Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/5/08 09:17 AM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
Member of Parliament or not, he was still a member of an outlawed terrorist organisation and deserved to be treated as a terrorist not as a political prisoner.

He was forced into an outlawed terrorist organisation because her government refused to speak with members of his community.

If you break the law you should be punished the same as everyone else not cry out 'It's not the IRAs fault that we bomb and kill people, the British governement are making us do it. We thereofre deserve special priviledges not normally given to prisoners.'

Do you feel the same way about Mandela, son?

In fact to quote Thatcher 'Mr. Sands was a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice that his organisation did not allow to many of its victims'

She lost that one, all she did was push international sympathy to the side of the Republicans. Have a look here.

My favourite one has to be:

"In Tehran, Iran revolutionaries sympathising with Sands renamed the street on which the British embassy was located from Winston Churchill street to Bobby Sands street."

At 5/5/08 09:21 AM, neon-dude wrote: Am I the only guy here that supports lib dems?

Yes.

</thread>

Even though our MP is a Lib Dem, and if I was old enough I would vote him

how did this thread get about Bobby Sands

I have faith in you Boris, show us what you're made of

and try not to be racist

I've read a couple of articles about him and people talk so much bollocks and do so much misquoting, just because he's a dosy Tory

NO SHIT!

At 5/5/08 12:50 PM, Earfetish wrote: how did this thread get about Bobby Sands

I made a point about Bobby Sands in reference to the treatment of Hunger Strikers by Margaret Thatcher and simple-but-sandy tried to turn it into another debate about the six counties. Hopefully i've pissed on his bonfire, though.

At 5/5/08 12:52 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 5/5/08 12:50 PM, Earfetish wrote: how did this thread get about Bobby Sands

I made a point about Bobby Sands in reference to the treatment of Hunger Strikers by Margaret Thatcher and simple-but-sandy tried to turn it into another debate about the six counties. Hopefully i've pissed on his bonfire, though.

I only came in halfway through your ongoing debate with someone else about Thatcher. I did notice that page about reactions to the Bobby Sands case, and maybe she should have intervened to prevent them starving to death, but they shouldn't have gained any special 'freedoms' just for being terrorists.

At 5/5/08 01:53 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
I only came in halfway through your ongoing debate with someone else about Thatcher. I did notice that page about reactions to the Bobby Sands case, and maybe she should have intervened to prevent them starving to death, but they shouldn't have gained any special 'freedoms' just for being terrorists.

One man's terrorist...

At 5/5/08 09:24 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: She lost that one, all she did was push international sympathy to the side of the Republicans. Have a look here.

My favourite one has to be:

"In Tehran, Iran revolutionaries sympathising with Sands renamed the street on which the British embassy was located from Winston Churchill street to Bobby Sands street."

Also have a look at these reactions same article:

The Boston Globe commented that "The slow suicide attempt of Bobby Sands has cast his land and his cause into another downward spiral of death and despair. There are no heroes in the saga of Bobby Sands."
The Chicago Tribune wrote that "Mahatma Gandhi used the hunger strike to move his countrymen to abstain from fratricide. Bobby Sands' deliberate slow suicide is intended to precipitate civil war. The former deserved veneration and influence. The latter would be viewed, in a reasonable world, not as a charismatic martyr but as a fanatical suicide, whose regrettable death provides no sufficient occasion for killing others."'

The San Francisco Chronicle argued that political belief should not exempt activists from criminal law: "Terrorism goes far beyond the expression of political belief. And dealing with it does not allow for compromise as many countries of Western Europe and United States have learned. The bombing of bars, hotels, restaurants, robbing of banks, abductions and killings of prominent figures are all criminal acts and must be dealt with by criminal law."

Some American critics and journalists suggested that American press coverage was a "melodrama"[37] which had "given nearly exclusive coverage to pro- I.R.A. spokesmen".[38] One journalist in particular criticised the large pro-IRA Irish-American contingent which "swallow IRA propaganda as if it were taffy", and concluding that IRA "terrorist propaganda triumphs".[39]

Since I live in the only country that matters, Amurica, this news has as little bearing on me ascurrently possible.

On a unrelated note, ZAAL, you magnificent bastard; How long has it been?

