Look Who Is Talking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maven

As for the USA supporting this and that. When you're facing the destruction of the world, any person on you're side is a good friend. Nuclear politics is well beyond you, little one.

I don't really think any issue matters to you, you're just anti-american. It wouldn't surprise me if you're anti-west all together. I care not. You have very one sided views that makes it pointless to hold an adult conversion with you.

---

LOL that's an argument to use when you run out of points to talk or justifications to offer :)

Now the WMD chase has been officially called off. Which proves there were no WMDs in Iraq, which in turn proves Bush and Blair lied to their own people, to the UN and to the whole world. But I guess it doesn't matter, does it? What matters more is the reforms in the UN so it can back up the US in its unilateral aggressions in future, calls for regime changes in Russia and almost everywhere else in the world. Neo-cons on a ride huh?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

LOL that's an argument to use when you run out of points to talk or justifications to offer :)

Now the WMD chase has been officially called off. Which proves there were no WMDs in Iraq, which in turn proves Bush and Blair lied to their own people, to the UN and to the whole world. But I guess it doesn't matter, does it? What matters more is the reforms in the UN so it can back up the US in its unilateral aggressions in future, calls for regime changes in Russia and almost everywhere else in the world. Neo-cons on a ride huh?

.

---

Yep - that's about the size of it.

Our little plans are finally working - world dominance - first automobiles, airplanes, medicines, space exploration...

then WINDOW's...

...eventually it will all belong to us!

Oh - wait a minute - do we actually want any of this? Nah - I'm busy this week :rolleyes:

Must be just Bush and Blair - two crazy egomaniacs.

And I wanted to vacation in Saddam's IRAQ - that would have been one heck of a good time :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

...proves Bush and Blair lied to their own people...

---

Of course they did, all politician's are liars.

I just believe that in Blair's position, with the choice of leaving Saddam in power, or taking him out of power, I would have made the same decision. That's what they are there to do.....decide (and don't forget parliament also voted in favour of going to war)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

(and don't forget parliament also voted in favour of going to war)

---

As did Congress

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

As did Congress

---

As they are intended to do.
If the American people disagreed with the war in Iraq as much as the protestors said they do then Bush would never have been re-elected.

I suppose we shall see on 5th May how the British people decide

Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. I don't think (hope?) that anyone disagrees with that. The world is a much better place without him.

However, the way in which the coalition went to war is at best dubious. For instance Blair was quoted before the war as saying that he would leave Saddam in power if he complied with UN resolutions. He used other justifications to the UK parliament in order to take the UK to war.

Now, however, he rationalises the war by saying (effectively) it was a regime change mission. A preemptive regime change mission. The stance changed as the reasons given for going to war evaporated (WMD, national security - the 45 minutes etc etc)

No problems particularly with either stance; as long as it was justified in an internationally legal fashion I would concur with the decision for war.

My problem is the consistent change of stance. I'd just like to know which stance it actually was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I'd just like to know which stance it actually was.

---

I really don't think that information should be shared with the public - that's way over the head of the common person - as it should be.

Military and intelligence factors that cannot be openly talked about, as well as long term military goals are part of what goes into the decisions to go to war.

I have total confidence that Bush, Blair, the military generals made the right choice.

If the public needed to see WMD for justification then so be it - that makes them simple minded.

If the public needed to see Saddam get one more chance - another week to give it up - then so be it.

If the UN had any power, intelligence or ability to carry anything out I would be much happier - but they are basically a bunch of ambassadors that have no real information and carry very little weight.

A bunch of UN inspectors driving around IRAQ for two years looking for a "moving" pile of weapons must have been a real laugh for Saddam - crazy as he was!

And our leaders should certainly never listen to the UN - get them to agree with us with resolutions shows that other countries are behind us - but listen to them - never!

I guess the real issue is - for the reasons that you've stated - it's all so obviously disinformation dissemination.

Bit hard to take in a democracy - but the reasons you give justify it enough, I guess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

As they are intended to do.
If the American people disagreed with the war in Iraq as much as the protestors said they do then Bush would never have been re-elected.

I suppose we shall see on 5th May how the British people decide

---

I think more people care how secure their job is and how many taxes they are paying rather than what is going on in Iraq. Iraq is old news I think most people have put it behind them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithyrl

I think more people care how secure their job is and how many taxes they are paying rather than what is going on in Iraq. Iraq is old news I think most people have put it behind them.

---

I agree, which is why I am finding this election extremely boring. It seems more like handbags at dawn than concentrating on real issues.

