Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
skookum

UKIP 'Now The UK's Third Largest Party'

37 posts in this topic

It isnt unreasonable its exactly what the people want. However the people dont want those proposing to deliver it because the suspec a secret nazi agenda.

It might be what YOU think the people want, but that's a whole different animal from what the people actually want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be what YOU think the people want, but that's a whole different animal from what the people actually want.

A few years back YouGov did a national survey and the majority of people said the BNPs policies were exactly what they wanted but they werent prepared to vote for the BNP because of who the party was. UKIP should use their brains and go anti-immigration, pro-family and capital punishment. They'd clean up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years back YouGov did a national survey and the majority of people said the BNPs policies were exactly what they wanted but they werent prepared to vote for the BNP because of who the party was. UKIP should use their brains and go anti-immigration, pro-family and capital punishment. They'd clean up.

I don't agree with either of those three.

The problem with the anti-immigration bunch is that they seem to want to go too far with it, which would mean we'd lose out on people with skills and we'd be turning away people that wwere trying to escape places where they faced persecution and death.

The problem with pro-family stuff is that it's not. Its pro ONE type of family and anti all the rest. This means people in non-traditional families would become marginalised and worse off.

Capital punishment has never sat well with me, mainly because of the obvious. If you find out someone inniocent is found guilty, you can't exactly make it up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with either of those three.

The problem with the anti-immigration bunch is that they seem to want to go too far with it, which would mean we'd lose out on people with skills and we'd be turning away people that wwere trying to escape places where they faced persecution and death.

The problem with pro-family stuff is that it's not. Its pro ONE type of family and anti all the rest. This means people in non-traditional families would become marginalised and worse off.

Capital punishment has never sat well with me, mainly because of the obvious. If you find out someone inniocent is found guilty, you can't exactly make it up to them.

I agree with all three hence my name lol.

1. Immigration - We should increase the birthrate of our successful citizens (middle and upper classes) instead of allowing economic migrants to fill the skill gap.

2. Family - I've never come across someone who wasnt brought up in a stable family environment who didnt have issues. We need parents treating their kids correctly and kids who have a role model from each sex.

3. Capital punishment - It does more harm than good not having a deterrant. You might get the odd innocent one but crime is far lower so you do more good than evil.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all three hence my name lol.

1. Immigration - We should increase the birthrate of our successful citizens (middle and upper classes) instead of allowing economic migrants to fill the skill gap.

2. Family - I've never come across someone who wasnt brought up in a stable family environment who didnt have issues. We need parents treating their kids correctly and kids who have a role model from each sex.

3. Capital punishment - It does more harm than good not having a deterrant. You might get the odd innocent one but crime is far lower so your do more good than evil.

No surprise there.

1: And in the meantime? If we deported eeryone that provided skilled services that weren't lifelong British, we'd have a big problem that would need to be soled now, not 2030 years down the line.

2: First and forever, we ned parents that treat their kids correctly that should be paramount, instead of the makeup of the family. as for stable family environments, how would you define them exactly? Theres some jobs where a parent could be away for etended periods (ie the army) and some jobs where someone could run thee risk of being seriously injured or killed (army again, the rescue services etc). Also parents can be lost by accident or disease which would, of course, impact the child. You also can't make people stay together for the kids' because that can make thingss worse. Most kids bought up in a family without both one parent (or one gender of parent) often have a substitue in place for the gender in which they lack.

So sorry, but ensuring (or enforcing) kids to have stable environments is neigh impossible unless you're willing to snatch people from their families the moment something bad happens. Which, of course most people are not willing to sign off on because they're just not that heartless.

So, personally most pro-family stuff doesn't come off as having families or chiildren in mind, but instead is mostly concerned with having children in some unrealistic ideal of a family.

3: I agree that crime needs a deterrent but I can't agree that capital punishment is it. But if it did come back, I'd only be comfortable if there was 100% certainty that people sentanced to it were guilty and that it'd be very limited in its use (ie, only used for the 'big' crimes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise there.

1: And in the meantime? If we deported eeryone that provided skilled services that weren't lifelong British, we'd have a big problem that would need to be soled now, not 2030 years down the line.

2: First and forever, we ned parents that treat their kids correctly that should be paramount, instead of the makeup of the family. as for stable family environments, how would you define them exactly? Theres some jobs where a parent could be away for etended periods (ie the army) and some jobs where someone could run thee risk of being seriously injured or killed (army again, the rescue services etc). Also parents can be lost by accident or disease which would, of course, impact the child. You also can't make people stay together for the kids' because that can make thingss worse. Most kids bought up in a family without both one parent (or one gender of parent) often have a substitue in place for the gender in which they lack.

