Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[WealthyRadish]

Man, Farage has the best faces.

[TD1]

Man, Farage has the best faces.

Yea, he ain't no looker XD

[Mictlantecuhtli]

So you'd rather just not explain what the UKIP platform is?

[TD1]

Was in the process of getting this written, whilst getting a shower and all normal night-time routines.

Certainly. Wind farms aren't sustainable. They need replacing after 20 odd years, IIRC, and by that point they either haven't or just have paid themselves off. The creation of wind farms creates Co2. The assembly of them does the same. The transport, too. Speaking in strictly a money-sense, they aren't sustainable. Other than that, there is some chance of fatalities to wildlife, and whilst this is relatively small it's still there.

Stance on Europe. Get out of it, essentially, and have a religion based on Trade, in the original sense of the E.U.

• A vote for UKIP is a vote to leave the EU and recover power over our national life.

• Free trade, but not political union, with our European neighbours.

Stance on Immigration: Controlled immigration. Based not on what country you're in, or organisation such as Europe, but on whether it's mutually beneficial. They shouldn't have a criminal record, and they shouldn't be able to take advantage of our benefits straight-off.

Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years.

Prevent foreign criminals entering the UK - by re-introducing border controls that the EU forced us to abandon.

Stance on deportation and terrorism: Terrorists should be easier to deport, specifically in regards to ridiculous claims made by them in terms of human rights (Exploitation of them, more to the point, not the rights themselves.)
Couldn't find a quote on this actually, but I suppose it'd be a knock-on effect of leaving the E.U.-either that or I got some wrong information from somewhere.

Also, UKIP wants the life sentence to be for life, as it is in America.

A) That, or it's a valid view. And one I share.
Ninja: Added in quotes from the UKIP website under "Get informed" then "Where we stand"
More Ninjas:

Hence why I said they want to get rid of all foreigners (who they perceive to be stealing jobs while simultaneously scrounging off benefits and who are also criminals).

I don't think it mentions anywhere about throwing out people already in Britain, IIRC. Just monitoring what comes in and making sure it won't damage what's already here. Free borders are a bad idea.

As to that article:

“Different people may have different tastes,” Mr Helmer said, adding that he felt it was “morally acceptable to prefer heterosexuality over homosexuality, or vice versa”.

Yes, or vice versa. He's saying people can have their own tastes, homosexual or heterosexual.
As for Stuart Agnew, he's saying women don't tend to go to the tops of business. I don't know if this is true or not, not having the figures, but assuming it's backed up the problem is he is ascribing it to the wrong reason.

As for rendering parts of the Muslim Holy Book inapplicable, Gerard Batten said that "violent physical Jihad" should be regarded as "inapplicable, invalid and non-Islamic". Whilst signing a Charter to say that you believe this seems far fetched, the sentiment doesn't seem so bad-there are violent aspects to the Qur'an, as in the Bible, that shouldn't be followed-though I agree no charter should be issued, he didn't say anything inherently wrong. And whilst he doesn't apply this to Christianity, I would assume that's because Christianity isn't a big terrorist threat to us. Still, a bad decision on his part, and as such it was dismissed by Farage.

Swearing at Green Party activists: Not nice, but hardly first politician to swear.

Nigel Farage: Difference between a German family and a Romanian family. There aren't many German gangs on the streets. Googling German Gangs in Britain brings up football stuff, replacing German with Romanian brings reports that more than half the pickpocketing done on the London Underground routes were Romas up as the first result.

Julia Reid: Nothing much there. A retweet that has a chance of being connected to her.

Diane James: According to the latest British Transport Police files, 52 per cent of convicted pickpockets operating on London Underground routes were Romas.

Bill Etheridge: Sounds like he's angry at political correctness, and tried to highlight this by holding up a golliwog doll. He did this as a Tory, but regardless I don't think he should be in the party.

Amjad Bashir. His brother's and his restaurant hired illegal immigrants. Bad. Still, something that any other party could provide, and worse.

They're just putting Jane Collins up because she assumed Bloom was joking, and that she thought he had been supportive? Why yes, a terrible person to have in the party!

Mike Hookem: Printing mistake on independence. Wow. Terrible person...

Tim Aker: Placed a wreath with UKIP on it. The source linked to this said:
The Royal British Legion's poppy factory in Richmond said wreaths were produced every year with logos for “all the mainstream political parties”. In previous years, party members have said they were asked if they want “the usual wreath ordered by political parties” – and all have had their logo pictured on a wreath at one point or other.

A statement from the national Ukip party said: “This was far from a malicious act and the local branch just thought it was the nicest way to collectively remember those who have served our country.”

Patrick O'Flynn: "The time has come for Muslims to fully adopt the British way of life”. I disagree, they should have the right to their own culture as long as it isn't forced on others. The second one I disagree with, and the first being the only one I've found in this list that genuinely shouldn't be there.

Paul Nutall: Did as such to prevent expansion of European influence on a political level, as it was a union originally based on Trade.

