Who gets your vote?

[lukesh]

Well we have seen all 3 Confernces from the 3 main parties.
Here is a reminder of all their policies...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk_politics/2004/party_policies_at_a_glance/default.stm

Which party gets your vote at this moment?




Please note that the results do not reflect public opinion.

[solid_L]

Tbh, I feel very unrepresented by the main parties atm, but I'm going to vote LD's for their stance on tuition fee's

[lukesh]

I would vote for the Conservatives I think even though Labour have impressed me on some things.

The Conservatives get my vote on Immigration and Asylum, Defense, Tax and the Economy, Europe and the Environment.

Labour do particularly well on Health and Education, I liked Blairs Environment speech but it all seems rather complicated and watered down Tory way of doing it and I think I could just about trust them on the Economy, and oh the Iraq war!

Lib Dems just don't do it for me on anything really.
Maybe if their extreme views on social issues wasn't so crazy then I would look into them more.

For now I would be happy if either Labour or Tories won.

[dr_carter]

I think we should start a TheSite party personally - most of the people on here have the right idea about what's best for Britain. I nominate Kermit as leader and Blagsta as chief political strategist.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by dr_carter
I think we should start a TheSite party personally - most of the people on here have the right idea about what's best for Britain. I nominate Kermit as leader and Blagsta as chief political strategist. and me the Home office! :D

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by lukesh
and me the Home office! :D

No, you're for Northern Ireland matey...

[lukesh]

Originally posted by dr_carter
No, you're for Northern Ireland matey... Interesting!

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by lukesh
Interesting!

You do have a place, many of your points are quite interesting to read, if a little nonsensical. I just don't think you're right for the Home Office. I don't think our government would work with immigration policies as harsh as yours.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by dr_carter
You do have a place, many of your points are quite interesting to read, if a little nonsensical. I just don't think you're right for the Home Office. I don't think our government would work with immigration policies as harsh as yours. harsh? LMAO!

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
Blagsta as chief political strategist.

I'm flattered :o

[BeckyBoo]

and whats my part in all this ?


oh yes, my job will be coffee maker :D

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[The Matadore]

I vote Tory.

[Renzo]

out of those? Liberal Democrat.

[wheresmyplacebo]

out of those in terms of policy + overall direction its labour, even then im hoping they lose their stupid majority, and also my area its a labour stronghold we have some minor minister here :(

[lukesh]

instead of just saying I would vote Lib Dems or Tories please say why......

Thanks.

[Renzo]

I would vote Lib Dem because i agree with the policy of 50% tax on incomes over 100,000 their policy on Europe, their policy on top up fees and their view on Iraq.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
I would vote Lib Dem because i agree with the policy of 50% tax on incomes over 100,000 That is a rediculous law. It will drive out the rick and we will be heading down hill.

Plus: Why should people who are worked so hard to get where they are have to pay massive taxes?

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
That is a rediculous law. It will drive out the rick and we will be heading down hill.

Plus: Why should people who are worked so hard to get where they are have to pay massive taxes?

It's only an extra 10% on the income over 100,000.

[solid_L]

I do think 50% is a lot, but only because I'm hoping to earn that when I'm much older:p

But I don't think people who earn 40k pa should pay the same % of tax as people who earn 100k, I think the bar should be lowered slightly for pepole who earn 40k and it raised slightly more for people earning 100k. E.g. 35% for people earning 40k and 45k for people earning 100k. (Or something similar which balances the numbers out)

[Yerascrote]

prob labour if i lived in the mainland

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
It's only an extra 10% on the income over 100,000. jesus christ! If they ever got in this country would go downhill!

keep em out!

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by lukesh
jesus christ! If they ever got in this country would go downhill!

Why do you say that?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Why do you say that?

Because my dirty trainers have more political awareness, I think.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Why do you say that? taxing people to death will drive them out.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Kermit
Because my dirty trainers have more political awareness, I think. I wish I was as clever as you.

But no where near as arrogant!

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by lukesh
taxing people to death will drive them out.

he's got a point, i say increase the threshold for 40% tax and above 100k its 45%

[MrG]

Originally posted by lukesh
taxing people to death will drive them out.

lets be truthful here, taxes dont kill people, lack of food and governments do

------------------------------------

i would vote for the monster raving looney party, for the simple reason that the sensible policies they do have in place, are far better than those of the three main parties

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by lukesh
taxing people to death will drive them out.

How is adding another 10% on earnings over £100,000 "taxing people to death"?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by lukesh
taxing people to death will drive them out.

50% on over £100k isn't "to death".

If it was 75% like it was in the 1970s then yeah, you'd have a point. But not on 50%.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by lukesh
taxing people to death will drive them out.

I refer you to the quoted below, posted in a previous thread.

If I earn £100,000 and lose 50% of that to the arse-biting government. I still take home £50000, I'm still richer than 97% of the country and (according to statistics) there are only 1.5million who earn more than me. After tax, this is me

What you earn:

Per year: £50,000
Per day: £285.71
Per hour: £35.71
Per minute: £0.6
Per second: £0.01

And worldwide I am, after tax in the top richest 1%, of the world populationg of 6 billion, there are only about 50 million who earn more. After tax.

It's not sounding to harsh to me.

Baring in mind that the quote is assuming that it's 50% on the entire earnings, not just that which is over £100k.

[lukesh]

why should people who have worked there socks off to be where they are to have to pay half of it back to the scabby government? its not right!

[Kermit]

Well why should those who don't earn as much have to pay more to stop the rich paying?

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by lukesh
why should people who have worked there socks off to be where they are to have to pay half of it back to the scabby government? its not right!

you wont be paying hlaf of it back though its whatever% of anything over 100k so if they earn 150k they pay the 50% on 50k not 40% as of present

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by lukesh
why should people who have worked there socks off to be where they are to have to pay half of it back to the scabby government? its not right!

Did you read that post at all?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Did you read that post at all? fiend piss off you little bitch

[Kermit]

Originally posted by lukesh
fiend piss off you little bitch

I think that's a NO then :yes:

[The Doc]

So 40% is OK, but 50% is driving people into the gutter?

[MrG]

Originally posted by lukesh
fiend piss off you little bitch

i reported that for unwarranted abuse

[lukesh]

Originally posted by MrG
i reported that for unwarranted abuse well done.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by MrG
i reported that for unwarranted abuse

I bow to you sir.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by the doc horatio
So 40% is OK, but 50% is driving people into the gutter?

Apparently so, though I can't work out why. People who earn that much don't need that much.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Apparently so, though I can't work out why. People who earn that much don't need that much. your just being a bitch again like you always are.

some of you are such dickheads thinking you know it all, making things up about people.... you are all stupid!

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by lukesh
making things up about people....

Back this up or retract it.

[The Doc]

Originally posted by lukesh
your just being a bitch again like you always are.

some of you are such dickheads thinking you know it all, making things up about people.... you are all stupid!

Where the hell did that come from?

[lukesh]

you all make things up, call people lairs all of the time.

you are all a minority... hence liberal democrat voters

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by lukesh
why should people who have worked there socks off to be where they are to have to pay half of it back to the scabby government? its not right!

(a) they wouldn't pay half of it back
(b) if we want a decent NHS, benefits system, education system, library service etc etc then it has to be paid for somehow
(c) the better off in society have some responsibility to look after the less well off

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by lukesh
you all make things up, call people lairs all of the time.

you are all a minority... hence liberal democrat voters


Originally posted by Fiend_85
Back this up or retract it.

[The Doc]

Originally posted by Fiend_85


You beat me to it. :(

But yes, lukesh, you are saying stuff, but aren't saying why, so it just comes over as a load of shite.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by the doc horatio
You beat me to it. :(

But yes, lukesh, you are saying stuff, but aren't saying why, so it just comes over as a load of shite.

