This is splendid almost beyond words.
Now go make your own!
Hat tip to John Farrier
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
The splendiferous Dave Cameron poster generator… heheheheMarch 9th, 2010 |
 25 comments to The splendiferous Dave Cameron poster generator… hehehehe |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Here’s some we prepared earlier:
http://www.westbournemouthukip.com/content/images/Dave_Blair.jpg
http://www.westbournemouthukip.com/content/images/posterTombstone.jpg
Our liberties were not casually eroded as some seem to think. Government did not grow of itself.
These things happened because over more than a century politicians favouring sectional interests worked and fought long and hard to make it so. To serve a sectional interest government needs to expand- without that it lacks the control to benefit its sponsors. Sometimes out of honest conviction, as the early Labour party, sometimes for self advancement as the present lot (who appear to have given up all belief and institute socialist type policies because they never learnt anything else).
Anyone who thinks this will all be reversed in one parliament is even more deluded than Woolfie Smith with his communist beliefs.
If we are to regain our liberties it will take a century of small steps, each hard won.
Now, does anyone believe that Mr. Brown, if elected will change his spots? At all? Or any of his potential successors?
Does a Cameron victory offer even a tiny hope for real improvement? I think it does. He can be counted on to redraw the constituency map which currently favours the Labour Party- and I believe that there will be more votes for Liberty outside of the Labour areas than within them, so in advancing his own cause Mr. Cameron will make an opening for others.
We can be absolutely sure Mr. Brown will leave constituency drift unaddressed, giving him or his successor a greater advantage four years hence.
Mr. Cameron has promised to have all government jobs advertised online to save money. Since this will effectively bankrupt the Guardian it will improve his position in the press (which is why I trust him to do it ) and simultaneously remove a statist organ from the fray- thus benefiting us. He may well want to rein in the BBC, that great statist monopoly, partly to save money and partly to give himself a more even playing field in the media. He’d do it to benefit himself of course- but again it would improve our position also. He has promised education vouchers and independent schools. I fear this may get watered down- but it offers hope of a future generation less homogeneously taught, which would again improve our position.
I have no doubt that a Cameron victory would advance the cause of liberty- even though it would certainly leave a lot to be done. If you accept this, then stop moaning about his imperfections and go for the best deal on the table. Otherwise I fear another five years of Brown- or maybe Balls- Mandleson anyone? A non vote would leave the victor convinced of your consent.
A Local, European or by election of course would be an entirely different matter- thats the place to persuade the electorate that there are enough lovers of liberty to be worth joining, and perhaps persuade the politicians which policies sell best.
I found this, and had great fun with it about a month ago (any anime geeks may appreciate my efforts
Pat,
If David Cameron redraws the constituencies, (you might find this interesting) cuts off The Guardian’s funding and “reins in” the BBC I will eat my biodegradable hat.
Then think again. A Cameron victory will be a victory for a political monoculture in which nothing really important changes and fundamentally we are still operating within NuLabour’s meta-context. Moreover a Cameron victory will be seen by the statist bastards in the Tory party as a vindication of the current tax-and-regulate welfare state ‘consensus’ (amongst the political class, that is).
No, Cameron and his supporters are part of the problem, not part of the solution. A Cameron victory will do very very little to advance the cause of liberty beyond a few very narrow issues… and in the long run will probably do more to damage liberty than more of the truly ghastly Brown by locking in centre left values.
I will never support a party that has that jackanapes as its leader as it indicates depth of the toxic intellectual rot that permeates that party that has no right to call itself ‘conservative’.
Roue le Jour:
You do realize that story is dated 2004, right?
Nothing will beat Obnoxio The Clown’s re-working of the Cameron poster.
Simultaneously cruel, hilarious and true it is not suitable for a family website.
But if you can find it in his blog archives,and you’re not easily offended,it’s worth the search.
@Perry
While I agree with you on the generally statist agenda of the modern Tory party, I’m also of the opinion that right now the most important thing to do is get the cow out of the ditch, to paraphrase Anne Mulcahy.
UKIP are not electable, not yet and perhaps not ever. Neither is any party which espouses my libertarian views. That is UKIP’s fault and the Libertarian Party’s fault. In the meantime and until they can communicate their views to the electorate, the party which holds views closest to mine and which is actually electable is the Tories. Stuffing around with ivory tower libertarianism is all very well but if Labour gets back in, it won’t be Labour party members I’ll be putting on my little list, it’ll be anyone who voted for UKIP.
Now is not the time for petty principle. Now is the time to be pragmatic, even if it means temporarily supporting a party we all know is just a different face. But this country needs to get Labour out; another five years of Brown will break Britain.
