Originally posted by Spider AL
Note: The ideal of democracy is that we elect a politician to do what the majority of the public says, not what the politicians personally believe is right, nor what actually IS right, if there is such a thing as absolute right vs. wrong.
We employ THEM, to represent US and our opinions. They are not kings nor rulers, they should have no autonomy. We have forgotten this, and we must rectify it if we are to actually live in a democracy, something we do not currently reside in.
Can't believe i'm going to do this.. but...erm... here goes...
http://www.reichnation.com/uploads/hitlercard.jpg)
sigh.
But on a serious point, there are numerous examples of politicians doing bad things with the support of the people (hitler, for example who was both democratically elected and who's policies were popular among the general population. Or those far right guys getting elected in Austria, etc..)
There are also numerous examples of politicians doing things that were against the opinions of a lot of their voters. Many of which the voters LATER came to support. Some they didn't.
Eg: Ending slavery in the US. Or the death penalty which opinion polls in the UK consistently show people want, but not one party supports. Or even the war in iraq.
In many cases these were politicians standing up for what THEY felt was right, even if it didn't have public backing. Otherwise we might as well be governed by interactive TV, with everyone voting on every issue... but based on the results of a lot of polls recently I don't think that would be particularly sensible... as many people are very badly informed on a lot of issues.
Originally posted by Spider AL
As for Howard's policy, there is nothing racist in it nor in his associated rhetoric. Full stop. Nationality has nothing to do with race, just for starters.
Even if his message has nothing racist in it (which it doesn't), it is obviously designed to stop them losing voters to the far right parties like the BNP & UKIP by stealing their rhetoric. So it could be accused of pandering to racist attitudes, even if not openly.
Originally posted by Spider AL
While people may disagree over the number of illegal immigrants in our country, I don't think anyone of sound mind can disagree that illegal acts of ALL sorts, including illegally coming over our borders and illegally living in our state, should be STOPPED.
Indeed. But the big question is how, and how many resources? Ideally NO illegal acts should ever occur (mostly).. but some always will. You can never stop them all. It is a case of trying to target the worst in the best way possible. I'm still not convinced immigration is worth taking effort away from other areas.
But anyway, most of these proposals have nothing to do with cracking down only on the criminals, they have to do with cracking down on everyone in the principle that it will both deter anyone else and please the media.
Originally posted by Spider AL
Thus, any policy that has the cessation of illegal immigration as its goal is a good policy, and one worth supporting.
Not really. Just because the goal is honorable doesn't mean that the policy must be right and fair. The BNP has a policy to stop illegal imigration that includes forced repatriation and other distasteful things... that isn't a good policy and usn't worth supporting.
As i've said, I actually agree with a number of his proposals, i just don't agree with the way he hyped up his "tough stance".
Originally posted by Spider AL
That wouldn't have been a bad thing. ;)
Well, i don't like the man... but him and many like him who were the decendents of imigrants and refugees have made huge impacts on our culture. Some good, some bad... but without them we wouldn't be the country we are today... (for good or bad)