I bow to your coolness sir.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by lukesh
you are all a minority... hence liberal democrat voters

Eh? I've never voted Lib Dem in my entire life

[The Doc]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Eh? I've never voted Lib Dem in my entire life

Liar. ;)

[Blagsta]

Surely you mean "lair"?

[Fiend_85]

Has he gone? I mean, bugger me, he doesn't normally loose it like that.

[Jim V]

I suggest you return to the main points of the thread rather than continuing to drag this through the mud.

[Braineater]

Labour.

Although they (sorry he) have made serious mistakes in foreign policy they haven't done as bad as expected domestically and economicaly. He won't last forever. I personally want Jack Straw to take over.

If only the Welsh Assembly would replace Rhodri Morgan with a more progressive first minster. :(

Lib Dems are tempting but I don't trust Charles Kennedy, you just don't know what they stand for and I'm not convinced by their plans. They're not pragmatic.

I'm South Walian. The word Tory is akin with "dog shit".

[dr_carter]

I think i've just appointed fiend as my 'TheSite government' deputy PM...

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by dr_carter
I think i've just appointed fiend as my 'TheSite government' deputy PM...

You honour me, I bow to you.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
You honour me, I bow to you.

Actually, with all that bowing, wouldn't you be better off in the Lords?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by dr_carter
Actually, with all that bowing, wouldn't you be better off in the Lords?

Could be. Personally I think I should just be dictator of the world

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Could be. Personally I think I should just be dictator of the world

That is where I draw the line. Sorry me dear, but there are limits to my generosity in my newly-found position as Party Chairman...

[Namaste]

Lib dem I guess...

[LabRat]

I’m not a British citizen so it’s not my business… but anyway, why you didn’t include the biggest British party in your poll, the party of no-voters?

[Daz1865]

Originally posted by MoonRat
Lib dem I guess...
Thats the sort of attitude I don't like.

If you're only choosing Lib Dem because you don't like Labour or Conservative then you shouldn't really bother voting.

I am sticking to Blair. I think domestically he has been superb and I was in favour of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Aladdin]

Well there is another reason to go for Lib Dem in that case: tactical voting.

Many people believe that in real terms it is always come to Labour or the Tories. If enough disenchanted Labour supporters vote Lib Dems then there is a chance Labour minority will be reduced to the point where they would need to make an alliance with the Lib Dems to govern.

For people who can't possibly contemplate seeing the Tories in power but who are fed up with the arrogance and turn to the Right of their Labour party, a hung parliament and an alliance with the Lib Dems is the best thing that could possibly happen.

[Makoto]

I am more Conservative but I think I will be voting for Blair & Labour because I don't think anyone else is in the position to run our country as well as him at the moment.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Daz1865
Thats the sort of attitude I don't like.

If you're only choosing Lib Dem because you don't like Labour or Conservative then you shouldn't really bother voting.

I am sticking to Blair. I think domestically he has been superb and I was in favour of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And yours is the sort of attitude that makes politics in this country such a joke.

Keele Uni has one of the best IR minds in the country, maybe you should listen to him more.

You should always vote. I personally am in favour of the Australian system, where voting is compulsory.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
I’m not a British citizen so it’s not my business… but anyway, why you didn’t include the biggest British party in your poll, the party of no-voters?

Errrr...'cos they're not a party and there are many many different reasons why people don't vote?

But yes, it would be interesting to see who doesn't vote and why.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errrr...'cos they're not a party and there are many many different reasons why people don't vote?

But yes, it would be interesting to see who doesn't vote and why.
People who don't vote have no right to complain about anything in this country. In fact they have no right to claim any services that the government provides.

If you do not agree with any of the parties standing you should spoil your ballot paper rather than not vote at all.

[Blagsta]

^
absolute bollocks. The right to vote also includes the right to not vote. And there are many reasons why people don't vote, ranging from homelessness, avoiding the electoral role because of debts etc, disillusionment with parliamentary politics, not agreeing with any of the parties etc.
Are you saying that none of these people have a right to complain?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
^
absolute bollocks.
I assume that's a euphemism for 'different opinion'? :D
The right to vote also includes the right to not vote. And there are many reasons why people don't vote, ranging from homelessness, avoiding the electoral role because of debts etc,
Oh, honestly, that is hardly a major proportion of the population. And the proportion of the electorate who vote is not the same as the proportion of the population which votes.
disillusionment with parliamentary politics, not agreeing with any of the parties etc.
Now we're talking. I'd suggest that very few people would agree with every policy of a particular party, but the way our parliamentary system works is that you vote along party lines rather than for individuals. It's not ideal and hence many feel disillusioned with party politics, I agree. That's no excuse not to vote though.
Are you saying that none of these people have a right to complain?
They should be complaining at the ballot box, where our democracy should be demonstrated in the fairest way, not by those who shout the loudest getting what they want.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Blagsta
^
absolute bollocks. The right to vote also includes the right to not vote. And there are many reasons why people don't vote, ranging from homelessness, avoiding the electoral role because of debts etc, disillusionment with parliamentary politics, not agreeing with any of the parties etc.
Are you saying that none of these people have a right to complain?

I agree with Kermit. We should have a compulsory vote, and allow an option for 'abstain'. Many people who can vote are just to bloody lazy to get off their arses and walk down to the Polling Station. Those who don't agree with any of the parties are perfectly free to put a cross in 'abstain' and that's that solved.

Please don't give me crap about working, there are postal options, and the polling stations are open for a significant length of time. I'm sure everyone can find some time. Personally i'm in favour of requiring all employers to allow employees time to vote on polling days.

People who're avoiding the electoral role because of their debts - dependant on how they came into debt. If it was due to a business collapse, company insolvency, etc... It's poor management but it's excusable. People who can't pay of their credit card bills are stupid and don't have a right to complain about anything.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish

I assume that's a euphemism for 'different opinion'? :D
[/B]
Oh, honestly, that is hardly a major proportion of the population. And the proportion of the electorate who vote is not the same as the proportion of the population which votes.
[/B]
Now we're talking. I'd suggest that very few people would agree with every policy of a particular party, but the way our parliamentary system works is that you vote along party lines rather than for individuals. It's not ideal and hence many feel disillusioned with party politics, I agree. That's no excuse not to vote though.

They should be complaining at the ballot box, where our democracy should be demonstrated in the fairest way, not by those who shout the loudest getting what they want. [/B]

Again, bollocks. What if you fundamentally disagree with the entire parliamentary system? What if you fundamentally disagree with capitalism and Liberal Democracy?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
Many people who can vote are just to bloody lazy to get off their arses and walk down to the Polling Station.

So what?

Originally posted by dr_carter
People who can't pay of their credit card bills are stupid and don't have a right to complain about anything.

Full of compassion aren't you? :rolleyes:

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Blagsta
So what?

So make them! Then see what the outcome is. It'll be more representative of public opinion than just those who can be bothered to exercise their constitutional right.

Full of compassion aren't you? :rolleyes:

If you can't manage to control your desires and excessive spending, why should I let you vote for someone to run my country? If you can't manage to live your life without paying out more than you earn you're not fit to decide on a government, because you can't even run your own life, never mind choosing who runs everyone elses.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[MrG]

i think twats shouldnt be allowed to vote either, but hey dr_carter your still allowed to vote if your over 18

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
So make them! Then see what the outcome is. It'll be more representative of public opinion than just those who can be bothered to exercise their constitutional right.

No. Voting should not be coercive. Otherwise it ain't a democracy is it?

Originally posted by dr_carter
If you can't manage to control your desires and excessive spending, why should I let you vote for someone to run my country? If you can't manage to live your life without paying out more than you earn you're not fit to decide on a government, because you can't even run your own life, never mind choosing who runs everyone elses.