And don’t forget, there are some Tories who think like us. Some of them might even have the power to influence.
Pat
I’ve just posted this on Dan Hannan’s blog at the Telegraph. I could rewrite it as an answer to your comment, but the idea hasn’t changed and it is quicker to cut & paste (sorry there so much of it):
And folks like you are why. If people who think like you will not support a party that wants more of the things you want, of course they are not electable. You guys are the problem here, not me.
Ah yes, because being ‘pragmatic’ has given us Dave and therefore a realistic prospect of getting someone into office who might change the general thrust of labour policies… oh hang on…
Save time and just put me on your little list now then.
Why not? I mean given than your approach has give us an ‘opposition’ leader who might as well be called Tory Blair… Nice one, oh pragmatic friends of liberty! Well done!
Yes, that way we can have an election in which we get massive statism if that party wins and massive statism if the other party wins, because all you ‘pragmatic’ people will vote Tory regardless of what they actually plan to do, so why the hell should people like Cameron care what you think?
Because getting more or less the same policies from the Tories will make things better, yes? Er…
And when one of them is the leader of the party as opposed to this jackanapes, I will consider them worth voting for them…perhaps. But as of now, I do not reward people who loudly and consistently advocate diametrically opposed views to mine by voting for them, I am funny about that sort of thing.
another five years of Brown will break Britain.
I note that you didn’t make a projection of what will happen regarding “breaking” if “conservatives” are elected. Pragmatism only helps if one choice doesn’t lead to a collapse; when both do, what’s the point?
Mapping the same conundrum over to the US, voting Republican obviously makes very little difference. The only difference I could project is that the “breaking point” might be just a few years further down the road versus the Democrats. So what’s is the difference? Unless you’re just trying to place the break that will happen under either at a more favorable time, like later rather than sooner or vice versa, voting for one or the other is a waste of time.
My only pragmatic choice I had the last Presidential election was which candidate/party did I think was going to bring the collapse soonest. I am not getting any younger, and I thought it was best that if we were due for a collapse anyway, sooner was better, allowing me a little more time to try and rebuild some assets. Voting Republican would just stave off collapse a little while longer until I reached an age where I could do very little about rebuilding. But I just couldn’t vote for either, so I abstained.
Essentially, voting for Statists is voting for Statists, and the end result of which is collapse eventually as Statists have a habit of using Force to misallocate resources from their best use. Eventually the immutable laws of economics eventually come into play. Unless one or the other party has a real, timely plan to defuse the “misallocation timebombs” then they aren’t worth considering. As a libertarian/minarchist I think the only pragmatism you need to practice is to perhaps not worry so much right now about drug decriminalization and the like – we need to concentrate on economic issues primarily. And if neither labour nor tories (just like Dems and Repubs over here) are going to do anything tangible economically then there is nothing pragmatic about voting for one or the other.
Put another way, without economic liberty no other liberty is worth having (if you have no economic power, you cannot make individual choices of any kind). The biggest problem with Statists is they are collectivist, so choosing one over the other is not much of a choice.
Being pragmatic only helps when you have room to maneuver. We are just barely laying the track in time to stay ahead of our steaming locomotive. In the next half decade we won’t even be able to do that. The train wreck is coming. Perhaps it is so late that it doesn’t really matter what one does or who they support. And then it’s merely the pragmatics of survival.
Brad, I understand why someone would choose the “lesser evil” in voting for the US President; no one else has any possible chance of winning. But I do not understand why, if you feel that both are essentially interchangeable statists, you would simply “abstain”. At least vote for the Libertarian candidate (or some other minor party candidate, if that better fits your political preferences). Send a message. Abstaining merely because you dislike both the R and D is inexcusable.
Yeah, no doubt. And what will five years of Cameron doing mostly the same things do to Britain, eh? Please explain how THAT is a better fucking option!
Ted,
Yes, I do realise that story was dated 2004. That’s precisely my point. “Fixing” the size of Scottish constituencies is one of those political perennials that flowers every few years and then is quietly forgotten about. I remember Willie Whitelaw berated Margaret for not doing it when she had the chance. I confidently expect it not to be fixed in my lifetime.
I have been an active member of the Conservative party for 30year. The country faces a terrible crises – people who think the “worst is over” are going to have to eat their words over the next few years (even if Chinese and other Asian industrial expansion carries on).
And what leads my party.
David “we can have better public services” Cameron.
How did the nation come to this?