At 5/5/08 01:58 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
Also have a look at these reactions same article:

Yeah, I read it. You think what some WASPs wrote in American newspapers changes the massive flow of Republican support within the International Community following Thatcher's refusal to compromise?

It's also good to see that at least the Working Class Americans were moved;

The International Longshoremen's Association in New York announced a twenty-four-hour boycott of British ships.

Over 1,000 people gathered in New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral to hear Cardinal Terence Cooke offer a Mass of reconciliation for Northern Ireland. Irish bars in the city were closed for two hours in mourning.

n Hartford, Connecticut a memorial was dedicated to Bobby Sands and the other hunger strikers in 1997, the only one of its kind in the United States. Set up by the Irish Northern Aid Committee and local Irish-Americans, it stands in a traffic circle known as "Bobby Sands Circle", at the bottom of Maple Avenue near Goodwin Park.

And even some politicians;

The New Jersey General Assembly, the lower house of the New Jersey Legislature, voted 34-29 for a resolution honouring his 'courage and commitment.'

Since you like copypasta so much, have some more:

In Milan, 5,000 students burned the Union Flag and shouted "Freedom for Ulster" during a march.

In Ghent, students invaded the British Consulate.

In Paris, thousands marched behind huge portraits of Sands, to chants of 'The IRA will conquer'.

In Oslo, demonstrators threw a balloon filled with tomato sauce at Elizabeth II, the Queen of the United Kingdom.

In the Soviet Union, Pravda described it as 'another tragic page in the grim chronicle of oppression, discrimination, terror and violence' in Ireland.

In France, many towns and cities have named streets for Sands. Examples include Nantes, St Etienne, Le Mans Vierzon and St Denis.

In the Indian Parliament, opposition members in the upper house Rajya Sabha stood for a minute's silence in tribute. The ruling Congress Party refused to join in.

The Hindustan Times said Margaret Thatcher had allowed a fellow Member of Parliament to die of starvation, an incident which had never before occurred "in a civilised country"

I respect your position as a Unionist, but to even try to argue that letting Hunger Strikers die didn't bring sympathy to the Republicans within the international community is extremely futile.

At 5/5/08 07:57 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

I look at present events and shudder more than you do; I just know from history that the Conservative Party will be worse than our current Labour government. I'd rather have neither of them, but if you're pressing me to choose between them I'm certainly not choosing the Tories.

Now, now, its not a competition I shudder just as much as the next man, I with you though, If it was me Britain would be a senate and each senator would represent the their constituency rather than their political party, which seems to be happening at the moment, back-benchers only seem to take notice when their position is under threat.

She let a Member of Parliament starve to death and she was a fervent supporter of an outdated system which kept Roman Catholics below Presbyterians, those are the facts as I see them.

It would have been political suicide if she gave into the IRA though, though the results were catastrophic for her anyway so it seemed a no win situation to be in.

Fun fact, she was also a "dear friend" to Augusto Pinochet, an insane fascist who violently overthrew a democratically elected socialist government and executed thousands of his own people. Even in 2006, she was noted for her profound sadness at his death.

George Galloway was a good friend of Saddam Hussain but it doesnt mean the man talks any less sense, in politics sometimes .

Of course you can; a bit of cash in hand. The immigrants prefer cash in hand, makes the dosh easier to send back to their families and it means a country that they may not be staying in permanently can't get their hands on their cash.

Well, legally you can't pay them less then minimum wage and if that is the case they would probably be working under the radar anyway so it wouldn't be part of the employment statistics, plus immigrants like the Polish have the right to work here now, so they can pretty much get any job they please, it seems a shame we had nobody filling those positions in the first place and an admission by the government that we do have some lazy S.O.Bs who don't want to do anything.

Larger families deserve more benefits because they're caring for more people, that's common sense.

If I kept 10 German Shepherds I would have the RSPCA come round and take them all off me, I couldn't feed them, I couldn't control them, I couldn't train them, all in all, I could not look after them, if I had 10 growing Children on the otherhand, a much more complex species, im sure you would agree I would be given money and left to get on with it, despite facing the same kinds of problems and many more, in a perfect world there would be breeding licenses.

