Poll: Who Will You Be Voting For In The Next General Election?

chicflix

Cat695 wrote: »

only religious extremism has 13 yro children carry bombs and blow themselfs up....yet its still allowed to be practiced and preached in the street. And is still supported by millions.

Only a disgraceful establishment would have adults bombing and slaughtering entire populations including men women and children. You indiscriminately bomb children and babies, so how you can complain when they retaliate is beyond comprehension. Perhaps you ought to look at the bigger picture rather than looking at it from a narrow single-minded approach.

Cat695

chicflix wrote: »

Only a disgraceful establishment would have adults bombing and slaughtering entire populations including men women and children. You indiscriminately bomb children and babies, so how you can complain when they retaliate is beyond comprehension. Perhaps you ought to look at the bigger picture rather than looking at it from a narrow single-minded approach.

I told you last time we had this discussion before you got banned.C hicflix if you feel that strongly then pop over to Afghan or Iraq and we'll meet on a professional level.....but you are an arm chair warrior...so sit down and enjoy the comforts this country gives you and shut the f*ck up;)

chicflix

Cat695 wrote: »

I told you last time we had this discussion before you got banned.C hicflix if you feel that strongly then pop over to Afghan or Iraq and we'll meet on a professional level.....but you are an arm chair warrior...so sit down and enjoy the comforts this country gives you and shut the f*ck up;)

Naah, I wouldn't bring myself to be part of an illegal war which brings death and destruction to innocent people. That's the difference between you and I. So shut your pie hole you ugly freak!

Cat695

chicflix wrote: »

Naah, I wouldn't bring myself to be part of an illegal war which brings death and destruction to innocent people. That's the difference between you and I. So shut your pie hole you ugly freak!

I must not feed the Troll, I must not feed the Troll
I must not feed the Troll, I must not feed the Troll
I must not feed the Troll, I must not feed the Troll
I must not feed the Troll, I must not feed the Troll
I must not feed the Troll, I must not feed the Troll
I must not feed the Troll, I must not feed the Troll:D

auximinies

The point that needs to be made about opinion polls is that people seem clearly to be interested in the future not the past. They want answers to the mess and seem prepared to vote for whomever has an answer.

So far we have seen Labour linking up with governments around the world agreeing an action plan, and we have the Conservatives proposing to do nothing - even turning away from tax cuts which used to be their main course of action for anything.

Is it any wonder that Labour are suddenly coming surging back in the polls? Doesn't mean things won't change again in the new year, but so far they have had a good war and the Tories haven't. As for "how can anyone vote for Labour scum" etc, there are plenty of people who still say the same about voting Conservative. One man's saint is another man's sinner remember....

shaven-monkey

jm28cardiff wrote: »

Sod all the parties above, I'm starting my own political party right now! Here are some of my policies

Death penalty for murder
Death penalty for attempted murder (attacking someone with a knife, even slashing them, will be classed as attempted murder, even if the injuries are minor)
Death penalty for carrying a concealed knife or gun
Death penalty if you kill someone while committing a crime eg drink driving

Who carries out the executions? Can the state be prosecuted for murder if it turns out they executed an innocent man? Who gets punished in this case?

Provide hard drugs on the NHS for addicts (would cut down crime)
Legalise prostitution
Legalise all drugs that grow naturally (if it exists in nature, how can it be illegal?)
Ban all religion from schools
An open door immigration policy for economic migrants, as long as they actually work - no dole available for them

well, fair enough.

Legalise euthanasia
For long term prisoners, offer an assisted suicide if they want it
ID cards - would make it easier to impose age restriction on buying alcohol etc
Any shop selling alcohol to minors would immediately lose its licence forever, with no appeal
National DNA database - take DNA from babies at birth
No treatment on the NHS from conditions you have brought on yourself, such as smoking or obesity related conditions

Hmmm. Why not just eliminate the age restriction on alcohol? You're legalising naturally growing drugs... No need for ID cards.
DNA is not quite as foolproof as a means of detecting a criminal as you may have been led to believe.
Are you planning to sell access to this DNA database to biotech companies (as the UK government is intending to do) ?
Do self inflicted conditions include mesothelioma from asbestos exposure in the workplace, genetic predisposition to cancer, genetic predisposition to diabetes... Mental illness brought on by .. well how about compulsive use of the natural drugs you've just legalised?

Get people off the dole by cutting the dole! Each year you are on it, you get less
If both parents are already on benefits, you are not allowed to have more kids - break this rule, lose your dole

So if some claimants get pregnant due to contraceptive failure, drug addled state or whatever reason you are going to give them a choice of benefits or termination of the foetus?
Does enforced abortion = murder?
If they choose to go ahead with the pregnancy and lose their benefits, aren't you condemning the child (a human) to extreme deprivation for the sins of their parents?
Were you planning to take the child away from their parents and still cut the parent's benefit?

Mixed bag there! How would you classify my party? Who wants to join?

Free market, self determining, authoritarian eugenisist...
50% nazi, 50% thatcher.

jm28cardiff

I haven't really started a party! Just fuel for debate.

shaven-monkey wrote: »

Who carries out the executions? Can the state be prosecuted for murder if it turns out they executed an innocent man? Who gets punished in this case?

If we had the death penalty, it would be on the understanding that innocent people will die occasionally.