William Dartmouth: Some debate over whether he let a windfarm be built on his land, that he had sold. If he did, he's rather hypocritical (Though I'm not quite sure what gain he gets from it, given he signed over the land to a group called Rosscroft Ltd) but still much less than scandals from other parties. If he didn't, then he didn't.

Jim Carver: seems to be there to fill a space.

Nathan Gill: Same. He said he won't attend European Parliament all the time. Hardly a party-breaking comment.

Whilst I generally don't like Coburn, all he said there was that he doesn't want a fight with the religious, and putting through Gay Marriage may cause that. He himself is gay. He agrees that Civil Partnership is fine. Of course, he said the wrong reason-it's not simply that it will cause a fight, I think it should be allowed as long as no one is forced into anything.


That entire thing can be summed down to three potential problems; Agnew, Batten and O'Flynn, and one immediate problem, Etheridge.

[Graknorke]

Certainly. Wind farms aren't sustainable. They need replacing after 20 odd years, IIRC, and by that point they either haven't or just have paid themselves off. The creation of wind farms creates Co2. The assembly of them does the same. The transport, too. Speaking in strictly a money-sense, they aren't sustainable. Other than that, there is some chance of fatalities to wildlife, and whilst this is relatively small it's still there.

Yes this is true, but there are other alternatives. The thing pretty much goes "Wow look at how bad and awful wind power is. It's so expensive and inefficient and wow so terrible ugh isn't it awful how all those green types are always supportive of it? It's a wonder they even manage to tie their shoes since they can't see how inefficient wind power is wow_{other renewable energy sources are available and people can invest in those with their own money}, NOW let's talk about how great fossil fuels are and how there's no downsides because climate change is a myth and we will fix energy prices and the economy by digging up and burning more coal.

Stance on Immigration: Controlled immigration. Based not on what country you're in, or organisation such as Europe, but on whether it's mutually beneficial. They shouldn't have a criminal record, and they shouldn't be able to take advantage of our benefits straight-off.

Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years.

Prevent foreign criminals entering the UK - by re-introducing border controls that the EU forced us to abandon.

Stance on deportation and terrorism: Terrorists should be easier to deport, specifically in regards to ridiculous claims made by them in terms of human rights (Exploitation of them, more to the point, not the rights themselves.)
Couldn't find a quote on this actually, but I suppose it'd be a knock-on effect of leaving the E.U.-either that or I got some wrong information from somewhere.

A) As has been established, how can they be worried about immigrants going on benefits if they're already getting people worked up over immigrants taking jobs? You can't be doing both at the same time. And also how immigration is massively useful. You know, all those job markets dominated by immigrants because they wouldn't get done otherwise.
B)No, they want to free the UK from human rights laws altogether.

[TD1]

Yes this is true, but there are other alternatives. The thing pretty much goes "Wow look at how bad and awful wind power is. It's so expensive and inefficient and wow so terrible ugh isn't it awful how all those green types are always supportive of it? It's a wonder they even manage to tie their shoes since they can't see how inefficient wind power is wowother renewable energy sources are available and people can invest in those with their own money, NOW let's talk about how great fossil fuels are and how there's no downsides because climate change is a myth and we will fix energy prices and the economy by digging up and burning more coal.

...does that mean you agree with me on windfarms or not?

As has been established, how can they be worried about immigrants going on benefits if they're already getting people worked up over immigrants taking jobs? You can't be doing both at the same time. And also how immigration is massively useful. You know, all those job markets dominated by immigrants because they wouldn't get done otherwise.

Well...you can be doing both at the same time. One immigrant gets benefits. Another gets a job. Another gets benefits. Another gets a job. Etc...It's gonna be more in both areas both ways.
UKIP doesn't say cut immigration. It says control it. As such, if they're not a drain they're more than welcome. As such, immigration can continue to be massively useful without letting in any criminal aspects.

As for the Human Rights thing, I don't agree at all on that. It's not even part of the European Union, it's the Council of Europe. Still, I see more in favour than against.

[Graknorke]

Yes this is true, but there are other alternatives. The thing pretty much goes "Wow look at how bad and awful wind power is. It's so expensive and inefficient and wow so terrible ugh isn't it awful how all those green types are always supportive of it? It's a wonder they even manage to tie their shoes since they can't see how inefficient wind power is wowother renewable energy sources are available and people can invest in those with their own money, NOW let's talk about how great fossil fuels are and how there's no downsides because climate change is a myth and we will fix energy prices and the economy by digging up and burning more coal.

...does that mean you agree with me on windfarms or not?

Yes windfarms aren't the best, but it's not those specifically that I'm concerned about. It's their use as an example of suboptimal renewable energy by UKIP in order to try and pooh-pooh the entire thing. I mean, there's six and a half pages about how it's awful to try and protect the environment, a couple of paragraphs about how UKIP wouldn't touch renewables with a shitty stick, some time later they go on for about a page about nuclear power (which I approve of, though I don't like the way they treat nuclear waste as if the future can just deal with it), and everything else is a big celebration of how fucking wonderful fossil fuels are and how they're not harmful at all.

As for the Human Rights thing, I don't agree at all on that. It's not even part of the European Union, it's the Council of Europe. Still, I see more in favour than against.

http://www.ukip.org/issues

Remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

[Helgoland]

a union originally based on Trade.

