Minimum wages were only increased once federally in ten years, while employee rights were eroded, but corporate profits have reached outrageous highs. It's time to ask questions and demand answers.
Who is getting rich? There are still a few laws left against collusion. It's time the common man stood up and demanded answers, before it's too late.
Well said and for once I completely agree with you. I disagree with this bit though - the story always gets heard but its a matter of how publicised the truth is - This is a fact now and you do the research and you will find out that western democracy is committed to having the truth published - BUT it is not necessarily committed to publicising where to find the truth - its there if you look hard enough and sometimes if you can afford to pay enough but its not always the truth that gets a high profile and sometimes they lock the truth away for 30, 60, 100, years in secret vaults until the secret can no longer destabilise their government BUT still you go on with all your long speech and yet again no-one has the balls to say - "so what are we gonna do about it" and what can you do about it? Again this forum could actually become the basis of some decent anti-government propoganda with an agenda and with resources to get a message out to the wider world - who's got the balls to stand up and do something about it? But the real truth is that most people on this forum moan vacuously about thisnthat and when it comes to the crunch really you Americans are all posers that back youre government when it comes under criticism either shout the government down and get on the street to oppose hypocrisy and corruption or for cryin out loud get a job and get on with raisin kids and havin nothing to do with government policy - you bought in - now you moan - it dont make sense - do you want to own a car or dont you ? have government and own a car - have schools run by them - have a police force - or do you want to pull that down and start again? reform aint a possibility Balbus - you may be right but what the hell - so whats youre proposal - essentially rat hit one truth and then farted and flew off in another direction - but you just essentially attacked him not the truth of his post http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3271000&postcount=4
Gardener It's Angel not Angle, but perhaps you subconsciously mistyped. Why is his affiliation so important to your argument Balbus? It doesn't make any difference to me or probably anyone else on the board. But I won't attempt to speak for them. You don’t mind being lied to? If I came here and implied I didn’t have left wing views, when I have, I would call it lying. That is what Rat is doing he is implying that he doesn’t have right wing views when all the indications are that he has. You seem to be saying that you wish for honesty from politicians and people but saying that Rat’s lying doesn’t mean very much to you seems to indicate that you don’t care if you are lied to, which is it? (Apologies to Angel, I don’t now just why I was typing Angle, by the way is he going to reply to what I said?) ** Well I will outline what I choose to do faced with the fact that an elite segment of the world seems determined to map out the course of world events. I will continue to demand oversight from my elected officials. I will question, and demand that they be knowledgeable on the issue they vote on, and if they are not, I will take the only course I have available currently. I will vote them out of office. I will not follow party lines. I will speak out and make others acquainted with their motives. By doing so they will eventually be thrown off course. They think they have the minds of the common man figured out. They think they can market to our basest motives. But with education and free exchange we can unveil the ulterior motives of those that seek the ultimate power and control of the world. I agree, but do you actually stand by the words? You seem to indicate that you don’t care if people lie to you and you seem to be defending someone that doesn’t believe in the free exchange of ideas and has done everything he can not to enter into open and honest debate? ** I think that is the only way the common man presently can present an impediment to the power cirlcle. They market to our basest interests by telling us it will lessen our taxes or reduce our costs but how many times does that actually manifest? Not often. We can only win if we continue to question and hold accountable. And if we do not choose up sides. They love being able to estimate affiliations. The only way we can keep them off balance is to refuse to do so. Again fine words but do you really mean them? You seem to be attacking me for questioning and attempting to hold Rat to account for the things he says. Also I’m unsure what you mean by not choosing sides, I don’t vote for a person or a party I vote for the ideals being held and the policies being espoused. I wouldn’t vote for things I didn’t support just to ‘keep them off balance’. It would seem to me that someone who did that didn’t really have any idea of how to make the world a better place, and didn’t really care what kind of world they lived in. For example you seem to imply you would want an increase in the minimum wage, so would you vote for a party that wants to cut the minimum wage just to ‘keep them off balance”? ** The last election proved that. Many that were considered shoe in votes, didn't vote according to marketing rules. It upset the balance temporarily. Don't let them suck the common man in to the divisive politics of the past. Hold each an everyone