Right...might as well get the old threads back up and get some discussion going.
This is for UK politics.
John McDonnell was good on Question Time last night, wasn't he?
Printable View
Right...might as well get the old threads back up and get some discussion going.
This is for UK politics.
John McDonnell was good on Question Time last night, wasn't he?
I found him a little annoying actually.
Less than Sandi though, why does absolutely everything have to resort to women's rights this and equality that.
Following Comrade Corbyn's storming leadership success I have become a fully paid up member of the Labour Party.
He was reasonable enough but benefitted from the Conservative's failure to put on one of their big guns against him. I have no idea why they failed to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I thought Alex Salmond was the best panellist, perfectly articulating the problems Labour might have with Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Interestingly, when I type "Jeremy" into Google UK, he is ahead of both Jeremy Clarkson and Jeremy Kyle in the listings. He is obviously attracting a lot of interest.
I too thought McDonnell was good, surprisingly so.
I've flipped on this over the last couple of/three weeks, in that I think Corbyn might do ok now vs. the expectations.
David Cameron fucked a pig.
Seriously though, look up #piggate on Twitter.
I thought he got away with what he really thinks by apologising for it.
Says a lot about his background and how removed it is from reality in my view.Quote:
The book, co-written by the journalist Isabel Oakeshott, alleges that Cameron knew in 2009 that Ashcroft had non-dom tax status. When a row about this blew up just before the 2010 election, the prime minister claimed only to have been aware about it for a month.
The biography also makes claims about Cameron’s alleged exploits at university, saying an MP had seen photographic evidence that he put a private part of his body into a dead pig’s head as part of a dining club initiation ritual.
A friend from university also said Cameron smoked cannabis with him occasionally while listening to Supertramp as part of a group called the Flam Club.
Also lol pigs.
Smoking cannabis while listening to Supertramp :cool:
I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
I don't think these Cameron revelations will have too much impact on the Conservative's popularity. Even if Cameron is completely discredited, he is not standing as their leader at the next election anyway.
He's not going to be discredited. The Bullingdon club stuff already marks him down as a piece of shit and not relatable to 90% of the electorate but clearly the wider public aren't that bothered.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSAFC
It's not like it's particularly new. You'd hardly have been surprised by revelations he indulged in a game of soggy biscuit. The stuff we know about George Osborne is seedier anyway and nobody seems to care about that.
Stop trying to ruin this. He had his dick in a dead pig's mouth. Just load up Twitter and enjoy it, for fuck's sake.
Personally leaving your wife for Dianne Abbott ranks up there with commissioning concentration camps.
It's definitely funny and pretty embarrassing for him, I just don't think there will be many political implications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Tobes, I can't help but notice you've been a miserable fucker since the move.
Since the move? :harold:Quote:
Originally Posted by SvN
He really has.
I'm not even implying there will be political implications. He fucked a dead pig in the mouth. It's been reported everywhere too. He'll be going to meet other international leaders and they'll know he's had his dick in a dead pig's head. It's the best thing ever.
At least it wasn't in a dead kid's ass. You've got to mark him up for that.
You all think I'm a miserable fucker all the time. In this case I thought it so fucking obvious that it was funny that I just responded to five_time and Martin's conversation rather than adding a redundant grindot.
Basically, fuck the lot of you.
Meltdown. :drool:
I don't actually think you're miserable all the time but you have been since we moved over here.
The first TTH.co.uk seeth :drool:
This place is bloody brilliant, if you genuinely think I'm miserable you're misjudging my tone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Maybe you're misjudging your own tone since everyone seems to think so.
[nerd voice]"Let's stop being so cliquey, guys"[/nerd voice]
[nerd voice]"Actually, the prime minister having fucked a dead pig isn't going to have any political ramifications"[/nerd voice]
Shut up, poindexter.
No need for that, mate. phonics has done his best here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
I must do. I do find it amusing to be perceived in that way as I thought I'd been very positive about this place, barring my one half-joking thread the other night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Now you're just sounding upset that I didn't hold your hand and frolic around in laughter when you posted this story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
MAYBE I AM. STOP TRYING TO RUIN THIS.
https://soundcloud.com/theiainduncan...-david-cameron
That can have a :D
If only it was Sturgeon sucking off a bit of roadkill we'd see the e-Version of Stalingrad develop.
What a seethe. :drool:
David Cameron pig allegations could harm UK productivity - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-10511347.html
What George Osbourne stuff do we know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
He's a fucking weirdo so I'm not surprised regardless.
