Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Seems like the right thing to do.
the other one is you.
well at least you haven't made a cartoon version of meatspin yet.
I find that very disturbing.
he has a very good aim for a man with no eyes!
a friend did, ages ago. i just recently found them and i'm currently getting a lot of mileage out of them
doens't mean i'm gaining any sexual gratification from wtaching them.
someone else do it.
and depraved. I think I'm starting to enjoy it though. that's worrying.
if so you are sick.
I knew that I was already though. Good weekend missy?
though you knew it was meatspin..ewwww.
Nope lame weekend, no booze, just essays. how about yours?
men in tight white shorts, swords and beekeeper styles masks. I went to nottingham for a tournament. Was way fun. My mate has seriously hot flatmates. yum.
ace-ness. hot flatmates, nice sounds like someone had a good time. did you get lucky?
I got left in a room with one of them for an hour. And I sat and talked to her. I'm a big fat gay. She said that no-one in notts was ballsy enough to go naked library partying. I refrained from offering to take her with me.
oh dear. Life goes on though, you can continue naked partying to your little hearts content. Hopefully one day you will come across a gorgeous girl who likes to naked part-ay.
she did say that though. She lives near me, so I will intercept and interdict her at some point.
(phew you didn't note the innuendo)
I'm fond of the military innuendo tonight.
ha, what a pun, you're funny, ha ha.
read my post in the insults thread for what I think of you.
theres a guy in my school who reads the daily mail and likes thatcher and brags about how his dad evades tax.
We all make wanker signs behind his back.
DONT BE THAT GUY
slay him good!
jump on the bandwagon, sonny.
you need mad skillz like me and JB.
never match your brilliance.
they always go through the Tories. They don't all have fluffy Cameron faces and promise free ice cream if you vote for them.
So I do hope you're joking, although I suspect you are.
You're right. OK - I meant whenever you get the particularly nasty racist/fascist elements infiltrating 'mainstream' politics.
That's probably still a fuzzy description. I know what I meant at least...
...that if you join the Conservative Party, your penis drops off.
Unless you are a woman, in which case you grow one.
I present you with the facts then you make the choice, of your own free will.
I will respect you less, and will probably have a predisposed attitude towards your motives and opinions, even though I normally try to treat people as individuals and at face value.
...for making your own choice and not pandering to the typical studenty view of 'oooh you Tory fascist bastard'. Its not really healthy for a country with what is effectively a two party system to have one party ignored because a quarter of a century ago they had a leader who pissed a lot of people off.
...but realisically, next election, almost certainly one of two parties will win, yes? Not a dig at any other party, I'm just saying that the Lib Dems have tried everything they can think of to appear unelectable to the public, and any other party would need to inspire such a huge change in the voting habits of the public that its almost certain that it will be either a Labour or Conservative government next election. No?
by see sawing between the two every government can continue to be appalling and blame the previous government and say that this figure or that figure is better than the lasts.....basically the two party system uses the politics of exasperation or fear (of the other party)
What a fantastic premise upon which to sort out the ever increasing problems that beset the world/our country.
Snow Patrol you mention that Its unhealthy to have one party ignored because a leader upset us 25years ago....well thats just you implying that this is a one off, The problem was the general ideals and morals and attitudes of conservativism, Mrs T was just and extremely ugly extreme example, and her 'cohorts' (I like that word, so emotive)
Just becauseon party (labour is considered to be incompetant doesnt mean that you shold consider a rather imoral selfish party to come in......just becausesomething that says 'Labour' on the label of the can actually contains a pile of poo inside doesnt mean you go and select a tin thats labelled 'selfish, self interested beans' as a solution.....no what we must do is seek a way to change the system to ensure that what we 'supposedly choose democratically is actually what we get.
...I said that a two-party system was healthy. Its obviously not. But I certainly don't agree with certain perceptions of certain parties being completely unchallengable. Thats ridiculous.
even though they never win. just because they aren't tied to vested interests like the other two parties are, and can therefore say and do things a lot more freely. lib dems' voting record and long-term environmental credentials bear this out remarkably well.
so yes, i just admitted that they won't win. i probably support them because i don't really believe in parliamentary politics anymore :-D
is because they're most likely to devolve most power away from them. radical decentralisation!
- the worst understatment in history i believe.
in the election. I am also evil though.
it wasn't even david cameron or anything. it was that other cunt. you're a big fat n00b.
constituency based politics though. The Lab, MP is a PRICK.
Lib Dems are no-hopers. So con. it was.
the problem is I dont know how I can get you to be able to vote for me, thats the conundrum, actually I would love to have an evil fullerov in my 'fold'
I mean imagine if you are a tory voter but have aitkin, or a labour voter but had maxwell......thats precisely why party politics is nonsense
we should just have hundreds of independents?
what do you think?
Dont put all the responsibility on me so you can try to pick holes in my 'legitimate criticisms'
Do you think 'toadying to the party line' is better?