What do you believe the 'real' issues are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithyrl

I think more people care how secure their job is and how many taxes they are paying rather than what is going on in Iraq. Iraq is old news I think most people have put it behind them.

---

I bet you wouldnt say the saem thing about 9/11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

What do you believe the 'real' issues are?

---

Usual. taxes, health, transport, education,.
If any of them said they would either:
a) Scrap taxes on petrol
b) Put ALL the money on motor taxes back into transport (roads etc)
c) Subsidies from motor taxes to help develop other engine types (hydrogen power cell, electric etc)

i think it would be a good idea to introduce tax cuts on people sharing vehicles, the more people in your car the less you pay. Imagine if you shared with just one person, thats half the cars off the road.

Bit unfair to the likes of me though isn't it?
All my mates work in different parts of Cardiff and all my workmates live in Cardiff so i couldn't share if I wanted to.

Besides, I often work one or two hours overtime because of the odd crisis or two so I can't expect someone else to wait two hours for a lift home

For someone of whom it appears 'it's cool to be so bored' you seem to have rather a lot of relevant opinion of the forthcoming election.

May I tactfully suggest that you should get of your @rse and vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

i think it would be a good idea to introduce tax cuts on people sharing vehicles, the more people in your car the less you pay. Imagine if you shared with just one person, thats half the cars off the road.

---

Who is going to verify that you are sharing a ride? Everybody would take the deduction, which would increase the number of cars on the road, as there would be no way to verify if you had a full car or not.

Some places have a car-pool lane, but people often have a dummy that they use to save having to pay a toll. Same thing, I'd bet.

your right its a shame everybody expects the government to do everything for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

For someone of whom it appears 'it's cool to be so bored' you seem to have rather a lot of relevant opinion of the forthcoming election.

May I tactfully suggest that you should get of your @rse and vote?

---

"It's cool to be so bored"? :ehh:

Vote? For who? They are all liars, promising the world but not explaining how they plan to do it. In the end they are all the same so what difference does it matter.
As a single working man living alone I will always end up worse off because families always get the priority

im gonna vote for liberal democrats, and to be honest families should get priority without them the country isnt going anywhere, Britain is already looking at an under population problem.

Go forth and impregnate!

Surely if you are not prepared to use your voice then you shouldn't complain!

I agree that they are all liars, and cheats but I believe that if you read all the policies there will be at least one policy that will make the difference and in that case you should decide on that.

For instance: I've ruled the Lib dems out because they want to give convicted prisoners the vote and they want to remove mandatory life sentences of convicted murderers; that is against my sensibilities and they do not promote any other significant (to me) policies that would enable me to overlook this.

I think, as I've said before, that the apathy to the democratic process is an appalling state of affairs. The weight of responsibility in a democracy should lie with the electorate.

I do not think 'it's cool to be so bored'

You like that phrase don't you? Dunno where you got it from.

The fact is that each of the parties have policies that I both strongly agree with, and disagree with. So I am only picking the lesser of four evils, which seems pointless.

None of the parties appeal to me so I am not voting for the sake of it

'it's cool to be so bored' if from a Ben Folds Five song:http://www.benfoldsfive.com/lyrics/whatever_10.html

To me, it describes the state of British politics this time around.

May I respectfully suggest that you grab a friend.

Get a printout of this page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2...LD_UK&x=9&y=11

Weight all of the policies on how important they are to you, personally - and you have to be honest - say 5 for really important, and 0 for don't care.

Get your friend to read the policies to you and you decide which one you agree on most.

At the end of this you will (generally) have a number of ticks by a number of policies spread across a number of a parties. For each tick multiply by your weighting factor (actually just add it) and you will get a score for each party.

The one that scores highest get's your vote.

Perhaps someone with a bit of extra time on their hands should write software to do this. I would, but, y'know being a slave and all that . . .

It's simple then innit? If you don't bother turning up at the ballot you shouldn't be whingeing about policies either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

It's simple then innit? If you don't bother turning up at the ballot you shouldn't be whingeing about policies either.

---

I am of the opinion that there should be some form of compulsoryness (?) about voting. Shame it's difficult to do (because voting should be anonymous)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

It's simple then innit? If you don't bother turning up at the ballot you shouldn't be whingeing about policies either.

