Support NeoGAF

[Sacrimoni]

No, they are not. Stop being so hyperbolic. UKIP wants to end mass immigration whilst the BNP wants to pay anyone of foreign descent to leave.

I don't support UKIP, but I have my own reasons. But they aren't 'racists' in the same way as Labour aren't socialist or Conservative aren't thatcherites.

UKIP mp's have frequently been caught making racist comments, often with little or no repercussions from party leadership.

Their supporters regularly come out with shit that would make nick griffin blush, and sport some kind of pathetic victim complex that makes the believe they're a minority in thier own country

Their policies are flimsy and racially divisive.

The party has as much diversity in it as a klan rally.

What are you talking about?

 

[Garcia]

I never knew we gay men had such superpowers.

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

What a stupid human being.

 

[Sir British]

Was Farage's statement that we should give asylum to christian Syrians but not muslim Syrians part of that charm offensive? How about the party's obsession with sharia law?

1. As I said, it doesn't bother me much. Syria bothers me less so. I'm more concerned with politics in the UK.

2. Whilst I believe there are other key points that should be address (wage gap, improving the economic situation, more jobs, better rights, etc), Sharia Law concerns me to an extent. I'm an ex-muslim and I think it is a vile, abhorrent law that has no place in this country. I've seen family members from my father's side go through it and the females always get the short end of the stick in regards to family matters.

I never seen one positive about Sharia. It's a system that has no place in the UK.

That's precisely one of the reason why I ran away from the religion.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I never knew we gay men had such superpowers.

I will become a shaman and bring about good harvests for many years.

 

[Acorn]

1. As I said, it doesn't bother me much. Syria bothers me less so. I'm more concerned with politics in the UK.

2. Whilst I believe there are other key points that should be address (wage gap, improving the economic situation, more jobs, better rights, etc), Sharia Law concerns me to an extent. I'm an ex-muslim and I think it is a vile, abhorrent law that has no place in this country. I've seen family members from my father's side go through it and the females always get the short end of the stick in regards to family matters.

I never seen one positive about Sharia. It's a system that has no place in the UK.

That's precisely one of the reason why I ran away from the religion.

You do realise ukip is pretty close to far right(re your other concerns)Taking away rights is their purpose, part of the reason the right hates the EU is the fact that a lot of employment rights are guaranteed.

Infact Cameron's two things he wants from a 'new' eu is employment rights legislation from the eu to be given a uk opt out. Along with the human rights act.

 

[Sir British]

You do realise ukip is pretty close to far right(re your other concerns)Taking away rights is their purpose, part of the reason the right hates the EU is the fact that a lot of employment rights are guaranteed.
.

Which is why I said the UKIP aren't a great alternative and I don't support them as much. I just hate the racist argument. It detracts from other key points because it comes across as simplistic and I think it's becoming an apathetic word.

I never said I supported UKIP. Ever. I was just arguing that UKIP racism, on a policy level, is less of a concern compared to their other policies and that anyone who tries to equate it to the BNP on the same level is playing Godwin's law.

 

[Sai-kun]

I blame the gay gangs

I too, blame the gayngs. Damn them.

 

[EmiPrime]

1. As I said, it doesn't bother me much. Syria bothers me less so. I'm more concerned with politics in the UK.

2. Whilst I believe there are other key points that should be address (wage gap, improving the economic situation, more jobs, better rights, etc), Sharia Law concerns me to an extent. I'm an ex-muslim and I think it is a vile, abhorrent law that has no place in this country. I've seen family members from my father's side go through it and the females always get the short end of the stick in regards to family matters.

I never seen one positive about Sharia. It's a system that has no place in the UK.

That's precisely one of the reason why I ran away from the religion.

I hate sharia too but then I hate all forms of religious arbitration. These politicians and newspaper columnists who rant about sharia law are strangely quiet on beth din and canon law and that speaks volumes; it's not about principals for them it's about building up the muslim bogeyman.

