Hosham UKIP public meeting tonight in Horsham at 19:30

[brighton fella]

Brain cell hurting?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It ended badly for Lord Haw Haw.

Germany calling, Germany calling!

 

[Brightonfan1983]

UKIP deserve all the support they can get, a party who answers to its own constituents first and foremost rather than a party who answers to its whips in parliament first like others do.

You are joking right?

 

[Brightonfan1983]

"A black hole that sucks in the ignorant".

Sums them up for me.

 

[brighton fella]

"A black hole that sucks in the ignorant".

Sums them up for me.

wow what a statement
cleverly put together by some soppy green nut job.

 

[piersa]

I have to say, Hugh is a very unfortunate child.

 

[BadFish]

and you will continue to put your absolute trust in a bunch of scientists who have spent years researching studying experimenting the climate of this planet will you.. and you'd also put your trust in that they carried out this work as a completely independent body ??. I never had you down as naïve, I suppose you'll be telling me next that you'd put your upmost trust in the federal reserve and the fact that they wouldn't be so naughty as to print money out of thin air ?? they've all got their agenda's mate & it just a matter of which one you believe to be genuine or not
casting aside who and who not to believe I'd rather instead follow my own gut instinct.. and that is that climate change has always happened since day one of the creation of this planet.. and it will always continue to do so right until the destruction of this planet.
how do you think the ice age come about? surely you aren't about to tell me that that was mans doing aswell.

as for immigration the affect it will have upon this country will be verging catastrophic especially if nothing whatsoever gets done about it..& especially if it continues to grow at the rate it is doing so right now. . the pro's of keeping a lid on immigration will always outweigh the cons & the affect is so blatantly obvious that even a fool would recognise its disadvantages.

The area of science is one of the few areas where 'those with an agenda' have the ability to really influence the opinions of the community as a whole They can muddy the argument as those paid the tabacco companies managed to do (and those paid by the oil currently do). However if you look into the process that science uses to make, study and publish their findings you will see that it is a fairy robust model. If people took the time to investigate this model they would understand that the fact that there is so little opposition to man made climate change is a massive indicator that the findings of the scientific community are solid, robust and infact fact.

whether you accept this premise or not. You must surely agree that the scientific system of discovery that has served us so well for centuries is a preferable on to 'gut instinct'?



further reading

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

 

[JCL666]

Democracy at work eh??..... In your little mind, everyone can have their say, just as long as it lines up with your opinion....

 

[brighton fella]

The area of science is one of the few areas where 'those with an agenda' have the ability to really influence the opinions of the community as a whole They can muddy the argument as those paid the tabacco companies managed to do (and those paid by the oil currently do). However if you look into the process that science uses to make, study and publish their findings you will see that it is a fairy robust model. If people took the time to investigate this model they would understand that the fact that there is so little opposition to man made climate change is a massive indicator that the findings of the scientific community are solid, robust and infact fact.

whether you accept this premise or not. You must surely agree that the scientific system of discovery that has served us so well for centuries is a preferable on to 'gut instinct'?



I know for a fact that scientists have links to politicians so that is why I am very sceptical of any scientific information put forward.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

The area of science is one of the few areas where 'those with an agenda' have the ability to really influence the opinions of the community as a whole They can muddy the argument as those paid the tabacco companies managed to do (and those paid by the oil currently do). However if you look into the process that science uses to make, study and publish their findings you will see that it is a fairy robust model. If people took the time to investigate this model they would understand that the fact that there is so little opposition to man made climate change is a massive indicator that the findings of the scientific community are solid, robust and infact fact.

whether you accept this premise or not. You must surely agree that the scientific system of discovery that has served us so well for centuries is a preferable on to 'gut instinct'?



I know for a fact that scientists have links to politicians so that is why I am very sceptical of any scientific information put forward.

It's not all that robust when you factor in how funding is allocated. Climate science is no different in this regard.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Can everybody try to keep scientists out of a dumb argument about the pros and cons of being a small minded bigot? Thanks in advance.

 

[jcdenton08]

Once again, the "small minded bigot" libel comes into play by the UKIP-skeptics; a call to arms for the status quo. Can I ask you something; why are you - you, personally - keen to protect the likes of the Conservative and Labour party's interests by repeating their mantra? What have the main political parties ever done for you personally? The "small minded bigot" argument is exactly what you, yes - you personally, along with thousands of others have been conditioned to recite. But that argument only protects the interests of those already in power. We have a democracy so that people can vote; there is a strong, heavily funded and concerted campaign to discredit new, smaller political parties including, but not limited to, UKIP. Who stands to benefit from you making outrageous slurs like that? The status quo, which you are desperate to protect with your misplaced hatred of the democratic process.

Comments and alleged "beliefs" such as yours are exactly what you've been socially trained to repeat blindly. You are an unwitting tool of the establishment and you don't even realise it.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Once again, the "small minded bigot" libel comes into play by the UKIP-skeptics; a call to arms for the status quo. Can I ask you something; why are you - you, personally - keen to protect the likes of the Conservative and Labour party's interests by repeating their mantra? What have the main political parties ever done for you personally? The "small minded bigot" argument is exactly what you, yes - you personally, along with thousands of others have been conditioned to recite. But that argument only protects the interests of those already in power. We have a democracy so that people can vote; there is a strong, heavily funded and concerted campaign to discredit new, smaller political parties including, but not limited to, UKIP. Who stands to benefit from you making outrageous slurs like that? The status quo, which you are desperate to protect with your misplaced hatred of the democratic process.

