Soldato
phykell could you be a bit more detailed in your next post? That was a bit brief for my liking
Does anyone vote BNP if so why
- Thread starter cymap
- Start date
- Status
Caporegime
Originally posted by Slime101
Someones gotta win and there arnt that many choices so theres a good chance your choice of party will win
Yeah if you vote Labour.....
Soldato
bump
Dons could i please suggest that this thread be moved to SC for 2 reasons
1: To stop it from being pruned / moved to the archive as yet
2: I would like to gie a full and adequate reply to the people on here to the many questions asked, however with my currrent level of work adn uni work do not feel i would be able to do it justice for at least a couple of weeks.
1: To stop it from being pruned / moved to the archive as yet
2: I would like to gie a full and adequate reply to the people on here to the many questions asked, however with my currrent level of work adn uni work do not feel i would be able to do it justice for at least a couple of weeks.
aren't all my posts
simply put, i feel on the face of things too many people have been let in udner the current asylum laws. Also a lot have signed up as asylum seekers, not immigrants, so permenant residency is not something i'd like given the general lack of skills and qualifications of these people. Plus, we have enough of our own problems (i will start a thread in SC soon about what exactly i'd like done if i were in power so to speak)
The main bone i have to pick is the not quantifying things, idially i'd like some figures instead of general statements for their policies. I'd also prefer some more info than "cut crime through tougher sentancing" and what exactly this would mean. Also i'm against how much tax they plan to take, but i'm against most parties opinions of this (more info in the next thread)
Sadly, most parties don't spell out their goals in black and white. I read between the lines to an extent, but even with the history of some members, i'm willing to give them a listen. Hell if we looked into the background of labour ministers, their wifes, and dodgy deals, would you vote for them
I do, i look after myself in that sense. I thought everyone did? i mean, if someone says they'll cut the dole, do you think people on the dole will vote for them and not a party that says "we'll give the unemployed more money". Politics nowadays is about looking after your own interests, if you're in the majority that is.
well maybe some people don't believe they are being hoodwinked. Some party members have a history of involvement in far right groups, most are no longer in any. You'll be lucky to find a 'clean' politician anyway.
i don't believe racists are scum, i believe they are either opinionated, or have chosen to dislike a certain group. I have no problem with either aslong as they don't act on their views with force. If the BNP were elected, it would be fine by me (assuming your assumption of their real motives) as the majority would have decided this. If the BNP forced themselves into power, i would be against this.
I accept the manifesto at face value, naive or not. I'm well aware of certain member's histories.
i'm arguing that petty namecalling does nothing. Personally i accept racists and say it in the same matter of fact way i would say something like muslim, a descriptive term used about someone's beliefs. A belief or opinion is never wrong or right, it is the individuals, judging and arguing is fine. But i do find it a bit off for people who are supposedly liberal to label a racists beliefs as "scum" and wrong because it contradicts their own.
because i don't believe it matters what they do in their personal lives. Plenty of politicians do things i don't agree with, doesn't mean i won't vote for them just because of that (remember the Hitler/churchill/roosevelt thing?). I vote for a party based on their manifesto and whether it will benefit myself.
I do not believe myself to be racist as i use the term. I do have opinions on certain kinds of people (yes, i stereotype) based on dealings with these kinds of people. I don't believe their is a supreme race, hell i'm one, that's got to be a major flaw in any supremacy. I have negative feelings about a few ethnic groups in this country, yes.
If you read a previous post, i believe this upto a point, 7 years. This is based on financial and space figures and i believe it best for this country to keep it's population somewhat limited whilst we deal with some problems of our own. We do not currently need any new citizens besides those who carry certain skills.
i do disagree with this policy, but not to an enough of an extent it makes any other party a more appealing voting option.
OK, sorry about the long post, but I just wanted to show that myself (and others) are still waiting for some answers yet and I wanted to illutrate how unsatisfactory Kane's reply is after all these pages of worthy debate. His response is that he's read the manifesto and that's enough to show that they are worth voting for.
please, i can see this debate going further and i'm all for it. SC would be more appropriate though, Phykell, always a pleasure arguing against you
I think most of us would agree with that (I certaintly would) even with the incredible over-exaggeration that is the problem of asylum-seekers. Nevertheless, I see voting BNP in order to resolve this problem as vast overkill. What's wrong with voting for Conservatives? Surely their policies on asylum seekers will be adequate if you feel that strongly about them.
I should also add at this point, for those of you that honestly believe voting for the BNP is a great way of protesting against the incumbent Government's policy on asylum seekers, that voting for the frankly laughable Conservative party, would also send a strong signal to Tony Blair. Like I've said before, voting BNP is like using a sledge-hammer to crack an egg.