Grow up.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Again, bollocks.
Again, a different opinion :D
What if you fundamentally disagree with the entire parliamentary system? What if you fundamentally disagree with capitalism and Liberal Democracy?
Well, of course if you disagree with democracy don't vote. Democracy is all about voting for people to represent your views to the government of the country. Don't complain about something without attempting to change it. What's the point in that? If you have an alternative view, stand as an MP and you will discover how many people share that view at the ballot box.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
God, you can tell you still live at home.

You tell me one good reason why anyone has a good reason to get up massive credit card debts and not pay them off.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish

Again, a different opinion :D

Well, of course if you disagree with democracy don't vote. Democracy is all about voting for people to represent your views to the government of the country. Don't complain about something without attempting to change it. What's the point in that? If you have an alternative view, stand as an MP and you will discover how many people share that view at the ballot box. [/B]

There are other methods of registering political opinion and fighting for change other than the ballot box y'know.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
You tell me one good reason why anyone has a good reason to get up massive credit card debts and not pay them off.

Don't know much about people really, do you?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by dr_carter
You tell me one good reason why anyone has a good reason to get up massive credit card debts and not pay them off.
Habit
Change in financial circumstances
Temptation
Outside pressure
etc.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Blagsta
No. Voting should not be coercive. Otherwise it ain't a democracy is it?

No, i'm not saying voting should be coercive. I'm saying attendance at the polling booth should be compulsory. The option is still there not to vote. Indeed, if people actually turn up and THEN spoil their ballot or cross 'abstain' if we had it, it would clearly show just how many people are disillusioned with politics, as opposed to those who're just too lazy to vote.

Grow up.

Only when so-called adults learn responsbility of money management.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
There are other methods of registering political opinion and fighting for change other than the ballot box y'know.
So? That doesn't make the ballot box invalid. Like I was saying before, I don't want to live in a society where those who shout the loudest get what they want. The ballot box allows everyone eligible to vote to have a say in the running of the country. I can't think of a better way. There are alternatives, for sure, but we happen to have it this way.

ETA: 'invalid' ;)

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Kentish
Habit
Change in financial circumstances
Temptation
Outside pressure
etc.

Habit is inexcusable. That's your problem.

Change in financial circumstances is fine, as long as you cut down on your spending from there on.

Temptation is inexcusable. Jesus resisted, why can't everyone else?

Outside pressure is inexcusable. Why should you listen to someone else telling you how you should spend your take-home money?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by dr_carter
Habit is inexcusable. That's your problem.

Change in financial circumstances is fine, as long as you cut down on your spending from there on.

Temptation is inexcusable. Jesus resisted, why can't everyone else?

Outside pressure is inexcusable. Why should you listen to someone else telling you how you should spend your take-home money?
Jesus wasn't a sinner, and was therefore an exception to the rule.

Inexcusable? You're just being naive now.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
No, i'm not saying voting should be coercive. I'm saying attendance at the polling booth should be compulsory.

Coercion - not very democratic.

Originally posted by dr_carter
The option is still there not to vote. Indeed, if people actually turn up and THEN spoil their ballot or cross 'abstain' if we had it, it would clearly show just how many people are disillusioned with politics, as opposed to those who're just too lazy to vote.

The reasons for spoilt ballots are not taken into account at the moment, I do agree that there should be a "none of the above" option. But I disagree that it should be compulsory to take part and I disagree with your statement that "if you don't vote, don't complain".

Originally posted by dr_carter
Only when so-called adults learn responsbility of money management.

You have a lot to learn about the real world.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Kentish
Jesus wasn't a sinner, and was therefore an exception to the rule.

Inexcusable? You're just being naive now.

When a habit that is seriously detrimental to you is your own doing, if you can't go on otherwise you won't be able to live, you normally stop. Why can't people do this with excessive spending?

Everyone can resist temptation. It's hard, but what's more important - having that gorgeous little thing that's so wonderful, or actually being able to go to bed without worrying about your debts? I think most normal people would choose the latter.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish
So? That doesn't make the ballot box invalid. Like I was saying before, I don't want to live in a society where those who shout the loudest get what they want. The ballot box allows everyone eligible to vote to have a say in the running of the country. I can't think of a better way. There are alternatives, for sure, but we happen to have it this way.

ETA: 'invalid' ;)

Where did I mention ETA? :confused:

I'm talking about grassroots organistion, NVDA and civil disobedience etc. No radical changes or rights ever came through the ballot box. They all came through NVDA, CD and grassroots campaigning.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
Habit is inexcusable. That's your problem.

Change in financial circumstances is fine, as long as you cut down on your spending from there on.

Temptation is inexcusable. Jesus resisted, why can't everyone else?

Outside pressure is inexcusable. Why should you listen to someone else telling you how you should spend your take-home money?

What the fuck has a semi-fictional character from a 2000 year old book got to do with it?

And as I said - you have a lot to learn about the real world and real people. People do not usually make decisions on a rational basis.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
When a habit that is seriously detrimental to you is your own doing, if you can't go on otherwise you won't be able to live, you normally stop. Why can't people do this with excessive spending?

Everyone can resist temptation. It's hard, but what's more important - having that gorgeous little thing that's so wonderful, or actually being able to go to bed without worrying about your debts? I think most normal people would choose the latter.

You're either very naive or a saint. I know which I'd guess at.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Coercion - not very democratic.

It's not coercive. I'm not asking for people to be forced into voting. I'm asking for people to be forced to go to the ballot box, and then they have the option of not voting - none of the above.

The reasons for spoilt ballots are not taken into account at the moment, I do agree that there should be a "none of the above" option. But I disagree that it should be compulsory to take part and I disagree with your statement that "if you don't vote, don't complain".

If you have a genuine reason for not voting - circumstances prohibit you, you don't like any of the policies of the parties, then you have good cause to complain. However, if you just can't be bothered to vote, why do you have a right to moan if you can't even be bothered to do something about it?

You have a lot to learn about the real world.

I think the real world has a lot to learn about debt management. Loans for special purchases are fine. Spending loads on credit cards and then not paying the money back is not. As far as credit cards are concerned, I work on the rule 'if you can't afford it, don't buy it'.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
Honey, have you ever had to manage a proper budget of your own? Have you ever to eat one meal a day because you won't have any more money for a fortnight? Have you ever had to sit in the dark with the heating off because you can't afford to pay the utilities?

My parents did. They didn't rack up massive debts on their credit cards. They managed as best they could on the money they had. Credit cards aren't loan schemes.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Blagsta
And as I said - you have a lot to learn about the real world and real people. People do not usually make decisions on a rational basis.

Are people incapable of thinking 'I didn't really need that, i'll take it back and get a refund' after they've thought about it?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Where did I mention ETA? :confused:
ETA = Edited to add. What did you think it stood for? :lol:
I'm talking about grassroots organistion, NVDA and civil disobedience etc. No radical changes or rights ever came through the ballot box. They all came through NVDA, CD and grassroots campaigning.
What radical changes would you institute?
I do agree with you - it took the Suffragettes years of pretty hardline campaigning to be heard.
But then again, 1million people marched against the war and it will probably be the ballot box where Blair feels the damage.

I don't know what NVDA stands for.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
Are people incapable of thinking 'I didn't really need that, i'll take it back and get a refund' after they've thought about it?

People don't often think like that, no. People are under incredible pressure from advertising and consumerist society to fill their lives up with meaningless expensive crap as a replacement for good and loving relationships with other people.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish

ETA = Edited to add. What did you think it stood for? :lol:[/B]

I thought you were on about the Basque separatists.

Originally posted by Kentish
What radical changes would you institute?
I do agree with you - it took the Suffragettes years of pretty hardline campaigning to be heard.
But then again, 1million people marched against the war and it will probably be the ballot box where Blair feels the damage.