I would also be interested to know this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer
Also, I have just noticed Henry's new avatar.:D Awesome work, well done!:D
That he is/was a cokehead and spent time with a dominatrix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer
Perhaps 'seedier' is the wrong word, given sticking your cock in a dead animal is completely fucked up.
To be fair, none of this will seem seedy at all to Hammer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by 7om
If Carlsberg did scandals.
If Jeremy Corbyn had put his dick in a pigs mouth, it'd be headline news all over the media and he'd be getting hammered.
Also, Frankie, with the nail on the head again: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...oyle?CMP=fb_gu
He had an affair with Dianne Abbott...Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
'Say what you want about the Bullingdon Club, but when they wrecked something they left enough money behind to fix it. Labour on the other hand...'
He could have had ten years of success out of that joke, yet I'm the one without a job.
I thought he might be into getting the shit kicked out of him. He's got a certain anxiety about him which suggested to me he'd be the sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSAFC
Depends on how he went about it really. For some reason I find paying for it under the cover of darkness a lot more seedy than just meeting someone and exploring it with them for the fun of it.
I want a book full of all these stories covering all Prime Ministers, to be honest. John Major probably strangled a horse and the wore it home just for the fun of it.
Test
edit: Lads, I'm getting a bit good at this. I just edited a piece of javascript ffs.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/...n-tax-receipts
Deficit rises steeply. Bullshit economics is bullshit. Quelle fucking surprise.
How is a surprise fall in income tax receipts evidence of 'bullshit economics'?
Osbourne's policies are supposed to reduce the deficit. He's made predictions to that effect. Not for the first time the predictions are way off, because cuts depress economic activity and therefore lower the tax take (like so).
If the Office For National Statistics is saying the main culprit is the drop in corporation tax than that implies the whole 'tax private business less and they'll spend more' wank doesn't really work, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
Spending is up for fuck's sake. There are no cuts.
It's the tax take for just one month and there's a quote from an economist (who I don't think is connected with the government) saying that she expects that to be recovered in the next few months.
@ Phonics.Quote:
That said, we would not read too much into one set of figures, given that the trend had previously improving for several months. Indeed, we expect growth of tax receipts to recover quickly given that the recent strength of the economic recovery should be feeding through
Judging by the state of the M1 the excess has all gone on roadworks, cones and those fucking awful overhanging yellow average speed cameras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I wasn't actively getting involved in the argument. Just explaining where I figured Henry was coming from. I barely even skimmed the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
Well I asked the question because I had read the link and had clocked that quote, which isn't consistent with Henry's reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
I was seething all the way down the M1 yesterday. To say the professional Northerners are always moaning about being cut off by shitty rail links you don't hear much about that disgrace.
@Jimmy Floyd - Government spending can rise even if there are cuts. If more people are unemployed for example.
@Yevrah - She did not say that it would be recovered. She said that borrowing will be reduced but at a much slower rate than it was supposed to be.
Or if you're servicing a honking great debt.
She said exactly that you pinko mentalist, I even quoted her saying it for fuck's sake.
Wrong. You're only reading the parts that you want to read, and interpreting them to say something other than what they do.
My bolding.Quote:
Vicky Redwood, chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said the government was still on track to reduce its anual borrowing, but at a much slower pacer than previously forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
“Borrowing in the first five months of the fiscal year so far is still below where it was at the same point a year ago. But on the face of it, this leaves borrowing for 2015-16 as a whole set to undershoot last year’s borrowing total of £90bn by only £10bn or so, rather than the £20bn drop that the OBR forecast in its July’s budget.
“That said, we would not read too much into one set of figures, given that the trend had previously improving for several months. Indeed, we expect growth of tax receipts to recover quickly given that the recent strength of the economic recovery should be feeding through,” she added.
Growth of tax reciepts will recover. i.e. they'll start growing again.
The rate at which taxes are growing/the deficit is being cut will not. The deficit will be cut "at a much slower pace".
If your take on what she's saying is correct, why has she prefaced her third paragraph with "we would not read too much into one set of figures"? Doesn't sound like she's written off the whole approach to me.
And there's a world of difference between getting a forecast wrong and your whole plan being built on bullshit economics.
Gideon has constantly made it difficult for himself with bollocks forecasts, although I seem to remember the last Labour budgets in 2009/10 assuming four per cent growth until the end of time (and moan about cutting all you like, Europe would have shit that out). What matters is that he's kicked great big holes in the state whilst doing so, and we should all rejoice at that news.
Not reading too much into one result is a standard disclaimer. This however is happening repeatedly with Osbourne's forecasts.
See here for the IMF take.
