Am I calling my fellow countrymen idiots for electing them? Of course I am. Are you under the delusion that in this age of convenience, we are free of large populations of misguided people? Like in America and just about all other Western countries, time and decadence has disconnected people from the liberty those before us fought to keep. These days, we're trapped within an entertainment show, a left-right paradigm, which encourages primitive group-think psychology and is controlled by a mere two or three parties, of whom become less distinguishable with every election. We care less and less every year about who we elect and instead delegate thought to a party instead of their ideals or the people propagating them. In my opinion, we should abolish parties and have only independents. This way we'd have to actually know something about the MPs we elect, not what their party pretends to promise. I voted UKIP in the last election.
And how long has he been in office for you to make such conclusions about him? This coming from a guy who advocates free narcotic use and its legalisation. I'm not surprised though, there are such kind of people in every country (though much more in the west on a %age basis) who'll spare no insults in criticizing their leaders regardless of what they do even before they see the result of their policies. Where did you get your pol science degree from? Political parties are an indispensable part of democracies and there can be NO stable and accountable governments without them - most of the time you can't even have a government. That is why you find parties in every democracies (and even in non-democracies)
I'd say they are more of an artifact of democracies, rather than an indispensable part of them. We will always have a two party system in America, so long as we have one person one vote. People pool their voting power along very rough ideological lines, so as not to let their vote be "wasted". Most of the time, the choices are not very desirable. If we were to switch to something like a Single Transferable Vote in general elections, we might not eliminate parties all together, but we would wind up with people in office who are much more representative of our own personal views. Some say it would create gridlock on legislation, but one could also argue that we would see more compromise and perhaps less pork(Fraud).
I must say Helvetii, you sure do have a hard on for me. No, I support its decriminalisation, i.e. the nullification of any governmental view on the matter, not the mere "allowance" of us lowly subjects to choose what we put in our own bodies, which legalisation implies. You already have your "war and drugs" and it has done nothing but create a black market, similarly to how alcohol prohibition did in the twenties, for organised crime, wasteful spending, corruption and impure substances to run rampant. Mexico has fallen apart due to this and has only now considered decriminalising to save the nation from anarchy. How can you support a method which so incontestably doesn't work? The funny thing is, 'drug dealers' have the same opinion as you They sure as hell love their product being illegal. How about looking further back than when you were born? Drug use and drug related crime was unbelievably lower than it is today, when you had enough freedom to walk to your local pharmacy to buy a bottle of pure diacetylmorphine (Heroin), for example. Only naive children such as yourself believe that because something is legal everyone jumps at the chance to abuse it. You're a throw back from the Reefer Madness days. This statement shows your ignorance. Do you think politicians only start making decisions or express their views when they can fill a cabinet? I live in England and have seen his policies and views expressed throughout his entire political career as an MP and shadow prime minister. Did you not know that we have shadow cabinets over here? I'll give you a nice example: how about the fact that he built a huge campaign of opposition against the Labour party, centred around the fact that Brown didn't consider a referendum on the EU, then once there was a chance of getting his arse into 10 Downing Street, he did the exact same thing! As an MP he also supported Blair's wars. Want more reasons why he's just as much a scum bag as the rest of them? I bet this isn't even about Cameron, you just saw the opportunity to question everything I'm saying in this thread. Silly statement, however very telling. Judging from your authoritarian views, I suppose you'd make degrees a requirement for opinions if you had the chance I agree with Obamanation. Also, you obviously fail to realise that the Western "democracies" you grossly generalise, are mostly pluralism based liberal-democracies, and so have parties as a fundamental component, which is evident with the fact that your own country had a democratic system established well before pluralism, or multiple parties, were conceived. Contrast this with direct democracy, which centres around the assembly of citizens. I think you should go away and do some reading before coming here pissing on people's opinions and spouting unfounded "facts". Why would you oppose something that would grant you more representation? Are you that blindly devoted to Obama or the Democratic party? Besides, I don't support a democracy in its own right. I like the idea the American Founding Fathers had with the Constitutional Republic - a government of laws, not men. It's alarming how many citizens of the US don't know that their country isn't a "democracy".
So has everyone else and if people still elected him, but hey , everyone is an ignorant idiot and a drug fanboy is the final authority as to who is a scumbag and who's not!!! I'm glad to know that you are on top of the situation Blair, Cameron and all other accomplished people are scumbags and B(r)UM should be PM, but they better stock syringes and foil in 10 downing street first!!!
I hope everyone sees that post. I've never encountered such a childish person in my life. With your logic in ruins, you resort to ad hominem, immature distortions of my opinions and further derailing of the thread. Then care to explain how so many people voted for Bush? I assume you didn't support his presidency. Seriously, why is it that hard to accept that others have opinions? I never once claimed to be an authority. To Helvetii, if you've smoked pot you must be some evil syringe abuser. Ironic how I've never even seen substances which would require the use of such equipment.
I don't know what your problem is. You begin a dialogue with me, open a debate (I use the term loosely) and when I give a serious and honest reply, you eventually resort to personal insults and utter childish jibberish. I don't mind conversing with those with differing opinions, that's why I come to this section, but please, don't waste both our time when you have no intention of contributing to or holding a sensible debate. Like yourself, I'm ending contributions to the 'debate'.