---

I'm not whinging about policies. I'm whinging about the lack of imagination/commitment to poilicies.
This election seems less about the policies but more about slagg1ing each other off. Petty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I am of the opinion that there should be some form of compulsoryness (?) about voting. Shame it's difficult to do (because voting should be anonymous)

---

whats devolved mean, thats what is says about policies on the bbc link.

People have as much right to not vote as they have to vote. I think it is ridiculous to suggest forced voting and if you think hard about it I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

whats devolved mean, thats what is says about policies on the bbc link.

People have as much right to not vote as they have to vote. I think it is ridiculous to suggest forced voting and if you think hard about it I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion.

---

If there are no voters then you do not have a democracy. Is living in a free democratic country important to you?

Oh please. There will always be voters but over half of the population feel disillusioned by what goes on, so why should they vote when they cannot decide who to vote for?

I refuse to vote for a party just to keep another out of power (so called strategic voting). For example, in my constituency Labour is in power with Plaid Cymru in close second. People who would normally vote for Lib Dems/Conservative are being encouraged to vote for Plaid just to get Labour out of power....problem is the party they then have in power is STILL not the party they really wanted.
That to me just seems absolutely ridiculous.

Besides, I honestly couldn't care less who is in power because I will still end up being taxed more in many different ways and you know what, life goes on as normal.

I agree. Strategic voting is contrary to the principles of democracy - and I find it abhorrent.

Nevertheless you should choose a party that you agree with most and cast your vote. I wonder why you feel it's acceptable not to cast your vote.

If you researched a little more I'm sure that there is one party who would stand out more than the others for you and it is that party that you should vote for. You should never expect to agree with all policies of a political party - if you do - then you are one lucky fellow!! More than anything else I believe you should avoid 'personality' issues; which means you are left with the policies, and the policies alone.

And BTW, whether right or wrong, life has not gone as normal in Iraq which I believe is a direct result of the political party that was in power. The British electorate who turned out in 2001 made a real difference to millions of other human beings. Whether that difference will turn out to be a good thing, or bad thing, is another matter: the point is that those who voted made a difference.

Your indifference, to me, is a lack of fortitude, and of moral courage.

Why do I feel it is acceptable not to vote?
Because every politician is simply after a better paid position, they don't give a monkey's about the actual contintuency.

Ask yourself this, when the average turnout for voting is around 45% doesn't that mean that 55% have not voted which obviously indicates that the majority of the population agrees with me that none of the parties deserve my vote because none of them give a **** about me.
<<rant over>>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

If there are no voters then you do not have a democracy. Is living in a free democratic country important to you?

---

Its not a free democratic country if your forced to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

Its not a free democratic country if your forced to vote.

---

excellent point.
Which must mean that to be in a free democratic country enables voters the right NOT to vote?

You're quite right.

If you feel this way which, of course, you are entitled to, then so be it.

You can have the freedom - millions can't - the same millions wouldn't squander their vote in the abject comfort you have.

Enjoy the democracy. Enjoy the freedom.

I'll be the one exercising that freedom. You'll be the one complaining.

In my eyes you have nothing to add to any political debate about anything because you are unable (for whatever reason) to exercise your democratic rights

I believe it is the whole countries loss that it appears that you will not vote.

Which is a shame.

"it's cool to be so bored" :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I'll be the one exercising that freedom. You'll be the one complaining.

In my eyes you have nothing to add to any political debate about anything because you are unable (for whatever reason) to exercise your democratic rights

---

:lol:
This is really getting on your nerves isn't it?

Perhaps you'd like to preach to the other 55% who don't vote? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

:lol:
This is really getting on your nerves isn't it?

Perhaps you'd like to preach to the other 55% who don't vote? :D

---

(i) Yes it is
(ii) They wouldn't listen to me like you won't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

excellent point.
Which must mean that to be in a free democratic country enables voters the right NOT to vote?

---

Yes thats what what I have been saying, I personally agree with yrwyddfa that everyone should vote, but disagree with him that everyone must.

The one thing I hate however is when people say they are not voting because their party will "never get in"

what constituency is everyone in, out of curiosity

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...es/default.stm

im Altrincham & Sale West

Caerphilly.
Pretty much a dead cert for Labour.

I would imagine Altrincham & Sale West is a bit of a vital seat for Conservatives/Labour. Talk about a battleground.

sounds like you have to pronounce it caerphilly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

sounds like you have to pronounce it caerphilly

---

Funnily enough it is pronounced Caerphilly :ehh:

i think wally meant you have to pronounce it carefully.

bom-bom-tsssssss

Thank you, he's here all week :rolleyes: