Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, May 29, 2015.
GB seems to mirror the U.S in more ways than one.
U.S. isn't a democracy.
It's a democratic republic.
And we aren't even that. We are a Constitutional Republic.
who cares what we are. whats with all the labels. should just stuff done
That man sounded to me like a stereotypical UKIP voter.
As I am not a UK citizen or live in the UK I could be wrong.
I would agree, which would make it ironic as of all of them, Farage had the smelliest BS of them all.
On a side issue who is this person? Any particular reason why we're discussing his views?
EDIT: Just looked him up. Yes he's voting for UKIP, and appears to be pretty Islamophobic. http://www.patcondell.net/faqs/
What is wrong with being Islamophobic?
Christianphobia seems perfectly acceptable on here.
I'm not certain you completely understand what a phobia truly is.
Yes I do. I know the true definition, and the new liberal interpretation.
Isn't the important point that we all get a vote if we are responsible enough to exercise that right?
He has no love for religion, ANY of them, it's pretty easy to simple label him w/o ever listening to him.
moved to its own thread
who defines "responsible"? it has been a few elections since the votes appear to be AGAINST the other candidate/party instead of for someone who acutely represents you
Ron Paul & GJ have been my earlier picks. I really hope Bernie makes it, aside from the 2nd I like his actual record on things
Want what you like to see? If people perceive crappy candidates, they will vote for the lesser of evils. While not ideal, as in getting good candidates, this would have be categorized as more responsible versus sitting home on your duff and complaining about it the status quo.
I'm not sure all this cynicism does any good.
Democracy, in Britain, the US, or most other places in the developed world isn't perfect. But we shouldn't expect it to be.
But by and large it seems to work pretty well at giving people a Government that represents the larger desires of most of the population - without completely trampling the interests of minorities.
There are failures along the way. But in most cases we have the tools to fix those problems. And longer, those problems owned up getting addressed.
Most politicians aren't crooks or idiots. There are exceptions: Rod Blagojevich comes to mind. But such people don't last too long.
A voice of reason.
Do you want to know why President Obama's "favorability" rankings are low?
Its because he's done enough of the right things.
He came into office on a campaign of "Hope & Change" - much mocked by a certain former Governor.
But he hasn't done everything many liberals projected onto him. He hasn't done away with the CIA; or instituted Universal Healthcare. He hasn't unilaterally pulled out of every military operation. He hasn't passed legislation banning handgun and semi-automatic rifle sales.
On the other hand he has done some things that get Conservatives all in a tizzy. He's made it easier for many people to buy health insurance; and fixed the system so policies actually provide benefits people need. He decided not to continue with a useless, costly, and bloody war in Iraq that no one - not the Iraqis, the military, or our allies wanted to keep going.
So Liberals are mad at him for what hasn't done. Conservatives are mad at him for what he has.
Don't be to anxious for big change in Government. You probably wouldn't like the result. The Bolsheviks were a total change. So were the Nazis.
Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul might be your personal idea of a fantastic President. But they'd still have to deal with Congress. They'd still have to deal with the Russians and the Chinese. They'd have to deal with the fact that most of us drive cars that use gasoline. And they'd get to read reports and attend briefings where very senior military and intelligence officers, accompanied by colorful graphs and grainy spy photos - gave them very compelling arguments as to why America's spies and soldiers; its diplomats and its law enforcement officers - have to keep doing a lot of the things they do.
I was once taught that a democracy is not about picking a "better" leader. You get good and bad leaders whether they are absolute monarchs or democratically elected. The whole point of a democracy is ensure an orderly and bloodless change of power from one leader to the next.
I know that this is a bit simplistic, but this point of view does have its merits. In a mature and functioning democracy power at the top changes on a routine basis. This same democracy may routinely abuse its power, enact terrible legislation, create policies that will bankrupt the nation, etc... But - - when its time for those at the top retire they will move aside and new leaders will step into their place without bloodshed.
By the same token, look at Tito of the former Yugoslavia. While he was no saint, he was a fairly benevolent dictator. And I don't think anyone can argue that the 'democracies' that were created after the breakup of Yugoslavia have made life better when you consider that well over 100,000 people have died in the civil wars from 1991 to 2001 alone.
Lee Kwan Yew guided Singapore through some turbulent times and created a prosperous and peaceful non-democracy.
There are other examples. I'm not advocating for autocratic rule of countries. Just pointing out that an autocrat is not necessarily a bloody tyrant. However, the danger with all autocrats is that the change in power to the next leader may spill a lot of blood. This is a risk that a functioning democracy does not have.
Just food for thought.
I clearly listened to him, researched his webpage, and noted his entire page dedicated to his "cure" for Islamophobia. He has labelled himself.
I would guess he's a UKIP voter..... Or a Britain First (a biffer as they're affectionately known) supporter or something like that.
He has a valid point in the first place, but then just undermines by bleating on about foreign aid, immigration blah blah blah blah blah.