politics and issues

[bombfrog]

I actually said that providing two sides to every argument is the best way to go with it, however I asked for examples of how a right-wing political agenda would fit into the causes promoted at Glastonbury, as I am unsure how they would work.

[William of Walworth]

Look, I never said there shouldn't be a leftfield tent, I'm perfectly aware of Glastonbury's history and I wouldn't dream of trying to tell others what they should do or what they should believe.

Equally, I should be allowed to find the lefty rantings annoying and express an opinion of why I've always avoided the place.

Edited March 18, 2009 by William of Walworth

[micawber]

I didn't say he did ask for a right-field...some people need to open their eyes a wee bit more in more ways than one....OOH sorry is that a bit too sarcastic for your taste squire?

I actually said that providing two sides to every argument is the best way to go with it, however I asked for examples of how a right-wing political agenda would fit into the causes promoted at Glastonbury, as I am unsure how they would work.

We lie in a world where right-wing political agendas are championed and internalised by the majority of society, where is the problem with concentrating on a few issues which are primarily sympathised with by left-wing political values?

I love how the first thing you and bombfrog have commented upon in each post is to do with my communication of beliefs now there is a killer political comeback technique! I feel like I'm on Question time

[bombfrog]

I don't align myself with any party. I've voted for different parties at different times depending on which I thought represented a greater number of my views. Listening to these arguments, it sounds as if people believe that one party could ever represent all their views, or be able to implement a certain form of government that they preferred. Unfortunately, we all have to compromise or not vote at all, and I believe that the former is the lesser evil.

[bombfrog]

by 'balancing' every left campaign/speech/tent with a more right focussed/'apolitical' one, then you end up with the risk of diluting the political side of the festival altogether.

[russycarps]

I think this is the crux of the problem here.

You are suggesting that you're either "Left Wing", "right wing", or "apolitical".

I'm definitely none of those things.

[beergut100]

I don't align myself with any party. I've voted for different parties at different times depending on which I thought represented a greater number of my views. Listening to these arguments, it sounds as if people believe that one party could ever represent all their views, or be able to implement a certain form of government that they preferred. Unfortunately, we all have to compromise or not vote at all, and I believe that the former is the lesser evil.

[TomfromStroud]

Have you ever tried having a chat to an 18 year old about politics? They tend to be frighteningly ill informed and totally disinterested.

Edited March 18, 2009 by TomfromStroud

[bombfrog]

I am truly quite shocked, though, that anyone really believes in a nuclear deterrent.

[beergut100]

I think this is the crux of the problem here.

You are suggesting that you're either "Left Wing", "right wing", or "apolitical".

I'm definitely none of those things.

[po_lish]

I am 24 and do have an interest in politics and do think there are some very sweeping statements being posted on this thread. I also think that as the price for a ticket is now just shy of £200 then can you blame people for wanting to go and see bands and enjoy themselves for a few days.

[beergut100]

Well, it's worked pretty well since 1945

[russycarps]

Well, it's worked pretty well since 1945

[jameshunt]

Well, it's worked pretty well since 1945

I'd love to hear about this "system change" you advocate too. Perhaps you could give us all a run down of your grand plan?

[bombfrog]

yes because there's been world peace since 1945 huh

[russycarps]

In the sense that no country with nuclear weapons has gone to war with any other country that has nuclear weapons then, yes. It has a 100% success rate.

[bombfrog]

But if having one is necessary then someone really should have told that to Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg, The Czech Republic, most of Africa, etc. etc. etc.

[beergut100]

I'd love to hear about this "system change" you advocate too. Perhaps you could give us all a run down of your grand plan?

Edited March 18, 2009 by stevedevine

[TalkShow Bob]

so india and pakistan have never been to war?

christ mate, your ignorance is absolutely breathraking.

[mozzy]

so india and pakistan have never been to war?

christ mate, your ignorance is absolutely breathraking.

[jameshunt]

Most European countries are members of NATO so have military alliance with nuclear powers.

[beergut100]

And the UK isn't?

Fortunately we have at least £20b+ to waste on this dead end project though. Luckily the economy is so rosy that we don't have to spend that money elsewhere.......

[bombfrog]

so india and pakistan have never been to war?

[bombfrog]

I mean that the world is in crisis in all sorts of ways (environmental, economical, huge numbers starving, etc.) and this is largely down - I believe - to capitalism. I have no grand plan, I just believe that a tiny percentage of people getting massively powerful and wealthy at the expense of the billions of the planet's population living in poverty is wrong. Capitalism is the system; I believe it needs changing.

[russycarps]

In 1971, a full 27 years before both countries tested weaponized nuclear warheads.

Funnily enough, despite tensions over Kashmir (particularly in 2002), they have resisted going to war with each other again since they both acquired nukes.

LOL.

Right back at 'cha.