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

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arminius)
    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.
    This has been my view actually. That a development of Nationalism on the continent would encourage something of a knock-on effect, and be seen as a sort of legitimate option.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    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.
    Of course it was hyperbole, he was hoping for some attention and he got it. Voluntas however thinks Nick Griffin's hyperbolising in a desperate bid for some column inches constituted 'good common sense' and that was the point I was refuting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The reason i think that, if, there is a resergence in nationalist governments, it will happen across the world is because the the movements that work against it are also international.

    I think that nationalism today is inspired by people wanting to be free of the oppressive form of capitalism we find ourselves under. Throughout the western world we are all under the same sort of financial system which by its nature benefits the very few. Economics is the main driver of political change and economics is what is driving the mass immigration of third world peoples into europe.

    Nationalism is the only way for the people of europe to fight for their future freedom and prosperity, to accept unrestricted mass immigration is to condemn us to a future living in a europe short of resources, space and social cohesion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Not about the Holocaust.
    :facepalm2:

    Oh dear, it just goes from bad to worse. Well I guess he's to be commended for the fact that he's no longer made any gaffes about the Holocaust, good old Nick, he's switched to other things now for example...


    "As I say, 'freedom', 'security', 'identity', 'democracy', nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas: they are salable. Perhaps one day, once by being rather more subtle, we got ourselves into a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their minds and say, 'Yes, every last one must go'. Perhaps they will one day, but if you offer that as your soul mate to start with, you're going to get absolutely nowhere. So, INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT RACIAL PURITY WE TALK ABOUT IDENTITY."

    A true democrat and defender of free speech he is! :rofl2:



    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.
    Don't try and educate me, I'm well aware of who they are. I'm also well aware of the fact that your argument is absolute nonsense. They are militantly against other races, but they'll still go out for a pint with their black buddies.


    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.
    Oh yeah? When was the last time the BNP campaigned to save the NHS? Or to stop tuition fees? Or to nationalise the railways (and I mean really campaign, I don't mean a half baked promise on their manifesto). The BNP doesn't want working class unity, it wants to divide the working classes along the lines of race, sexual orientation, etc, so it can further its own racist ends.


    For me, it would be targetted towards those most recently settled here, going back, regardless of ethnicity.
    Who cares what you think, you don't write their party policy do you?



    No. You've been selective in "refuting" (which you haven't done at all)
    :rolleyes:

    Ask anyone who's been following this thread. Your arguments are based on wishy washy nonsense based on your own personal support of the BNP (yes, really). Every single one of your propaganda points, has been successfully shown to be contrary to what you think it is. And to top it all off, you started lying about your sig in the most farcical manner :rofl2:

    the posts you think you may get somewhere with,
    Eh? I've replied to every one of your posts. Going blind are you? Well you know what they say, it's good for the prostate, but bad for the eyesight...

    and you are patronising with your stupid smileys,
    :upyours:

    No seriously, that's just the final dying embers of a pathetic argument from an exhausted BNP apologist who has no more to say.

    and obsession with gaining a cyber-ego.
    See below :rolleyes:


    And you seem to have a really high opinion of yourself.
    Well, I am quite fabulous

    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."
    Do you think I give a **** what you or anyone else on here thinks about me? I think this also refuted your idiotic point about my "cyberego", it doesn't ****ing exist, cause I don't give two hoots what any of you think of me.

    And I was second :king2:

    You know you've lost when you have to resort to bizzarre ad hominem attacks. Good fun as always, NB.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    :yawn: These multiquotes would probably be a bit more interesting if they weren't full of easily refutable, prejudicial, condescending nonsense. You silly billy.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    :facepalm2:

    Oh dear, it just goes from bad to worse. Well I guess he's to be commended for the fact that he's no longer made any gaffes about the Holocaust, good old Nick, he's switched to other things now for example...