This dishonest, shifty man (remember the “iron clad” promise on letting the people vote on the “Treaty of Lisbon” – Cameron broke his word of honour without shame) – promising the Moon and stars to a nation where people are BEGGING for someone to tell them the hard truth.
Don’t vote, it only encourages them(Link)
Perry,
That is bloody hilarious and so true.
I’m with Laird on this one. Politicians interpret lack of input as acceptance. Merely abstaining means to them that you’re OK with how things are, so are not bothering to register an opinion.
If you don’t like the choices, choose something else and vote for it! Vote for a Libertarian, any Libertarian. Or hell, just write in Ludwig von Mises or something. But the last thing you should do is abstain. Let them see a vote registered as “no” for their column, regardless of what’s in the other column.
Folks – please try not to forget the folk in the US whose thought processes paralleled yours, and voted for Obama … because McCain was not pure enough a conservative …
Purity of principle is nice when the economy is robust and healthy – and that same purity can take a less-than-robust economy and flush it down the Sir Thomas …
Take a good long hard look at where the US economy is going even as we discuss this … do you *really* want the UK economy following into that downward and accelerating spiral, just so you can say the day of the election “I didn’t vote for Cameron because he isn’t a true conservative!” ?
In the US, we are realising that we would have been better with Jimmy Carter as President right now – and we *KNOW* how bad he was …
You can still see Obama stickers on cars – but they are vanishing faster and faster …
If you have the sense God gave geese, you will elect Cameron *this* time round, and then, IF he doesn’t work out, throw him out at the next election … you *know* what more years of Gordon Brown will do for and TO the UK …
And thank god they did. This means the USA actually has a chance to produce an opposition movement worth supporting and it has lead to the whole Tea Party movement. The only thing worse than Obama would have been the Republicans under John “I support the bailout” McCain doing pretty much the same thing.
Dear GOD man, this IS the ‘next time’… and so was the last time… how many times do you have to get it up the arse without lube to know that when you bend over this time you are just asking for more of the same?
Whats wrong with voting for UKIP folks? Sorry for repeating a comment from earlier, but in a parliamentary system you can force a coalition b/w Cons and UKIP. It might do better than the feckless Cameron Cons. So, let this American resident know, what is the problem?
You do not read this site much clearly. Several of us support UKIP with varying degrees of enthusiasm, but the lock the main parties have on the system is huge and there have been several attempts to destroy UKIP by bankrupting it.
Bashing the Tories and trying to make it clear that they are not a viable alternative, indeed not really an alternative at all, is a stand-alone position… voting for UKIP (or LPUK, who are a handful of very worthy men and a parrot at the moment) is another issue (which I think on balance is a very good idea).
Alasdair:
With the Electoral College system, a lot of us can easily vote our conscience, even if you don’t agree with Perry’s comments. Here in New York, there was no way Obama wasn’t winning, so whether or not I voted “pragmatically” (for McCain) or voted my conscience, the result was going to be the same.
Not that I’d vote for the Republicans; the last time one got elected Governor, his first priority was to implement a “tax cut” — that you had to apply for!
Perry – your recreational habits are your own … for the rest of us, that was probably TMI on your area of expertise …
With that said, the stirrings and rumblings which have led to the Tea Party movement started before Obama was elected …
The Pelosi/Reid Congress ‘inherited’ a budgetary situation wherein the Federal Budget Deficits were actually decreasing as a percentage of GDP year by year, and blew that out of the water …
Yes, Obama inherited a bad situation, along with the causative legislature most responsible for that bad situation, a causative legislature of which he, himself, had been a member …
With Obama as President, no-one is getting in the way of earmarks … if McCain had been President, there is good strong reason to believe that there would have been no more earmarks, at least as long as the economy was in trouble … without earmarks, it is a whole lot harder to ‘bribe’ Congresscritters … so no Louisiana Purchase II, no Cornhusker Kickback … need I go on ?
So far, I have experienced the Carter election, which many now admit to regretting having done … I have experienced the Clinton election (and he was saved by the 1994 election which threw out the Dems) … and most recently, the Obama election (and our planet is experiencing just how bad a move that was) …
The GOP are not saints by any means … they are just, on average, WAAAAAAYYYY miore trustworthy than the current Administraton and the current Congress …
In the US, the Tea Party movement is going to reform, refurbish, and revitalise the GOP … it has already started to do so …
If the same amount of energy was put into the Tories that is being put into trying to form the UKIP, the UK would *already* have the leaders it needed, and the current whingeing about Cameron would neither be needed nor would it be happening …
Actually it is anyone suggesting supporting Cameron ‘just this time’ who is clearly into getting it up the rear, mate.