That's a huge exaggeration. None of the other parties' members have histories which come anywhere near the BNPs' in terms of violent, race hatred. There is simply no comparison. Racism cannot be tolerated in a civilised society, yet that is exactly what the BNP is based on.Originally posted by Kanes Sadly, most parties don't spell out their goals in black and white. I read between the lines to an extent, but even with the history of some members, i'm willing to give them a listen. Hell if we looked into the background of labour ministers, their wifes, and dodgy deals, would you vote for them
Actually, no, not all of us are completely self-serving. I pay my taxes knowing that those less fortunate than myself are benfitting and I have absolutely no problem with that. If I heard that Blair was going to chop the salaries of (say) nurses, firemen and police, I would strongly disagree, and not because less money for those services might impact me, but because I think they're worth paying well for. I vote for the issues that affect myself of course, like anyone else, but I also vote for the country's benefit. Surely that's something your BNP party would advocate?
I'm sorry but such an argument is very weak. There is simply no comparison between the leader and the organisers of the Labour party or the Conservative party and those of the BNP. One Conservative MP who was known to be possibly sympathetic to the far-right was villified by his own party. The Conservatives are intent on rooting out far-right sympathisers as the Labour party were intent on rooting out their most radical socialists. The BNP stands for racism and the so-called "purity" of the white race and they are absolutley proud of their beliefs. If that doesn't smack of Hitler and the Nazi party, I don't know what does.
...and you have very little problem with this, even if they are governing the country, a multi-cultural society? Or do you want to disintegrate our current society and remove all non-whites? Come on, be honest!
I imagine plenty of people said the very same thing about Hitler which explains why he came to power. And if you really would be against this, what would you be able to do about it? Would you even be bothered, because, assuming you are white, it woudn't affect you would it. The old "I'm alright Jack" attitude.
So let me get this straight:
1. You accept their policies on face value, whether or not that makes you naive.
2. You actually are well aware of certain members' histories yet you have no problem with them governing the country - you have no problem with a bunch of people who include criminals, racists, thugs, bullies, bigots and terrorist sympathisers, to run the United Kingdom?
So, you condone racism? You think it is "acceptable"?
I think the hatred of racism as a negative form, is one that civilisation has found necessary for us to advance. I doubt the development and enlightenment of humans as a species includes racism as a desirable trait. What do you think?
Sounds to me like, to use a colourful analogy, you would eat pigs' entrails if they labelled it as steak.
So you do stereotype, and you see this as acceptable? You do discriminate against a person because of his race? Do you believe that race can account for a difference in human character or ability? You do have negative feelings about generalised groups of people in this country based on their race?
Well I've asked if you are a racist, and you prefer to not call yourself one yet you show that the policy in question doesn't really matter that much to you. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that you never asked the BNP rep about it did you? I bet that you never bothered asking him about their views on non-whites did you? Obvioulsy, despite you knowing a lot of information on the backgrounds of the leader and organisers of the BNP, you didn't see fit to question them on this topic? I would've thought this would have been at the top of any non-racist's agenda if they were planning on voting for the BNP. Surely you appreciated there is a lot of stigma attached to voting for the BNP, why didin't you ask about this?
Associate
How on earth do you think they could impose such a policy ~ Their manifesto is unclear to the above point (like it is missing), however would we not be naive in the extreme if this was overlooked and the BNP were voted into power.
If the BNP were to legislate on the basis of the above quote (its on the www, it is there for a reason), potentially we could see it as a criminal offence (if not, then explain to me how a political party is ‘against’ something and they go about being ‘against’ something without legislation) to date persons who are not from the same ethnic background, would 'mish mash' people suddenly disappear overnight?
I find it incredible that people are still voicing support for the BNP when faced with such unworkable, racist crap as quoted on the BNP site. It has been mentioned once before that this is an emotive subject, which is correct. So now I ask you Kanes or whoever else cares to comment, are you not bothered/ashamed in the slightest that the political party you are pledging support for will directly effect my family, will take away peoples basic free choice to decide upon their own partners? Is it not acceptable to read between the lines and see the above as the ‘tip of the iceberg’?
Once again, links to the National Front (nicely emitted from Mr Griffin's bio on the BNP www), Mark Collet's comments on the Nazi's, Holocaust denials, weak augments on protest votes, dodgy buried quotes on the BNP site, seem to fail to set alarm bells ringing in your head? As stated before, you are either being 'hoodwinked', racist or ignorant in the extreme.
On the above quote alone, does that not discredit their so called manifesto, is that the acceptable price to pay for your/BNP vision of the future UK?
Last edited:
Soldato
You are contradicting yourself. If you don't mind me asking, what are your "dealings" with other races that give you an opinion about them?
Also what are a few ethnic groups you have negative feelings towards and what are their actions which makes you have negative thoughts about them.
Cheers
Gurdas
- Status