Russell Brand vs. Paxman!

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Yes you are dumb for not voting. It gives you power to participate, no matter how you may chose to participate. You might aswell paint a swastiker on your ballot or smear your feces on it before dropping it in the box.
At least that is a statement, and that is better than no statement at all.

Yes, that would be a statement. A puerile one statement that would say far more about a person's maturity than their political inclinations.

Oh yes, you goverment is flawed, which does not mean that every single fucking goverment on this globe is flawed. You are not the center of this world.

I'll happily admit that I'm not aware of every single political system. Do you have an example of a flawless system of government?

Are you seriously saying that you never actualy looked into the goverment and legal structures of a country other than yours?

The question was rhetorical. Inflection doesn't get communicated very well in text.

In politics one only knows if one is right or wrong after looking at the success or shambles of what you had constructed and believed to be right.

That being the case, would it not be advantageous for the people making policies to be those best suited to the task? If I want my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. If I'm ill, I seek out a doctor (or just man the fuck up). So why would I want a failed journalist to dictate economic policy? Or a lawyer to make the important decisions on education?

Your system would require there to be obvious truths and a concept of social perfection.

Would it? I don't see why.

Er, assertions are fun. England isn't a theocracy. In terms of real power, their Parliament is 'king'.

On paper. It is not.

Which means precisely fuck all.

[LastPoet]

The last time I voted was for local elections. I voted the commies because they have been developing this place at a steady rate and my mayor's office is one that isn' in debt. Not because their party ideas are great, but because they have been doing a good job locally. In legislative elections I voted blank, because the idiots with enough weight to apply to them are just that! Plain corrupted idiots.

I made a statement with that.

[Napoléon]

Not voting for the reasons Brand (and Napoleon) gave is a statement. They aren't being apathetic to the voting process; they just don't see any candidates that they agree with. Why should someone vote for a person they don't want in office?

Seen as Brand and myself already stated this, and it clearly wasn't too ambiguous to notice seen as you nicely pointed it out Tib, I think Germans is the dumb one for not recognising what you just said.

[Tiberius]

To be honest, I don't think Brand clearly explained what he meant. Paxman seemed to think he was decrying the entire voting process. The point is, a democracy only works if people vote for candidates they actually support. The democracies in the UK and the US are failing because people vote for two (sometimes three) parties that always have the power, rather than a wide range of candidates.

[Napoléon]

The democracies in the UK and the US are failing because people vote for two (sometimes three) parties that always have the power, rather than a wide range of candidates.

+ the fact they are funded and controlled by large corporations with massive amounts of wealth.

[downbeatplumb]

Would voting for ideas be preferable to voting for people or parties?
You may agree with some of a parties policy but disagree strongly with another.

[Something completely different]

Yes, that would be a statement. A puerile one statement that would say far more about a person's maturity than their political inclinations.

No it would not be a statement, it would be being to lazy to get up and move your ass to the ballot box. It is nothing but an arrogant snobish snorting of "I am better than the rest of society". Whilest in fact you are simply leting others make your decision for you.

I voted a different party in every election I was at, except for 2, and never fully agreed with the entire program of one one of those 7 national parties in my country, yet I voted for the party that fitted into my opinions best, because I am a pragmatist and not a jerk who thinks everything should be as I want it to. Other than that, I also vote so I make the party that I definatly dont want to be in power to get elected.

I'll happily admit that I'm not aware of every single political system. Do you have an example of a flawless system of government?

Flawlessness is a concept for fascist, marxists, the religious and other utopians. I reject the concept of flawlessnes in politics and made that clear in my previous reply here. Do I really need to repeat myself!?

A system of government can be improved, but it cannot be made flawless!

If you believe in creating or aspireing a flawless system of goverment you are on the wrong forum and should look for one with swastikers or an hammer and sickel.

The question was rhetorical. Inflection doesn't get communicated very well in text.

Then write in a way that makes it clear.

That being the case, would it not be advantageous for the people making policies to be those best suited to the task? If I want my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. If I'm ill, I seek out a doctor (or just man the fuck up). So why would I want a failed journalist to dictate economic policy? Or a lawyer to make the important decisions on education?

*Headdesk*

Didn`t I just explain to you that expert opinion can vary on an issue and that therefor there is never one single true way of solving a problem?

How old are you? 14? Or are you just too lazy to actualy read what I write and simply keep repeating the same stuff?

Would it? I don't see why.

It would, since it eliminates the process of debate and relies entirely on the single opinion of one expert.

Which means precisely fuck all.

No. It means everything!


@Tiberius: You scumbag are on my ignore list, framing people might be ok in whatever palast your nannies spoonfed you! So stop making the "effort" of replying to me, if you have any intention of making me reply to you. Because I will not waste my time with some framing, false and lying worthless piece of trash like you!!!!

[Napoléon]

Along comes germans, to ruin another thread.

(See what I did there? Haw haw hawwww)

[Something completely different]

Along comes germans, to ruin another thread.

(See what I did there? Haw haw hawwww)

Yes, you replied with a non reply that does not adress anything but your lack of argument.

[Napoléon]

The contents of this message are hidden because The Germans are coming is on your ignore list.

So much better than having to read all that mindless diatribe you usually write, even if it is less varied.