    "As I say, 'freedom', 'security', 'identity', 'democracy', nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas: they are salable. Perhaps one day, once by being rather more subtle, we got ourselves into a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their minds and say, 'Yes, every last one must go'. Perhaps they will one day, but if you offer that as your soul mate to start with, you're going to get absolutely nowhere. So, INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT RACIAL PURITY WE TALK ABOUT IDENTITY."

    A true democrat and defender of free speech he is! :rofl2:
    Yes. It's quite easy to present this quote how you'd like without knowing the context. How do you know, for example, that this wasn't a speech simply about PR?
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=245

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Don't try and educate me, I'm well aware of who they are. I'm also well aware of the fact that your argument is absolute nonsense. They are militantly against other races, but they'll still go out for a pint with their black buddies.
    Your knowledge and attitude towards the human psyche is quite warped. Or is it just that people can't change their opinions when you don't want them to do so? Well, duh...:rolleyes:

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Oh yeah? When was the last time the BNP campaigned to save the NHS? Or to stop tuition fees? Or to nationalise the railways (and I mean really campaign, I don't mean a half baked promise on their manifesto). The BNP doesn't want working class unity, it wants to divide the working classes along the lines of race, sexual orientation, etc, so it can further its own racist ends.
    Have you looked at any campaigns they do? That's the crucial question. Plus, this point has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was saying that they targetted working class areas because they're the areas where most Britons are being forced out of work and refused homes.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Who cares what you think, you don't write their party policy do you?
    Oh for God's sake. I think what I think is pretty bloody important when the initial comment was concerning why I'd potentially jump on their bandwagon. No, I don't write party policy. But that is the party policy anyway at the moment. It concerns Poles, Spaniards, Australians etc. Did you even know that voluntary resettlement already exists (and it's not racially discriminative)? The BNP position is that they'd simply pump more money into the existing system. Oh wait, are you going to come out with more "but they iz hyding it" guesswork and Democracy's Smilies of Doom (used as masks to cover up actual debating incompetence).

    (Original post by Democracy)
    :rolleyes:

    Ask anyone who's been following this thread. Your arguments are based on wishy washy nonsense based on your own personal support of the BNP (yes, really). Every single one of your propaganda points, has been successfully shown to be contrary to what you think it is. And to top it all off, you started lying about your sig in the most farcical manner :rofl2:
    And you talk about ad hom. :rolleyes: I think anyone who's been reading this thread has seen you as they usually do really. Intolerant, ignorant, over-the-top, unsubstantial and inconclusive. And no. I don't support the BNP. You don't just tell me who I support because it makes it easier for you to go on your crusades of rage against those who don't agree with you. Yuz iz a CPB member and die-hard Stalinist. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Democracy)
    ::upyours:

    No seriously, that's just the final dying embers of a pathetic argument from an exhausted BNP apologist who has no more to say.
    You do realise that just telling yourself that you're God's gift, and that I have "no more to say" doesn't actually make it true. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Do you think I give a **** what you or anyone else on here thinks about me? I think this also refuted your idiotic point about my "cyberego", it doesn't ****ing exist, cause I don't give two hoots what any of you think of me.
    You do have a cyberego. :teeth: You do give a ****. :teeth: You haven't refuted any of my points. :teeth: Lol. Posting nonsensical rubbish that I tell myself is a very interesting method. Maybe you should try i......oh wait. :rolleyes:

    And swearing are we? :eek: Did I touch poor baby's nerve? :cry: (wow, this 'Democracy' method of "debate" is fun, hehe)

    (Original post by Democracy)
    And I was second :king2:
    Good habit you've got into then, seen as you're evidently second here.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    You know you've lost when you have to resort to bizzarre ad hominem attacks. Good fun as always, NB.
    In fact, it was you who began with the ad hom, and I've done anything but 'lose'. I'd say I've comprehensively shown you up tbh, on quite a lot of points. You not agreeing doesn't make them wrong. In fact, I don't think you can make a single post without some sort of patronising reference to your opponent (i.e. the fact that you've been continuously making reference to what you believe my political affiliations to be). It's another terrible habit. It's like you "know you've lost" from the outset really. LOL.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arminius)
    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.
    Being one of the few argueably "middle class" BNP voters myself I agree with you.