 

[Oriel]

1. As I said, it doesn't bother me much. Syria bothers me less so. I'm more concerned with politics in the UK.

2. Whilst I believe there are other key points that should be address (wage gap, improving the economic situation, more jobs, better rights, etc), Sharia Law concerns me to an extent. I'm an ex-muslim and I think it is a vile, abhorrent law that has no place in this country. I've seen family members from my father's side go through it and the females always get the short end of the stick in regards to family matters.

I never seen one positive about Sharia. It's a system that has no place in the UK.

That's precisely one of the reason why I ran away from the religion.

Great. So does that mean you will also campaign for the abolishment of the centuries old Jewish courts system that has operated in England since the 17th century? In fact English Common Law has at its basis the ability for two parties to be contractually bound to the ruling of any third party arbiter of their choosing.

I find it quite amusing for the Little Englanders to get into a flap over Shariah Courts, especially since other religions have had their own religious courts for many centuries.

 

[Delusibeta]

And lo, there's a defence force for everything, even if it's one misguided fool.

 

[DBT85]

I never knew we gay men had such superpowers.

Maybe you could all concentrate your efforts and do something useful for humanity like stopping UKIP from being a thing, rather than just making it rain all a damn time.

 

[Sir British]

Great. So does that mean you will also campaign for the abolishment of the centuries old Jewish courts system that has operated in England since the 17th century?

Why not? Fair is fair after all.

 

[Oriel]

Why not? Fair is fair after all.

Good luck with that. It would be jackpot for the wigs and beaks at the Old Bailey called in to write the legislation necessary to undo centuries of British legal custom and convention.

 

[Oriel]

Sky News now reporting UKIP have suspended Silvester over "gay floods" comments. Would thr party have taken this action if there wasn't any outcry?

 

[Delusibeta]

Sky News now reporting UKIP have suspended Silvester over "gay floods" comments. Would thr party have taken this action if there wasn't any outcry?

Can't say I'm too surprised, they did this whole song and dance with Godfrey "Bongo Bongo Land" Bloom.

 

[leadbelly]

Sky News now reporting UKIP have suspended Silvester over "gay floods" comments. Would thr party have taken this action if there wasn't any outcry?

Can't say I'm too surprised, they did this whole song and dance with Godfrey "Bongo Bongo Land" Bloom.

lol

Well, even if they take action they can't win can they?

It's like when people keep asking why they have to state they're non-racist. The answer seems to be, "because they're racist", yet the answer could really be, "because they're branded as racist, therefore they feel they have to emphasise that they're non-racist".

I'm not entirely sure if the crazy members are there because it's secretly a racist party or because the BNP is dead as party and UKIP's policies are more in line with their own ideology.

I mean, they keep actively trying to move away from that image. This article comes to mind more recently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24175687

 

[Zelias]

Sky News now reporting UKIP have suspended Silvester over "gay floods" comments. Would thr party have taken this action if there wasn't any outcry?

What's funny is UKIP said he was 'more than entitled to express independent thought despite whether or not other people may deem it standard or correct' apparently at the same time they were trying to stop him from giving any interviews on his beliefs. That's apparently why he was suspended, because he ignored UKIP and gave a radio interview in which he said homosexuality was a disease that could be cured.

If UKIP are trying to look principled and not like they're engaged in panicked damage control, they're not doing a very good job of it.

Edit: That said, I applaud them finally suspending him, no matter why they've done it.

 

[leadbelly]

What's funny is UKIP said he was 'more than entitled to express independent thought despite whether or not other people may deem it standard or correct' apparently at the same time they were trying to stop him from giving any interviews on his beliefs. That's apparently why he was suspended, because he ignored UKIP and gave a radio interview in which he said homosexuality was a disease that could be cured.

If UKIP are trying to look principled and not like they're engaged in panicked damage control, they're not doing a very good job of it.

Edit: That said, I applaud them finally suspending him, no matter why they've done it.

I think you're misunderstanding their reasoning actually. It was them that stated the reasons for suspending him. They didn't try to hide it. You can't really call that damage control.

Ukip's South East Chairman Roger Bird said:"We cannot have any individual using the Ukip banner to promote their controversial personal beliefs which are not shared by the Party.

"Everyone is entitled to their own religious ideology which is central to a free and fair society. Councillor Silvester's views are his own and in no way reflect the Party's position..