And here's the long-term trend.
https://thenextrecession.files.wordp...12/osborne.png
I mean, for fuck sake. Why is anyone still believing this shit?
Didn't he end up revising those plans more recently to say that we were doing better than previously expected? It's surely the nature of five year economic plans, which never work out anywhere ever.
Aren't economic forecasts always complete bollocks? Pretty sure Browm was being slagged in the same way when he was Chancellor. I like a good opportunity to slag off Tories but this doesn't seem like one to me.
Forecast figures are always wrong. Always. Because they're forecasts, and therefore based on assumptions. This means that actual outputs are likely to be different. In five years, I have never looked at aa forecast v actual and found it to be right.
It's fucking daft to have a go on this, unless it's obviously lol e.g. the SNP oil income figures.
Forecasts are not an exact science but usually it's up and down. For the policies to be consistently delivering much worse results than expected causing the long-term plan to need continual revision says that something is terribly wrong.
But let's keep going with it anyway. Because benefit cheats!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
I'm inclined to agree with @Henry here. Forecasts are invariably wrong but they shouldn't be wrong by such massive amounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
It happens with every forecast ever. Forecasts at this level affect markets, thus investment opportunity. If the assumption(s) used can be justified, then it'll present a more positive picture. It's a forecast, for fuck sake.
Is that graph also taking a five year forecast from 2010 and still putting the actuals against the originals, despite the fact it will have been updated five times since it was originally produced?
If so, after getting the first year wrong there wasn't a hope in hell that the following years would fall in line to that original forecast.
Every forecast ever is not an absurd exercise in wishful thinking. If they were then markets would hardly pay attention, would they?
Imagine if Cooper and Co. had stepped down fo Burnham only to get smashed anyway :DQuote:
Mandelson’s response comes as a Guardian account of the Labour leadership contest – to be published online on Friday morning – discloses:• Supporters of Liz Kendall tried to arrange for her and then shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper to stand aside to give shadow health secretary Andy Burnham a clear run when it became apparent support for Corbyn was surging
• Cooper warned interim leader Harriet Harman that her decision not to oppose the welfare bill was handing Jeremy Corbyn victory and she threatened to quit the shadow cabinet if Harman refused to let Labour MPs vote against the welfare bill
• Supporters of Burnham believe he could have won the contest if he had quit the shadow cabinet over the welfare issue and say the episode was the turning point in his defeat.
• The Kendall team commissioned private YouGov polling as early as late June which showed the party membership opposed austerity and further spending cuts, making the Kendall team realise they were out of the running.
• Labour officials discovered nearly 20% of those joining the party as £3 registered supporters had no record of previously voting Labour.
• Corbyn himself had doubts about whether he would be a successful party leader and his team expected to secure only 20% of the vote at the outset.
Why do you keep posting in a different font?
It's copy pasting the formatting from other websites and I don't know what button it is to undo it.
edit: Found it, it's the red X on the left.
So Jeremy Corkikobyn is a 9/11 denying, conspiracy nutter. There's a surprise.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3mqt9xrLDQuote:
Jeremy Corbyn claimed the 9/11 attacks were 'manipulated' by the West so it could go to war in Afghanistan in an article he wrote 12 years ago, it has emerged today.
The Labour leader made the assertions in a number of written pieces where he criticised Tony Blair and George W Bush for using the September 11 attacks in New York to go to war.
He claims Osama bin Laden was made to look responsible to facilitate their aims and seemed to endorse conspiracy theories about a 'New World Order'.
In the 2003 piece for The Morning Star, he wrote: 'Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months, The Telegraph reports.
'After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
'This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.'
Prior to that, he wrote a series of articles which appear to have endorsed the conspiracy theory about the 'New World Order'.
The revelations come ahead of Mr Corbyn's first Labour conference as leader where a number of MPs are expected to state the party is unelectable under him.
Labour grandee Lord Mandelson has already warned MPs against making an early move to oust Jeremy Corbyn - but insisted the party could not win with the 66-year-old 'loser' in charge.
The former business secretary said the party had 'stuck two fingers up' at the country by choosing Mr Corbyn as leader but, in a leaked memo, he said Mr Corbyn couldn't be replaced until he had shown how unpopular he is at the polls.
The articles, including one for 'Labour Briefing' in 1991, Mr Corbyn wrote that the Gulf War was a 'curtain raiser' for the New World Order, stating at the rich and powerful and 'white and western' could maintain economic order with the 'free use of all the weapons'.
Furthermore, in Socialist Campaign Group News the same year, he wrote: 'The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.'
Mr Corbyn stormed to victory in the Labour leadership contest with 60 per cent of the vote, despite being unknown outside Westminster.