    However, I think once a conservative government gets into power that does little to address the pressing issues that people want resolved, many middle class voters could consider voting BNP.

    Things are going to have to get worse in this country before they get better,unfortunately.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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 isn't more flexible than it has to be, it has the necessary flexibility to not impose sanctions when clearly importing certain goods are the best short and long term options for the country. However, a protectionist policy needs to be the dominant one in order for British industry to exist and grow in terms of availability for export.

    I agree free trade is more flexible, but it is more flexible than is necessary.

    Yes, they must know and be behind the decisions- it would be decided based upon long term analysis of economic viability in regards to self-sufficency.



    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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.

    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.
    Not everyone would have to think how I do, but I can't pretend the Britain I envisage is not a far more patriotic and nationalistic one which would see people not only buying with regards to their local and national community, but also where they would rather suffer short-term deficit in the knowledge they were contributing to a stable economic system.

    I appreciate reducing taxes and regulations on business would promote British industry, however free trade does not necessarily need to go alongside these measures. Free trade would still render a lot of British industry completely useless as a result of being completely undercut by foreign industry in many sectors. In consequence, I would often not get the choice to exercise my nationalistic tendencies because the industries I could be supporting would be dead as a result of foreign competition.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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.
    Well,at the moment that wouldn't be the case. A single protectionist country amidst a large group of free trade nations could be potentially very beneficial.

    If all the other countries did employ protectionist policy, my plans would not be entirely scuppered. Britain could still work on becoming as self-sufficent as possible and improving it's industry for it's own people.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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.
    The best way to get this specific industry, like others, off the ground and to the best possible level it can be is by protectionism. If free trade was present, foreign gases would still be used by the majority of the population as a result of avoiding short-term deficit. This would mean the industry would remian stagnant and untested, and would be a waste of the resources we have available to us in Britain- as an island not too far away from many other countries with coastlines, we are in one of the best positions in the world to develop this industry. However, if we do not perfect it and make it fit for our own people first, why should we expect there to be a massive demand for exports? In order for industry to grow and develop to hit a level where it is wanted on a global scale, we need to exclude foreign competition and allow industries like this to grow in our nation first.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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.
    Innovation needs to be shaped and moulded into the most beneficial form it can take. I think this works best under the wing of a government with the long-term interests of the people and economy in mind, rather than someone who can be possibly misguided by greed, or even not have the funds to develop a potentially amazing idea.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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.
    With the banks I agree, he should have let the banks go the wall and then pick up the pieces at the end through nationalisation.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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.
    Well,nationalisation of the banks is something I support.

    Greed alone is not specific enough- short-termist greed alongside the knowledge that the government would bail them out. The inability to see further than short term profit at the expense of the ordinary citizen.

    The banks here in Britain were not on the receiving end of such legislation to my knowledge, however the taking away of restrictions has happened over the years has "let the foxes in amongst the chickens", to quote Nick Griffin. The necessary regulations need to be in place to stop bankers conning people and lending out money they know people will not be able to pay back.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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.
    At present, option 2 is closer to being correct. However,I feel that for British goods to be of a high enough standard for export protectionist policies need to be in place to get them off the ground and provide for the nation first, rather than relying on subject to change foreign goods and services which render aspects of British industry useless.


    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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.
    You would call buying foreign goods a "fundamental human right"? I suppose it is the sign of the constantly globalising times we are living in, but personally I wouldn't call it a human right at all as much as it is a desire.