I don't know what NVDA stands for. [/B]

NVDA - Non-Violent Direct Action.

Yes, 1 million marched against the war. And what happened? We went to war anyway. So much for democracy, eh?

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Blagsta
People don't often think like that, no. People are under incredible pressure from advertising and consumerist society to fill their lives up with meaningless expensive crap as a replacement for good and loving relationships with other people.

People like this who have lost free thought and are constantly manipulated by business need to be freed so they can save themselves from their debt problems.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by dr_carter
Everyone can resist temptation. It's hard, but what's more important - having that gorgeous little thing that's so wonderful, or actually being able to go to bed without worrying about your debts? I think most normal people would choose the latter.
The point is that the 'gorgeous little thing' takes your mind off the debt. It's a vicious circle.

Like the others said, you need to have been there or at least have seen it and the effect of debt on people to understand the problem.

It's OK to be ignorant, just don't pretend otherwise.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
So if the rent was due next week and you could either use your credit card or fall behind with the payments and get evicted, which one would you choose?

That would depend on whether my pay would be coming soon, and whether I could afford the rent from my pay. If I can't afford to pay to live there, I shouldn't be living there. If I can, I would put it on credit card and pay it off as soon as my salary arrives in my account.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Kentish
The point is that the 'gorgeous little thing' takes your mind off the debt. It's a vicious circle.

Like the others said, you need to have been there or at least have seen it and the effect of debt on people to understand the problem.

It's OK to be ignorant, just don't pretend otherwise.

I'm probably more ignorant than most to the ways of the world, but I just don't see why people allow themselves to get into such diabolical situations.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yes, 1 million marched against the war. And what happened? We went to war anyway. So much for democracy, eh?
That was my point. The march (a form of NVDA?) did nothing to affect the war, but the ballot box may well do.

If you don't want everyone to vote, how would you ensure that everyone was represented to the government?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by dr_carter
I just don't see why people allow themselves to get into such diabolical situations.
Correct.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
Where will you live then? I'm not actually trying to get at you, but you don't seem to have thought this through at all. People don't usually choose to get into massive debt - they don't really have a choice. I have a personal loan with the HSBC that is running at almost 20% interest. I didn't choose to take that loan out, I just didn't have any other choice.

If there is no other choice, then there is a perfectly good reason for getting into debt. What gets my goat is the people who must have everything, latest phone, latest car, biggest house, biggest TV, sky, and aren't prepared to make any cutbacks even if they're in massive debt.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by dr_carter
If there is no other choice, then there is a perfectly good reason for getting into debt. What gets my goat is the people who must have everything, latest phone, latest car, biggest house, biggest TV, sky, and aren't prepared to make any cutbacks even if they're in massive debt.
Who are these people? :confused:

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Kentish
Who are these people? :confused:

They are out there. Travel to Romford. A friend of mine works for debt management marketing research, and did a survey in Romford. He was shocked at the number of people who said they thought they had excessive debts, and yet had no plans to cut back on luxuries.

[Kentish]

Isn't it funny how debt management companies discover that lots of people have unmanageable debts? ;)

[dr_carter]

Originally posted by Kentish
Isn't it funny how debt management companies discover that lots of people have unmanageable debts? ;)

Well, this was just to decide whether it's worth targetting adverts onto Essex and London stations. He told me his actual research.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
People like this who have lost free thought and are constantly manipulated by business need to be freed so they can save themselves from their debt problems.

Bullshit. People are motivated by all sorts of things, conscious and unconscious and are influence by all sorts of things, both consciously and unconsciously (including yourself).

Why do you think that so many people chase endless expensive trainers, the latest mobile phones, designer clothes, flash cars etc? Our society indoctrinates us from a very young age to look for happiness in external material products rather than in ourselves and our relationships.
Advertising creates desire - if it didn't work, why do you think that companies spend millions on doing it?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
That would depend on whether my pay would be coming soon, and whether I could afford the rent from my pay. If I can't afford to pay to live there, I shouldn't be living there. If I can, I would put it on credit card and pay it off as soon as my salary arrives in my account.

Do you have any conception of living any kind of life outside of your comfortable priviliged little middle class bubble?

No, thought not. :rolleyes:

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
I'm probably more ignorant than most to the ways of the world, but I just don't see why people allow themselves to get into such diabolical situations.

No, you quite clearly don't, do you?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish
That was my point. The march (a form of NVDA?) did nothing to affect the war, but the ballot box may well do.

A march approved by the powers that be is not NVDA. And I think we'd have gone to war no matter who was in power.

Originally posted by Kentish
If you don't want everyone to vote, how would you ensure that everyone was represented to the government?

Did I say that I didn't want everyone to vote? No, I said it should be a choice.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by dr_carter
If there is no other choice, then there is a perfectly good reason for getting into debt. What gets my goat is the people who must have everything, latest phone, latest car, biggest house, biggest TV, sky, and aren't prepared to make any cutbacks even if they're in massive debt.

Don't you think there might be reasons why people want more and more material stuff when they know they can't afford it?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Don't you think there might be reasons why people want more and more material stuff when they know they can't afford it?

Yeah, there are, but it doesn't make it necessarily ok does it? You can't excuse someone doing something they know they can't afford to.

[Blagsta]

No, it might not make it right. But did I say it was right?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
No, it might not make it right. But did I say it was right?

So why ask the question? Reasons or not they're still not acting in a way that's sensible or acceptable.

[major_tom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blagsta
[B]What the fuck has a semi-fictional character from a 2000 year old book got to do with it?

oh dear! i'd love to hear you say something similarly insulting about allah. of course, i forgot; we can insult christians all we like, just not any other religion. you hypocrite.

[Aladdin]

How is that insulting?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by major_tom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blagsta
[B]What the fuck has a semi-fictional character from a 2000 year old book got to do with it?

oh dear! i'd love to hear you say something similarly insulting about allah. of course, i forgot; we can insult christians all we like, just not any other religion. you hypocrite.

See, this is one of the reasons I think you're a cunt. You wilfully distort people's positions to push your own fucked up agenda.

For the record - people can believe what they like, but I also have the right to criticise. And yes, if someone did use Allah to try and justify their views I would pull them up on that too.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
So why ask the question? Reasons or not they're still not acting in a way that's sensible or acceptable.

There is a world of difference between understanding and excusing.

[edit]

What I mean is - there are often underlying emotional reasons why people behave in a way that seems to be against their better interests. Once we realise that, we're in a better position to actually help empower people to change their own lives.

[Fiend_85]

I'm amazed, you actually went into detail about what you think. I bow to you sir.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by major_tom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blagsta
[B]What the fuck has a semi-fictional character from a 2000 year old book got to do with it?

oh dear! i'd love to hear you say something similarly insulting about allah. of course, i forgot; we can insult christians all we like, just not any other religion. you hypocrite.

P.S.
What is insulting about my question (apart from the obvious gratuitous use of the word "fuck")?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
P.S.
What is insulting about my question (apart from the obvious gratuitous use of the word "fuck")?

Suggesting that the focus of someone's faith is fictional is designed to be insulting. Saying, what's that got to do with anything would have been alright.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Suggesting that the focus of someone's faith is fictional is designed to be insulting.

But I didn't say that did I?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
But I didn't say that did I?

In response to Dr_carter's comment 'Jesus never sinned' or whatever, you said 'What has a semi-fictional character from 2000 years ago got to do with anything?'

So how is that not suggesting that the focus of christianity is fiction?

[Blagsta]

Note that I didn't say that Jesus was fictional. I said he was semi fictional. There is a fairly big difference.
There is no doubt that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure. However I rather doubt he was the son of god, turned water into wine, rose from the dead or any of that crap. They're all stories, metaphors, allegories.
Anyone who takes any of it literally is a fool.

