Posted: 14/08/2006 - 17:37
Personally, whether we believe our governments or not, I think it's fair play to restrict this and that on planes etc... far better than the POTENTIAL consequences.
So he's no better than the other fella!merman wrote:You mean David Cameron, whose party supported sending troops into Iraq, whose party gave us the "which cricket team do you support" test for immigrants, whose party was in power when arms were exported to Afghanistan to help the muhjahadeen fight the Russians?
Thats a fair coment. I'd rather be slightly put out than dead!hoomish wrote:Personally, whether we believe our governments or not, I think it's fair play to restrict this and that on planes etc... far better than the POTENTIAL consequences.
Whatever party that gets voted in will eventually become corrupt. Being elected brings power and wealth to many people within a party and power and wealth corrupts - always has done, always will...FunkyM wrote:So he's no better than the other fella!merman wrote:You mean David Cameron, whose party supported sending troops into Iraq, whose party gave us the "which cricket team do you support" test for immigrants, whose party was in power when arms were exported to Afghanistan to help the muhjahadeen fight the Russians?
Now I like the Idea of the LibDems, an unpopular party in a Populist world. But would they be too liberal on Terrorism?
...Or, Better Idea, Get the cyborgs and robots to do the Gruntwork, And elt ultimate power and responsibility for our own lives to fall to us. Then we could represent ourselves in a sort of e-Parliament, which would be where things got done.Tonka wrote:Whatever party that gets voted in will eventually become corrupt. Being elected brings power and wealth to many people within a party and power and wealth corrupts - always has done, always will...
What we need is a cyborg party made up of laterally thinking, un-corruptible robots and computers - you know, like that 'Skynet' system in the Terminator films...
Tonka