I worked in a Pension's Office, I used to get people screaming down the phone at me constantly, it's nothing. When the call is over you have a laugh about it with the people sitting next to you, then you go and get a glass of water and piss around for ten minutes chatting up the lassie in the mail room! I'm telling you, office jobs are a doddle.

Lol, was this after you were offering a valuable service to the tax payers of Great Britain, office jobs are easy, he loved it at first but after 7 years of working there being in the same position as he was when he began he gets no job satisfaction, There are probably plently of guys like him too, totally wasted on meanless red tape, sent over the top to file paper for the rest of their lives.

Lol, we have went of the point here slightly, this thread was supposed to be about Boris Johnson, I think he will be pretty useless, I was backing the Gay Lib Dem copper.

At 5/5/08 03:45 PM, KingPaulP wrote:

It would have been political suicide if she gave into the IRA though, though the results were catastrophic for her anyway so it seemed a no win situation to be in.

She didn't have to outright give in, it's the fact that she refused to even compromise, or even treat the Irish Hunger Strikers as though they were human beings.

Fun fact, she was also a "dear friend" to Augusto Pinochet, an insane fascist who violently overthrew a democratically elected socialist government and executed thousands of his own people. Even in 2006, she was noted for her profound sadness at his death.

George Galloway was a good friend of Saddam Hussain but it doesnt mean the man talks any less sense, in politics sometimes .

No he wasn't; that's slander. George Galloway visited Saddam, it doesn't mean he saw him as a friend or even as an ally. Thatcher literally called Pinochet her dear friend and expressed her condolences when he died, sums up what Maggie really thinks of democracy if we're being honest.

Well, legally you can't pay them less then minimum wage and if that is the case they would probably be working under the radar anyway so it wouldn't be part of the employment statistics, plus immigrants like the Polish have the right to work here now, so they can pretty much get any job they please, it seems a shame we had nobody filling those positions in the first place and an admission by the government that we do have some lazy S.O.Bs who don't want to do anything.

My point was that even legal immigrants prefer to do cash in hand work, and a significant number of them do. I'm obviously not going to relate any personal details to support this as it could end up getting people in trouble, but trust me, there are MANY immigrants doing cash in hand work.

If I kept 10 German Shepherds I would have the RSPCA come round and take them all off me, I couldn't feed them, I couldn't control them, I couldn't train them, all in all, I could not look after them, if I had 10 growing Children on the otherhand, a much more complex species, im sure you would agree I would be given money and left to get on with it, despite facing the same kinds of problems and many more, in a perfect world there would be breeding licenses.

Realistically though, how many families do you know with ten children?

Lol, we have went of the point here slightly, this thread was supposed to be about Boris Johnson, I think he will be pretty useless, I was backing the Gay Lib Dem copper.

I was happy as long as the Tories and the BNP never got any gains. I'm not happy anymore.

At 5/5/08 03:58 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 5/5/08 03:45 PM, KingPaulP wrote:

She didn't have to outright give in, it's the fact that she refused to even compromise, or even treat the Irish Hunger Strikers as though they were human beings.

Yes all they wanted was special privileges over other prisioners because they part of an organisation that blew up innocent people, and besides some of the crimes were not even political so why give prisoners who stole and carried a gun these priveleges, which would have also been in place if they were not abolished by the previous Labour government, Sands chose to martyr himself, Thatcher was in a very tricky position.

No he wasn't; that's slander. George Galloway visited Saddam, it doesn't mean he saw him as a friend or even as an ally. Thatcher literally called Pinochet her dear friend and expressed her condolences when he died, sums up what Maggie really thinks of democracy if we're being honest.

He visited him on a number of occasions and has been often described as a mouth peice for Saddam, any way, I am not trying to attack George Galloway I think he is a very intelligent man and has the balls say what he thinks even if it is unpopular, all I am saying is in politics especially the inner circle you have to get your hands dirty by shaking them with some of the most evil men on earth, some would argue Blairs relationship with bush is unsettling, that man has more blood on his hands then Pinochet.

Plus she only stood by him due to the Falklands.