But the nation's first impression of the 66-year-old is far from positive in an IpsosMORI poll.
Mr Corbyn was on minus 3 per cent, with 33 per cent satisfied with the way he is doing his job and 36 per cent dissatisfied.
Corbyn is always going to sink himself because he has written and said so much shit that he can't deny.
You can moderate your views and principles all you want, but when there's a body of evidence showing you're a nutter (relatively speaking) then there's not much you can do.
One suspects "the left" will reject the hard lesson they're going to get from this experience.
He's going to let members and supporters decide policy. :wedge:
What's the longest period a consecutive government has had in power? I suspect that particular record is going to be demolished.
'Jeremy' has never had to take responsibility for anything, and he seemingly never wants to.
Is he on the ropes?
Sounds like a right nutter.
Also, I note that Labour have signed up to the Tory 'financial charter' requiring budget surpluses by the end of this parliament.
That'll go down well.
The Whigs were in power for 40+ years at one point, although in those days parties weren't really the same as they are now, as there wasn't ideology so much, and also the voting franchise was about four people, all of whom owned a county. If my very shit knowledge of the period is right, everyone who was anyone went over to the Whigs because everyone hated the Tories for bankrupting us at the start of the Seven Years' War.
In these times 13 years is the longest there has been. EDIT: What am I saying, 17 between '79 and '97.
I actually think it's the Thatcher / Major stint. 1979 - 1997. Aye, Jimmy's got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic
I'd like to see the actual articles rather than Daily Mail propaganda, which is suspiciously free from actual quotes, and uses terms such as "seemed to".
I saw the various TV interviews 'Corbs' did over the weekend and he was loving every minute of it. He's not going to divert from his principles and the media are having a hard time coming to terms with that.
Fucking idiocy. That's about the worst thing they could do.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
My parents have switched from The Times to The Telegraph that has made very entertaining weekend reading on Corbyn. The formula seems to be 'Headline that makes Corbyn sound like a nutter' then 6 paragraphs of their reading of a 10 word quote that's buried somewhere in paragraph 8 that seems to largely make sense. It's properly, properly pants shitting stuff. What a terrible newspaper.
It's terrible now isn't it?
Labour said they will 'live within our means', but they still intend to make up any shortfalls with imaginary tax gaps and by rinsing whole sectors of the economy to death, so they haven't really signed up to Gideon's scheme (well, they have in reality, since their revenue streams don't exist; but they're still arguing against it for now).
Even if the content doesn't bother you the layout is fucked. Every newspaper is about 4 sections. It was okay when you had Businness and Sport in one as you got used to it but you've got Motoring in a spread between the News and Gardening. It's impossible to find anything apart from endless advertorial magazines. Load of shit. I complained but apparently the Times is too expensive these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
The Times is even worse. They are all fucked because they're a) not economically viable and b) run by mental sharks.
I think I heard The Times makes a profit now with it's paywall/Russia+China paying them for advertising.
The website used to have the best blog section going. Now it's like a cross between Breitbart and a lifestyle guide for rich women.
The highlight is when a 16 page pullout about 'Amazing Azerbaijan' or the like drops onto the table.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQDkIJHWoAAjwa-.png
Won't apologise for slavery because 'it happened ages ago'
Wants country to do trade deal with Britain over China because 'we used to own you ages ago, remember?'
Doesn't seem the strongest game of diplomacy I've ever heard.
That seems a very fair and balanced conclusion you've come to.
Why can a UK Prime Minister not visit a black majority country without it being demanded that he apologise for what people got up to in the 16th-18th century? And why is he not asked to apologise for the Corn Laws and workhouses?
Even if he did apologise, he'd just be asked about it again on the following visit.
I'd also like a pm when the Arabs are asked to apologise for their even bigger slave trade in the past. Cheers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W69poTlZ_fk
What do we read into this?
:)Quote:
Ipsos MORI has done a Twitter sentiment analysis of tweets about Jeremy Corbyn’s speech. They looked at 41,000 tweets and classified almost 20,000 of them as positive or negative. Some 76% were positive. By comparison, when Ed Miliband gave his last conference speech as leader in 2014, only 24% were positive.
The establishment and media can try to fuck him up however they like; but the public already don't trust those. His message may just get through.
You sound like a UKIP supporter now, Henners. Welcome aboard!
Twitter, mate.
Noisy minority. The electorate can see right through him, it's only students and older hippies that favourite that.
'The left wing mob' as Peter Hitchens rightly describes Twitter.