That's a common myth, but still false. The EU was a political project from the beginning.

[TD1]

a union originally based on Trade.

That's a common myth, but still false. The EU was a political project from the beginning.

Huh. Thanks for correcting me, Helgoland. Still, I believe it should be more focused on trade, even if it wasn't in the beginning.

[LordSlowpoke]

* LordSlowpoke shrugs

so nobody gives a fuck that immigration is essentially theft in a sense similar to slavery?

except instead of taking the natives in by the boatload the west has the people provided because they practically waltzed in

there's also the issue of force not being used but i'm talking in more of a theft sense rather than exploitation sense

if we desire more workforce so badly, why can't we just automate it? (spoiler: it's cheaper to import workers than to spend millions on r&d)

i stand by my statement that uncontrolled immigration is a bullshit scheme perpetuated by business leaders who want to pay less and sell for more but are too lazy to take their entire production facility to [insert third/second world country] so they go "hurr durr it's good for you"

well... it kinda is, can't deny, but that's a side effect of what they want, and the immigrants home countries are shittier as a result - but who cares about that?

[Pnx]

. . .
well... it kinda is, can't deny, but that's a side effect of what they want, and the immigrants home countries are shittier as a result - but who cares about that?

I think this is sometimes true, but on the whole I don't think it is. An immigrant's home nation doesn't necessarily miss the loss of the worker, and may in fact welcome the drop in population. There's also the fact that they may be doing more good for their home nation abroad than they do at home. It's a common practice for immigrants to send money home for their family, or in some cases get involved in progressive political movements in their home nation.

[10ebbor10]

Anyway, emigration to a country is only bad because of brain drain, where the few educated workers that a country has leave the country, rather than trying to do something about the situation. For normal workforce, the situation is actually rather beneficent. The country they came from often has high unemployement, and these migrants have a tendency to send back money, providing a money flow which both stimulates their economy, and benefits the local government.

[Guardian G.I.]

Man, Farage has the best faces.

Yea, he ain't no looker XD

As I see him, his face reminds me a little bit of John Lumic ((one of) the creator(s) of Cybermen) from Doctor Who and his facial expressions and the apparent lack of clear political platform reminds me of British PM Harold Saxon (played by John Simm), also from Doctor Who.

[Sinistar]

I find it interesting how I find majority of populist, right-wing party leaders just so... revolting to just look at. Forget their political agenda, when I see Geert Wilders, Marie Le Pen and now this Nigel Farage, there's just a part of me that says "man, this person looks like a douche by default".

Could be just my mind playing suggestive tricks though.

[Sheb]

They need replacing after 20 odd years, IIRC, and by that point they either haven't or just have paid themselves off. The creation of wind farms creates Co2. The assembly of them does the same.

Land-based wind farms produce from 14 to 33 tons of CO2 per GWh as opposed to 974 for coal, or 10 to 30 for nuclear. Their energy return on investment is similar as that for coal. (Source) As for cost, let me quote this report commissioned by the UK government:

Onshore wind is the current least cost zero carbon option with a total cost of £94/MWh, which puts it between CCGT and coal.

By the way, the minimal price that has been agreed for the Hinkley C nuclear power plant (which UKIP support I guess) is £92.5/MWh.

Windmills aren't perfect, but they're not grossly inefficient. But then I wouldn't expect a party that deny climate change to actually care about such trifles as "facts". At least I'll grant you it's better than the Conservatives stance that onshore is bad, but the less efficient, more expensive offshore is ok.

Stance on deportation and terrorism: Terrorists should be easier to deport, specifically in regards to ridiculous claims made by them in terms of human rights (Exploitation of them, more to the point, not the rights themselves.)

I don't know for sure about Britain, but in Belgium, the largest obstacle to deportation of criminals isn't human right or political will, it's that you need deals with the countries you're going to send them to. I doubt UKIP's isolationism will help.

Nigel Farage: Difference between a German family and a Romanian family. There aren't many German gangs on the streets. Googling German Gangs in Britain brings up football stuff, replacing German with Romanian brings reports that more than half the pickpocketing done on the London Underground routes were Romas up as the first result.

[/quote]

Okay, let's do a quick experiment.

Difference between a white family and a black family. There are 6 times more blacks in jails per capita than white.

Do you see any problem with this statement? (The stats are true by the way, just look up "race and crime in the UK" on wikipedia.)
Also, you are aware that Romanians and Roma are two different things, right?

And I find it hilarious that you can say that lines after saying this: "Controlled immigration. Based not on what country you're in, or organisation such as Europe, but on whether it's mutually beneficial. " Apparently it should not based on where you're from, except if its Romania.

Paul Nutall: Did as such to prevent expansion of European influence on a political level, as it was a union originally based on Trade.

If you want a trade-based union, what's wrong about trade-related issues like banning the trade in ivory?

Also, how do you feel about the 2010 manifesto thyat was full of unrealistic promises and was dumped after the elections by Farage? Or about the fact that he has a track record of doing fuck-all at his job was claiming millions in expenses?