Well, legally you can't pay them less then minimum wage and if that is the case they would probably be working under the radar anyway so it wouldn't be part of the employment statistics, plus immigrants like the Polish have the right to work here now, so they can pretty much get any job they please, it seems a shame we had nobody filling those positions in the first place and an admission by the government that we do have some lazy S.O.Bs who don't want to do anything.

My point was that even legal immigrants prefer to do cash in hand work, and a significant number of them do. I'm obviously not going to relate any personal details to support this as it could end up getting people in trouble, but trust me, there are MANY immigrants doing cash in hand work.

Who doesn't I can believe that quite easily I know loads of British people who like to work cash in hand, but we have went of the point slightly my initial point was that they work harder because they have had it harder which is why benefits should not be a comfortable arrangement.

If I kept 10 German Shepherds I would have the RSPCA come round and take them all off me, I couldn't feed them, I couldn't control them, I couldn't train them, all in all, I could not look after them, if I had 10 growing Children on the otherhand, a much more complex species, im sure you would agree I would be given money and left to get on with it, despite facing the same kinds of problems and many more, in a perfect world there would be breeding licenses.

Realistically though, how many families do you know with ten children?

I know one with 10, they live in the lane behind me and they just seem to drag each other up, I also know 2 families that have 6 children, but I still don't see why people should be given money for the simple fact that they have decided not use contraception more liberally, whereas working families, some would argue families with better DNA can't afford to have too many children. It is a reverse economy you have families who do nothing who are less likely to instill values of hard work given everything they need to survive, then you have families who decide to work and are more likely to instill values of hard work over a barrel.

I was happy as long as the Tories and the BNP never got any gains. I'm not happy anymore.

yeah over 200 seats, plus the Mayor of London, however Gordon will never call a general election until he has to or until the Tories slip up massively, I hate how the Prime minister can choose when to call one, especially one that has not been voted in on any level in the first place, I guess Brown loves democracy too.

london to loldon

At 5/6/08 05:47 AM, KingPaulP wrote:
Yes all they wanted was special privileges over other prisioners because they part of an organisation that blew up innocent people, and besides some of the crimes were not even political so why give prisoners who stole and carried a gun these priveleges, which would have also been in place if they were not abolished by the previous Labour government, Sands chose to martyr himself, Thatcher was in a very tricky position.

He was carrying a gun to protect his community from Loyalist militias who have gunned down innocent Roman Catholics and an occupation force, who let's not sugar coat it, have also gunned down innocent Roman Catholics. Are you telling me you wouldn't be compelled to carry a gun to protect your community? A disenfranchised community who were treated like second class citizens? I'm not in favour of killing innocents by any stretch of the imagination, but I can certainly understand why a frustrated young Catholic would join the IRA during the troubles.

He was forced into a Hunger Strike just like he was forced into joining the I.R.A, the British Government offered him no compromise. Margaret Thatcher should have at least shown willingness to compromise; she was unreasonable and cold and she allowed a Member of Pariliament to starve himself to death.

He visited him on a number of occasions and has been often described as a mouth peice for Saddam, any way, I am not trying to attack George Galloway I think he is a very intelligent man and has the balls say what he thinks even if it is unpopular, all I am saying is in politics especially the inner circle you have to get your hands dirty by shaking them with some of the most evil men on earth, some would argue Blairs relationship with bush is unsettling, that man has more blood on his hands then Pinochet.

That's bollocks; Bush may be a war monger but he was democratically elected and he has never called for outright mass executions of American citizens.

I mean you could argue that Ronald Reagan has plenty of blood on his hands too, and Margaret Thatcher was his bum chum, but even at that, i'm sorry, but you're an idiot if you compare a democratically elected leader to a fascist dictator who took over via a military coup and slaughtered his own people.

Plus she only stood by him due to the Falklands.

She stood by him due to ideological similiarities.

Who doesn't I can believe that quite easily I know loads of British people who like to work cash in hand, but we have went of the point slightly my initial point was that they work harder because they have had it harder which is why benefits should not be a comfortable arrangement.

I don't see how Tories are going to improve Britain in this respect.

I know one with 10, they live in the lane behind me and they just seem to drag each other up, I also know 2 families that have 6 children, but I still don't see why people should be given money for the simple fact that they have decided not use contraception more liberally, whereas working families, some would argue families with better DNA can't afford to have too many children. It is a reverse economy you have families who do nothing who are less likely to instill values of hard work given everything they need to survive, then you have families who decide to work and are more likely to instill values of hard work over a barrel.

