@emmalush wrote:

@nogginthenog wrote:

I know it’s hard to accept that views you hold are wromg

Not at all, but i understand that you’re aware of that belief.

try being open minded about things.

Will you do so first?

It is possible that human polution is not affecting the climate.

No its not, human Co2 is affecting our climate, BUT, its miniscule in comparrison to what the sun’s doing.

But if it is don’t you think that to err on the side of caution is the wiser course.

If you think that just because millions of people voted for a political party or 4, that we should believe them because they provide scientists with great salaries, top class accomodation, and first class travel, to tell us were “destroying the earth”, that we must agree with them, so we can be taxed forever, then i pitty you.

IF human Co2 was the cause, or atleast a large slice of the cause, you would think our political masters would BAN the use of petrol, because we’d be “destroying the earth” if we didn’t.

You asked me to keep an open mind. Well, you go and get me some HARD evidence, from INDEPENDENT people who can prove humans are “destroying the earth” with Co2, and i’ll change my view.

Or do you think that it’s not that important?

Global warming and global ice age, is important, but unless you can direct the sun’s temperature elsewhere, nothing we can do.

The only thing you are not free from is ignorance. Try asking questions now & then. Or are you as gullible as all your other posts suggest?

There is a familiar merrygo round of new posters coming on here, seemingly desperate to put me down, after reading what ive been saying in the past.

Im getting all kinds of ignorant attacks. I wish they’d come out of the hatred closet.

Hold on, genie went quiet…hmm

I don’t hate you, or anyone else. I don’t even dislike you or what you say. I just wish you were a little more thoughtful. Everytime I read one of your posts it seems you think the rest of the world is wrong & only you (& the BNP) know the truth. You refuse to listen to anything that casts doubt on your convictions. I have no problem with this. What bothers me is that you refuse to think & consider any given situation.
How independent do you want the scientists to be? Carl Wunsch is professor of physical oceanography at MIT. He doesnt work for any government. As I have already said Martin Durkin has already been proved of dubious character. He has an agenda & some peope either refuse or are incapable of seeing this. Instead of basing your view on one TV programme try reading more, research a little. Even read the views you disagree with.
Do you have your own agenda do you work for an oil company? Is that why you refuse to consider that you may be wrong?

@emmalush wrote:

No, we will not run out in the next few decades, there is oil to last us another 100 years, so say political anylists.

IT IS NOT HUMAN CREATED Co2 THAT IS “DESTROYING THE EARTH”.

It is the sun that is the prodomanent cause. We do not even know if the sun will destroy us, we have yet to find out. It didn’t happen in the past.

Go out and fill up your cars, book a long distance holiday, you are FREE from the terror of the fear mongers who blame you of “destroying the earth”.

Do you really believe everything you see on TV? C4 are in trouble over this nonesense. Prof Carl Wunsch who featured in the so called documentary is apparently furious that his views were ‘grossly distorted’ & has said he believed human activity is warming the climate. Durkin himself has already been found editing interviews to suit his agenda. In a series called Against Nature.
I know it’s hard to accept that views you hold are wromg but try being open minded about things. It is possible that human polution is not affecting the climate. But if it is don’t you think that to err on the side of caution is the wiser course. Or do you think that it’s not that important?
The only thing you are not free from is ignorance. Try asking questions now & then. Or are you as gullible as all your other posts suggest?

@drivel wrote:

@nogginthenog wrote:

@smiley wrote:

Not only should people who commit these crimes be hanged. But people defending their right to live should also be hanged, as they are just as evil. No, even more evil. As denying justice is even more torture for all the families & friends. Don’t you think they’ve suffered enough, you evil vicious commie b*stards?

Burn in a lake of napalm!

Again another well reasoned argument. I really don’t see the point of your posts if there is no logic in your argument. As it happens I’m more of a socialist than communist but that probably would not mean much to you.
Give me reasons, sound logical reasons in favour capital punishment not some raving nonesense like this.

The most logical reason to hang a murderer – especially a child murderer – is that there aren’t many reoffenders from executed murderers !!!!!

I would have thought there would be absolutelly no reoffenders from executed murderers. Assuming the the right person is executed. What if a jury gets it wrong. Do you think we could bring back the dead? What do we say to their family? ‘Oh we are very sorry but that’s life’? Innocent people have been murdered by the state in the past. Reintroducing capital punishment would ensure that it would happen again. I notice the ‘flog em hard, hang em high’ brigade always use the most emotive scenarios like ‘child murderer’. Like everyone else I am repulsed by these animals.
No the only solution is life in prison. The rest of the individuals natural life no days off for being a good boy.

@smiley wrote:

Not only should people who commit these crimes be hanged. But people defending their right to live should also be hanged, as they are just as evil. No, even more evil. As denying justice is even more torture for all the families & friends. Don’t you think they’ve suffered enough, you evil vicious commie b*stards?

Burn in a lake of napalm!

Again another well reasoned argument. I really don’t see the point of your posts if there is no logic in your argument. As it happens I’m more of a socialist than communist but that probably would not mean much to you.
Give me reasons, sound logical reasons in favour capital punishment not some raving nonesense like this.

@smiley wrote:

Rubbish. I was on different kind of medication too, and I lost 6 stone!

So all this “oh I was on medication.. So I can’t lose weight!” is a load of goat b0llocks.

Tut!