accountable. It's time the common man demanded what's in it for me, and demanded that they show us the MONEY! Not just empty promises or Wall Street trends actual improvements to our life styles not just those of the rich and famous. It's time we stopped sending our children to fight their wars! Where are their children? I don’t think many (even most) of the people that thought the Bush admin were right have stopped believing that what the Bush admin were saying was right they just think the Bush admin fucked it up. This is one of the problems with the US system, the President gets the blame (or praise) not necessarily the policies they were following. Also what do you mean when you say you want improvements in your life style, what kind of policies are you talking about? What kind of things do you want and how would you get them? Repeatedly shouting about keeping people to account doesn’t really mean anything if you don’t explain what account you are talking about. **
Sentient Quote: Whether you call yourself a Left-winger or a Right-winger, you are falling into a trap created to keep you from the truth which never has any sides. Well said and for once I completely agree with you. But doesn’t it give you thought that this was said by someone that thinks the Republican Party is too left wing? Isn’t it a bit like believing that Fox news is ‘fair and balanced’ because they tell you they are fair and balanced? ** BUT still you go on with all your long speech and yet again no-one has the balls to say - "so what are we gonna do about it" and what can you do about it? Again this forum could actually become the basis of some decent anti-government propoganda with an agenda and with resources to get a message out to the wider world - who's got the balls to stand up and do something about it? Have you not being reading my posts? If there is one theme running through them it is ‘what can we do’ That is one reason that I get annoyed with Rat, he bitches about everything goes on and on about ‘the conspiracy’ but ask him what people are meant to do and he doesn’t seem interested, he only wants people to sit on their arses and bitch about ‘the conspiracy’ like him. Oh he knows what is useless, voting is useless, organising is useless, and demonstrating is useless even revolution is useless. He talks of a ‘third way’ but he will not say what that is? I’ve asked, maybe you can ask him to explain it, as far as I can tell it seems to imply that people do nothing –except bitch endlessly on about ‘the conspiracy’. I believe people should get out, join political parties, vote, organise, demonstrate, but when I’ve said that basically Rat has called me a fool. ** But the real truth is that most people on this forum moan vacuously about thisnthat and when it comes to the crunch really you Americans are all posers that back youre government when it comes under criticism I wouldn’t be as harsh as that but yes I’ve written on this many times, there seems to be a real difficulty for many Americans to enter into open and honest debate. Many seem to believe that ‘free speak’ is not about questioning and debate with the object of finding viable solutions but more as a right to preach whatever they want without it being questioned about it. ** either shout the government down and get on the street to oppose hypocrisy and corruption or for cryin out loud get a job and get on with raisin kids and havin nothing to do with government policy - you bought in - now you moan - it dont make sense - do you want to own a car or dont you ? have government and own a car - have schools run by them - have a police force - or do you want to pull that down and start again? reform aint a possibility I do both, me and my partner are involved in bring up our child and in trying to bring about a better future for people. For example I don’t drive my partner does but chooses to car shares with a friend using it at different times. I was active in bringing in the congestion zone (and would want it to be expanded) and my partner supports it and an increase in public transport. ** Balbus - you may be right but what the hell - so whats youre proposal - essentially rat hit one truth and then farted and flew off in another direction - but you just essentially attacked him not the truth of his post I’ve given my views many times, my view of the American political scene is that the political system gives people little or no choice, the Republicans and Democrats are both right wing political party’s, but many people are in such a mix up that many people (like Rat) think they are left wing. I’m a rather mild pragmatic socialist with green leanings, but Rat has often painted me as some type of Stalinist and tool of 'the conspiracy'. As I’ve discovered he many times, debate seems very hard for many Americans because many seem to treat their political views as if they were a religion. For example Rat talks of political good and evil and has equated left wing ideas with evil, he and others like him (such as the John Birch Society) are totally unable to counter left wing ideas in any rational way so they attack them on some quasi-religious/conspiracy grounds. **
the problem i've always had with taking established sides is that none ever seem to quite represent the side i wish to take. and i'm sure many people hurded into one side or another feel much the same way. in general i'd rather be mistaken for being further to the left then i am (if that's even possible) then being further to the so called 'right'. but that doesn't really paint a picture that i can see as telling anyone anything really useful, let alone accurate. =^^= .../\...