That's good but the people who decide elections probably aren't the people on Twitter during his conference speech. They probably didn't even watch his conference speech.
This is great:
https://vine.co/v/eQ7UZEwt9gT
Twitters about as centrist as you can get. There's nutters of all shapes and sizes; Skinheads, Communists, Socialists, UKIPpers, Corbynites, Zionists, Anti Zionists, Misogynists, Meninists, Evangelists, Puritans, ISIS and any other nutter shaped hole there is in the world. It's why it's so great.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It isn't, support on Twitter pretty much guarantees failure in whatever ballot its discussing. Whether there's a mixture of everybody or not, these analyses always show a huge bias towards the left-leaning options.
Some might be aware that my local MP, Alistair Carmichael, has had a court case lodged against him due to comments he made in the run up to the General Election (denying knowledge of the leaked memo regarding Sturgeon's supposed comments about a preferring a Tory government). Anyway, to the surprise of many following it, the case hasn't been chucked out at the first hurdle and Carmichael will now have to give evidence.
Toggle Spoiler
It's probably thoroughly dull to others but it does seem like the case has some wider implications, as its really the first time the Representation of the People Act has been interpreted in this way. The spoilered bit is a good summary of what has gone on from here: http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot....-evidence.html
If they backdated that 650 times we'd have a pleasantly empty House of Commons.
So a lot of people are still saying and have been saying all along. I don't think it's really the case though, as there's still a few hurdles for the petitioners to overcome before anything would actually come of this.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/sco...probe-1.902733
They're falling apart. :drool:
On this point, polling on opposition leaders started in 1955.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Corbyn is, by some distance, the most unpopular opposition leader in their first few weeks in office since polling began, with a -8 rating:
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/201...ry-of-polling/
The nuclear issue is bizarre, in one way. You can't have a party with an official defence policy that is pro-Trident, and a leader (the only one in the proposed 'alternative government' who would exercise the royal prerogative and thus be able to press the button) saying he'll never press the button under any circumstances. The Tory attacks are going to stick, and he's going to sink. If he can't even get traction in the first few weeks when a new leader would generally get the benefit of the doubt then he has nowhere really to go. He's certainly never going to recover enough ground to be remotely competitive in 2020. If anything, it's just going to alienate more potential Labour voters who think the party have lost the plot.
The longer the lefties believe their own hype, the better. If this Labour regime gets all the way through to an actual general election there will be a complete bloodbath.
This is a good article by Aditya Chalrabortty - Corbyn must slay the zombie ideas that blight our economy.
I think he's probably my favourite journalist/commentator.
I saw Seamus Milne telling us not to write him off the other day. It's over.
It would be fine if otherwise sensible people weren't using fucking Twitter mentions, of all things, as evidence that "the message is getting through".
Most people just want to be left alone to get on with things.
David Cameron: 'We've lost a huge figure of post-war politics. A hero in World War Two as Beach Master at Anzio and a brave politician, Denis Healey told his party hard truths about Britain having to live within her means'.
Have a day off mate.
Is your implication that this is what the Tories are doing? If so, big LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by GS
Let me consult recent Twitter trends and get back to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Twitter is left leaning, but not by as much as some think. What makes it a lousy predictor is that it's an echo chamber - because you curate your own feed, it's unlikely most people have any idea what people who disagree with them are saying, apart from the subset of deliberate trolls.
That Robert Peston clip on HIGNFY on Friday night was gold.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
Yeah.
There are a load of protestors at Tory conference spitting at journalists and holding up banners like 'Get the Tories Out'.
Didn't we just have an election?
The lad who gobbed at the journalist will end up being from some right posh family. The Mail will be working on the story as we speak.
At least he didn't fuck a dead pig.
If these wasters spent as much time and effort building a career as they do being hoodlums they might have a bit less to moan about.
Maybe they don't think living to work is a very good idea.
Clearly they don't think that.
EDIT: Oops, that should have read don't.
What?
Speaking of careers:
Half of all teachers in England threaten to quit as morale crashes
http://gu.com/p/4dxkt?CMP=Share_Andr...y_to_clipboard
Nice one, tories.
You do realise that democracy isn't just something that happens every five years, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy
How do they propose to 'Get the Tories Out', then?
There should be a mechanism in place for teachers to take control of (or even start their own) schools and run them more according to their ideas. Some sort of 'Free Schools' programme or something like that.
If they actually work like that why do teachers hate them so much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Because they're lazy communist whingers.
One unsubstantiated, uncorroborated story in a book which is, at best, a hatchet job by someone with an axe to grind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
If anything, the Ashcroft book has made Cameron look quite sensible in that it's demonstrated he was quite right to deprive him of any meaningful office post-2010 because he's clearly not fit for it.