[Fiend_85]

No, anyone who takes it literally has faith. I pity, and always have pitied, those who only believe what they have seen with their own eyes to be true.

[Blagsta]

I'm not a fundamentalist materialist by any means, but I'm also not a gullible fool.
I have certain ideas/beliefs that could be termed "spiritual", but they are not based on a semi-fictional account of events that may or may not have happened over 2000 years ago, that have been re-written, edited and generally fucked around with to justify the powers that be at the time, that have been used and are continuing to be used to justify the oppression of women and homosexuals, the exploitation of the natural world and countless wars etc.

Anyone who takes Bible (or Koran) stories literally is an idiot. There are certain truths and guides to living a good life in there, but the stories are not literally true - they are parables, metaphors, allegory.

[wheresmyplacebo]

people tend to forget the meaning of religion which is to guide you to live a life where you respect those around you

[Fiend_85]

Can we move away from religion now? Not that I'm afraid of the debate, cos I've had it twice since coming here, I just don't think it's going to get anywhere, and hijacking this thread isn't helpful.


Personally, I think that voting should be compulsory for the eligible electorate.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
people tend to forget the meaning of religion which is to guide you to live a life where you respect those around you

which I have no problem with. But I don't understand why my questioning the reality of it is insulting. Is religion out of bounds for critical questioning? And if so, why?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Personally, I think that voting should be compulsory for the eligible electorate.

Why?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Why?

Because I think that people shouldn't have any right to complain about the government when they didn't do anything to change it. The turnout for the last election was what 60%? So that 40% of registered voters who didn't vote, they're not complaining at all? It should be absolutly compulsory to vote, and make your view known, even if it's 'none of the above'.

[morrocan roll]

dr carter ...back to people getting in debt.
visit huge housing estates where there a few employed.
watch the tally men knocking on doors ...looking for people in tears.
the electricity is about to be cut off.
the larder is bare.
the tallyman offers to the lend them twenty quid till next month ...a little bit of money to stock the larder is hard to resist.
these people arent well educated but are often at their wits end.
that twenty quid saw them through ...and the tallyman only charged a tenner interest.
the man is always around the estate ...he even leaves his mobile number should you ever need his services again.
the electric and gas are about to be cut ...he'll lend you three hundred quid but ...'lending you serious money love i'm taking a chance so there'll be more interest this time.'
...and so it goes.
people in despair being bailed out ...or so they think.
the real world is full of real people with real problems ...it's also full of people preying on those problems.
be thankful you have no problems ...pray you don't end up with any ...

[Blagsta]

And what about my points that not everyone agrees with parliamentary democracy? That not everyone wants to vote for capitalism or capitalism or capitalism? That making it compulosry is not democratic?

[Fiend_85]

Surely none of the above covers all of those eventualities?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
...back to people getting in debt.

I bow to your knowledge sir, and am aware that people are charged 400% interest in these circumstances. But those who run up vast credit card and store card debt. What's that about? What's their 'excuse'?

[Blagsta]

I already said that a "none of the above" option would be a good idea.
But how do you motivate the average pissed off working class lad, who knows that none of the parties give a fuck about him, to vote? By making it illegal not to? Errrr...that'll work. Not. :rolleyes:

[edited so it made sense]

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
But those who run up vast credit card and store card debt. What's that about? What's their 'excuse'?

We've been through this haven't we?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
I bow to your knowledge sir, and am aware that people are charged 400% interest in these circumstances. But those who run up vast credit card and store card debt. What's that about? What's their 'excuse'? stupidity despair loss oc control temptation fear hope ...it's called being human living in a world that sometimes leads and sometimes pushes people to extremes.
never before in history has so much been offered to so many.
not everyone can handle all of reality.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
I already said that a "none of the above" option would be a good idea.
But how do you motivate the average pissed off working class lad, who knows that none of the parties give a fuck about him, to vote? By making it illegal not to? Errrr...that'll work. Not. :rolleyes:

[edited so it made sense]

It works down under. Though you need to talk to Kermit about that.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
It works down under. Though you need to talk to Kermit about that.

afaik it's it's compulsory to vote if you're registered to vote. But it's not compulsory to register.

[morrocan roll]

by the way ...new labour get my vote.

[major_tom]

Originally posted by Blagsta
which I have no problem with. But I don't understand why my questioning the reality of it is insulting. Is religion out of bounds for critical questioning? And if so, why?

the current pc driven thinking in this country is that we must be tolerant of everyones beliefs. if i said ''come on mr hindu, you cant seriously expect us to believe that ganesh the elephant god is real'' you would be the first to start bleating about bigotry!

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by major_tom
cant seriously expect us to believe that ganesh the elephant god is real'' but ganesh the elephant boy isn't real mr hindu.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
And what about my points that not everyone agrees with parliamentary democracy? That not everyone wants to vote for capitalism or capitalism or capitalism? That making it compulosry is not democratic?
Which is less democratic: having 60% of the electorate voting, or making it illegal not to turn up at the polling station?

And people can vote against capitalism by either standing themselves, spoiling their paper, voting for a minority etc.

The 40% of the electorate who didn't vote should not expect their views to be represented because they have not chosen a parliamentary representative.

[Kentish]

Oh, and it probably is offensive to call Christians 'fools' and 'idiots' and stating as if fact that Jesus was fictional (semi or otherwise).

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Kentish
Oh, and it probably is offensive to call Christians 'fools' and 'idiots' and stating as if fact that Jesus was fictional (semi or otherwise).

I bow to you sir.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Kentish
The 40% of the electorate who didn't vote should not expect their views to be represented because they have not chosen a parliamentary representative. following that logic ...if the tories get back into power i can ignore all they demand of me by way of laws ...(poll tax) ...cos i voted for a labour government?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
following that logic ...if the tories get back into power i can ignore all they demand of me by way of laws ...(poll tax) ...cos i voted for a labour government?

No, the logic does not follow. Because you made an attempt to contribute to the system.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
following that logic ...if the tories get back into power i can ignore all they demand of me by way of laws ...(poll tax) ...cos i voted for a labour government?
No, I don't think so. You have taken part in the democratic process we have in this country. You have an MP, who is paid to represent his constituents at Westminster regardless of political affiliation. You could argue the case for proportional representation on the basis of your scenario, but it isn't undemocratic.

Those that didn't vote, didn't take part in a democratic election and have no representative in parliament.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by major_tom
the current pc driven thinking in this country is that we must be tolerant of everyones beliefs.

I am tolerant - I respect people's right to believe whatever they like. But I also have the right to criticise and question.

Originally posted by major_tom
if i said ''come on mr hindu, you cant seriously expect us to believe that ganesh the elephant god is real'' you would be the first to start bleating about bigotry!

Got any evidence for this blatantly false assertion?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
No, the logic does not follow. Because you made an attempt to contribute to the system. in a democracy we have choice ...maybe if i don't vote then that is my contribution.
i'm on the verge of not voting ...if i vote labour ...am i supporting war ...am i supporting bloodshed?
the rest of them can go to hell.
i may well be a conciencous objector by absatining.
doesn't take away my right to live in a democracy no matter how fucked up that democracy may be.
what is being pushed here by kentish's point of view ...is yet another nail in democracys coffin surely.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish
Which is less democratic: having 60% of the electorate voting, or making it illegal not to turn up at the polling station?

Making it compulsory to vote.

Originally posted by Kentish
And people can vote against capitalism by either standing themselves, spoiling their paper, voting for a minority etc.

Errr, no not really.

Originally posted by Kentish
The 40% of the electorate who didn't vote should not expect their views to be represented because they have not chosen a parliamentary representative.