Rat can argue for himself and not clear on what you motives are for continually attacking him. Yes I stand by what I say and write. Again, I mean what I say and write. I will vote for what seem right to me. You have the freedom to vote for what you wish. If it keeps persons who wish to pigeonhole me off balance, so be it. But that will never be my sole motive for casting my vote. Perhaps it doesn't mean anything to you, but it seems to have gotten you riled up. I reaffirm that I will continue to hold my elected officials accountable. When they vote or don't vote they shall have good reasons for their actions or they will no longer have my vote.
Gardener Hey man you really need to read the posts a bit more carefully than you seem to be doing. “Rat can argue for himself and not clear on what you motives are for continually attacking him” The point I was making is that Rat doesn’t argue for himself, he doesn’t debate, oh he preaches, but that isn’t debate. As for why I disagree with Rat, I’ll ask you again do you think lying is acceptable? ** “Yes I stand by what I say and write” But as I point out and which you don’t comment on is why you seem to want honesty but seem willing to accept dishonesty? ** “Again, I mean what I say and write. I will vote for what seem right to me. You have the freedom to vote for what you wish. If it keeps persons who wish to pigeonhole me off balance, so be it. But that will never be my sole motive for casting my vote” This isn’t an explanation it doesn’t make sense are you saying that you would vote for people that have policies that you dislike ** “Perhaps it doesn't mean anything to you, but it seems to have gotten you riled up. I reaffirm that I will continue to hold my elected officials accountable. When they vote or don't vote they shall have good reasons for their actions or they will no longer have my vote” Not riled, confused might be closer to the mark, you don’t seem to have much of a clue what to do or what you want others to do, and you definitely don’t seem able to explain your views, so just how are you meant to keep the people you vote for to account? And at the same time you seem to imply you would vote for policies that you don’t even support and may even oppose. Would you work as hard to keep them to account (ie pushing them to implement the policies you oppose)? It doesn’t seem to make much sense. **
Having a meaningful discussion with you Balbus is pointless. You rephrase others words only to try and reinforce your points. You try to read more into simple comments than are obvisiously intended. I have clearly stated what I propose to do. You don't seem to wish to acknowledge that it may indeed lead to change. You wish to cloud the issues and put words in my mouth that I never uttered or wrote. What would your course of action be? If you wish to elaborate, instead of actually taking a stance similar to that of Rat's, which is nothing the individual can do will make any difference.