It's not, but they won a democratic election. What do they propose to do, exactly? Orchestrate a coup? Let's check Twitter and see what they think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Quite. That and a load of centralised nonsense like continuous inspections, paperwork, examinations, testing and so forth create an atmosphere where kids are taught to the test rather than fostering a genuine spirit of education. Academies with flexibility over curricula are a step forward on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
We should re-introduce academic selection and proper grammar schools as well.
I went to a posh(ish) school and even there all the teachers were unreconstructed Marxists. It's part of the psyche. The job is fundamentally about telling people what to do, which suits a left wing perspective.
It's hard to know in which direction you would start windmilling here. The state of those Young Conservatives.
It seems you have to be a bit of a bellend to actively identify with one party or another, especially outside an election cycle. It's not a football team.
It's hard to find a scenario where a group of people could come off worse than Young Tories, but those unwashed, egg throwing morons have managed it.
I wouldn't waste your time. What lefties like Hennerz really love are dictators.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
Many lols were had.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
I've been warning of this left wing mob mentality for some time, in various forms.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Who thought it was a good idea to combat that lot by sending out a bunch of smug-faced gimps to stand there and look smug?
It was a great idea, actually. Those twats egging what are probably children makes them look like an even bigger bunch of cunts.
They're a bunch of wankers, but there's nothing weirder than a young conservative, and you'd think the Tories would want to keep that mob under wraps.
Someone find that 'Young, bright, and very right' documentary again.
I think anyone of that age who are members of a political party are cunts. Look at that fat SNP thing that got into parliament.
It's not realistic, but it conceivably could happen. They don't have dictatorial powers because they won an election, and it's still right to protest if you disagree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Are you a big fan of Corbyn, Henners?
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I was just wondering if you'd considered giving up your beloved Greens for the new Communist party?
It's a few years since I've been involved with the Greens. And I'm not a communist.
What put you off the Greens Henners?
Are you sure? Corbyn is, after all.
I'm not clear how you define that word. Corbyn is a democratic socialist, not a communist.
And Yevrah, I drifted away from the Greens after they went into coalition in Ireland. I still might vote for them depending on options/circumstances etc.
Well he has talked about having communist heroes and the like. It's certainly there within him at the very least.
There are "heroes" of all stripes. But who are you talking about, specifically?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Something in the back of my mind remembers an article where he said Marx a hero of his. From a while ago, mind.
This one?
Seems to be another example of the right-wing press taking a qualified, considered statement and turning it into a distorted soundbite. To deny the influence of Marx on politics and politicians of all types would be very ignorant indeed.
Are you ashamed to be linked to communism or something?
I have no links to communism. I am in opposition to communist ideals, methods and their outdated theories. You've been told.
Bye, Labour. It's been shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gideon Osborne
I will revisit this in time, I fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Gideon posturing for the leadership, interestingly.
Jeremy Hunt calling for American and Asian work practices, revealingly.
Does Harold think anyone who admires Marx is a communist?
It takes quite a lot for me to side with Len McCluskey over a Tory, but Jeremy Hunt has managed it there. We shouldn't be aspiring to be American or Chinese. Those are inferior countries and societies to our own.
Fucking Hunt. He's a massive wanker.
What was Osborne's speech like? When I saw the content reported my first thought was "well Labour are absolutely fucked" but it is being reported that his delivery was piss poor. Which isn't much good if he wants to be the next PM, which we all know he does.
There's usually a link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
:d
David Cameron apparently stands like that behind podiums. It's some weird stability thing (fitting).
I recently discovered a boy I went to school with is into politics and made a tit of himself on live TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davgooner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-live-TV.html
Theresa May has just made a pretty terrifying speech. Hateful cow.
Elaborate for those of us who missed it.
She went big on the anti-immigrant thing, though I don't know the details.
Boris, on the other hand, donned the whole year's worth of politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2jJQumLfg8
It's going to be amazing when he's PM.
Osborne v Boris is an intriguing battle. Osborne has total control of the party and now the government's internal machine, but Boris is far more appealing to voters.
In reality I'd want Gideon running things and Boris foreign sec.
She is correct but I scarcely believe she believes what she's saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
A better explanation of the awful cow's awfulness than I could give: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...lly-wrong.html
Her political career ended today.
She's saying what most people think (and is mostly true), so I don't think it will harm her at all.
I'm mot sure why the article is so quick to believe the evidence of the same person they claim can't be trusted.