Bollocks for the reasons already outlined.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish
Oh, and it probably is offensive to call Christians 'fools' and 'idiots' and stating as if fact that Jesus was fictional (semi or otherwise).

Errr, no. I'm not criticising all Christians. I'm criticising those Christians that take it literally.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Kentish

Those that didn't vote, didn't take part in a democratic election and have no representative in parliament. those who voted for the cons in wales have no representaive in the entire country.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errr, no. I'm not criticising all Christians. I'm criticising those Christians that take it literally.

So that makes it ok then does it? If you're only criticising the people you don't agree with.

[major_tom]

oh come on! how can you say that you respect other peoples beliefs when youve just completely debunked christianity? also as far as hindus are concerned ganesh the elephant god is one of a massive number of gods (including shiva vishnu etc.) that reflect the different personalities of brahman (the don corleone of hindu deities) not bad for a bnp troll eh?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
So that makes it ok then does it? If you're only criticising the people you don't agree with. what is wrong with critisizing those you don't agree with?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Making it compulsory to vote.
That wasn't an option.
I accept your point about the right not to vote, but I really do feel that 60% is not good enough. We could either increase it with a law, or by making people feel more in touch with politics. The former is easier, the latter preferable imo.
Errr, no not really.
Yes really. If you dislike democracy that much, don't live in one.
Bollocks for the reasons already outlined.
I disagree, and object to bollocks being the main basis of your argument.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
what is wrong with critisizing those you don't agree with?
Sorry, it's like saying that it's ok to be offensive because you don't agree with someone. It's ok for blagsta to be offensive to those who have faith enough to believe in miracles because he doesn't think it's literal.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
So that makes it ok then does it? If you're only criticising the people you don't agree with.

:banghead:

In my opinion anyone who takes a fairystory as literal truth is a gullible fool.
Or am I not allowed an opinion now?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
:banghead:

In my opinion anyone who takes a fairystory as literal truth is a gullible fool.
Or am I not allowed an opinion now?

It doesn't stop it from being offensive, and a deliberatly offensive statement.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errr, no. I'm not criticising all Christians. I'm criticising those Christians that take it literally.
Let's face it, that is all Christians. And just because you do not believe the Bible, does not give you the right to insult those who do.

A bit of humility please Blagsta.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by major_tom
oh come on! how can you say that you respect other peoples beliefs when youve just completely debunked christianity? also as far as hindus are concerned ganesh the elephant god is one of a massive number of gods (including shiva vishnu etc.) that reflect the different personalities of brahman (the don corleone of hindu deities) not bad for a bnp troll eh?

You have a real knack for missing the point and getting the wrong end of the stick.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Sorry, it's like saying that it's ok to be offensive because you don't agree with someone. It's ok for blagsta to be offensive to those who have faith enough to believe in miracles because he doesn't think it's literal. since when was critisism of something you believe to be false or dangerous wrong?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
since when was critisism of something you believe to be false or dangerous wrong?

You are being deliberatly obtuse. It's enourmously arrogant for Blagsta to dismiss so many people as idiots, fools or gullible irrespective of his right to an opinion.

[morrocan roll]

i thought faith could only thrive under critisism.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish

That wasn't an option.
I accept your point about the right not to vote, but I really do feel that 60% is not good enough. We could either increase it with a law, or by making people feel more in touch with politics. The former is easier, the latter preferable imo.[/B]

Maybe we could have a real particpatory democracy rather than just a pretence of one? Maybe we could have politicians that actually serve the people?
Just a thought, like.

Originally posted by Kentish

Yes really. If you dislike democracy that much, don't live in one.[/B]

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Kentish
I disagree, and object to bollocks being the main basis of your argument. [/B]

I've already explained why you're talking bollocks. Not my fault if you can't understand it.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
since when was critisism of something you believe to be false or dangerous wrong?
Since never. I think it was the fact that he called Christians 'fool' and 'idiots' and said the Jesus was fictional. It's offensive because it's disrespectful. You are free to disagree with what the bible says, but it is offensive to insult those who do believe that the bible is literal.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
i thought faith could only thrive under critisism.

Criticism I can cope with, I have seen it work. But that wasn't criticism that was blatant arrogant dismissal.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
You are being deliberatly obtuse. It's enourmously arrogant for Blagsta to dismiss so many people as idiots, fools or gullible irrespective of his right to an opinion. but i think people who believe the bnp to be fools ...is that wrong?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Sorry, it's like saying that it's ok to be offensive because you don't agree with someone. It's ok for blagsta to be offensive to those who have faith enough to believe in miracles because he doesn't think it's literal.

What would you call someone who believes a 2000 year old book to be literal truth on no evidence?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
It doesn't stop it from being offensive, and a deliberatly offensive statement.

Get a grip.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
but i think people who believe the bnp to be fools ...is that wrong?

Yes, you can disagree with the BNPs policies of isolationism and racist bigotry, but dismissing them as fools isn't fair.

[major_tom]

hang on a minute blaggie! i seem to remember you having a major problem with a certain mr. robert kilroy silk criticising arab culture which is oppressive to women and homosexuals, just like you said christianity had been for the last 2000 years. hmmmm. it would appear he didnt have the right to criticise that you enjoy.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish
Let's face it, that is all Christians. And just because you do not believe the Bible, does not give you the right to insult those who do.

Errrr...no it's not.

Originally posted by Kentish
A bit of humility please Blagsta.

Why?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
What would you call someone who believes a 2000 year old book to be literal truth on no evidence?

I respect their faith, and evidence depends on your perspective.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Maybe we could have a real particpatory democracy rather than just a pretence of one? Maybe we could have politicians that actually serve the people?
Just a thought, like.
Too right, but that relies on honest, decent people standing for election. I suppose it's easier to whinge than to seek to change the system.
:rolleyes:
A weak argument.
I've already explained why you're talking bollocks. Not my fault if you can't understand it.
Maybe you should be clearer.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errrr...no it's not.

If not then it's the overwhelming majority.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
You are being deliberatly obtuse. It's enourmously arrogant for Blagsta to dismiss so many people as idiots, fools or gullible irrespective of his right to an opinion.

Haven't lots of people called lukesh similar names for believing everything he reads in the tabloid press? Are they all arrogant as well? Why are Christians beyond criticism but luke isn't?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Yes, you can disagree with the BNPs policies of isolationism and racist bigotry, but dismissing them as fools isn't fair.

Why? They blatantly are. Dangerous fools.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errrr...no it's not.
Yes it is. Would you like me to define what a Chrisitan is?
Why?
Because you are being hypocritical and offensive.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Haven't lots of people called lukesh similar names for believing everything he reads in the tabloid press? Are they all arrogant as well? Why are Christians beyond criticism but luke isn't?

You've criticised a group, a group you cannot possibly know every individual in, that's arrogance. Criticising lukesh is based on personal knowledge, and you cannot possibly try to convince me that it comes under the same catagory.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by major_tom
hang on a minute blaggie! i seem to remember you having a major problem with a certain mr. robert kilroy silk criticising arab culture which is oppressive to women and homosexuals, just like you said christianity had been for the last 2000 years. hmmmm. it would appear he didnt have the right to criticise that you enjoy.

As I said - you have a real knack for missing the point. Kilroy criticised a race of people, not a religion.
And nowhere have I said anything remotely similar. I have not said that all Christians oppress women and homosexuals.
Please try and read my posts properly.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
You are being deliberatly obtuse. It's enourmously arrogant for Blagsta to dismiss so many people as idiots, fools or gullible irrespective of his right to an opinion. i believe many christians are fools and idiots ...they read that they should under no circumstances bow before idols ...they then come up with a complete pile of crap as to why they bow before idols ...foolish no?

