Immigration Amendment Would Prevent Companies From Laying Off U.S. Workers
-
I guess you just missed what I said about lack of short term propects and missed the manifesto point Give councils "majority" control over finances. in the article about the Scottish Parliamentary elections. Yes the majority of people do agree with us. When polls of policies, with no party name attached, are conducted we have won in every case I've seen for the past 5 years. People want what we want because we want them to be free to decide. On the Scotland point it is incredibly ironic that the SNP, which has just won the election, isn't offering independence at all but total subjugation by the EU, while UKIP, the most unionist of unionist parties ouside of NI is actually offering the people of Scotland a real say over their lives and less bureaucrats and MSPs to mess it up. We would have Scotland specific parliamentary time at Westminster where Scottish MPs only would debate Scottish matters and make binding decisions. These would be held in parallel with English, Welsh and NI sessions. One country, one set of elected representatives, and minimum fuss. No West Lothian problem, no problem having a Scottish or a Welsh PM :cool: You see common sense really does work when there are no hidden agendas like a European super state clouding the issues and biasing the debates.:-D
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'm sorry but I consider that a defeatist attitude.
Nothing defeatest about it. Merely a pragmatic observation of likely future events based upon clear historic patterns reflected in ongoing, modern trends. I also said nothing about giving up on democracy. I just claim that democracy, by iteslf, is insufficient to win the day against forces which care nothing for it. If democracy is going to be protected ,it will be done on the battlefield, not the voting booth. Aside from "No world Order" the "New World Order" is inevitable, but its character is not. It will reflect the desires most passionantly embraced by humanity. If the character is to be democratic, we must fiercly promote our uncompromising dedication to those principles regardless of who is offended by it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
we must fiercly promote our uncompromising dedication to those principles regardless of who is offended by it
I have done so and stood for election on a promise to do so.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If democracy is going to be protected ,it will be done on the battlefield
No, beacuse those who oppose democracy are smart enough to use economic and social weapons, credit and media ownership, and they won't risk a physical fight. Hence the big split over Iraq when the neo-con splinter group lost patience and decided to start a war. They will be put down for that, which is already happening in the US and UK, and it will be money and media used to do it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Aside from "No world Order" the "New World Order" is inevitable, but its character is not. It will reflect the desires most passionantly embraced by humanity.
I'm not sure if that was meant to be ironic but yes, it's character will reflect the desires most passionantly embraced by its architects; selfishness, greed, the lust for power over others and the fear of loosing it. That's the problem. We badly need an alternative model to what is being sicked on us one step at a time. :rose:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Or something.
Anti-Globalist.