UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[fatboy18]

TheRealFingers99 said:

mrdemon said:

one reason to vote ukip

black Friday !!!! who needs it, look who is buying and fighting over crap

Er, UK citizens?

Don't see anyone there who is obviously from the EU!

Don't see any UKIP policies that will limit consumerism.

Well I can see at least one bloke in a Track suit top that looks suspect to me

[Mr_B]

Cameron got an easy ride from the press and quite a few people here when he suggested that migrants who don't find work will be deported after 6 months. Did anyone catch Matt Hancock trying to explain this policy today ? Comical at best and ignored the million plus already facing this prospect.
Amazing that the other week people were aghast at any deportation of EU nationals, today, nothing....

Edited by Mr_B on Friday 28th November 23:37

[anonymous-user]

egor110 said:

It's interesting that the pro ukip people are happy to support ukip yet don't try to persuade others to , yet supporters of every other party can't wait to come here and say why ukip is bad and we should vote conservative/labour.

The dozen or so regular Kipperati here spend at least as much time trying to tear Cameron a second, third, fourth and fith ahole as they do cheerleading for UKIP.

[Art0ir]

mjb1 said:

CMD will (like most modern mainstream politicians), say only what he (or his spin doctors) think the public want to hear. Whether he believes it or will follow up on it is irrelevant to him, saying the 'wrong' thing is political suicide... he's rapidly loosing credibility as more voters start to see through it.

I've said this since he was elected; this is Cameron's problem.

He has no convictions, no moral fortitude and no testes.

You can see it in everything he does; watch his line on Europe turn arse about face with the rise of UKIP, watch government spending increase as the "nasty party" line hurts his feelings...

The problem with this is, it appeases few. He had the support of the Pro EU crowd until he started making noises about (another) referendum which only alienates the Europhiles and has the Eurosceptics laughing at him. He had the support of many when he said he would tackle public spending until they realised he wasn't cutting much of anything but the "nasty party" line remains; see the propaganda about cuts spewed from Labour and their associated mouthpiece organisations.

He's spinning himself into a hole, surely I'm not the only one that sees it?

[Art0ir]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Or the joy of fighting for freedom, for all oppressed peoples, all faiths, against ISIS. You've never seen a combatant smile?

YPJ are the Women's Protection Units (there's also the male equivalent, YPG) -- Syrian (mainly Kurdish, but with Arab, Syriac, Christian, Jewish and Chechen members) volunteer force, the folk who are beating the carp out of ISIS in Kobani and the Rojava generally.

If anyone is genuinely interested in what she's fighting for, take a peek at the constitution of the Rojava. (Probably too damn democratic for Nigel). Or read up on the latest round of ISIS beheadings, rapes, executions, cutting off of fingers, etc.

And petition Nigel to send her a few tanks and surface to air missiles.

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Friday 28th November 18:05

You may remember that it was Farage, and Farage alone out of the party leaders, that warned of meddling in the Middle East and the impending slaughter of minorities in the region.

[XJ Flyer]

Art0ir said:

mjb1 said:

CMD will (like most modern mainstream politicians), say only what he (or his spin doctors) think the public want to hear. Whether he believes it or will follow up on it is irrelevant to him, saying the 'wrong' thing is political suicide... he's rapidly loosing credibility as more voters start to see through it.

I've said this since he was elected; this is Cameron's problem.

He has no convictions, no moral fortitude and no testes.

You can see it in everything he does; watch his line on Europe turn arse about face with the rise of UKIP, watch government spending increase as the "nasty party" line hurts his feelings...

The problem with this is, it appeases few. He had the support of the Pro EU crowd until he started making noises about (another) referendum which only alienates the Europhiles and has the Eurosceptics laughing at him. He had the support of many when he said he would tackle public spending until they realised he wasn't cutting much of anything but the "nasty party" line remains; see the propaganda about cuts spewed from Labour and their associated mouthpiece organisations.

He's spinning himself into a hole, surely I'm not the only one that sees it?

On the issues which will decide the next election ( immigration,the EU and sovereignty and their effects on the economy in terms of contributions and wage levesl ) Cameron is effectively in an alliance with Labour and Libdem parties.

As for Farage he's got no where near enough distance between himself and that CBI/socialist alliance led agenda yet to create the swing from Labour that he needs to defeat that alliance.Assuming he does that then the Cons as a Party as we know it and Cameron's leadership of same are effectively finished.Unless that is the majority want to hand the country over to that alliance and the EU federal government.

[XJ Flyer]

Art0ir said:

You may remember that it was Farage, and Farage alone out of the party leaders, that warned of meddling in the Middle East

He has also ( rightly ) said the same in the case of Ukraine and by implication eastward NATO expansion.It is obvious that any UKIP move on government would face a lot of resistance by the US regime in that regard.

[hidetheelephants]

Art0ir said:

You may remember that it was Farage, and Farage alone out of the party leaders, that warned of meddling in the Middle East and the impending slaughter of minorities in the region.

Fat Eck was quite lonely when he said Iraq was a calumny, and he opposed unilateral action in Syria.

[TheRealFingers99]

Art0ir said:

You may remember that it was Farage, and Farage alone out of the party leaders, that warned of meddling in the Middle East and the impending slaughter of minorities in the region.

About, what, 20+ years too late, though!

I'm not opposed to interventions: the "illegal" Iraq no-fly zone saved many lives. The current coalition interventions have also saved lives.

For example, the Yazidi would not have been saved without (along with coalition help) the Peshmerga (who still have a presence along with the remaining Yazidi on the mountain) and a cross border raid by the YPG/YPJ. Kobani would have fallen without coalition bombing raids and American arms drops and pressure on the Turks.

