Spain PM-elect: Troops out of Iraq

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skippy1: Wahhhaaaayyyyy! Go Yorick! Don't you hold back there mate, let it all out!!

[Yorick]

Bear in mind, a preferencial 2 party preferred voting system ensures you can vote AGAINST the parties you most dislike, as well as voting FOR the ones you do.

As such, many political parties like Pauline Hansons "One Nation" were trounced because voters voted against them regarding one major issue.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I also further note that you are often trying to explain the terrorists' messages and what they are complaining about and what they are trying to say. Personally, I don't give 2 farts about those things -- I just want to see their dead terrorist corpses laid out in a pleasing arrayment of justified death. My opinion.

And that, in a nutshell, is why you will never defeat terrorism. [/QUOTE]Maybe. Listen, as long as someone is willing to pursue peaceful means of protest, I'm all for them. Once they use terrorist acts against civilians as a negotiating tool, I don't care what they have to say, wish only to react to violence with violence, and will see them in hell before I capitulate. They want to start a game no one can win, that's fine by me. If they use violence, and then we as a society back up and start bending to them, we have let an amoral means accomplish their goal -- that cannot be. There is a moral point here that in fact is worth all of us dying for. (IMO, of course).

Oh, and Skunk, I personally think it was shitty of you to lump OBL, Blair, and Bush into one "lawless" basket yet again. For one, no one can prove Bush and Blair broke any laws. You can allege this, assert that, and wave your liberal hands about in the air yelling "the sky is falling," but there CERTAINLY is reasonable doubt as to any illegality. I've explained before how the law itself was quite legal, in fact no one has seriously asserted it wasn't in any real way (i.e. filing a case with the UN), so I shan't do it again. I just note that it saddens me that every time I try to entertain a serious discussion with you, you turn into a shit. Your continued baseless allegations are called slander and libel.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: And as you can see, in the Core Values of the British Green Party, environmental issues only take TWO of their 10 main Core Value Points. They are not 'single issue' parties:

This is irrelevent. I mentioned "The Greens" which initially were an Australian single issue party, before diversifying, not the European Green Party, which I posted as being a "narrow issue party".

Furthermore your view flies in the face of opinions like this:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tyler, 18th Century Scottish historian

Which would make the single issue of "What's in it for me" the ONLY reason voters vote the way they do.

You are wrong because as usual you have presented no statistics, no history, no analogies or comparitive examples. Only a sociological opinion presented as fact. As ever you do, as always you will it seems. [/QUOTE]Check out the manifesto of the European Green Party organisation then:
http://www.europeangreens.org/info/principles.pdf

As you can see - it is NOT a narrow one issue organisation.

I'm sure that Alexander Tyler was as knowledgable on 20th Century society as you appear to think - but nonetheless, the issue of "What's in it for me" nearly always encompasses more than one issue - rarely just financial well-being as was the case in Tyler's world of 230 years ago.

[ 03-17-2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oh, and Skunk, I personally think it was shitty of you to lump OBL, Blair, and Bush into one "lawless" basket yet again. For one, no one can prove Bush and Blair broke any laws.

But why should that stop him? Facts have never stopped him posting his opinion like it's fact before...

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oh, and Skunk, I personally think it was shitty of you to lump OBL, Blair, and Bush into one "lawless" basket yet again. For one, no one can prove Bush and Blair broke any laws. You can allege this, assert that, and wave your liberal hands about in the air yelling "the sky is falling," but there CERTAINLY is reasonable doubt as to any illegality. I've explained before how the law itself was quite legal, in fact no one has seriously asserted it wasn't in any real way (i.e. filing a case with the UN), so I shan't do it again. I just note that it saddens me that every time I try to entertain a serious discussion with you, you turn into a shit. Your continued baseless allegations are called slander and libel.

My mistake in not making myself clear.
I actually stated:
"Those who abandon the law and use violence rather than the courts and democratic systems to get their way belong in a cell - as far removed from society as possible."

When I actually meant:
"Those who abandon the law and/or use violence rather than the courts and democratic systems to get their way belong in a cell - as far removed from society as possible."

You know as well as I do that the UN was set to vote on whether military action was to be taken against Iraq and, when it looked like the US/UK were going to lose the vote, they abandoned the democratic process and declared a war which cost thousands of innocent lives.

And you know as well as I do that that any case filed against the US would have to pass through the security council - which the US sits on and can veto. No country would be stupid enough to waste their time filing a resolution against a state that could veto the resolution. It's the only organisation in the world where a judge is allowed to decide the verdict on an alleged 'crime' that he is accused of. No prizes for guessing which way he would vote.

I actually don't know if they broke any laws - professional opinion seems equally divided on the issue - but they DID abandon the democratic process and they DID wage war before all alternatives had been explored. And that is not slander because it is verifiable FACT.

And because thousands of lives were lost as a result (and people are still dying in the ongoing conflict that they started), that DOES make them as bad as any terrorist.

[ 03-17-2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: And as you can see, in the Core Values of the British Green Party, environmental issues only take TWO of their 10 main Core Value Points. They are not 'single issue' parties:

This is irrelevent. I mentioned "The Greens" which initially were an Australian single issue party, before diversifying, not the European Green Party, which I posted as being a "narrow issue party".

Furthermore your view flies in the face of opinions like this:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tyler, 18th Century Scottish historian

Which would make the single issue of "What's in it for me" the ONLY reason voters vote the way they do.

You are wrong because as usual you have presented no statistics, no history, no analogies or comparitive examples. Only a sociological opinion presented as fact. As ever you do, as always you will it seems. [/QUOTE]Check out the manifesto of the European Green Party organisation then:
http://www.europeangreens.org/info/principles.pdf

As you can see - it is NOT a narrow one issue organisation.

I'm sure that Alexander Tyler was as knowledgable on 20th Century society as you appear to think - but nonetheless, the issue of "What's in it for me" nearly always encompasses more than one issue - rarely just financial well-being as was the case in Tyler's world of 230 years ago. [/QUOTE]Need I say it again? For the third time, you made the assertion. Post stats that prove your p.o.v. or retract.

[Gab]

What really annoys me is that everyone seems to ignore me.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: "Those who abandon the law and use violence rather than the courts and democratic systems to get their way belong in a cell - as far removed from society as possible."

So you are suggesting that the French, Polish, and German resistence movements in WW2 should be removed from society? Are you suggesting that Chamberlian was a hero despite being played for a fop? Do those who shepherded Jews to freedom, belong in a cell?

Generalisations like this don't wash.

As for what is 'right' is it right to let a man beat his wife and kids to death, and do nothing while the courts fail to grant a warrant for his arrest?

I've said it before, Hussein's maltreatment of his citizens broke human rights laws, and should have been removed years before. That alone justifies any attempts to remove him. The question is, why were some sectors of Europe so self centred they worked to ensure he was able to keep "molesting his children"???

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Gab: What really annoys me is that everyone seems to ignore me.

What did you say?