Basically he is saying that everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, but are not allowed to use the UKIP banner to promote them, which is what he did.

 

[Son Of D]

I never knew we gay men had such superpowers.

Same here. I think I'm going to learn to adapt these powers. Maybe give Britain a good summer for once.

 

[leadbelly]

Which is why I said the UKIP aren't a great alternative and I don't support them as much. I just hate the racist argument. It detracts from other key points because it comes across as simplistic and I think it's becoming an apathetic word.

I never said I supported UKIP. Ever. I was just arguing that UKIP racism, on a policy level, is less of a concern compared to their other policies and that anyone who tries to equate it to the BNP on the same level is playing Godwin's law.

Yeah. I'm pretty much the same. I've stated before that I don't think UKIP are fit to run the country, but I don't necessarily think it's so black and white as people seem to think. It could very well be, I don't know, but UKIP pretty much had these accusations thrown at them the moment they formed policies that were against the established norm. Like being against immigration for instance, people will tend to view you as racist, without really taking into account that people's views aren't always as simplistic as that. Of course they've had several members damage their image even more, but I don't yet know if that is because UKIP's policies have attracted those individuals, or because that is what the party secretly stands for.

They've at least attempted to distance themselves away from that image on more than one occasion. That could be just a tactic they're using, but there is also a possibility that they actually believe what they are saying and their views are more sophisticated than people give them credit for. Or maybe not. lol

It's like the EDL.They are pretty much viewed by people as a far-right facist or white nationalist movement, but that was never really what Tommy Robinson wanted. It was certainly always Islamophobic, but it wasn't as black and white as people thought. I remember watching a documentary about him, and he is clearly not racist, and funnily enough, not really against Muslims, per se, but you could also state he was a little naive and ignorant. Of course he knew that his views were very attractive to people he didn't really want to associate with, and that was why he ended up leaving the movement he created.

 

[Sacrimoni]

lol

Well, even if they take action they can't win can they?

It's like when people keep asking why they have to state they're non-racist. The answer seems to be, "because they're racist", yet the answer could really be, "because they're branded as racist, therefore they feel they have to emphasise that they're non-racist".

I'm not entirely sure if the crazy members are there because it's secretly a racist party or because the BNP is dead as party and UKIP's policies are more in line with their own ideology.

I mean, they keep actively trying to move away from that image. This article comes to mind more recently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24175687

I believe that article has already been posted by the other UKIP supporter in this thread. Can't see any other articles though

As for UKIP's "community outreach programme", it's been stated that it's an attempt to portray themselves as non-racist in an attempt to garner some manner of support from white people who aren't racist which sounds about right for them. Essentally they're the UK version of the "New Klan"

if they were truly an inclusive party, their party would have a bit of diversity.
If they truly weren't vile bigots they would stop making discriminatory comments (homophobic, sexist and racist) and in those instances where they did they would face exclusion from their party

but alas, they and their supporters are vile bigots so what can you do

It's like the EDL.They are pretty much viewed by people as a far-right facist or white nationalist movement, but that was never really what Tommy Robinson wanted. It was certainly always Islamophobic, but it wasn't as black and white as people thought. I remember watching a documentary about him, and he is clearly not racist, and funnily enough, not really against Muslims, per se, but you could also state he was a little naive and ignorant. Of course he knew that his views were very attractive to people he didn't really want to associate with, and that was why he ended up leaving the movement he created.

truly both he and the organisation he founded were misunderstood. They should have received some kind of recognition for their brave efforts as they smashed up town centres, attacked people (particularly asians), racially abused all and sundry and wasted millions upon millions of pounds of taxpayers money

cant believe we've got EDL sympathisers on this board, although it also makes sense that you're big into UKIP

 

[leadbelly]

I believe that article has already been posted by the other UKIP supporter in this thread. Can't see any other articles though

As for UKIP's "community outreach programme", it's been stated that it's an attempt to portray themselves as non-racist in an attempt to garner some manner of support from white people who aren't racist which sounds about right for them. Essentally it's the UK version of the "New Klan"

This is a conspiracy theory though.

if they were truly an inclusive party, their party would have a bit of diversity.