No it isnt yes we should have hundreds of independantly thinking individuals, if they wish to join loose associations so that people who do not follow politics can get a general idea then that is OK.....its not as if belongoing to a party means that mps are held accountable after all, I think loose associations of beliefs means that people would have more choice in selection rather than a kind of 'Do you want to be invaded by the commies/pinkoes/asylum seekers or want a free health service' type of choice
Issues such as education/security/health are not 'either/or aspects, instead there may be some weighting that the public would like to assign, rather than bickering on at each other it would be nice to see competancy in these areas, because the majority of the public actually want all three of these 'sacred cows' to be in place....so why is it a political issue....the method of doing it....now its about spending priorities, yet the economic picture has never been the same for any government, it is constantly changing, you cannot compare like for like with government performances and it is disingenious for any govvernment to suggest that you can, this is not scientific, there is no control experiment, progress should be made though and stupid bickering is a waste, it would be useful to establish how the public agreed rather than disagreed, why shouldnt at least half the mps (from all parties be engaged in actually making stuff happen properly.....,I dont understand why opposition mps are no involved in the business of governance, they were elected after all, why dont they also get to form governmental policy and legislation......oh someone will no doubt say this would be unworkable....well I have to work with people that I dont always agree with and we manage it, if you vote for a bunch of cretins who can only work under strict supervision and only wth their freinds then you will have an incredibly selfish stupid democracy, which appears to be what you have
but can you honestly see any kind of consensus coming on ANY issue within a reasonable time frame? Fair enough having everyone putting across their own views for future policy, but if it comes to reacting to international affairs or the requirement for decisions on issues that need to be made quickly, then yes, it IS unworkable. It's bad enough when there's more than a handful of parties required to form a coalition government (see: weimar republic) - with essentially hundreds of separate political parties (individuals) each with their own views on the issue, how are decisions ever going to get made???
Decisions that are made concerning long term security threats are not discussed with youguys, it is pointless you lot talking about trident or iraq as you will have absolutely no idea what finally sways them, many of the factors will never be revealed to anyone outside of cabinet let alone the party, so basically international affairs are entirely independant of party politics anyway.....
yes it would be difficult to get 'committees' to decide, but I must persist in my belief that democracy can be improved, ok reduce the numbers of mps or have them then go on to elect upper tiers (remember there is an upper tier at the moment (cabinet) except this is non democratically chosen)
If you do not believe that democracy can be hugely improved then do I ssume that you think that what we have is adequet? If so I would say that I would prefer to have a benign dictatorship, with me as dictator and fullerov in charge of 'domestic security' JDT schools and education, Ho Fo as minister for morals and ethics......and crablin as my foreign speech writer
dictatorship, but one that we can choose to get rid of every four years or so.
I think having an elected cabinet is no bad idea at all. Of course our version of democracy can be improved. I think the bigger problem at the moment is actually making people care about how and by whom we are governed.
I wasn't criticising you creaky, I agree with you in many ways. I was just trying to draw out your ideas.
I guess Its cos Im at work and I cant write everything down all at once. The thing is the MPS are artificially divided, often they might agree with a priciple of their party but might approve more of the oppositions practical implementation methods....if we had cross party bodies working on something we all agree on that we want more on 'e.g. education, then these artificial separators will diminish, the benefits will outweight the 'wooliness' that you worry about, for instance the benefits include, more accurate reporting on results whehter something does actually work, because ONE parties reputation does not rely on the results, no need to spin elaborate 'statistics to hide truths, no need for retributiion afterwards, no tying of any decisions made to other 'relatively non related policies....e.g. education or health vs national defence.....these aspects should not be antagonistic, the only reason that they are made to be (traditionally) by party is because the money will only stretch so far, governements see sawing between policies where much of the parties effort is dedicated to 'opposing' their rivals rather than trying to maximise success for us is very damaging and a very bad example to set for the rest of the world, it would be great to get things 'right' or a lot 'righter' here first, then the rest of the world could look to the UK for a good template and as proof that things can be better done, I cant explain everything here, and I am not particularly good at articulating or convincing in speeches, but I do fervantly believe that we can improve it, my problem is getting the ability to have a go, cos I have problems convincing people, which is a shame cos I really do have many great ideas for change and I know others will have too.
My first task is to be able to get people to admit that it really shouldnt go on as it is (just changing over to tory is not what I mean)
I care about you all
that mostly the representatives that people vote for will not necessarily act according to how they said they would or how their concience always tells them to......i.e. they are made to lie......I realise a load of apologists will now say thats not true, but if that is the case then why have party whips at all? or why have variagated pay structures/cabinet members/career structure, why have party lines and threatent to throw out members if they rock against the party line too much too often? huh?
I already type too many words and part of the solution does not/should not just come from me, I have several ideas that would improve democracy, or at least shake it up and get its developement moving again, I am not arrogant to assume that I am the only person with ideas that would work, however, there are other people too...perhaps you, one thing is for certain, unless you people all accept that what we have is not ideal and that we can do better, if all people can do is to say 'nah it can only work the way it is' then it sure as hell aint going to get any better, and time is running out.
You are right about the problems of getting mps to work together, however as Ive said, some things are no brainers.
e.g. we all want everyone to be able to read and write and be enthused about 'learning' unfortunately the arguments at the moment concern the organisational status of who delivers this, instead cross party mps should be determining the best methods of teaching, the best way to manage teaching (of any flavour) then once that is established find the way that 'overall' the country can best afford this weighing up other areas that will need resoucing (money) too, instead battlegrounds exist over whether single sex/mixed/religeous schools/grammar/comprehensive are the best way forward, these are irrelevant, the learning should be most important.
I know....too much to say too little time to type, the problem is I want to address all those criticisms that I can feel welling up in JacobJones, Smiladelic, chairoscuro (people whom I like but get frustrated by their slightly 'fatalistic' attitude) so that they will see that I am aware of their points before they say them, unfortunately I never get round to it, because I already say too many words and I can easily 'GO OFF AT A TANGENT' .....................(no innuendo implied )