Expensive Claims

[Alc]

Fair points, but the desision to do nothing is still a decision.

 

[Pauldohert]

You have replaced your absence of belief in any of the candidates - with no alternative.

Fairly similar to your view on God!

 

[Alc]

You have replaced your absence of belief in any of the candidates - with no alternative.

Fairly similar to your view on God!

Some similarities, yes.

I don't like option A, so I won't take it (whether that's believing in god or going to vote for someone).

Where the similarity ends is that I can't imagine ever believing in God, whereas I already said I would vote for someone if their policies appealed to me.

If the day comes that a party promises only those things I agree with I'll be the first to vote

I believe voting is an alternative to not voting, or is it not?

 

[Pauldohert]

I wont go down that route again. But the simliarity in your thinking is interesting.

 

[Alc]

I wont go down that route again. But the simliarity in your thinking is interesting.

And your determination to find a similarity between not believing in something because of no evidence and not voting because you dislike the parties' policies is admirable, if a little hard to follow.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Fair points, but the desision to do nothing is still a decision.

It is a decision not to be involved - which is why folks will say what Fifty2One said about it; you're not involved - it's none of your business - your complaints on the subject are not pertinent.

 

[Alc]

It is a decision not to be involved - which is why folks will say what Fifty2One said about it; you're not involved - it's none of your business - your complaints on the subject are not pertinent.

I stand corrected. Until such time as I next vote, I will have no views either way.

I trust that this will become the standard on the forum from now on? Anyone without direct involvement in a given topic will not post any comments on it, as their opinions are not 'pertinent'?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

I'm not trying to gag you - I'm just trying to explain how your comments are likely to be received, in certain circumstances.

-It isn't even necessarily how I will receive them, personally - after all - we're having this conversation, are we not?

To be absolutely clear on this: I think it means people will be more likely to ignore you, dismiss you or treat you lightly. Not in every case, perhaps, but in general.

You've still got to do what you feel is right, and you are of course as free as anyone else to say what you like - all I'm talking about is how others may react to what you say (you are also completely free not to care what they think)

 

[Alc]

I'm not trying to gag you - I'm just trying to explain how your comments are likely to be received, in certain circumstances.

I understand that and no offence was taken, hence the smiley face thingy.

I just get a bit sick of people telling me what I'm thinking - that's not aimed at you or even Paul/James - based soley on the fact that I'm not doing/saying/writing what they think I should. I haven't voted lately. I have reasons for doing this, which I've explained. That doesn't necessarily indicate any apathy on my part - I may or may not have as much interest in current affairs as anyone else. However, because I don't behave how they feel I should (i.e. how they do), my opinions are automatically invalidated. Somewhat ironic in a conversation about democracy.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

I dunno - I think it's exactly what democracy and freedom of expression is about - you have a right to say whatever you like - others have the right to respond in kind or just ignore you.

Freedom of speech does not imply a right to be taken seriously.

 

[Alc]

I dunno - I think it's exactly what democracy and freedom of expression is about - you have a right to say whatever you like - others have the right to respond in kind or just ignore you.

Freedom of speech does not imply a right to be taken seriously.

All agreed. But what gives one person the right to say that a second person's opinion is invalid purely because they don't act the same way that the first person wants them to?

Take spoiling ballot papers. In some cases, as has been pointed out, this may be noticed and acted upon. In other cases, it isn't. In those cases where no notice is taken, spoling the ballot has had exactly the same net result as not doing anything at all. The first person's contribution to change has been exactly the same as the second, in spite of their intentions. Does that mean that the first person's opinion is now also invalid? No. The action was based on a belief in whatever, so the person has opinions on that thing. If someone chooses not to vote for specific reasons, his/her views may be just as valid as someone who voted or someone else who spoiled a ballot.

I appreciate that some people will dismiss their opinions, in the same way that people who are very left wing may automatically dismiss the opinions of people who are very right wing, but it's a dismissal based on assumptions that may well be - and in many cases definitely are - incorrect.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

All agreed. But what gives one person the right to say that a second person's opinion is invalid purely because they don't act the same way that the first person wants them to?

The same right that gives any of us freedom to speak our minds (right or wrong). You're again free to voice a counter-argument, if you wish (as we have been doing here).

Just because someone says your argument is invalid, doesn't automatically make it invalid - it's just their opinion.

It's just the price of freedom of speech - others get it too.

 

[Pauldohert]

Who said who's opinion was invalid? Is there an argument going on - and I have missed it?

 

[dan-cat]

I've been reading this article this morning.

Have I got this right?

Basically she's saying there is nothing wrong in the taxpayer paying for the interest payments on an extension I built on my 2nd home that I needed for a live-in baby-sitter that happened to be my brother.

Very entertaining

 

[namliam]

Politicians can be quite amusing...

Here in Amsterdam we have some politician saying (4 years ago):
No these office high rize buildings cannot be build, they do not comply with building regulations and cast to much shadow on existing buildings/housing.

Now 4 years later, all the houses are exactly the same, none have magicaly moved or something (not torn down, no huge mirrors installed to reflect the sun, etc etc..)
Yet magicaly -somehow- the situation has changed and the buidling of this monstrous building is allowed....
Reason given: Situation has changed ?? Erm?? Politics??!! BAH!

back to court we go (again), more of the taxpayers money wasted to
1) Town hall meetings deciding that things that are identical are actually different
2) The courts beeing tied up by this nonsense

 

[Alc]

These bits were great, too.

Before announcing she was to quit, she told BBC Radio 5 Live: "I understand people are angry about the way MPs' expenses operate, it is very hard to defend and I can understand why questions are being raised.
"But until this week's furore, it didn't cross my mind that I had done anything wrong."

Very hard to defend? Make that impossible.

"However, it is very important that I make it absolutely clear that I have done nothing wrong or dishonest in relation to my claim for expenses and have at all times acted on advice from the House of Commons Fees Office in relation to my family home in Southampton," she added.

It really is a game to these people.
As long as the rules say they can do it, they will.

 

[namliam]

Its worse, "someone said it was OK, therefor it is"

 

[dan-cat]

I know it's hilarious. These people are supposed to be the leaders of the state and yet they refuse to take any moral responsibility for their actions.

Whether or not it is allowed, the fact that she refuses to consider whether it was actually honest, on her part, to do it makes her totally unqualified (or qualified ) for the job.

 

[namliam]

Having common sense is NOT a requirement for Poticians (or managers for that fact)

 

[oumahexi]

Wish I'd thought of becoming an mp before they change the rules. This earning an honest buck milarky sucks in comparison ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8074351.stm