Comments and alleged "beliefs" such as yours are exactly what you've been socially trained to repeat blindly. You are an unwitting tool of the establishment and you don't even realise it.

I'm not keen to protect the status quo nor do I think the mainstream parties serve us well but still see UKIP as the refuge of small minded bigots. Sorry.

 

[jcdenton08]

I'm not keen to protect the status quo nor do I think the mainstream parties serve us well but still see UKIP as the refuge of small minded bigots. Sorry.

I'm voting UKIP and I'm not a small minded bigot. Am I just a brilliant one-off, or in denial about my bigotry?

Also, taking "your perception" (read: hearsay) of the party out of the equation, how many more documented cases of "small minded bigotry" are associated with UKIP compared to, say, the Conservative party? The Tories certainly have their fair share of "small minded bigots".

If Lord Freud had been the incumbent UKIP Welfare Minister, coming out with such outrageously small minded bigotry about some disabled people being "worth £2 an hour", can you imagine the gnashing of teeth from all sides? How UKIP are "fascist bigots". Are all Tories now small minded bigots?

No, I'm afraid you're just another tool of "your betters", repeating the well-trodden political pathway bought and paid for by the establishment.

This country...

 

[El Presidente]

What have the main political parties ever done for you personally?

1: Allowed my parents to migrate here.
2: Provided me with a good education.
3: Provided me with a health service that kept my father alive for years.
4: Given me the opportunity to develop myself personally and professionally, with the freedom to express my views without fear or recrimination.
5: Gave me an environment in which I felt happy to raise a family.

 

[jcdenton08]

1: Allowed my parents to migrate here.
2: Provided me with a good education.
3: Provided me with a health service that kept my father alive for years.
4: Given me the opportunity to develop myself personally and professionally, with the freedom to express my views without fear or recrimination.
5: Gave me an environment in which I felt happy to raise a family.

The political parties didn't give you those things; our democratic system did. Which means two things; firstly, if the public decide to vote UKIP on one issue (immigration) - and there would be no UKIP witrout an immigration "problem" in the eyes of their core vote - then that is their democratic right. It does not make them racists, bigots or homophobes just because the extremes of the party may hold repellent views. There are far left "loonies" in Labour, "unwashed" Greens and fascist Tories. Political parties are made of people and I've seen nothing to suggest UKIP's people are any less quality than any other party. In fact, if UKIP had millions of pounds to spend on discrediting the other parties, I'm sure they could just as easily run a strong smear campaign in winnable constituencies as the big three.

I don't see that any of your points would be different under a UKIP government. Point 4 is particularly strange as it indicates fear by omission. I infer that you don't believe UKIP would offer the above basic freedoms?

Additionally, what is "good"? "Good" relative to the rest of Europe? Relative to the population/investment ratio? Good relative to tax/living wage to service value? Couldn't "good" be "better"? Do you know it wouldn't be "better than good" coming from outside the big three? We don't know because we have never tried and never will; because the political parties PAY to stay in power and have armies of footsoldiers indoctrinated into their "XYZ threat is bad because INSERT TABOO HERE". And why should they give up power voluntarily?!

 

[Nibble]

Sticking feathers up your arse does not make you a chicken.

 

[El Presidente]

I don't see that any of your points would be different under a UKIP government.

Well point 1 would have meant that my parents (I come from a line of bricklayers and farmers) would not have been allowed to migrate here, given that they met in England, I wouldn't be here, which makes all the other points somewhat redundant.

As for smear campaigns, that is the whole basis of the UKIP approach. There is a mature, genuine debate to be had on immigration, it's social, cultural, financial and economic costs and benefits. However when the leader of UKIP comes out with the Romanian neighbour comments, or complaints about foreign languages being used on the trains, it belittles, discredits and trivialises what is a serious issue.

In relation to other policies, I'm totally opposed to the legalisation of handguns, the banning of climate change classes in schools, reintroduction of smoking in pubs, two million redundancies in the public sector, doubling the defence budget and building new aircraft carriers.

However I do support their views on nuclear energy and free eye and dental health.

 

[piersa]

Well point 1 would have meant that my parents (I come from a line of bricklayers and farmers) would not have been allowed to migrate here, given that they met in England, I wouldn't be here, which makes all the other points somewhat redundant.

As for smear campaigns, that is the whole basis of the UKIP approach. There is a mature, genuine debate to be had on immigration, it's social, cultural, financial and economic costs and benefits. However when the leader of UKIP comes out with the Romanian neighbour comments, or complaints about foreign languages being used on the trains, it belittles, discredits and trivialises what is a serious issue.

In relation to other policies, I'm totally opposed to the legalisation of handguns, the banning of climate change classes in schools, reintroduction of smoking in pubs, two million redundancies in the public sector, doubling the defence budget and building new aircraft carriers.

However I do support their views on nuclear energy and free eye and dental health.

Have to say you have some good points. Farage can be a bit to generalist when trying to make points about certain aspects of some nationalities. Diversity is a good thing but not at any cost. As far as whether your parents would or would not be let in now. If we need farmers and brick layers at the time, your parents would be let in. If we didn't, they wouldn't. I have no problem with that. That is fair policy for any country imo.

 

[piersa]

I'm not keen to protect the status quo nor do I think the mainstream parties serve us well but still see UKIP as the refuge of small minded bigots. Sorry.

That's fine you have your opinion and you are allowed to be wrong.