    I appreciate you want the right to choose what you buy, but without the increasingly globalised world we live in the idea probably wouldn't even cross your mind unless it was for something the country simply would not benefit from in the short and long term.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    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?
    A nation needs to all be pulling in the same direction if it is to go anywhere- patriotism and a sense of community would both spill over into choices of products and services, I think.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Being one of the few argueably "middle class" BNP voters myself I agree with you.

    However, I think once a conservative government gets into power that does little to address the pressing issues that people want resolved, many middle class voters could consider voting BNP. .
    Perhaps, but by then another... 8 years? (2 terms?) at least will have gone by and the demographic situation will be far harder as the immigration continues. Each year that goes by without action makes any solution much harder.

    The thing is we know all of this already, Cameron will not tackle the hard issues of identity, the real economy and immigration, he is merely another manager of the same old system and won't bring any sweeping changes. Preferable to labour? yes but only as the lesser of two evils and in some ways dangerous as giving people the perception of a change without delivering any will set back the BNP some years, we will have to wait years for people to realise they have been hoodwinked, AGAIN.

    Things are going to have to get worse in this country before they get better,unfortunately
    Yeah, that is probably true.

    Tbh i think we need a revolution, in the best sense of that work. like the american revolution, we need to overthrow the old system and put in place a british republic with a constition that will defend our rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arminius)
    Perhaps, but by then another... 8 years? (2 terms?) at least will have gone by and the demographic situation will be far harder as the immigration continues. Each year that goes by without action makes any solution much harder.
    This is true, but as mass immigration comes in heavier and heavier waves, and the multi-cultural experiment fails in more and more areas throughout the country, our vote will increase.

    It's a shame the Front Nationale is declining due to financial troubles in France- seeing the effects of a nationalist government over there could well have swayed the minds of the British people.

    (Original post by Arminius)
    The thing is we know all of this already, Cameron will not tackle the hard issues of identity, the real economy and immigration, he is merely another manager of the same old system and won't bring any sweeping changes. Preferable to labour? yes but only as the lesser of two evils and in some ways dangerous as giving people the perception of a change without delivering any will set back the BNP some years, we will have to wait years for people to realise they have been hoodwinked, AGAIN.
    I agree with all of this, but I suppose the only benefit of extended deception is that it will make the "British awakening" hit a very heavy punch to the political elite when it does come.

    (Original post by Arminius)
    Yeah, that is probably true.

    Tbh i think we need a revolution, in the best sense of that work. like the american revolution, we need to overthrow the old system and put in place a british republic with a constition that will defend our rights.
    Yeah,I agree.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    I appreciate you want the right to choose what you buy.
    Sorry for the late reply, and for only quoting a very small portion of your post - thats only to make sure that you see this post.

    I could reply fully, but I don't see it as worth our times to continue such a long discussion on this because we're both making the same points time and time again. There is a difference in ideology between us that's just too huge for either of us to convince the other.

    As a kind of evaluation of our discussion, I fear that you see the situation as being your BNP stance vs the current labour position. I don't blame you for thinking we're getting it wrong currently and want a solution to the problems - but I don't think you're fully considering what the situation under libertarianism would be, and how much right to choose you would have, and why. Whenever I made a point you were very "yes but at the moment this and this is wrong" - I'm not advocating what we do currently, so that's an irrelevance. Or maybe you just feel deregulation of British business alone is not sufficient to make it successful, though how you could reach that conclusion I do not know as it's obviously speculative.

    Secondly it puts huge faith in government to get things right, which is simply not something I am ever going to comprehend. I don't know if you think that's an unfair evaluation, but thanks for the talk anyways! We can talk about something social rather than economical if you want and maybe opinions would be more liable to change?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Sorry for the late reply, and for only quoting a very small portion of your post - thats only to make sure that you see this post.

    I could reply fully, but I don't see it as worth our times to continue such a long discussion on this because we're both making the same points time and time again. There is a difference in ideology between us that's just too huge for either of us to convince the other.