And I don't really know what you mean by this. there is nothing stopping ethnic minorities joining the party. In fact there have been people from ethnic minorities in the party.

 

[MadJackChurchill]

Why does their website need to specify they're "non-racist"?

Because they're known for their lack of party discipline and 2D policies on why intra-EU immigration is detrimental to the economy - so their representatives say incredibly dumb things that stir up the island mentality inherent in British society, but make them look like the worst people to the outside world.

Case-in-point: the whole 'bongo-bongo land' fiasco.

Also, totally ad hominem for a second: they seriously need a new logo and colour. Ryanair colours don't do the image any favours.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

And I don't really know what you mean by this. there is nothing stopping ethnic minorities joining the party.

Probably the fact it's full of massively racist old wankers.

 

[dolemite]

Great Britain, please don't change.

 

[leadbelly]

truly both he and the organisation he founded were misunderstood. They should have received some kind of recognition for their brave efforts as they smashed up town centres, attacked people (particularly asians), racially abused all and sundry and wasted millions upon millions of pounds of taxpayers money

cant believe we've got EDL sympathisers on this board, although it also makes sense that you're big into UKIP

Oh fucking please.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People seeing everything as black and white and not taking into account that people's views might be more complicated than that.

What I said had nothing to do with sympathising with the EDL, I was talking about the founder. People would assume he is a white supremacist, but he isn't really that at all, his views, although certainly was Islamophobic, weren't as simplistic as they seemed. And it was partly to do with his own ignorance of the religion rather than a deep hatred of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEYKgKOv7-c

 

[Sacrimoni]

This is a conspiracy theory though.

Nope it's a legitimate analysis of their motivations, given their past actions. Feel free to ignore them though, they're not important

And I don't really know what you mean by this. there is nothing stopping ethnic minorities joining the party. In fact there have been people from ethnic minorities in the party.

where are they on here?

http://digitalpolitico.net/2013/09/20/ukip-changing-the-face-of-politics/

could there be a reticence to join UKIP amongst minorities? could there be a failure within the party to promote such individuals (if they exist) to positions of authority?

and if so, what would be the reasons behind this. it boggles the mind...

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I never knew we gay men had such superpowers.

if being gay married would bring torrential rain then every dude in cali should be on that right now.

 

[Sacrimoni]

Oh fucking please.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People seeing everything as black and white and not taking into account that people's views might be more complicated than that.

Oh I understand his motivations, and they're not that complicated (to me at least). It's just that I refuse to ignore the less savoury aspects of the man and his wonderful little social movement. same as with UKIP

you appear to have no such problem

 

[Sir British]

Good luck with that. It would be jackpot for the wigs and beaks at the Old Bailey called in to write the legislation necessary to undo centuries of British legal custom and convention.

The question is: Does these 'religious courts' discriminate against someone based on gender or origins like Sharia does?

You're equating one extreme with another. It doesn't prove your point.

Sky News now reporting UKIP have suspended Silvester over "gay floods" comments. Would thr party have taken this action if there wasn't any outcry?

You mean like Labour and Conservative where their emails of racist jokes got leaked and something has to be done about it?

Yeah. I'm pretty much the same. I've stated before that I don't think UKIP are fit to run the country, but I don't necessarily think it's so black and white as people seem to think. It could very well be, I don't know, but UKIP pretty much had these accusations thrown at them the moment they formed policies that were against the established norm. Like being against immigration for instance, people will tend to view you as racist, without really taking into account that people's views aren't always as simplistic as that. Of course they've had several members damage their image even more, but I don't yet know if that is because UKIP's policies have attracted those individuals, or because that is what the party secretly stands for.

They've at least attempted to distance themselves away from that image on more than one occasion. That could be just a tactic they're using, but there is also a possibility that they actually believe what they are saying and their views are more sophisticated than people give them credit for. Or maybe not. lol

I do want a party that does criticise the current levels of immigration and integration policies. And UKIP, for what they do on that front, is much better than what Labour and Conservative does. I don't support them as their other policies urks me, but they are fulfilling the British's concern far more than the other parties are at this rate.

