[pp.int.general] Why Members left

[aloa5]

Hello Gagis,

really - you are a perfect example :).

""it is the most enviromentally friendly choice
*today.*""

So - "today" (important word here). Really - possible. Would you think 
solar energy from desert regions nearly as cheap then nuclear power with 
it´s risks could be an alternative later on? ( as something like 
www.desertec.org )

BTW: Greens are öko-socialists with the argument we have not to use more 
energy than could be made out of regenerative energy.

The Problem here for PP´s: Voters as you know (or not) that the time 
will come for such an decision. If they know - they will ask before: 
"what do YOU as PP want".

You, Gagis are here in a PP. Claiming to leave if the green "no NP at 
all" will get a point. And I say - the point for you at wich you have to 
face this will perhaps - or sure - come. Wake up on a morning reading a 
newspaper: "PP is voting against NP". And you will perhaps say: "this is 
not the party I am in" - and go.

(Most) *Voters* will not wait. The want to know before what they vote 
for. And even if not - to close the eyes and say "far..far in the past" 
is not a solution. The parameters for votings, the principles, the 
visions have to be clear before.

Without this you will every time on every voting face wishes like 
"anarchism please". And on you will not be able to resist every time. I 
set this as a fact. And without *visions* in non core issues you will 
have only short-termed issues/decisions wich have no common ground of 
compromises. A dictature of democracy of "the way" (to nowhere!) in the 
PP´s wich are green/left coloured (depending on the mainstream of the 
core issues).


Regards
ALOA


Gagis schrieb:
> 
>      > And you could be sure - this would not exclude but *inbclude* A)
>     and B).
>      > Only radicals of A) (greens) and B) (don´t know - libertarians?)
>     would
>      > be "excluded"... but they were never included (would anyway not
>     vote for
>      > the PP´s).
> 
>     The supporters of answer B are not libertarians, they are idiots.
> 
> 
> I can provide a clarifying example.
> 
> As a Physicist I believe in Nuclear power, and just like the founder of 
> Greenpeace does, think it is the most enviromentally friendly choice 
> today. I think greens should be adding more nuclear plants to get rid of 
> coal and oil.
> 
> I would dismiss your party as a joke and not vote for you upon reading 
> the point about nuclear power.
> 
> Votes lost, party weakened, moving on.
> 
> On the other hand, green people who think nuclear power sucks because 
> Tzhernobyl, coal sucks because CO2, Oil sucks because CO2, water power 
> sucks because rivers get ruined, solar power sucks because it ruins 
> fields and wind power sucks because it ruins views and kills birds and 
> so on would dismiss me for advocating any producing of energy in any way.
> 
> Votes lost again.
> 
> 
> -Jyri Hämäläinen, deputy member of the board of PPFI
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general