Yes, and those taxes would be mostly down to the skilled immigrants who nobody is against (until we actually bother training our own people instead of making a point of not doing so and relying on immigration). The majority of immigrants are low-skilled and not needed. They're great for big business, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by shit article
If they weren't needed they wouldn't be here.
'She's just saying what everyone's thinking!'
:D
Do you have a full time job Hazza?
The majority, yes. What's funny about such a fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
What an utterly moronic statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Fraser Nelson
It's too crude a speech really. You can't just say 'immigration' wanks up cohesion. You need to be more specific about which immigrants. Unfortunately nobody wants to do that, which is why the Poles and that get a load of unearned grief. They aren't taking over schools.
You said yourself they're 'great for big business'. How much more would you be willing to pay for food (for example) if it meant British people farmed it on a 'good wage'?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I'd pay a bit more for a country with a sense of identity, certainly. Not that I accept your inference that big business would have to raise prices to pay people a proper wage (they would spend more, so what's the difference?). I'm more concerned about the social aspect anyway, not the economic, as I have made clear many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Would you? Because the public's in meltdown due to Tesco are asking 5p for a plastic bag. So I somehow doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
What does that have to do with what I personally think? The majority of the country is in favour of significantly less migration, so then you must be. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
So am I, but what is there to suggest that Eastern Europeans don't/won't integrate? There is nothing in their cultures that is inherently opposed to our 'values' in the way that Third World hang-overs suck shit in the developed world (or how people identify as Muslims and stick to that pish).Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Another victory for forced multiculturalism.Quote:
Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
I can't claim to be speaking as a 'man of the people' or know when people are 'just saying what everyone's thinking' like you, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I'm not as against eastern europeans as I am against the third world lot, but immigration at this level leads to separate communities. Poles still largely group together because there's so many of them here in such a short space of time. Immigration at pre-2000 levels of 30-50k a year should be what we return to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I never once mentioned 'what everyone is thinking'. If you're actually interested in what I said it's right hereQuote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Saying what the majority are thinking. And such claims are easily backed up by numerous polls which show this. Next?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
In that time they've also redefined 'rape' to incorporate various other forms of sexual assault that were previously considered lesser charges, and they also log individual acts of sexual assault (within the same reported 'case') separately.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
That's it, put the blinkers on. How about this little factoid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rapeQuote:
Since 2000, there has only been one research report on immigrant crime. It was done in 2006 by Ann-Christine Hjelm from Karlstads University.
It emerged that in 2002, 85% of those sentenced to at least two years in prison for rape in Svea Hovrätt, a court of appeals, were foreign born or second-generation immigrants.
A 1996 report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention reached the conclusion that immigrants from North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) were 23 times as likely to commit rape as Swedish men. The figures for men from Iraq, Bulgaria and Romania were, respectively, 20, 18 and 18. Men from the rest of Africa were 16 times more prone to commit rape; and men from Iran, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, 10 times as prone as Swedish men.
Quote:
How is it, then, that in 2008, Sweden's neighbor Denmark only had 7.3 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants compared to 53.2 in Sweden?
Danish legislation is not very different from Sweden's, and there is no obvious reason why Danish women should be less inclined to report rape than their Swedish counterparts.
In 2011, 6,509 rapes were reported to the Swedish police -- but only 392 in Denmark. The population of Denmark is about half the size of Sweden's, so even adjusted for size, the discrepancy is significant.
In Sweden, the authorities do what they can to conceal the origin of the rapists. In Denmark, the state's official statistical office, Statistics Denmark, revealed that in 2010 more than half of convicted rapists had an immigrant background.
More weird standing
I'm not putting any "blinkers" on, stop getting so defensive. I'm merely pointing out for anybody who finds those stats startling that there are additional factors beyond societal changes.
Oh, right. So you noticed the edited parts I put in? What 'factors' do you attribute to those other discrepancies?
*Checks Harold Source*
Nutty Sidebar
Picture of Britain First on the homepage
*Googles Gatestone Institute*
Ah, right.
What parts? Most of your latest post doesn't have much relevance to what I have said.
Yeah, but those Polish communities will integrate better through their kids than Third World people. The Chinese don the piss out of our education system and don't cause any aggro. Even the Nigerians are sound. Like the, there doesn't seem to be any obvious block on Eastern Europeans melting in over time in the way that literally shipping in entire villages from the crapper parts of Pakistan set us up for a ballache.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
So you're just going to bury your head because you don't want to know the truth? If you bothered to read the piece it gives sources for their information. They don't just make it up, you know. But then you're not interested in things you don't like to read/hear which happen to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
I don't have a problem with the Poles - they're fairly similar to us. But immigration, wherever it's from, has to be kept at a reasonable level. And that reasonable level is somewhere around what I suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
You know, the parts which directly state that the immigrants (especially the third world Muslim lot) are several times more likely to be rapists.