But at this rate, I do not want another term of Labour or Conservative. They have been in power for far too long and get away with a lot of shit. We do need a new party that will change up the political field and take both of them on by the horns. Liberal Democrats had potential, but have suffered bad PR and lost members ever since Nick Clegg took up on the coalition.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

So you don't like UKIP because of their economic liberalism but liked the sound of a bunch of Orange Book-ers in government?

Way to go.

 

[Sir British]

So you don't like UKIP because of their economic liberalism but liked the sound of a bunch of Orange Book-ers in government?

Way to go.

Rephrase the last part because I don't get 'Orange Book-ers'.

 

[Walshicus]

Rephrase the last part because I don't get 'Orange Book-ers'.

It's slang for the portion of the Liberal Democrat party that prioritised economic liberalism.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Rephrase the last part because I don't get 'Orange Book-ers'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism

 

[Sir British]

It's slang for the portion of the Liberal Democrat party that prioritised economic liberalism.

Ah I see. But from my gathering, economic liberalism is seen as a positive since it encourage a free market and open competition, but allow government intervention to rid of monopolies.

What's so negative about that?

 

[Gawge]

Ah I see. But from my gathering, economic liberalism is seen as a positive since it encourage a free market and open competition, but allow government intervention to rid of monopolies.

What's so negative about that?

What don't you like about UKIP then?

(I hate liberalism and racism, so I hate UKIP).

 

[Davis_McGee]

What's so negative about that?

That it's a barrel of absolute twaddle.

Of course in theory it's the best of both worlds, but what theory isn't?

In practice we end up with situations like we've got on our railways. Right now, the only rail franchise in the UK that is even remotely successful is East Coast. What sets East Coast apart? It is nationalised. How successful is it? It returns a £120m per year profit to the treasury every single year.

Now of course one might think in this situation of every other privately-run rail franchise haemorrhaging money that the logical next step would be to progressively nationalise other components of the rail network to return money to the public purse, lower prices, amortise investment costs, improve economies of scale etc. etc.

The liberals in government, instead, are privatising it on an unheard-of timescale - announcing the shortlist of bids this week and aiming to have it transferred out of the public ownership within 18 months.


The same goes for Royal Mail. The previous government spent the best part of a decade bringing it back up to scratch, making it competitive and, again, profitable for the public purse. Their response? Privatise it at 50% of actual market value.

Ideologues are the worst.

 

[Sir British]

What don't you like about UKIP then?

(I hate liberalism and racism, so I hate UKIP).

Want to turn back the clock on some of the policies (Gay marriage) and that they talk about leaving the EU, but they have no solid plan in regards to what will happen to the policies we benefit from being in the EU or a timescale.

I have this feeling they will leave the EU and not bother to replicate the best bits of the EU we benefited from.

 

[leadbelly]

Oh I understand his motivations, and they're not that complicated (to me at least). It's just that I refuse to ignore the less savoury aspects of the man and his wonderful little social movement. same as with UKIP

you appear to have no such problem

You're doing it again. lol

Stop accusing me of shit, you don't know is true.

The point I was making had nothing to do with me defending everything about Tommy Robinson, it is about how people assume things based on what a movement, or political party appear to be, when their views might be more complicated than they think.

I'm not defending the EDL.

That documentary I linked shows that Tommy Robinson's views are more complicated than what people would have assumed. I'm not saying he wasn't without fault, just that his views aren't so black and white; in other words he isn't simply a white supremacist hooligan

 

[Sir British]

That it's a barrel of absolute twaddle.

Of course in theory it's the best of both worlds, but what theory isn't?

In practice we end up with situations like we've got on our railways. Right now, the only rail franchise in the UK that is even remotely successful is East Coast. What sets East Coast apart? It is nationalised. How successful is it? It returns a £120m per year profit to the treasury every single year.

Now of course one might think in this situation of every other privately-run rail franchise haemorrhaging money that the logical next step would be to progressively nationalise other components of the rail network to return money to the public purse, lower prices, amortise investment costs, improve economies of scale etc. etc.

The liberals in government, instead, are privatising it on an unheard-of timescale - announcing the shortlist of bids this week and aiming to have it transferred out of the public ownership within 18 months.