    As a kind of evaluation of our discussion, I fear that you see the situation as being your BNP stance vs the current labour position. I don't blame you for thinking we're getting it wrong currently and want a solution to the problems - but I don't think you're fully considering what the situation under libertarianism would be, and how much right to choose you would have, and why. Whenever I made a point you were very "yes but at the moment this and this is wrong" - I'm not advocating what we do currently, so that's an irrelevance. Or maybe you just feel deregulation of British business alone is not sufficient to make it successful, though how you could reach that conclusion I do not know as it's obviously speculative.

    Secondly it puts huge faith in government to get things right, which is simply not something I am ever going to comprehend. I don't know if you think that's an unfair evaluation, but thanks for the talk anyways! We can talk about something social rather than economical if you want and maybe opinions would be more liable to change?
    Firstly, thanks for discussing BNP policy without throwing around trigger words like "nazi", which are designed to draw away from the content of the debate. It's a rarity these days.

    To evaluate from my perspective, I agree that we are ideologically opposed,however at least we both recognise there are problems with the current method of running things.

    A discussion about social policy would be interesting, even though we are probably just as much if not more opposed on this issue :p:.

    As a libertarian, what do you identify as problems with British society, and how would libertarianism set about solving them?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    A discussion about social policy would be interesting, even though we are probably just as much if not more opposed on this issue :p:.

    As a libertarian, what do you identify as problems with British society, and how would libertarianism set about solving them?
    So you believe the government should take a strong stance on drugs, prostitution, gambling, guns etc - and what do you feel about big brother state e.g. DNA databases, ID cards, CCTV.

    On war we may agree, BNP are non-interventionist right? Libertarians are as well ...

    Anyway the problem with society to a right-wing libertarian such as myself is the size of government. I do believe in having a state, obviously, but the state should serve the people rather than the other way around - the government has extended its powers into inappropiate areas which pointlessly restrict civil liberties and also ruin the economy. I also think the EU is making this a greater problem still, by again imposing more and more laws from an ever expanding centralised government that the people don't even want.

    The solution is simple: to make government smaller, to make it less involved in all issues at all times - and for the emphasis to return to individuals deciding what is best for themselves rather than letting a potentially corrupt politician decide what is best for other people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Nope. Still not comparable. Griffin needs to get some perspective. It's like stubbing your toe and comparing it to the Rape of Nanking.
    It's the principle though, that political aggression is acceptable because the BNP are so nasty nasty. That's what alot of people believe..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    So you believe the government should take a strong stance on drugs, prostitution, gambling, guns etc - and what do you feel about big brother state e.g. DNA databases, ID cards, CCTV.
    The government should take a stronger stance on all of those issues,yes,except for guns. The situation is a little different concerning guns- gun ownership would be distributed to those who had completed national service.

    DNA databases, ID cards and CCTV are all unnecessary interferences in people's lives.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    On war we may agree, BNP are non-interventionist right? Libertarians are as well ...
    Yeah, war would only be fought if it was in direct British interests.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Anyway the problem with society to a right-wing libertarian such as myself is the size of government. I do believe in having a state, obviously, but the state should serve the people rather than the other way around - the government has extended its powers into inappropiate areas which pointlessly restrict civil liberties and also ruin the economy. I also think the EU is making this a greater problem still, by again imposing more and more laws from an ever expanding centralised government that the people don't even want.
    I agree with pretty much all of this.It isn't the biggest problem within society by any stretch of the imagination, but I still agree.