I used to be fat, but now I’m a human. So as a former heavy-goer myself, I know what’s b0llocks and what’s not. [-( People get fat because they eat or drink alcohol (not mutually exclusive) too much, too often and they can’t be ar*ed to exercise. I know, I was there! I’ve got the t-shirt, although it’s too big for me to wear now!

Hey, when you lose weight you also gain an inch. No, I wasn’t talking about your penis, I was talking about height – But yes, you also gain an inch there, too!

If you class yourself as human I want to leave the human race. I’ve just cancelled my subscription. Where the hell do you people get off criticising others. Aint the world bad enough? The Arabs hate the Jews, thin hates fat, cats hate dogs & everyone hates us smokers. Whats wrong with a little understanding & less condenming. So you lost weight, so what? Were you a lazy, over eating drunk?

For you fatties, stop going with stupid diets, they don’t work. All I did was cut sugar out of my diet, cut down on drinking alcohol, stopped eating snacks… Perhaps amphetamine helped a little, I don’t know, I’m not a scientist. But I wouldn’t recommend the latter to help an 8 year old lose weight.

But no longer am I a cast member in ‘Land of the Giants’

Still two people talking bo**ocks is still two people talking bo**ocks.
Dale Winton for PM.

@slayer wrote:

Unless LIFE imprisonment means exactly that- no parole, escorted walks in shopping centres, etc- LIFE means you are never, ever come out except in a box.

As long as you have “life” sentences with 4 year tariffs (ffs) then you will have a majority view which sees that justice is not done, that sees the guilty getting away with murder, that believes the debt to society hasnt been paid, that has no faith in the justice system and reverts back to its basic instinct.

Oh, and yes, we should hang him (if found guilty of course) from the highest tree

But you are not talking about justice youre talking about revenge. Killing people is killing people. Should there be capital punishment in this country & I was asked to judicially murder someone by finding them guilty I would not be able to find it in my conscience to allow that to happen.Even if they were guilty.
Furthermore the danger of judicially murdering innocent people is too great. The only answer is life in prison & I mean life. No parole, no time off for good behaviour. Just the rest of the individuals life.

Last night I had a dream,
That the world had turned around,
All our hopes had come to be,
All the people gathered round,
They all brought what they could bring,
And nobody went without,
And I learned a song to sing,
The revolution starts now.

Steve Earle

@smiley wrote:

Glad to see people are coming to my side of the spectrum. And for years the above people who are screaming my trademark call, were the ones defending scum I wanted to hang.

See. I’m right. Sooner people learn the better.

“Hang ’em, hang ’em, hang ’em high – Watch those f*cking b*stards die!”
-Combat 84. 8)

Well that’s a really well reasoned argument.

ubermik wrote:

Well whizzing through superficially the government is selectively representing the issue

They have moved away from pollution as the excuse to tax motorists and have started on cost and congestion

The premise itself is flawed as motorists tax is diverted so only a fraction is spent on roads and this has gone on for decades so rather than a burden to the tax payer motorists are keeping a wasteful one afloat

Congestion is being rapidly created NOT by the claimed increase in cars, but my hundreds of thousands of lost road miles all over the country to cycle lanes, bus lanes, crossings and other traffic obstacles reducing road size and stealing entire lanes in a road system that needed to be bolstered 30 years ago but wasnt

The financial angle they are presenting is the loss to business because of congestion,

1 this ONLY happens if a vehicle IS caught in it
2 where its an employee commuting most are docked pay or work late anyway
3 it could be avoided with flexhours schemes anyway
4 they conveniently avoid mentioning how much of that is due to road works for pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, cycle lanes, bus lanes etc etc etc

But introduce the charging system and business STILL gets hit financially, but then its every single business whether they are caught in traffic, run vehicles or not and those costs ripple onto any business they then deal with and eventually to the consumer

Social points

People dont now work and live all their life near where they were born

The social effects include but wouldnt be linked to

Added time commuting, which will curtail peoples social life, time and energy for parenting, for maintaining family bonds etc

Add 4 hours travelling instead of one hours drive to a 10 or 12 hour day and then see how good a parent that person will be

Single parents with several kids who are priced out of cars wont be able to cover a 15 minute drive to drop one child off at one activity and make it to pick another up elsewhere when it entails a one hour commute for the same thing

Family weekend trips for people on low wages will become as much a luxury as a holiday is when just the road tax alone is a hundred quid to go to the seaside

Every item we buy will be affected by increases in transportation and increased wages that would need to be paid, which again ripples down

Many low paid jobs have non reasonable hours, and the public transport system doesnt accomodate safety or ease of travel past peak times

The stregnth of family is already falling apart, but as more people move hundreds of miles for work this will be stretched even further

And then theres tourism, day activities like alton towers, commuting as part of a social life and people being able to date long distance, all of which will be negatively effected

These are just specific and isolated examples, but each represents a whole section of social things that will be impacted on by a road toll

And all this on the back of the fraud of taking tax from motorists under the guise of it being for the cost of the roads and then diverting most of it eslewhere

if the money had been ringfenced to begin with we would have the best motorway system in the world and billions still in the bank unspent

All you have said reinforces my opinion about the automobile. Each point sounds like an excuse to build more roads. Maybe a more logical approach would be to house people nearer to their workplace. Stop doting parents driving children 400 m to school.
There is a need for cars they do serve a purpose but it seems at the moment that the car is the most important thing in some individuals lives.
It amy be obvious but I don’t drive & have not driven for 10 years. I manage to get around the country without too much bother & never get caught in traffic jams. Try public transport it’s not as bad as you may think. Who knows you may get to like it.

[Author]

Posts