The same goes for Royal Mail. The previous government spent the best part of a decade bringing it back up to scratch, making it competitive and, again, profitable for the public purse. Their response? Privatise it at 50% of actual market value.
.

I don't believe it's a uniform fit for all business and there are some business that should still be under the ownership and funded by the government. I don't prefer liberalism over socialism, nor I prefer socialism over liberalism. I think a mixture of both is perfect for me.

But I'm glad we're actually moving away from UKIP = racist and talking about what is wrong with them as a party.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

UKIP the tea party of the UK.

 

[EmiPrime]

The question is: Does these 'religious courts' discriminate against someone based on gender or origins like Sharia does?

YES. Do your research, all the Abrahamic faiths are patriarchal in nature. Islam does not have a monopoly on misogyny.

That it's a barrel of absolute twaddle.

Of course in theory it's the best of both worlds, but what theory isn't?

In practice we end up with situations like we've got on our railways. Right now, the only rail franchise in the UK that is even remotely successful is East Coast. What sets East Coast apart? It is nationalised. How successful is it? It returns a £120m per year profit to the treasury every single year.

Now of course one might think in this situation of every other privately-run rail franchise haemorrhaging money that the logical next step would be to progressively nationalise other components of the rail network to return money to the public purse, lower prices, amortise investment costs, improve economies of scale etc. etc.

The liberals in government, instead, are privatising it on an unheard-of timescale - announcing the shortlist of bids this week and aiming to have it transferred out of the public ownership within 18 months.


The same goes for Royal Mail. The previous government spent the best part of a decade bringing it back up to scratch, making it competitive and, again, profitable for the public purse. Their response? Privatise it at 50% of actual market value.

Ideologues are the worst.

The Orange Bookers winning so decisively the battle for the heart of the Lib Dems is a bit of a personal tragedy for me. A choice between 3 different neoliberal parties with that disgusting privatise everything, the market is god philosophy isn't much of a choice. 35 years of Thatcher with no end in sight...

 

[Sir British]

YES. Do your research, all the Abrahamic faiths are patriarchal in nature. Islam does not have a monopoly on misogyny.

Which then, I argue what I originally said.

It's incompatible with current Britain and thus, it should be dismantled. Allowing Sharia Court is contributing to the problem.

 

[TCRS]

I would never vote for them in national elections, but I'm definitely voting for them in the European elections. The more heat those clowns in Brussels get the better.

 

[EmiPrime]

Which then, I argue what I originally said.

It's incompatible with current Britain and thus, it should be dismantled. Allowing Sharia Court is contributing to the problem.

And again you would do a lot better to find a secular solution rather than focusing solely on sharia; it's not just sharia that is incompatible with modern Britain. I don't know how easy or difficult it would be to re-write UK law so that private arbitration be exclusively a secular thing and how enforceable that would be (Oriel might know more) but that's a better discussion to have than the right wing call to arms "ban sharia" IMO.

 

[Diablos]

UKIP vs. Tea Party: Who's more insane?

 

[ISOM]

UKIP vs. Tea Party: Who's more insane?

The tea party almost defaulted the debt of the United States. I don't think this is a question lol.

 

[Diablos]

The tea party almost defaulted the debt of the United States. I don't think this is a question lol.

Yes but I am speaking to pure iedology. Would UKIP do such a thing if they had the power? They don't, but would they? If so what else would they do?

The Tea Party caucus has the Republican party by the balls, as they identify with that party. Imagine if UKIP was just a sect of the Conservative party that stayed under the same umbrella. What would they do?

 

[Messofanego]

For those who aren't aware, the U.K. has two racist parties. You have the B.N.P., your working man's racist party, fighting for the rights of the white proletarian against the Muslim bourgeois, and you have U.K.I.P., your snob's racist party, struggling to ensure the noble countenance of the English nation in the face of foreign barbarism. The former is basically inconsequential these days, the latter has been trying to take itself up-market and is now a protest vote for people who think the Conservatives aren't Conservative enough. An analogy would be voting for a Tea Party candidate separately from a Republican candidate.

I thought they were the same thing XD