    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    The solution is simple: to make government smaller, to make it less involved in all issues at all times - and for the emphasis to return to individuals deciding what is best for themselves rather than letting a potentially corrupt politician decide what is best for other people.
    I agree with this stance on issues such as ID cards and DNA databases, however on issues like the legalisation of drugs I feel it is the job of the government to protect its people.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    however on issues like the legalisation of drugs I feel it is the job of the government to protect its people.
    From themselves...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goddess Fury)
    he's right but because for everyone "BNP is fascist" he's wrong.So Cameron's new wars will be approved
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by road)
    he's right but because for everyone "BNP is fascist" he's wrong.So Cameron's new wars will be approved
    You think a Conservative government will send the UK to Iran?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goddess Fury)
    You think a Conservative government will send the UK to Iran?
    any war that america and israel will do.With Brown or Cameeron we don't decide
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    These multiquotes would probably be a bit more interesting if they weren't full of easily refutable, prejudicial, condescending nonsense. You silly billy.
    Apologies for the late reply, I've been away from TSR for the past fortnight. Sadly the quality (if one could call it that) of your posts is still rather lacking. I sincerely hope you haven't taken my non response over the past two weeks as a tacit acceptance of your, er, points. Anyway, here we go :teeth:




    Yes. It's quite easy to present this quote how you'd like without knowing the context. How do you know, for example, that this wasn't a speech simply about PR?
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=245
    How did I know (before clicking on it) that that link would lead to one of your posts? The thing is, people who defend fascists on this website are rather few and far between. However you present it or say it, those words are inexcusable, as is your constant apologising for the perpetrator. You pride yourself on being some sort of "real antifascist", thus far your posts haven't shown that as you are infused with a zealous love for the BNP and an inability to ever accept that they're wrong. Poor show.

    Your knowledge and attitude towards the human psyche is quite warped. Or is it just that people can't change their opinions when you don't want them to do so? Well, duh...
    I don't recall Nick Griffin changing his opinions. He just keeps them to himself now because it's good PR. When he starts accepting the rights of Asians and Blacks to be as British as white folk, then perhaps I'll start giving him a second chance. I don't know the guy personally, I can only go by his politics and history, neither of which endear him to me.

    Have you looked at any campaigns they do? That's the crucial question. Plus, this point has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was saying that they targetted working class areas because they're the areas where most Britons are being forced out of work and refused homes.
    Yep, I have, thanks for asking and it backs up my point, that they haven't done any real political or local campaigning apart from "your bin's not being emptied twice a week?!?!?! It's the black man's fault! Immigrants, immigrants everywhere!!!!!". That's not campaigning, that's demagoguery.


    Oh for God's sake. I think what I think is pretty bloody important when the initial comment was concerning why I'd potentially jump on their bandwagon. No, I don't write party policy. But that is the party policy anyway at the moment. It concerns Poles, Spaniards, Australians etc. Did you even know that voluntary resettlement already exists (and it's not racially discriminative)? The BNP position is that they'd simply pump more money into the existing system. Oh wait, are you going to come out with more "but they iz hyding it" guesswork and Democracy's Smilies of Doom (used as masks to cover up actual debating incompetence).
    I wouldn't advise calling other people incompetant, not when your own debating style revolves around an endless series of patronisations (yes, genius, I did know) and ad hominem insults which invariably get you banned. But you just don't learn, do you? But it still doesn't make it any less irrelevant that what you think about the BNP doesn't make reality any less real.


    And you talk about ad hom. I think anyone who's been reading this thread has seen you as they usually do really. Intolerant, ignorant, over-the-top, unsubstantial and inconclusive. And no. I don't support the BNP. You don't just tell me who I support because it makes it easier for you to go on your crusades of rage against those who don't agree with you. Yuz iz a CPB member and die-hard Stalinist.
    Well except that I've provided genuine quotes and sources, you've only feebly replied "well he didn't really mean it that way, he's just been misunderstood". Again, please, you're the one who's been warned/banned for ad hominem attacks, not me. This argument yet again fails.


    You do have a cyberego. You do give a ****. You haven't refuted any of my points. Lol. Posting nonsensical rubbish that I tell myself is a very interesting method. Maybe you should try i......oh wait.

    I'm glad you like the :teeth: smiley, it's something quite fabulous no?