“I have clearly stated what I propose to do. You don't seem to wish to acknowledge that it may indeed lead to change. You wish to cloud the issues and put words in my mouth that I never uttered or wrote.” It may be clear to you but I’m sorry but it isn’t very clear to me and I’ll try and explain why. The central tenet of your philosophy seems to be that you wish to hold your political leaders to account. The think is that this has been one of the major questions in political thought for thousands of years. There have been many answers, and multiply configurations of systems built to try and accomplish it. So it is very difficult to understand what your views are from the simple statement that you want to hold the politicians to account. It is like a headline without an companying article to explain it. I’m not trying to cloud the issues I’m trying to seek more clarity than you are offering. You say that you want to vote in or out people that do or don’t do what you want, that is fair enough but the problem is that there are several complications with such a simplistic solution. For one thing many people in great positions of power are appointees that are unelected by the general public, for example I think the last time the general public could have voted for Donald Rumsfeld was in 1968 when he ran for Congress since then I believe he has served in unelected political posts under Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush . As a major player in a powerful faction within the Republican party (commonly referred to as the neo-cons) it is very likely that he would have served in any Republican administration. And I believe that John Negroponte has never actually stood for election although having risen to be head of national intelligence and then deputy secretary of state. The thing is that in such an appointee system the figure heads (like the president) can get the blame while the backstage power brokers and their political philosophy can carry on untouched. Then there is the problem I’ve already mentioned of voter choice. The US political scene is dominated by two basically right wing party’s couple this with a mainly right wing media and a often corporate financed think tank and foundation system it means alternative views are either ignored, attacked or ridiculed. A great problem is that a political system so dominated by the need for money is very likely to become dominated by those with money. ** “What would your course of action be? If you wish to elaborate, instead of actually taking a stance similar to that of Rat's, which is nothing the individual can do will make any difference.” In the years I have been on the forum I have often and at some length tried to explain my own ideas as to what policies people could follow to improve the US system. I can give you some links to such threads or you can always begin a thread on a particular topic, but you seem to want to jump ahead without actually elaborating on your own views. **
Yet it was after an election where the common man stood his ground and voted his conscience that Rumsfield left. After our dear president had said he had no intention of asking him to leave. Our votes can make a difference and do when we insist on answers to questions that politicians do not wish to answer. We need to ask more questions and demand well researched and supported answers in the future without taking sides. We should have ask those questions sooner and insisted on answers supported by fact sooner. It took a while for the American public to wake up. But they do have a voice and can make a difference if they don't focus on empty promises. The common man relied on his congress do what they were elected to do. They failed, and now they are aware of what failure means to careers.
Balbus -- could you please explain what makes both parties "Right wing," when both parties embrace big-government socialism and the consolidation of wealth and power by the state? Liberalism (ie. socialism) is all about big government and big government power. You say both parties are "Right wing," but exactly how are they Right wing? What is "Right wing" to you? Let's keep in mind being pro-war or anti-war has nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative, as neoconservatism has its roots in liberalism. Throughout recent history, communists and socialists have been some the biggest warmongers, responsible for the slaughter of millions. Many neocons, including Irving Kristol, the father of neoconservatism, are admitedly Troskyites (Trotsky was a communist). The neocons agree with Trotsky on permanent -- violent and intellectual -- revolution, and they are in favor of the welfare state. So please, feel free to give me examples how both parties are "Right wing," when both embrace liberal/socialist policies.
Yet it was after an election where the common man stood his ground and voted his conscience that Rumsfield left. After our dear president had said he had no intention of asking him to leave. Our votes can make a difference and do when we insist on answers to questions that politicians do not wish to answer. You didn’t quiet get the point did you? Vote for Nixon and Ford you got Rummy, vote for Reagan you got Rummy, vote for Bush you got Rummy, but in those elections you never got a chance to vote for Rummy. And although he has left office he still has power as a policy maker, but just not in the public eye. The point being that many people don’t really now the kind of policies they are voting for. In the US they vote for a president and given the system that means either a Democrat or a Republican, but what does that mean in policy terms? What faction is in control of either party is a lot harder to know especially if they are trying to hide it from the public. So even if Rummy has gone that is not the end of the neo-cons power. ** We need to ask more questions and demand well researched and supported answers in the future without taking sides. We should have ask those questions sooner and insisted on answers supported by fact sooner. It took a while for the American public to wake up. But they do have a voice and can make a difference if they don't focus on empty promises. The common man relied on his congress do what they were elected to do. They failed, and now they are aware of what failure means to careers. Again fine sentiments, that I mostly agree with, but once again I question your actually commitment to them. You say that people should be able to not just ask questions but to demand answers. So why do you seem to defend someone like Rat who ducks questions and is unwilling to enter into honest debate? You don’t seem to know what policies he stands for and you don’t seem bothered to ask, you don’t even seem to care, so how can I trust you when you say you would want others to explain their own policies so that you can hold them to account? You say things but you don’t seem to be practising them. It is very easy to get away with dishonesty if you say very little about what policies you stand for, it is a lot harder to hide what you stand for within an open debate. That is why debate in politics is so important. In the US virtually all political debate is managed, and that ethos seems to me to have spread to the wider public. Some people come here and just don’t understand what debate is and seem incapable of entering in to it.
Balbus -- could you please explain what makes both parties "Right wing," when both parties embrace big-government socialism and the consolidation of wealth and power by the state? Liberalism (ie. socialism) is all about big government and big government power. You say both parties are "Right wing," but exactly how are they Right wing? What is "Right wing" to you? Rat we’ve been through that exact thing a few times already in several of the threads you have run away from, I don’t mind answering again but isn’t it a bit unfair when you refuse to answer my questions? You see, to me you just seem to be using a trick you attack political viewpoints without actually explaining your own. So you can claim to be blasting both the traditional left and right without actually revealing that you views seem actually to be right wing libertarian in nature. For you all political groups that are not as far right as you are by definition ‘left wing’ but it is difficult to discover just how far right you are when you are so unwilling to debate your views and seem to spend so much time trying to hide your right wing ideas behind this ‘not of the right or left’ dribble you seem to sprout so often. But as you know in the past the right wing libertarian ideas you hinted at don’t stand up well to scrutiny and you have been unable to defend them, just as you have never been able to mount a reasonable attack on left wing ideas. So you have to use conspiracy theories to attack your enemies (as the nazis did, Why do the national libertarians keep reminding me of the Nazis? http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104835) ** But we can see - in part - what you are for, by seeing what you are against. You attack big government so presumably you favour ‘small’ government but when in the past I’ve asked what you actually mean by that you seem unable to explain. I mean you’ve said that you want a government that is strong enough to keep the multinationals and the world wide ‘conspiracy’ in check but you also seem to want that government to be small and weak and to have little or no involvement in regulating capitalism or those same multinationals. When I tried to debate this viewpoint you refused. So what do you mean by big government and what exactly is small government? My view as I’ve said before is that government should be the size that it needs to be to fulfil its purpose. So it is a matter of what its purpose should be. To me it is about serving the peoples interests against the power of the elite. You have said that “The problem with capitalism today is that there is TOO MUCH government involvement and regulation” that in other words you want a capitalism unburdened by any restraints. I would say that would increase the power of the elites at the expense of that of common people. And what do you mean by ‘Liberalism’, I mean definitions are difficult and can change from person to person. For me liberalism is about having an open, peaceful community, democracy, human rights and a caring society where people join together to help each other. You seem to equate it with socialism but in the past you seem to have confused socialist ideas with Stalinism so it is hard to understand what you mean. You are however on record as saying that democracy is mob rule and the worse possible system so what system would you want (you’ve said Republicism, but since that can include democracy it is again unsure of what you mean). As to been open in your dealings with people there seems an element of unwillingness that some could think was verging on the dishonest. As to helping people you’ve said that any type of welfare system causes dependency and should be removed. ** Both of the major political party’s in the US are intimately entwined within the capitalist system. To function they need funds and so have become compromised and corrupted by the elements in society whose interests are opposed to those of the common people. For this reason they both become right of centre political groups.