There's an argument to be made that an over hasty withdrawal from Iraq and backing the wrong horses in Syria helped create the current situation, and that the present policy isn't focussing on the reality. But it's not the whole story.

Notwithstanding, it makes sense to back the good guys, to oppose Al-Q and ISIS, even if it pees off Turkey, Syria and Israel. If we don't assist those who are about to be slaughtered, what does that make us?

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Saturday 29th November 02:38

[Art0ir]

TheRealFingers99 said:

About, what, 20+ years too late, though!

I'm not opposed to interventions: the "illegal" Iraq no-fly zone saved many lives. The current coalition interventions have also saved lives.

For example, the Yazidi would not have been saved without (along with coalition help) the Peshmerga (who still have a presence along with the remaining Yazidi on the mountain) and a cross border raid by the YPG/YPJ. Kobani would have fallen without coalition bombing raids and American arms drops and pressure on the Turks.

There's an argument to be made that an over hasty withdrawal from Iraq and backing the wrong horses in Syria helped create the current situation, and that the present policy isn't focussing on the reality. But it's not the whole story.

Notwithstanding, it makes sense to back the good guys, to oppose Al-Q and ISIS, even if it pees off Turkey, Syria and Israel. If we don't assist those who are about to be slaughtered, what does that make us?

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Saturday 29th November 02:38

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, I'm simply addressing your side swipe at Farage in the post I quoted.

[NicD]

egor110 said:

It's interesting that the pro ukip people are happy to support ukip yet don't try to persuade others to , yet supporters of every other party can't wait to come here and say why ukip is bad and we should vote conservative/labour.

NO,

'supporters of every other party can't wait to come here' and spout nasty bile about UKIP.

I see very few reasons given for supporting the mainstream parties except FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

The self interested come on here and make vague and disparaging remarks against, they are knockers, not supporters.

I myself love a good discussion based on reasoned argument. Unfortunately, I get no satisfaction on the UKIP threads but I believe this country has come to a bad place over a long period and needs to sort itself out.
That is why I support UKIP policies and contribute to these two threads.

[TKF]

Maybe he can explain what he means? Surely he can't be saying what everybody thinks he means?

Currently it reads like a Thornberry tweet.

[wc98]

Wombat3 said:

Because doing something so obviously designed to antagonise would be idiotic and destabilising, and instability is "bad for business".

This is a large part of my problem with the whole UKIP agenda of lets just fking throw it all in the air and see what happens - it'll all be "Great fun" , a great wheeze - whoop, whoop, lets kick sand in everyone's lunch and laugh!

Its crass, ill thought out, short sighted, impractical and above all, its destabilising.

UKIP clearly doesn't do compromise & isn't interested in negotiating anything with anyone. It wants what it wants & fk the other 85%. Nearly as bad as the SNP IMO. That kind of approach to anything just never does it for me (and, rarely if ever works either that I can recall).

if the current "stable" situation is your idea of how this country should be and what we should have aimed for,all i can say is you can shove your version of stability up your selfish self centred arse . this may come as a surprise,but other people do not base their voting choice on what will be best for you personally.

[TheRealFingers99]

Art0ir said:

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, I'm simply addressing your side swipe at Farage in the post I quoted.

I think my sideswipe at Nigel amounted to little more than that he'd find the Rojava constitution too democratic! (Perhaps especially the latest addenda which fixes the male/female representation ratio.) But anyone truly interested in "ground up", grassroots politics should take a long peek at it.

[Axionknight]

TheRealFingers99 said:

I think my sideswipe at Nigel amounted to little more than that he'd find the Rojava constitution too democratic! (Perhaps especially the latest addenda which fixes the male/female representation ratio.) But anyone truly interested in "ground up", grassroots politics should take a long peek at it.

Can you explain, in depth, why you thing N.Farage and his party are undemocratic? I'm quite confused, I mean, they abide by electoral law, participate in local and national elections and have elected representatives at a local, national and E.U level and I also don't recall them proposing to abolish the vote or curtail freedoms and civil rights should they gain power, it all sounds fairly democratic to my mind.

[TheRealFingers99]

Axionknight said:

TheRealFingers99 said:

I think my sideswipe at Nigel amounted to little more than that he'd find the Rojava constitution too democratic! (Perhaps especially the latest addenda which fixes the male/female representation ratio.) But anyone truly interested in "ground up", grassroots politics should take a long peek at it.

Can you explain, in depth, why you thing N.Farage and his party are undemocratic? I'm quite confused, I mean, they abide by electoral law, participate in local and national elections and have elected representatives at a local, national and E.U level and I also don't recall them proposing to abolish the vote or curtail freedoms and civil rights should they gain power, it all sounds fairly democratic to my mind.

Please react to what I actually say.

I'm saying that Nigel would probably (not certainly, mind) find the Rojava constitution too democratic. Go read it, judge for yourself. It's here (although this lacks amendments/addenda stipulating female -- and, if I remember correctly ethnic representation).

I don't think Nigel would be the only party leader (by a long way) to find it frighteningly democratic, but all the other parties have pretty much abandoned the illusion that they're grassroots organisations.

[mrdemon]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Er, UK citizens?

you think any one of those people were born in the UK then ?

[Mermaid]

mrdemon said:

TheRealFingers99 said:

Er, UK citizens?

you think any one of those people were born in the UK then ?

You don't think so?

[Mermaid]

TKF said:

Maybe he can explain what he means? Surely he can't be saying what everybody thinks he means?

Currently it reads like a Thornberry tweet.

That's how I read it.

[TheRealFingers99]

Mermaid said:

mrdemon said:

TheRealFingers99 said:

Er, UK citizens?

you think any one of those people were born in the UK then ?

You don't think so?

That is, indeed, the question. I see no reason for doubting it, although I admit to being prejudiced against "big boned" white girls with faux red hair.........