    But no, really, I don't. Or if I do I don't care about it as much as you do. After getting banned 3 or 4 times, one would think that the message would get through to you, but still you persist in raging at anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you. The internet is far more of a serious affair for you, or at least that's what your behaviour indicates.

    Bore on really, even a primary school child eventually realises that after several bouts of punishment it might be a good idea to desist.


    Good habit you've got into then, seen as you're evidently second here.
    Not to you at any rate

    Sorry, did I lose form? Was I meant to finish with ":teeth:"?

    In fact, it was you who began with the ad hom, and I've done anything but 'lose'. I'd say I've comprehensively shown you up tbh, on quite a lot of points. You not agreeing doesn't make them wrong. In fact, I don't think you can make a single post without some sort of patronising reference to your opponent (i.e. the fact that you've been continuously making reference to what you believe my political affiliations to be). It's another terrible habit. It's like you "know you've lost" from the outset really. LOL.
    Sorry, facts don't lie, it is you who regularly get warned/banned around here for ad hom, not me. If I had "began with the ad hom", I would have been warned by now, the mods are quite thorough with this type of thing you know. Oddly enough I wasn't. Don't try and equate me with yourself so you feel better.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Apologies for the late reply, I've been away from TSR for the past fortnight. Sadly the quality (if one could call it that) of your posts is still rather lacking. I sincerely hope you haven't taken my non response over the past two weeks as a tacit acceptance of your, er, points. Anyway, here we go :teeth:






    How did I know (before clicking on it) that that link would lead to one of your posts? The thing is, people who defend fascists on this website are rather few and far between. However you present it or say it, those words are inexcusable, as is your constant apologising for the perpetrator. You pride yourself on being some sort of "real antifascist", thus far your posts haven't shown that as you are infused with a zealous love for the BNP and an inability to ever accept that they're wrong. Poor show.



    I don't recall Nick Griffin changing his opinions. He just keeps them to himself now because it's good PR. When he starts accepting the rights of Asians and Blacks to be as British as white folk, then perhaps I'll start giving him a second chance. I don't know the guy personally, I can only go by his politics and history, neither of which endear him to me.



    Yep, I have, thanks for asking and it backs up my point, that they haven't done any real political or local campaigning apart from "your bin's not being emptied twice a week?!?!?! It's the black man's fault! Immigrants, immigrants everywhere!!!!!". That's not campaigning, that's demagoguery.



    I wouldn't advise calling other people incompetant, not when your own debating style revolves around an endless series of patronisations (yes, genius, I did know) and ad hominem insults which invariably get you banned. But you just don't learn, do you? But it still doesn't make it any less irrelevant that what you think about the BNP doesn't make reality any less real.




    Well except that I've provided genuine quotes and sources, you've only feebly replied "well he didn't really mean it that way, he's just been misunderstood". Again, please, you're the one who's been warned/banned for ad hominem attacks, not me. This argument yet again fails.



    I'm glad you like the :teeth: smiley, it's something quite fabulous no?

    But no, really, I don't. Or if I do I don't care about it as much as you do. After getting banned 3 or 4 times, one would think that the message would get through to you, but still you persist in raging at anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you. The internet is far more of a serious affair for you, or at least that's what your behaviour indicates.

    Bore on really, even a primary school child eventually realises that after several bouts of punishment it might be a good idea to desist.



    Not to you at any rate

    Sorry, did I lose form? Was I meant to finish with ":teeth:"?



    Sorry, facts don't lie, it is you who regularly get warned/banned around here for ad hom, not me. If I had "began with the ad hom", I would have been warned by now, the mods are quite thorough with this type of thing you know. Oddly enough I wasn't. Don't try and equate me with yourself so you feel better.
    Bloody hell, this is old.

    Anyway, I'll respond in the morning. Just to say, I don't get banned for ad hom. It's usually for single-smiley spam and single-image spam in inappropriate forums, and creating random articles. Lmfao.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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