[rachie004]

13 pages I haven't read :p

I'll never vote conservative.. never

so either lib dem or labour..

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
I respect their faith, and evidence depends on your perspective.

My sister is a Christian - I respect her right to be. Doesn't mean I don't think she is misguided.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
i believe many christians are fools and idiots ...they read that they should under no circumstances bow before idols ...they then come up with a complete pile of crap as to why they bow before idols ...foolish no?

Extremely foolish, but because they're human, not because they believe in miracles. You cannot judge every christian based on the actions of the few you've met.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
My sister is a Christian - I respect her right to be. Doesn't mean I don't think she is misguided.

But you think she's a fool.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
You've criticised a group, a group you cannot possibly know every individual in, that's arrogance. Criticising lukesh is based on personal knowledge, and you cannot possibly try to convince me that it comes under the same catagory.

Errrr...yes it is similar. Luke takes everything he reads in The Sun as literal truth on no evidence. How is that different from someone who takes the Bible as literal truth?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errrr...yes it is similar. Luke takes everything he reads in The Sun as literal truth on no evidence. How is that different from someone who takes the Bible as literal truth?

You're comparing a holy text with the Sun now?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errrr...yes it is similar. Luke takes everything he reads in The Sun as literal truth on no evidence. How is that different from someone who takes the Bible as literal truth?
The evidence part.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish

Yes it is. Would you like me to define what a Chrisitan is? [/B]

Not all Christians believe in the literal truth of the Bible. A good many believe it to allegory and metaphor, like I do.

Originally posted by Kentish
Because you are being hypocritical and offensive. [/B]

How so? Because I have an opinion you don't agree with? Hmmmm...
PS
Sort out the formatting of your replies with that extra [b]

[major_tom]

im beginning to see now; blagsta can slag off christianity as much as he wants but no one else is allowed to, especially not kilroy. i always thought lumping people in groups and criticising them was the most heinous crime in blagsta's view; certainly something he's always blasted me for doing.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Not all Christians believe in the literal truth of the Bible. A good many believe it to allegory and metaphor, like I do.


Every christian must believe in at least one miracle from the bible or they're not christians, they're just people who think that the new testement says some nice things about how to live.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by major_tom
im beginning to see now; blagsta can slag off christianity as much as he wants but no one else is allowed to, especially not kilroy. i always thought lumping people in groups and criticising them was the most heinous crime in blagsta's view; certainly something he's always blasted me for doing.

Are you lacking in comprehension skills or something? :confused:

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish
The evidence part.

Explain.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Every christian must believe in at least one miracle from the bible or they're not christians, they're just people who think that the new testement says some nice things about how to live.

Really? Where does it say that?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Not all Christians believe in the literal truth of the Bible. A good many believe it to allegory and metaphor, like I do.
What is 'it'. Christians have different opinions on things like 7-day creation, but I think all would believe that Jesus was a real person, and son of God.
How so? Because I have an opinion you don't agree with? Hmmmm...
Absolutely not. I have not called you a fool for having the beliefs that you have. I think you should be wary of writing someone off as an idiot just because you don't believe what they do. Christians or BNP members alike.
PS
Sort out the formatting of your replies with that extra [b]
:confused:
Mine are fine.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Extremely foolish, but because they're human, not because they believe in miracles. You cannot judge every christian based on the actions of the few you've met. the few! i'm talking about a bazillion catholics ...

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Really? Where does it say that?

If you don't believe that Christ was the Son of God sent to the Earth to be crucified and take our sin, then rose to defeat death on the third day, you're not a christian.

[morrocan roll]

why is it suddenly wrong to call people you believe to be fools ...fools?
are we to ban the word?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
the few! i'm talking about a bazillion catholics ...

Catholics I don't get, they make a mockery of the sacrifice of Christ, He died to allow us a direct line to the Father, and yet, Catholics come up with so much dogma to go through, confessing to a priest, to the pope, praying to Mary and the Saints and to top it of purgatory. They're so misguided.

[major_tom]

blagsta im not trying to dig at you personally but i can see the obvious double standards in what you are saying. i dont think i would be doing a teacher training degree if i had problems comprehending text.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Explain.
Well, your argument against the bible is that it has been altered by successive leaders to suit their own views. You have no evidence for this, and yet there is evidence from the first century of original manuscripts of parts of the New testament.

What's the date today?

[typo]

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
If you don't believe that Christ was the Son of God sent to the Earth to be crucified and take our sin, then rose to defeat death on the third day, you're not a christian. according to the bible ...the only prayers that are heard are those spoken to god through christ ...yet the catholics bow to idols ...pray to saints ...pray to some woman ...as jesus called her ...they are therefore not christian but are fools.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish

What is 'it'. Christians have different opinions on things like 7-day creation, but I think all would believe that Jesus was a real person, and son of God. [/B]

I believe Jesus was a real person. And "son of god" can have many differing interprations.

Originally posted by Kentish
Absolutely not. I have not called you a fool for having the beliefs that you have. I think you should be wary of writing someone off as an idiot just because you don't believe what they do. Christians or BNP members alike. [/B]

Sorry, but I happen to think that people who believe that the Bible is the literal word of god (especially when it has been translated and mistranslated, re-written, edited and generally fucked around with to justify whoever was in power at the time) and people who believe in the inherent superiority of the white race, to be fools. They may be otherwise intelligent people, but on those issues, the evidence just does not back them up.

Originally posted by Kentish
:confused:
Mine are fine. [/B]

You have an extra [ b][/ b] in every post I quote.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
according to the bible ...the only prayers that are heard are those spoken to god through christ ...yet the catholics bow to idols ...pray to saints ...pray to some woman ...as jesus called her ...they are therefore not christian but are fools.

They're certainly misguided. It really bothers me to be honest, I wonder what will happen to them.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Catholics I don't get, they make a mockery of the sacrifice of Christ, He died to allow us a direct line to the Father, and yet, Catholics come up with so much dogma to go through, confessing to a priest, to the pope, praying to Mary and the Saints and to top it of purgatory. They're so misguided. then they are foolish.
i believe the bible talks about foolish people ...therefor in the eyes of a christian there are many fools about ...

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
I believe Jesus was a real person. And "son of god" can have many differing interprations.


not really, he's either the son of God or he's not.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
If you don't believe that Christ was the Son of God sent to the Earth to be crucified and take our sin, then rose to defeat death on the third day, you're not a christian.

You don't have to take that literally. I seem to remember some archbishop or other causing quite a furore a few years ago by saying that he believed that the virgin birth and resurrection etc were allegory rather than literal truth.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
not really, he's either the son of God or he's not.

Do you understand what metaphor and allegory mean?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
You don't have to take that literally. I seem to remember some archbishop or other causing quite a furore a few years ago by saying that he believed that the virgin birth and resurrection etc were allegory rather than literal truth.

No, you have to believe that literally, otherwise where is the salvation in Christ? It's just not there.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
I believe Jesus was a real person. And "son of god" can have many differing interprations.
OK. But Christians would say the Son of God means born as wholly man and wholly God.
Sorry, but I happen to think that people who believe that the Bible is the literal word of god (especially when it has been translated and mistranslated, re-written, edited and generally fucked around with to justify whoever was in power at the time)
See my other post on this. That simply isn't true and you shouldn't be stating that as fact.
and people who believe in the inherent superiority of the white race, to be fools.
Let's be clear that Christians do not believe that.
They may be otherwise intelligent people, but on those issues, the evidence just does not back them up.
Do not compare the evidence for the integrity of the bible with the basis of the BNP.
You have an extra [ b][/ b] in every post I quote.
Delete the extra one?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish
Well, your argument against the bible is that it has been altered by successive leaders to suit their own views. You have no evidence for this, and yet there is evidence from the first century of original manuscripts of parts of the New testament.

