products

    2. Given the choice between British and foreign products, there will be no market for British goods.

    Well, which is it? Do the British people want to rally behind its national industries or not? I believe that some do and some don't, and that is why my policy would allow some to buy British goods, and some not to. I'm catering for the needs of the people because I believe in freedom to choose, and in democracy.

    Of course I don't have a greater claim over your life than you do, however do you really think it is your "right" to buy foreign goods and services in Britain?
    Of course it is my right to buy the good or servise that I want, rather than having it dictated to me by the government. So given that I desire this fundamental human right, how are you going to cater for that democratically - or do you think that your opinion deserves to overrule mine, and as such you think that you have a greater claim over my life than I do.

    that is the greater good of which I speak.
    You sound like a communist. The UK is 60 million individuals with their own, conflicting ideas about what is good or bad. I can assure you that instantly I think your idea of the "greater good" is bad - so instantly your notion that a greater good exists is a fallacy.

    How can you aim for a greater good when there isn't one? Is a government which fosters for different beliefs and values not better?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trichomania)
    Riiight, and common sense is defined as what? Whatever-I-happen-to-agree-with?


    Of course it did. You can't sink ships without killing anyone, even if you give them a rafft, as Griffin suggested in his infinite generosity, what about people who can't swim? What about babies, the elderly and the infirm who may be on those ships? And what if the ships are owned by private companies and the immigrants have stowed away? At the very least you'd be looking at some serious lawsuits.

    Anyway I'm pretty certain going around sinking other government's ships is an act of war.
    Can't you see it for what it is? That is a mere hyperbole (as well as analogy). To suggest that this equates to Griffin advocating murder is probably the same as suggesting that Gordon Brown's previous commitment - and David Cameron's current commitment - to "burn the Quangos" advocates arson.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Excellent. So why then do you persist in denying he has neo Nazi beliefs?
    Because it was ten years ago and people can change their opinions. Especially with an increase in responsibility. You may also want to consider that Nick Griffin is not the British National Party. Yes, he's the face, but all decisions within that party, as in any party, are made on a collaborative basis. Even I can admit that it would probably be better for them to replace him with someone with less of a history; and this would most probably be the case if they were ever in a position to come to power anyway (especially considering this would be some time yet).

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Yer, and I'm sure in 20 years time Mark Collet will be a non racist hippy with a black wife :rolleyes:
    Probably not. He'd probably still have right-wing views, but I doubt he'd have Hitler convictions. I don't really know of anyone over the age of 35 who still has connections to - real - neo-Nazi organisations such as B&H and NSM. I saw a documentary about some guys who were "militant" C18 people, and they had made black friends a few years down the line. Real people don't just believe in the same things all their lives you know.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    If you're looking for a full survey of all members you'll be waiting a very long time. It is however indicative of the fact that amongst BNP voters there's a much higher level of racism and xenophobia.
    Maybe so, but, in general, BNP voters are uneducated, working-class people who develop prejudice because they're being replaced by some of the Third World's cheapest, crappiest labour, and, on occasions, having their jobs shipped out to Mumbai.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Everything I said was true. You DO defend them continually, you WOULD vote for them under certain circumstances and you DO patronise and talk down to those who disagree with you.
    I explained that I'd only vote for them if I was convinced they wouldn't be any more extreme than their manifesto commitments outline and that voluntary resettlement would be an essential scheme to relieve pressures on housing and infrastructure. And you talking about patronising. That's a laugh. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Still, at least I've got you to shut up about your ancestors eh? :wink2:
    Yes, because, as you said, sending this into personal realms would be completely undesired. It's hardly fair to be totting up on some sort of moral tally the differences between my ancestors being killed against your situation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Because it was ten years ago and people can change their opinions. Especially with an increase in responsibility. You may also want to consider that Nick Griffin is not the British National Party. Yes, he's the face, but all decisions within that party, as in any party, are made on a collaborative basis. Even I can admit that it would probably be better for them to replace him with someone with less of a history; and this would most probably be the case if they were ever in a position to come to power anyway (especially considering this would be some time yet).
    Except for the part which him and his minions are on the record for having said similar things much more recently as well.


