EMFCRACKSHOT said:
jdnoth said:
EMFCRACKSHOT said:
I cant stand left wing or centre left policy though. Its all lets make everybody happy half measures.
Democratizing workplaces? Proportional representation? Nuclear disarmament? Protection of civil liberties? Pah. Sounds like a typical bunch of do-nothing lefty half measures to me.
I have a strange feeling you aren't anywhere near as informed as you think you are.
Protection of civil liberties=placing one persons rights against the security of the nation. I would happily sacriice civil liberties if it meant tougher action on criminals and terrorists.
Proportional representation, especially in this country would only produce a wave of inneficient coalitions. We would have no strong government and much less would be accomplished.
Nuclear disarmament=massive increase in convetional warfare. You really think countries like North Korea, Iran etc would just stay peacefull if they knew they wouldn't be anhialated.
Democratizing the workplace=an okay policy, nothing special but okay
First of all, in regards to your little Jacqui Smith argument against civil liberties: It is observable to the dimmest observer that the clamps proposed on civil liberties are totally useless on fighting terrorism. They might have some effect if terrorists were typically foreign, but so far all western terror attacks have been commited by citizens of the country they were attacking. So it's a null point. In addition to this; CCTV cameras are reported to have been utlized in only around 2% of sentencing procedures. The arguments wear very thing.
Your claim that proportional representation would lead to a weaker government is so absurd i'm getting a bit of a headache thinking about how seriously you take yourself when you say this shit. Proportional Representation is a voting system that simply gives a more accurate corrolation between how many votes a candidate recieves and how many seats they recieve. So it would in fact lead to a more democratic government. But if you really favour party uniformity and government power over the alleged "inneficient" individual democracy, may I suggest you look up a political philosopher named Joseph Stalin. His theories should be right up your alley.
North Korea and Iran aren't going to start bombing for shits and giggles. Iran have been pretty clear in their motivations for pursuing nuclear weapons, in that they felt a need to provide a counterbalance to the constant military threat posed by Israel and the United States. Both being armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and consistent aggressors against Iran. Which is why in response to the "threat" from Iran, Obama has sought Israel to make a series of appeasements, one of which has been to get rid of their nuclear weapons. North Korea's nuclear deterrent can be explained in the same way. Interesting to note that during the cold war the world came very close, numerous times to complete annihilation by the accidental deployment of nukes. Please provide some evidence for your absurd claim that getting rid of nuclear weapons would lead to more war.
Think more.