I'm not really sure what the point of this rant is. Care to clarify?

I was happy as long as the Tories and the BNP never got any gains. I'm not happy anymore.

yeah over 200 seats, plus the Mayor of London, however Gordon will never call a general election until he has to or until the Tories slip up massively, I hate how the Prime minister can choose when to call one, especially one that has not been voted in on any level in the first place, I guess Brown loves democracy too.

You're forgetting that there comes a point where Brown will HAVE to call a general election.

In the words of the esteemed mayor, "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3".

yay boris

At 5/6/08 11:56 AM, BananaBreadMuffin wrote: In the words of the esteemed mayor, "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3".

yay boris

Will it? As far as I can see, all voting Tory can incrase your chances of is having a fat buffoon for a Mayor.

At 5/6/08 12:08 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:
Will it? As far as I can see, all voting Tory can incrase your chances of is having a fat buffoon for a Mayor.

*increase *is your

At 5/6/08 11:13 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

He was carrying a gun to protect his community from Loyalist militias who have gunned down innocent Roman Catholics and an occupation force, who let's not sugar coat it, have also gunned down innocent Roman Catholics. Are you telling me you wouldn't be compelled to carry a gun to protect your community? A disenfranchised community who were treated like second class citizens? I'm not in favour of killing innocents by any stretch of the imagination, but I can certainly understand why a frustrated young Catholic would join the IRA during the troubles.

I can never imagine the divide that must have been felt for men to carry weapons to defend themselves and their families, I am certain however that I would use any means to defend myself, my family and my friends if their life was in danger, I can certainly sympathise with that view, but it is against the law and the troubles in Northern Island amounted to gang warfare, it was right locking him up.

He was forced into a Hunger Strike just like he was forced into joining the I.R.A, the British Government offered him no compromise. Margaret Thatcher should have at least shown willingness to compromise; she was unreasonable and cold and she allowed a Member of Pariliament to starve himself to death.

Nobody is forced to do anything in their life, we can come to impasses where we face difficult choices but they are still choices none the less, wouldn't you consider starving yourself to gain rights such as receiving parcel unreasonable? I certainly consider somebody who starves himself to be able to wear a pair of jeans a little bit stubborn.

That's bollocks; Bush may be a war monger but he was democratically elected and he has never called for outright mass executions of American citizens.

No no your are correct he has never called for the mass execution of American citizens but while he was Governer of Texas (I believe) he did execute numerous people who could have been described as mental midgets.

I mean you could argue that Ronald Reagan has plenty of blood on his hands too, and Margaret Thatcher was his bum chum, but even at that, i'm sorry, but you're an idiot if you compare a democratically elected leader to a fascist dictator who took over via a military coup and slaughtered his own people.

Well yes my point was that most leaders have shook hands with some nefarious characters, plus you use this word democracy quite alot but when you have less than 50% of people turning out to vote I would hardly describe it as such.

She stood by him due to ideological similiarities.

Well, they struck up their friendship due to the Falklands, I don't know the ins and outs of their relationship, and I believe you don't either tell me what Ideological similarities did they share? I never thought somebody as liberal as you would advocate guilt by association, until it suits you of course.

Who doesn't I can believe that quite easily I know loads of British people who like to work cash in hand, but we have went of the point slightly my initial point was that they work harder because they have had it harder which is why benefits should not be a comfortable arrangement.

I don't see how Tories are going to improve Britain in this respect.

Neither do I, I don't mind people coming into work to be honest with you, that is not the issue, as long as they pay tax and don't hurt anybody. My initial concern was about benefits being a long-term arrangement, and I know I stand a better chance of changing that if I vote another governemnt in.

I'm not really sure what the point of this rant is. Care to clarify?

Well you said larger families deserve more money because they are looking after more people, I said if I had 10 German Shepherds I would have them taken of me yet if I had 10 kids I would be given a sackload of cash and it would in no way amount to child abuse despite not having the time to care for their ever growing complex emotional needs, you said how many families do you know with that many kids I said one, plus a couple of other large families, the crux of my last arguement was that people who don't offer anything of value to society are encouraged to have kids, whereas people who work are not. Which if Richard Dawkins and his theory on Memetics is correct will lead to disaster in the future.

