It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ATS now seems to be a pro Anarchist board ??? what is that all about ...?????

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:28 AM
reply to post by lastrebel

I think we'd be safe taking them down along with the establishment. Fools

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by snoopyuk

This is a forum dedicated to the research of conspiracies and other crap. Don't be surprised that not everyone's complacent.

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by Whine Flu

There are 2 types of people in this world. Leaders and followers. And midgets, midgets are people too

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:51 AM

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Who are the anarchists?
The ones that purposely destabilize the world for profit, or the ones that want to destabilize the destabilizers for no profit?

Who are the anarchists?

Bravo! brilliantly said!

One man's anarchist is another man's equalizer!

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by lifeform11
where have you been living all this time, yes people vote for who they think best reflects their interest, however once in office they backtrack, it was all lies to get in, people then get angry and revolt, that is what you are seeing in london.

And if they backtrack, then it's their constituent's duty to correct them on this.

The government of any democratic country is entirely decided by the people; if the people fail to influence any subsequent policies, then they only have themselves to blame.

Please stop with this '' people getting angry and revolt'' nonsense. Do you actually realise what an absolutely tiny percentage of the UK's voting population, these demonstrators, let alone rioters, represent ?

We're talking about struggling to make 0.1% of the population.

These fascists causing trouble in London do not represent the feelings of the British voting public, which is why these arrogant clowns have been sent packing, with their tails between firmly their legs, and the democratically approved Bill to raise tuition fees has been passed in Parliament.

Originally posted by lifeform11
do people not have a right to fight for what they believe in and were promised?

Er... That's normally done at a General Election, which was held 6 months ago.

It's not the majority of voters' faults that there are some arrogant protesting twunts who want to force their outre views on to the majority of the population, who don't support their minority views.

Originally posted by lifeform11
by your logic, those who fought for womens rights were fascists, those who fought against poll tax were fascists, what you think is people should just accept anything the politicians say because somebody voted for them.

Those who fought for women's rights were campaigning at a time when half the population were deemed ineligible to vote because of an accident of birth. We have universal suffrage now, so your analogy is like apples and oranges. Not comparable.

Of course the poll tax demonstrators were fascists, and it was a shameful day in British society when a group of thugs was allowed to alter, or influence, any policy that was democratically elected by the people.

Thankfully, they just reintroduced a similar tax in later years, under the more cosy title of ''community charge''.

Originally posted by lifeform11
they get in on 30% of the vote for a start most of the time, that means lots of people did not vote for them.

No they don't get in on ''30% of the vote''.

Of course lots of people don't vote for them - how exactly so you intend to please a constituency were people are voting for a dozen candidates ?

Originally posted by lifeform11
regardless if politicians said that they were going to start abolishing peoples rights at work, what you are saying is people should accept it because that government was voted in, and anybody who is against it is a fascist.

As I've said countless times before ( or maybe it's just once or twice

At the General Election, you vote for the candidate who you think would best represent your views; if there's no candidate that represents your views, then you can stand for election yourself ( I think it's a £500 deposit ).

The person who gains the most votes in your constituency gets elected as your representative in Parliament.

This is simple, and perfectly fair ( although, I'd prefer a different voting system than the 'first past the post' system that we currently have, and I'll personally be voting for 'AV' in the referendum next year ).

Therefore, we can agree that the MPs in the Houses of Parliament are elected as the result of the people's vote.

Any Bills that an MP will subsequently vote on, should be voted upon with the consideration of the input that his constituents make surrounding the particular issue or policy... If MPs hear little feedback from their constituents, then they are well within their rights to vote according to what they think is best for their constituents

The majority of people in the UK don't even know who their MP is, let alone have they been down to the MP's surgery and discussed political or social issues with them.

Any 'undesirable' state that a democratic country may find themselves in, is entirely down to the ineffectuality, inertia, and ineptitude of the general populace.

Originally posted by lifeform11
sorry you have flawed logic. your logic is how facists get in, because nobody challenges them and let them do what they want.

No mate, there's no ''flawed logic'' in my arguments; in fact, my logic on this subject is demonstrably sound. If anyone can pick a hole in it, then they're welcome to try.

The fascists are those that don't abide by the democratic process, and want to force their minority leftfield ideologies on to the majority of citizens.

This fascist arrogance failed abysmally in London last week, and it will continue to fail in our great country; a country renowned for playing with a straight bat.