    Probably not. He'd probably still have right-wing views, but I doubt he'd have Hitler convictions. I don't really know of anyone over the age of 35 who still has connections to - real - neo-Nazi organisations such as B&H and NSM. I saw a documentary about some guys who were "militant" C18 people, and they had made black friends a few years down the line. Real people don't just believe in the same things all their lives you know.
    Your ignorance has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this thread.

    And lol "had made a few black friends", that's about as good as the "I can't be homophobic, I have gay mates!!!" argument.


    Maybe so, but, in general, BNP voters are uneducated, working-class people who develop prejudice because they're being replaced by some of the Third World's cheapest, crappiest labour, and, on occasions, having their jobs shipped out to Mumbai.
    Surely then the party ought to be helping the working classes instead of just using them to gain votes so they can bash gays and immigrants (who at the end of the day are not the root of the working class' problems)

    I explained that I'd only vote for them if I was convinced they wouldn't be any more extreme than their manifesto commitments outline and that voluntary resettlement would be an essential scheme to relieve pressures on housing and infrastructure. And you talking about patronising. That's a laugh.
    But of course it will only be targetted toward non whites amirite?

    Lol, I haven't been patronising. Just because I've calmly refuted all of your BNP propaganda doesn't mean I'm patronising, it just means I'm well educated :fyi:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Except for the part which him and his minions are on the record for having said similar things much more recently as well.
    Not about the Holocaust. :teeth:

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Your ignorance has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this thread.

    And lol "had made a few black friends", that's about as good as the "I can't be homophobic, I have gay mates!!!" argument.
    C18 and "Aryan militants" are anything but mere racists. For them to make black friends is probably the equivalent of you accepting a C18 member with open arms.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Surely then the party ought to be helping the working classes instead of just using them to gain votes so they can bash gays and immigrants (who at the end of the day are not the root of the working class' problems)
    They do help the working classes in many cases. Why shouldn't they target the areas they think they can gain most support? This makes no sense. The SNP are hardly going to intensively campaign in Cornwall are they.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    But of course it will only be targetted toward non whites amirite?
    For me, it would be targetted towards those most recently settled here, going back, regardless of ethnicity.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Lol, I haven't been patronising. Just because I've calmly refuted all of your BNP propaganda doesn't mean I'm patronising, it just means I'm well educated :fyi:
    No. You've been selective in "refuting" (which you haven't done at all) the posts you think you may get somewhere with, and you are patronising with your stupid smileys, and obsession with gaining a cyber-ego. And you seem to have a really high opinion of yourself. For even someone diametrically opposed to my opinions regarding state intervention commented, and I quote: "I thought it was a total joke when I saw Democracy come 2nd or 3rd in the official ‘best debater’ poll last year on TSR. I somehow don’t think so. He often uses those pathetic sarcastic smilies in a serious debate." :awesome:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Democracy is a tool. Has to be said.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i thought nick made some good points, though next time i think it would be better to stick more solidly to one subject in the limited time.

    On NB's point about the BNP targetting the working class - thats because the working class are at the sharp end of the problems, they are the ones competing with third world immigrants for housing, education resources, jobs etc. Naturally those that feel the greatest effect from immigration are more likely to vote BNP. The middle class are very much insulated from it. (including myself).

    In my opinion the great leap that the BNP must make is to appeal to the middle class as well as its traditional working class stronghold. The middle class votes are essential to make any headway.

    Unfortunately the big difference between working class and middle class is that the middle class seek to be politcally correct and voting BNP is currently the biggest faux pas a middle class person can make. Getting over this self-censorship is the biggest hurdle to overcome as once the middle classes and media can talk openly about immigration, citizenship, identity etc then the british people can reassert themselves.

    I am hoping that the first nationalist break throught will come from the continent, it would be prudent for british nationalists to try and help our european cousins (donating money?) as it will eventually benefit us too.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.