So sorry, but ensuring (or enforcing) kids to have stable environments is neigh impossible unless you're willing to snatch people from their families the moment something bad happens. Which, of course most people are not willing to sign off on because they're just not that heartless.

So, personally most pro-family stuff doesn't come off as having families or chiildren in mind, but instead is mostly concerned with having children in some unrealistic ideal of a family.

3: I agree that crime needs a deterrent but I can't agree that capital punishment is it. But if it did come back, I'd only be comfortable if there was 100% certainty that people sentanced to it were guilty and that it'd be very limited in its use (ie, only used for the 'big' crimes).

1. I didnt say deport the ones already here.

2. A child learns different skills from its mother and father. Therefore it needs both role models to learn from. Two guys, two women, parents than cant be bothered with it and single parents dont equip them with the right life skills. Its leads to dysfunctional children with a range of problems from personality disorders to problems socialising. If it will make you happy (for your circumstances) parenting lessons could be provided by the state so the adults know what they should be doing.

3. I agree with big crimes getting execution. It should be reserved for those we dont want to rehabilitate and admit back into society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I didnt say deport the ones already here.

2. A child learns different skills from its mother and father. Therefore it needs both role models to learn from. Two guys, two women, parents than cant be bothered with it and single parents dont equip them with the right life skills. Its leads to dysfunctional children with a range of problems from personality disorders to problems socialising. If it will make you happy (for your circumstances) parenting lessons could be provided by the state so the adults know what they should be doing.

3. I agree with big crimes getting execution. It should be reserved for those we dont want to rehabilitate and admit back into society.

1. Hmmm

2: Like I said, which you missed, is that people in those families often have a subsitute. I was in a single parent family, but my grandfather took the role my dad would use. In every other single parent fmily a grandparent has stepped in to fill that role.

The reality you have to realise is that these types of families exist and there's no getting rid of them. You're just proving my point, that pro-family really means anti-family because all you're concerned with is one type of family and the rest can go screw themselves in your eyes. You're not interested in the kids in those families in the slightest.

3: At least that's something we semi-agree on. However I think that it should be those that can't be rehabilitated, not those that we don't want to (which, to be honest, ust sounds lazy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Hmmm

2: Like I said, which you missed, is that people in those families often have a subsitute. I was in a single parent family, but my grandfather took the role my dad would use. In every other single parent fmily a grandparent has stepped in to fill that role.

The reality you have to realise is that these types of families exist and there's no getting rid of them. You're just proving my point, that pro-family really means anti-family because all you're concerned with is one type of family and the rest can go screw themselves in your eyes. You're not interested in the kids in those families in the slightest.

3: At least that's something we semi-agree on. However I think that it should be those that can't be rehabilitated, not those that we don't want to (which, to be honest, ust sounds lazy).

2. I look at your ideas about family, I look at our broken society and I see one causing the other. I see the liberal-social version of the family unit as being the driving force behind our problems. In fact I'm even going to blame the recent American shooter as being caused by it.

3. If someone commits an disgraceful crime I dont think they should be rehabilitated even if its possible. The victims family should get 30 minutes alone with the culprit and then he/she should be taken out and strung up.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. I look at your ideas about family, I look at our broken society and I see one causing the other. I see the liberal-social version of the family unit as being the driving force behind our problems. In fact I'm even going to blame the recent American shooter as being caused by it.

3. If someone commits an disgraceful crime I dont think they should be rehabilitated even if its possible. The victims family should get 30 minutes alone with the culprit and then he/she should be taken out and strung up.

2: What ideas about the family?Oh wait, you mean reality? I'm sorry, but you're just looking for something to blame and who is it? Families.

And wow, I really can't believe you've said that. Of all the low things you could say. But it's you. So, unfortunately, I'm not surprised you'd turn a tragedy into something to support you. You're a lot like the westboro baptists, you blame everything on 'liberals' or other families instead of the real causes.

3: Again it very much depends on how you define disgraceful.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2: What ideas about the family?Oh wait, you mean reality? I'm sorry, but you're just looking for something to blame and who is it? Families.

And wow, I really can't believe you've said that. Of all the low things you could say. But it's you. So, unfortunately, I'm not surprised you'd turn a tragedy into something to support you. You're a lot like the westboro baptists, you blame everything on 'liberals' or other families instead of the real causes.

3: Again it very much depends on how you define disgraceful.

2. Bad parenting is the usual cause of personality disorders.

3. Sickening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Bad parenting is the usual cause of personality disorders.

3. Sickening.

2: I agree that bad parenting can certainly contribute. But I don't agree with you labelling gay aparents and single parents as automatic bad parents.

3: An awfully vague response there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Capital punishment - It does more harm than good not having a deterrant. You might get the odd innocent one but crime is far lower so you do more good than evil.

You might want to compare US states that have the death penalty with those that don't. It clearly isn't a deterrent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.