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by PFdiddy
If this is true. There needs be a change in the distribution of power. Otherwise boys, please do continue

I think you've missed the point.

A distribution of power will just change the same power from one group of people on to another.

It's not as if successful politicians and bankers are born ''evil'', it's just that people start acting more and more immorally when they have power and control.

Fine, overthrow the current set of despots if you wish, and elect another set of leaders. Don't come crying back to me when these new rulers exploit those that they are able to, for the 1000000th time in history.

As long as there are people who fail to understand human nature and society, there will always be idealists, and, more pertinently, anarchists.

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:33 PM

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Man.. the guy below you laid it out a little more correctly. The kids in London are fighting for something. They aren't failures.

They are complete and utter failures.

Everybody has shortcomings and failings, but successful people acknowledge, improve and correct these failings within their own characters, and become better people for it.

Failures tend to wallow in these shortcomings, blame everybody else for their under-achievements, and expect other people to bale them out for their inadequacies.

Successful people have self-responsibility.

Every single person who has ever adopted the victim mentality have never succeeded at anything in life.
Victimhood will surely be a self-perpetuating reality for the real-life fantasies of these weaklings.

Most of these rioters are just angry at 'society', because the people rioting are failures.
Rather than face up to the fact that it's their own shortfallings that are making themselves unhappy in life, it's so much easier to blame their ineptitudes on the mythical concept of ''the man''.

People who make comments along the lines of ''downtrodden masses'' make me sick !

Guess what ? I'm a component of this ''mass'' and I've never been downtrodden, so speak for yourselves.

In fact, I'm very grateful for the fact that I live in a country like the UK, where I've always had freedom and opportunity to do what I want, and where I took the highly successful option of never playing the victim card in my life.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 05:01 AM
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

just a couple of points:

1) as much as it is a TINY minority of people who are protesting, it is still far from a majority of eligible "voters" who actually voted

2) In very much the same sense that 50% of the population was not allowed a say in politics prior to the suffragist/suffragette movements, considering the length of time between the general public getting a say in our government, we still have a situation where the ideals of the voting population are not accurately represented in government - as you stated in one of your posts, a position of power tends to lead to a decline of ideals, and when the position of power is virtually assured for a considerable period of time, the elected MP becomes rather distinct from the man (or, more rarely, woman) actually sitting in the house of commons.
While I am saying that a shorter time in power would be ideal, the amount of time given over to paperwork (am I the only one who thinks that we have turned into a secondary Vogon race? Resistance is useless) means that no government could really acheive anything meaningful within their stay.

3) The current party, don't forget, has a majority because it represents a fusion between two of the three major parties - who always send out a vast amount of what I shall call propoganda (it swayed my choice) indicating that voting for anyone outside the top two or three is throwing your vote away. One way or another, most votes were to these three parties (but not in Brighton, where the Green Party candidate got in by... oh yes, having just over 30% while every else had just under. So 30% is all that's needed), and considering the ambiguous distribution of the votes between the three, any two of them - combining any two sets of policies - could have formed the majority. It just happens that lib-dems went with the conservatives. The one vote that really counted there was Nick Clegg's, and so I suppose the people of his constituency had a bit of a say, too.

I'm not saying that student fees should or should not have gone up, but I am saying that protests are very often the only way to ensure that "democracy" continues. Riots are a regrettable child of ignored protests - please note that the vast majority of protesters in the first (ignored) protest were not involved in any of the vandalism that was used as a reason to overlook their arguments. Also please note that students involved in said protests are not playing the victim - many of them were already at university when the bill was passed, and so their fees will (so far as I understand) stay the same. It is not for themselves, but for an upcoming generation of students, that they were protesting.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 06:40 AM
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

I think it would be reasonable to postulate that the vast majority of libdem voters wanted a left of center govt and do not support the direction, post election, that Clegg has taken the party they voted for and to varying degrees feel cheated, I would hazard a guess that the libdem vote will suffer a historic crash at the next election and the current street theatre will pile the pressure on the current soon to be gone libdem mp's.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 08:23 AM
WHEN your government treats you as if your a slave, lies, steels, cheats in your name then its gloves off-Thats the only way or change would have happened. Jesus our government hasent even funded schools yet and they been working on it for over 200 years. Wake up, its the only way. All the pussies lie down with a boo! Praise for all those with guts to bean anarchrist-
Somebody start a thread on [ HOW TO BE A ANARCHRIST ] Would love to here the ideas-rj

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in