Balbus - I don't HAVE "political viewpoints" because politics are a formality strictly for public consumption. The Elite do not practice politics, which are strictly for the "unenlightened" masses. The Elite control politics from every angle. I am not here to give you my political viewpoints. I am trying to show you how governments have never been designed to benefit the people, only control them. Because I am against all forms of bureaucracy, it does not make me a conservative or a Libertarian. I see beyond the political-economic paradigm of control. When people envision change, they only see it in terms of the current system, which they believe is natural because it's all they've ever known. You want me to provide political viewpoints and solutions that are within your own limited understanding of the system, and I cannot and will not do that. You talk about big-government regulations, but you cannot even grasp the fact that the big corporations have all merged with big government. In many instances, big-business has become bigger than government itself. This is called fascism. All the politicians have been bought and paid off, and are working for these corporate interests. That's why the people are continually sold out by their elected officials. You, on the other hand, continue to have blind faith in corrupt politicians, thinking they really care and are out to serve you and your needs while keeping the corporations in check. Why is it that, as the size of government increases, so does corporate exploitation? Have you ever asked yourself this question, or do you only choose to view your "elected" officials as good shepherds, instead of the traitors they are? You do not understand that the Ellite are intertwined with big business and the government. They own everything since they control the flow of money. You say a government should be big enough to fulfill its purpose? What is the purpose of government, Balbus? The purpose of government has always been to manage and control the population, to keep the few at the top living in absolute luxury while the masses at the bottom slave for their corrupt system. You have this false idea that government is there to look after you and take care of you when it's not and has never been. You even believe the more than 4 MILLION cameras in London are necessary to keep you safe. It's clear to see you have been thoroughly conditioned through a life of nanny-state propaganda. You truly view the all-powerful state as your God. I will add more to this later when I have time...
Balbus - I don't HAVE "political viewpoints" because politics are a formality strictly for public consumption. The Elite do not practice politics, which are strictly for the "unenlightened" masses. The Elite control politics from every angle. I am not here to give you my political viewpoints. I am trying to show you how governments have never been designed to benefit the people, only control them. Because I am against all forms of bureaucracy, it does not make me a conservative or a Libertarian. I see beyond the political-economic paradigm of control. When people envision change, they only see it in terms of the current system, which they believe is natural because it's all they've ever known. You want me to provide political viewpoints and solutions that are within your own limited understanding of the system, and I cannot and will not do that. Oh and Surprise, bloody surprise once more you refuse to enter into an open and honest debate. Rat I think you have some issues but you are not dumb and if you think that the things you say are not political then you would have to be so dumb that you probably couldn’t work a computer let alone type. Attacking ‘big’ government is evidence of a political viewpoint, attacking liberals, socialists, and communists is evidence of a political viewpoint, favouring capitalism and free market principles is evidence of a political viewpoint. Even if you are against ‘government’ and think it a corrupting influence then that is a political viewpoint. To somehow try and claim that you are ‘beyond’ such things as having political views is just plain laughable. Come on Rat this just seems like some kind of con trick to get out of debate that would show just how right wing your view really are. ** You talk about big-government regulations, but you cannot even grasp the fact that the big corporations have all merged with big government. In many instances, big-business has become bigger than government itself. This is called fascism. All the politicians have been bought and paid off, and are working for these corporate interests. That's why the people are continually sold out by their elected officials. You, on the other hand, continue to have blind faith in corrupt politicians, thinking they really care and are out to serve you and your needs while keeping the corporations in check. Why is it that, as the size of government increases, so does corporate exploitation? Have you ever asked yourself this question, or do you only choose to view your "elected" officials as good shepherds, instead of the traitors they are? Again this is all negative, I’ve said in the past you find it so easy to say what you don’t like, don’t want or claim is useless but you always try and hide what your views really. Stop being negative and be positive. What political views do you like? What policies do you want? What things to you think would work? I know you are Against, communists, anarchists, socialists, liberals, democracy, voting, organising, demonstrating and a whole load of other things but what things are you for? ** You do not understand that the Ellite are intertwined with big business and the government. They own everything since they control the flow of money. You say a government should be big enough to fulfill its purpose? What is the purpose of government, Balbus? The purpose of