You're forgetting that there comes a point where Brown will HAVE to call a general election.

Yeah when it bloody well suits him or when we have suffered another 2 years of absolute incompetence, I am not sure which I would prefer to honest with you. This is why modern democracy is quite simply a lie.

He is a joke, all the Candidates sucked.

At 5/6/08 04:46 PM, KingPaulP wrote:
I can never imagine the divide that must have been felt for men to carry weapons to defend themselves and their families, I am certain however that I would use any means to defend myself, my family and my friends if their life was in danger, I can certainly sympathise with that view, but it is against the law and the troubles in Northern Island amounted to gang warfare, it was right locking him up.

Well of course; any government in the world would lock up someone firing at their soldiers, I'm just putting forward that Bobby Sands was not a criminal.

Nobody is forced to do anything in their life, we can come to impasses where we face difficult choices but they are still choices none the less, wouldn't you consider starving yourself to gain rights such as receiving parcel unreasonable? I certainly consider somebody who starves himself to be able to wear a pair of jeans a little bit stubborn.

It was about status, a cry for freedom was being ignored and by simply labelling these men as criminals

That's bollocks; Bush may be a war monger but he was democratically elected and he has never called for outright mass executions of American citizens.

No no your are correct he has never called for the mass execution of American citizens but while he was Governer of Texas (I believe) he did execute numerous people who could have been described as mental midgets.

I'm not going to get into an argument about the death penalty, because I don't believe in it. But you and I both know that a mass state sponsored execution isn't the same as the death penalty.

Well yes my point was that most leaders have shook hands with some nefarious characters, plus you use this word democracy quite alot but when you have less than 50% of people turning out to vote I would hardly describe it as such.

Oh right, we're forcing people to vote now?That's very democratic.

Anyway, it is democracy, you don't HAVE to vote but the option is there.

Well, they struck up their friendship due to the Falklands, I don't know the ins and outs of their relationship, and I believe you don't either tell me what Ideological similarities did they share? I never thought somebody as liberal as you would advocate guilt by association, until it suits you of course.

Why are you using this American slang? I'm not a liberal, I'm a socialist? Oh right, everyone who opposes you is a liberal.

Anyway, Thatcher was one of the few who praised Pinochet for "fighting communism". That's right, she praised him for violently overthrowing a democratically elected government, in the name of democracy, and setting up a dictatorship.

Neither do I, I don't mind people coming into work to be honest with you, that is not the issue, as long as they pay tax and don't hurt anybody. My initial concern was about benefits being a long-term arrangement, and I know I stand a better chance of changing that if I vote another governemnt in.

Well, speaking as someone who's claimed benefits, I don't think being harsher on the unemployed and poor is going to do the country a lot of good.

I'm not really sure what the point of this rant is. Care to clarify?

Well you said larger families deserve more money because they are looking after more people, I said if I had 10 German Shepherds I would have them taken of me yet if I had 10 kids I would be given a sackload of cash and it would in no way amount to child abuse despite not having the time to care for their ever growing complex emotional needs, you said how many families do you know with that many kids I said one, plus a couple of other large families, the crux of my last arguement was that people who don't offer anything of value to society are encouraged to have kids, whereas people who work are not. Which if Richard Dawkins and his theory on Memetics is correct will lead to disaster in the future.

Ah, got it. "Those fucking gyppos are breeding like bunnies and their ugly children are going to claim benefits and take my lovely British money, waaaaaah."

You're forgetting that there comes a point where Brown will HAVE to call a general election.

Yeah when it bloody well suits him or when we have suffered another 2 years of absolute incompetence, I am not sure which I would prefer to honest with you. This is why modern democracy is quite simply a lie.

We do deserve better than Brown, but Cameron simply is not a better option. That's all I can say, that's my position.

This has turned into a bit of a two horse thread.
Much like the London Elections.
With Ken being the rampaging WYLD STALLION.
And Boris being the Hobby Horse that won because of the Standard and because he has nothing better to do than campaign.
So, basically, he was essentially unemployed before he became Mayor...
Doesn't that go against being a Tory?
But, he doesn't like foreigners or the poor or gay people so he's making it up in that sector very nicely.