In all seriousness, I would have been against the idea of the death penalty, even up to a year ago, but am slowly changing my mind. The stories in the papers of random stabbings and shootings (such as the recent Sean Mercer thing) make me think that, if people have such little regard for the lives of others, they should lose their own.

shaven-monkey,17022571 wrote:

DNA is not quite as foolproof as a means of detecting a criminal as you may have been led to believe.
Are you planning to sell access to this DNA database to biotech companies (as the UK government is intending to do) ?

I'd have an independant body running the database, and use it purely to assist with crime. Maybe its not foolproof, but its another piece of corroboration.

shaven-monkey,17022571 wrote:

So if some claimants get pregnant due to contraceptive failure, drug addled state or whatever reason you are going to give them a choice of benefits or termination of the foetus?
Does enforced abortion = murder?
If they choose to go ahead with the pregnancy and lose their benefits, aren't you condemning the child (a human) to extreme deprivation for the sins of their parents?
Were you planning to take the child away from their parents and still cut the parent's benefit?

Look at karen Matthews, never worked a day in her life, seven kids by different fathers (from what I can remember reading papers anyway), why should someone like that benefit from the system? The deterrent has to be strong, and enforced, or it wont work. If you cant afford to have kids using your own resources (ie both parents already on benefits), you shouldnt have them.

shaven-monkey

If we had the death penalty, it would be on the understanding that innocent people will die occasionally.

Well, there's an interesting moral position. You'd happily watch one of your relatives be taken away for execution for a crime they did not commit but could not be cleared of because of corruption or incompetence in the judicial process? You would give your life willingly up for execution because "most of the people who are executed deserve it even if i don't"?
"It couldn't happen to me, I'm an upstanding innocent citizen" is nice, unfortunately it's not true, many people have been sent down for life due to false testimony, poor forensics or just plain poor defense lawyers in the past and later had their convictions overturned. Much later in some cases. Each innocent the state kills is another nail in the coffin of its legitimacy, assuming the state has any legitimacy to start with. Unless those innocents are far away or not important, of course.

I believe that Karen matthews is now enjoying the hospitality of the state at the cost of approximately £40k per annum to the taxpayer. Slightly more than it would have cost to just leave her where she was and have The Sun give her £50k per year as each of her kids went missing when she ran out of cash for cigarettes and sky subscription.

Far as i can tell you're suggesting that people who are out of work and claiming benefits, whether through choice or through economic conditions, should not be permitted to have children. Add to that the decreasing benefits over time and you're demographically cleansing... Those without work can't breed, those without work for long enough can't eat so they turn to crime (or prostitution as you've legalised it) or they work for cash. When their DNA turns up at a crimescene, they get put in prison (at a cost of about £40k per year per capita). Cheaper to keep them on benefits to be honest.

This reduces your tax base, so the decreased public spending on benefits will be counteracted by the decreasing revenues as more and more people are forced into work for cash, it'll be cheaper to hire someone off the books so more jobs will move into the off the books, unnofficial subcontractor sector and so on...
If you plan to keep national minimum wage as a concept then there's going to be an awful lot of people working off the books after a year or so.

Why not get rid of benefits altogether? Cut personal income tax by 20 percent for each taxband, keep the bands as they are and anyone earning less than £4.5k per year gets a gift of 1k from the state to thank them for not rioting too often.
Hell, pay everyone a "thank you" gift at christmas as long as they've not committed any prison worthy crime, those in prison work for the state to offset the costs of their incarceration. Employ ex convicts to not commit crime for 13k per year and we're saving £27k for each!!!!

Frankly i'd prefer that those who sit around doing nothing on benefits to be sitting round doing nothing than roaming the streets hungry and feral.

jm28cardiff

shaven-monkey wrote: »

Far as i can tell you're suggesting that people who are out of work and claiming benefits, whether through choice or through economic conditions, should not be permitted to have children

Not working is clearly is through choice for lots of people, and absolutely I'm saying it should not continue. Lizzie Bardsley is another one (cant remember what she was on, was it wife swap?), what did she have, 8 kids? Pop one out, get more benefits! If they are unemployed, why are they having so many! I'll compromise, cap it to 1 like the Chinese.

How is it that people on the dole can afford fags, booze and sky? Clearly they have too much money! Maybe dole should not be in the form of actual cash. Give each person a payment card where the benefit is loaded to every two weeks. Restrict what it can be spent on eg decline all booze and fag transactions! And scratchcards!

For the record, I signed on between the age of 18 and 20 and made absolutely no effort to get job! Use the unemployed as forced labour, picking up litter and cleaning graphitti etc.

shaven-monkey

jm28cardiff wrote: »

How is it that people on the dole can afford fags, booze and sky? Clearly they have too much money! Maybe dole should not be in the form of actual cash. Give each person a payment card where the benefit is loaded to every two weeks. Restrict what it can be spent on eg decline all booze and fag transactions! And scratchcards!

perhaps you missed this thread -- http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1360291
Which details similar propositions.
It also has reasons why such a system of underclass currency wouldn't work.
Preventing benefits claimants from buying booze, fags and scratchcards would cut revenue as well as leading to closures of local shops, leading to more unemployment. 70% to 90% (figure pulled out of my !!!!) of the price of these items goes straight back to the government as tax.

For the record, I signed on between the age of 18 and 20 and made absolutely no effort to get job! Use the unemployed as forced labour, picking up litter and cleaning graphitti etc.

Ah, for the record I've never claimed any benefits myself. Odd that i should be advocating benefits while a previous claimant is advocating forced labour, which again has negative impact on the economy in many ways.