Errrr...there is plenty of evidence. Look it up. The Gospels were written at least 100 years after the death of Christ.
And you never heard of the King James version?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
They're certainly misguided. It really bothers me to be honest, I wonder what will happen to them.

So Catholics are misguided, whereas you know better do you?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
No, you have to believe that literally, otherwise where is the salvation in Christ? It's just not there.

So the archbishop wasn't a Christian then?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errrr...there is plenty of evidence. Look it up. The Gospels were written at least 100 years after the death of Christ.
And you never heard of the King James version?
No there really isn't. Look it up. There are original gospels from 70 years after the death of Christ. Even if they weren't written down until last year doesn't make it necessarily false. It would make the evidence weaker, but not untrue.

Yes I have heard of the King James version.

What is the date today?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Blagsta
So the archbishop wasn't a Christian then? hgow can a guy who lives in a palce and lords it over others be a follower of christ?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errrr...there is plenty of evidence. Look it up. The Gospels were written at least 100 years after the death of Christ.
And you never heard of the King James version?

No, not true actually closer to between 50AD and 70AD. About the same time Paul was writing his letters. What has the KJV got to do with anything?

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
So the archbishop wasn't a Christian then?
Correct, on the basis of what you say.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish

OK. But Christians would say the Son of God means born as wholly man and wholly God.[/B]

But that does not necessarily mean that he could perform miracles does it?
The Gnostics believe that we are all have a divine spark in us (i.e. could be "sons of god"), something which is similar to some of my ideas (depending on which day of the week it is...)


Originally posted by Kentish
See my other post on this. That simply isn't true and you shouldn't be stating that as fact.[/B]

Errrr...it is true. Look it up.

Originally posted by Kentish
Let's be clear that Christians do not believe that.

Some do actually.

Originally posted by Kentish
Do not compare the evidence for the integrity of the bible with the basis of the BNP.

Why not?

Originally posted by Kentish
Delete the extra one?

Why don't you delete the extra ones?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
hgow can a guy who lives in a palce and lords it over others be a follower of christ?

Calling yourself a christian is not the same as being a christian see Matt 7:23

Mt 7:23
Then I will tell them clearly, 'Get away from me, you who do evil. I never knew you.'

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish
Correct, on the basis of what you say.

Maybe you should tell someone then.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Calling yourself a christian is not the same as being a christian see Matt 7:23

Mt 7:23
Then I will tell them clearly, 'Get away from me, you who do evil. I never knew you.' so agreed then?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
But that does not necessarily mean that he could perform miracles does it?
The Gnostics believe that we are all have a divine spark in us (i.e. could be "sons of god"), something which is similar to some of my ideas (depending on which day of the week it is...)


We are all children of God, but Christ was literally God's Son, Fully Man and Fully God.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
so agreed then?

Just to check, what are we agreeing on?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
hgow can a guy who lives in a palce and lords it over others be a follower of christ?

Exactly. I'm more of a Christian than lots of people who call themselves Christian.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Exactly. I'm more of a Christian than lots of people who call themselves Christian.

No you're more honest, but you're not more of a christian.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Just to check, what are we agreeing on? that bishops who live in the lap of luxury are not christians.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
that bishops who live in the lap of luxury are not christians.

Here's the context of Matt 7:23

Matt7:21 "Not all those who say that I am their Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. The only people who will enter the kingdom of heaven are those who do what my Father in heaven wants. 22 On the last day many people will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, we spoke for you, and through you we forced out demons and did many miracles.' 23 Then I will tell them clearly, 'Get away from me, you who do evil. I never knew you.' 24 "Everyone who hears my words and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 It rained hard, the floods came, and the winds blew and hit that house. But it did not fall, because it was built on rock. 26 Everyone who hears my words and does not obey them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 It rained hard, the floods came, and the winds blew and hit that house, and it fell with a big crash." 28 When Jesus finished saying these things, the people were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he did not teach like their teachers of the law. He taught like a person who had authority.

So those who are hearing the words of Christ and not acting upon them. Being rich isn't wrong, holding money and power as greater masters than Christ is.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
No, not true actually closer to between 50AD and 70AD. About the same time Paul was writing his letters. What has the KJV got to do with anything?

Depends on which scholars you ask.
And the KJV has a lot do to with it. If the Bible has been translated and re-translated lots of times (which it has) and different historical traditions have decided what goes in and what doesn't (didn't the Lutherans try to remove certain bits?), how can it be the literal word of god?

:confused:

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Fiend_85

. Being rich isn't wrong, i know there isn't but calling yourself one of christs priests and living in that luxury is definately wrong.
christ himself could have had that kind of wealth and power but refused.
and to do it in the name of christ is surely being an anti christ.
and yes i know the scripture your qouting.

theres also one that says ...if you are teaching men not to marry then you are listening to the teachings of demons.
theres also one that talks about these people wearing special robes and expecting to sit at the head of other peoples tables.
they are corrupt. they are fools. they are misleading people.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
We are all children of God, but Christ was literally God's Son, Fully Man and Fully God.

On what evidence? The say so of one book written nearly 2000 years ago? Come on, you're brighter than that...

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
But that does not necessarily mean that he could perform miracles does it?
The Gnostics believe that we are all have a divine spark in us (i.e. could be "sons of god"), something which is similar to some of my ideas (depending on which day of the week it is...)
If you believe that Jesus is the son of God then you believe what the the New testament says, and you believe that Jesus performed miracles.
Errrr...it is true. Look it up.
No it is not true. Look it up.
Some do actually.
Name one.
Why not?
Are you seriously asking me to explain to you how Christian beliefs and BNP beliefs are different?
Why don't you delete the extra ones?
I honestly don't know what the problem is :confused:

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Here's the context of Matt 7:23

Matt7:21 "Not all those who say that I am their Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. The only people who will enter the kingdom of heaven are those who do what my Father in heaven wants. 22 On the last day many people will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, we spoke for you, and through you we forced out demons and did many miracles.' 23 Then I will tell them clearly, 'Get away from me, you who do evil. I never knew you.' 24 "Everyone who hears my words and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 It rained hard, the floods came, and the winds blew and hit that house. But it did not fall, because it was built on rock. 26 Everyone who hears my words and does not obey them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 It rained hard, the floods came, and the winds blew and hit that house, and it fell with a big crash." 28 When Jesus finished saying these things, the people were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he did not teach like their teachers of the law. He taught like a person who had authority.

So those who are hearing the words of Christ and not acting upon them. Being rich isn't wrong, holding money and power as greater masters than Christ is.

Yeah, and who decides what Christs words actually meant? The people in power thats who.

Come on, think critically about it. You're a bright lass, use that brain for fucks sake.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Depends on which scholars you ask.
And the KJV has a lot do to with it. If the Bible has been translated and re-translated lots of times (which it has) and different historical traditions have decided what goes in and what doesn't (didn't the Lutherans try to remove certain bits?), how can it be the literal word of god?

:confused:

Because for each translation people have gone back to the original versions. If you study the bible beginning to end and see how it fits together, no contradictions or missing pieces, how can that not be the work of God. Written over a such a massive period of time, by so many different authors from different backgrounds, and every one of them with the same message.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yeah, and who decides what Christs words actually meant? The people in power thats who.

Come on, think critically about it. You're a bright lass, use that brain for fucks sake.

That's why I don't just take what people tell me, I study it myself.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yeah, and who decides what Christs words actually meant? The people in power thats who.

Come on, think critically about it. You're a bright lass, use that brain for fucks sake.
Why exactly is it that you cannot accept that people believe in the bible? Why insult those that do?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Kentish

If you believe that Jesus is the son of God then you believe what the the New testament says, and you believe that Jesus performed miracles.[/B]

So you take it all at face value withou