Messages

Here's a weird show. "British Parliament"

[yt]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5xUy2inkGHQ&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5xUy2inkGHQ&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]

They'd better hurry up with the space elevator.

Let me see if I understand him correctly:

Sure, the UKIP are a bunch of deranged lunatics who want to pass dangerous legislation, but at least they want to keep a form of government in Britain that allows you to oppose them and defend yourself against them, as opposed to the other parties, who are a bunch of deranged lunatics who want to pass dangerous legislation and STOP you from opposing them and defending yourself against them.

Do I have that right?

The UKIP wants to withdraw from the EU, close the borders and deport all illegal immigrants. They aren't going to implement a bill of rights, they aren't going to cut the £700Billion budget by any more than the other parties, they aren't going to change the House of Lords but they are going to move powers away from the devolved parliaments and back into Westminster and they are going to give themselves the authority to declare war.

The UKIP is little more than an extremist version of the Conservative party.

Yeah, I can only conclude that the word "libertarian" means a different thing over there.

In Europe many small, euroskeptic conservative parties will refer to themselves as libertarian. Those parties invariably have extremist, xenophobic immigration policies -normally in the name of defending "Judeo-Christian culture"- but will endorse minor public spending cuts, or will endorse public spending cuts only slightly larger than those proposed by the mainstream parties, in order to justify their use of the word libertarian (although by their logic even Margaret Thatcher is a libertarian). They also avoid issues such as drug legalization or privatization of public services and usually favour an expansion of the military -the UKIP wants to increase the military budget by 40%.

An actual libertarian party in the EU would probably need to refer to itself as a "capitalist liberal" party (the word "liberal" doesn't have the same implications in the EU as it does in the USA).

Well, Richard "The Dick" Coughlan didn't like that:

[yt]ul6oLw-a8uE[/yt]

The UKIP isn't any better than the other parties. They talk about reform but it doesn't sound like they'll reduce government spending or decrease the government's power by a significant amount. Their immigration policy is draconian.

Their policies (and the policies of the other UK parties) can be viewed here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8515961.stm#subject=key&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem

"In a democracy, of course, you always get a choice. Do you want to be governed by the red or by the blue? It's entirely up to you. Do you want to be patronized, or condescended to? By liars or by crooks? You get to choose. Would you prefer your fundamental values to be insulted, or ignored? By con men, or by charlatans? In short, do you want your influence to be zero, or nil? And when would you like to be listened to: never, or not at all? It's your choice. Do you want some more choice? Take it, or leave it--now there's a real choice!"

"If either of [the major parties] wins, democracy will lose, and you know that, too. Now THAT is what I call a wasted vote."

--Pat Condell, from this video:

[yt-43]krybvOx-8Dk[/yt-43]

Interestingly there are now three "major" parties in the UK: the Conservative/Labour duopoly could be broken by the Liberal Democrat party. If that does happen it could provide other minor parties with a chance to increase their influence in Parliament - although most of the UK's minor parties are merely extremist versions of the major parties (the UKIP, which Pat Condell supports, seems to be an offshoot of the Conservative party).

[yt]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pzQk1uLZCLg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pzQk1uLZCLg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]

Pretty much all of Europe has had a substantial communist movement at some point; usually near the beginning of the 20th century. Some have had it more recently; such as the UK in the 1980s and in Greece today.

Socialism became somewhat popular in Britain when the government started privatising inefficient industries such as mining. As the government was no longer breaking windows this made people fear unemployment; commies like Scargill lead protests and used trade unions to cause disruption and bring down the government (ultimately failing).

The October Revolution was triggered by the First World War. It could have stopped at the February revolution if not for the war.

"The good news is that Sarah Palin came only third in a straw poll of right-wing conservatives asking who should be next president of the USA.

The bad news is that the winner Ron Paul, a Republican congressman, may be even pottier than Palin." - Tom Shields; commentator for the Scottish Sunday Herald's opinion section.

On that note; Palin needs to fall into a coma for the next seven years.

"The British[banking]Empire used the Germany-Poland border dispute as an excuse to initiate war on Germany" - A Nazi while claiming the world would be better off if America had allied with the Nazis. Apparently invading an entire country with the help of allies now only counts as a "border dispute".

I wonder if the Border Dispute in Afghanistan will end anytime soon.

When trying to reason with socialists:

"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment"

The entire video description of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cLkouGu8LQ

To summarise it briefly: "Anyone who doesn't think I am entitled to taxpayer's money is a fascist".

Gotta love people whipping out the UK like they've totally got their shit together.  I've never been there but if half the stuff I hear about their government being a bunch of nosy nannies, I certainly would never want to live there.

"Yep, no problem, free as the air!

....you just have to wait six months...and get mediocre care....and pray the doctors don't strike in the mean time....and it's kinda sorta not actually free because you paid for it out of your taxes and the politicos took a nice big chunk out of it....

Wait a minute, what was the big advantage of the UK's system again?"

You're right about our government being "a bunch of nosy nannies"; 45% the UK's GDP is controlled by the government. It's particularly bad here in Scotland; spending on Healthcare is 50% higher than anywhere else in the UK yet we still have longer waiting times. The Scottish government's target is to get waiting times for most operations under 18 weeks (as they are now in England). Things are only made worse by the fact that the two largest parties in Scotland have socialist roots and want to increase spending.

He's caught up in the false dichotomy again; although he apparently was a member of the Libertarian party at some point.

"The USSR wasn't socialist nor communist by definition. This isn't my opinion." - a communist by the username of itrainsinoctober in the comments of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=angbZB2WeMQ