government has always been to manage and control the population, to keep the few at the top living in absolute luxury while the masses at the bottom slave for their corrupt system. You have this false idea that government is there to look after you and take care of you when it's not and has never been. But your political views as far as I can tell all seem to be right wing libertarian or nationalistic in nature. As I’ve said you have been totally unable to defend your political views many times because there seems to be a contradiction, the views you have expressed all seem to favour the elite while you shout about being against the elite. I believe there is no coincidence that you have stopped expressing you political views and even try to hide them (even claiming you haven’t any) because you actually know they support the elite and realise that in an open and honest debate that becomes very clear. ** You even believe the more than 4 MILLION cameras in London are necessary to keep you safe. It's clear to see you have been thoroughly conditioned through a life of nanny-state propaganda. You truly view the all-powerful state as your God. We have covered this a few times and while you continue to bring it up you never answer the questions I put to you when you do. He is an example form last month – You asked – Balbus -- there are over four million surveillance cameras in London. Why don't you make a thread about how you feel about this. I replied – “Rat I already have You have thrown the same question at me a couple of times My opinion hasn’t changed since the last time you asked and the questions I put to you on the subject still remain unanswered. I can recap for you if you wish? I personally believe there are too many CCTV cameras, but I understand it is a complex problem. The thing is that most of them are owned and run by private companies, are you in favour of regulating private companies? I have no problem with regulating private companies to limit their impact on the private sphere. Also are you going to tell corner shops that they cannot use such cameras? The other thing is that those run by government and police have mostly been introduced as a way of cutting costs. Many buildings that used to have a human supervisor are now watched over by cameras (where one person vcan monitor several properties). I thought you were in favour of giving government as little money as possible this would presumably force them to use more, not less, cameras or are you saying that you are willing to pay for human supervisors? I’m actually in favour of hiring more government workers are you? The security firms (private) and police (public) both use them as a way of crime prevention/detection. Taking them away would mean increasing the amount spent on human patrols (and they cannot record what happens all the time) this would mean that again this would be a huge hike in the amount needed to do the same job.” Again it seems to me that there seems to be a conflict between what your views really are and the things you shout about, why is that? **
First you accuse me of not being forthcoming with my "poliical viewpoints," then, when I express what I believe, you say it is political. Then you go back to saying how I am not expressing my "political viewpoints" once again. So what is it? It seems like you are the one having a hard time making their mind up. Seems like your objective is to somehow prove, or make me come out and say I am a "Right winger," and if you want to call me a "Right winger," why should I care? If exposing the truth makes me a Right winger in your mind, then so be it. If labels and pigeonholing people is so important to you, why should I care? What exactly is your objective here? It seems to be you who is avoiding the debate by not expressing their views. Instead you choose to nit-pick over the most silly and minute details. Everybody in here knows what my views are, except you apparently. I mean, I think it's quite funny that you seem to know my opinions well enough to tell others what my beliefs are, then when it comes time to discuss something, you divert the discussion into talking about what my political views are while claiming I am reluctant to talk about my views.
This seems to agree with Rat's premise that originated this thread, why the hostility towards him, if you agree with his premise?
Gardener All the things I’ve put to you that might move the debate on and open it up, your only comeback and reply is this? “This seems to agree with Rat's premise that originated this thread, why the hostility towards him, if you agree with his premise?” Why when I’ve asked you so much do you prefer to go back to defending Rat? Why do you seem so much more interested in defending Rats ideas than your own? Actually I find your thinking difficult to understand can you please explain why and in what way you believe that Rats ideas and my replies to you are in agreement?
Rat Again a lot of hot air but you are not answering any of the questions are you, why is that? Why do you claim to have no political views when you clearly have? Rather than hints why can you not clearly, openly and honestly tell us what those political views are? What policies would you want in place to make the world better? What things to you think would work to make the world better? I know what you dislike, you have come out against, communists, anarchists, socialists, liberals, democracy, voting, organising, demonstrating and a whole load of other things but what things are you for? And what about the stuff I’ve mentioned several times in connection with the CCTV’s? Just why are you so reluctant to talk about these things why go off on long rants that say nothing but not answer one single question that is clearly asked of you, but prefer deception and misdirection, what is it about yourself that you are so desperately trying to hide? **