At 5/7/08 02:47 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:

Well of course; any government in the world would lock up someone firing at their soldiers, I'm just putting forward that Bobby Sands was not a criminal.

Carrying a gun whatever the reason is still a crime no ifs or buts (I sound like the benefit fraud advert now), however as I said I do sympathise with people who feel they are in such a position that they have to break the law.

It was about status, a cry for freedom was being ignored and by simply labelling these men as criminals

Well it certainly worked, as you said Sands and the IRA got massive media recognition, I am not going ot argue any further with you on this issue because, Northern Ireland seems to be peaceful at the moment with no apparent sign of going back, perhaps the sacrifice Sands made played a part in this process, which I do salute.

I'm not going to get into an argument about the death penalty, because I don't believe in it. But you and I both know that a mass state sponsored execution isn't the same as the death penalty.

Well I would argue it is the same just a matter of scale and detail, however there are other signs Bush is a tyrant, Bush was never elected in the first place a silent coup d'etat if you like (A bit like Brown) and Bush has done more to reduce the civil liberties of American citizens, kind of like how British terror law can be used to spy on ANY citizen if the council feels you are trying to get your daughter into a school outside the catchment area.

Oh right, we're forcing people to vote now?That's very democratic.

I don't believe in our current political system at all, I would propose a new system, have abstain on the voting slip, then say if you don't turn up to vote 3 years in a row you lose your vote for 10 years, because you obviously don't want it, I would just like to see more people engaged in politics, women especially, I am sure Emily Davison threw herself under the kings horse for womens right to abstain.

Anyway, it is democracy, you don't HAVE to vote but the option is there.

Under that system you would at least have to turn up to demonstrate that you at least care about your choice, I feel there is alot of apathy when it comes to politics and life in general.

Why are you using this American slang? I'm not a liberal, I'm a socialist? Oh right, everyone who opposes you is a liberal.

I didn't call you a liberal, I said you were liberal, entirely different. Though you are advocating guilt by association, I have friends who disagree with my views and I disagree with theirs, however I would hardly begin to consider tarring us both with the same brush.

Anyway, Thatcher was one of the few who praised Pinochet for "fighting communism". That's right, she praised him for violently overthrowing a democratically elected government, in the name of democracy, and setting up a dictatorship.

I find it quite Ironic how we practically live in a communist society at the moment, plus what you do have to remember is it was cold war era, communism was perceived as a real threat.

Well, speaking as someone who's claimed benefits, I don't think being harsher on the unemployed and poor is going to do the country a lot of good.

As I said a less comfortable arrangement, I don't mind people claiming benefits, correctly, I just think it should be less of a bottemless pit, I would propose a system where every british born citizen in the U.K is allowed a baserate of £10, 000 worth of benefits, in their whole life, then if they have been working and paying tax this would increase, so you have more to fall back on the more you work, kind of like a pension but you don't get it in old age, I would say that is fair.

I'm not really sure what the point of this rant is. Care to clarify?

Well you said larger families deserve more money because they are looking after more people, I said if I had 10 German Shepherds I would have them taken of me yet if I had 10 kids I would be given a sackload of cash and it would in no way amount to child abuse despite not having the time to care for their ever growing complex emotional needs, you said how many families do you know with that many kids I said one, plus a couple of other large families, the crux of my last arguement was that people who don't offer anything of value to society are encouraged to have kids, whereas people who work are not. Which if Richard Dawkins and his theory on Memetics is correct will lead to disaster in the future.

Ah, got it. "Those fucking gyppos are breeding like bunnies and their ugly children are going to claim benefits and take my lovely British money, waaaaaah."

Ok, fine don't address my point. Trivialising my points does not make them any less valid or any less of a growing problem, kids do learn off their parents or didn't you know that?

We do deserve better than Brown, but Cameron simply is not a better option. That's all I can say, that's my position.

The thing is I am going to vote against Brown and any Labour government no matter what, The Tories just seem like the most likely to win with or without my vote, I would rather feel I consolidated the change, whatever it be.