@ Tobes
And what is the relevance of that to me saying, "there are additional factors beyond societal changes"?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I can tell there's an argument you want to have here but maybe wait until the other side is actually put forward before you go steaming in to it.
It's fucking obvious. I made that statistic clear to show that more multiculturalism, more immigration, more rape. You tried to make it seem that other factors were at work, so I've given further evidence that my inference is backed up by even more direct evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
But other factors are at work.
Is this going to be one of those discussions where you need to have absolute basic logic spelled out to you?
It's a bit daft putting arbitrary caps in place. By all means make it harder to get in, but we should be hoovering up all the skilled people we can (even unskilled people for certain industries).Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I don't think we had arbitrary caps prior to the free movement of people. You don't need it anyway, you just have a points based system. That way the cries of BUT THE DOCTORS AND NURSES! carry no traction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Can you guess what the main factor is? Or are you another person in great fear of true things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
When the Home Secretary makes a speech that everyone else shits on but which Harold likes, you know she's gone off the reservation.
The main factor is the different way rape is logged, since a husband raping his wife every day for a year would be logged as 365 incidents rather than one case as it is almost everywhere else. If you have more than a vague and unsubstantiated claim that, "Danish legislation is not very different from Sweden's" it'll be an interesting contribution, but as things are that being the only difference accounts for a large part of those numbers (and there is absolutely no way those numbers would be so out of sync if they were recorded in the same way).Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
That's not to say there aren't societal factors, and it may be that rape cases are genuinely on the increase, but the statistical comparisons just aren't that helpful given these issues.
:happycry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Why ignore the real meat of that post, which is that immigrants or second generation immigrants are several times more likely to be convicted of rape (and subsequently the rape cases in Sweden exploding after they went for multiculturalism. Coincidence!)? That's not insignificant to anyone who doesn't deliberately choose to ignore it.Quote:
since a husband raping his wife every day for a year would be logged as 365 incidents rather than one case as it is almost everywhere else. If you have more than a vague and unsubstantiated claim that, "Danish legislation is not very different from Sweden's" it'll be an interesting contribution, but as things are that being the only difference accounts for a large part of those numbers (and there is absolutely no way those numbers would be so out of sync if they were recorded in the same way).
Dave's properly going for Jezza here. Says he hates Britain.
Oh dear. He was doing alright until going off on a tangent about racism and equality.
He didn't ask for equality for pig fuckers.
Harold did you see about the female activist raped at a refugee camped by Sudanese men multiple times was forced not to report it as it would 'damage the cause'. :harold:
This is more like it. Getting on those Muslim cunts now.
As it happens, I had a cracking article lined up about the double standards (and outright lies) of feminists just waiting for Tobes. But fuck it, let's all educate ourselves now:Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic
http://www.infowars.com/feminists-mu...eeping-europe/
The opening piece:
Quote:
After years of screaming bloody murder about a rape epidemic on college campuses in the United States that didn’t exist, feminists remain mute on the real rape epidemic sweeping Europe – that being perpetrated primarily by Muslim men.
Feminist groups have campaigned tirelessly to draw attention to their claim that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. This figure was completely debunked by a December 2014 U.S. Department of Justice report which found that non-students are 25% more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students.In fact, the actual rate of female college students becoming sexual assault victims is 6.1 per 1,000 students, compared to 7.6 per 1,000 people for non-students. That means that just 0.03-in-5 female students, not one in five, are victims of sexual assault.The myth of the college campus rape epidemic was prominently illustrated in November last year when it emerged that the Rolling Stone’s lurid University of Virginia gang-rape story was almost certainly fabricated. This was just one of numerous college rape scandals that turned out to be completely contrived. “The truth is that there’s no epidemic outbreak of college rape,” writes Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor. “In fact, rape on college campuses is — like rape everywhere else in America — plummeting in frequency. And that 1-in-5 college rape number you keep hearing in the press? It’s thoroughly bogus, too. (Even the authors of that study say that “We don’t think one in five is a nationally representative statistic,” because it sampled only two schools.)” While feminists are quick to condemn the ‘white male patriarchy’ for non-existent rape scandals in America, their attitude to actual rape epidemics being carried out by Muslim men across Europe has been noticeably more reserved.
I recommend reading the rest.
Lots of smiling, no doom and gloom, positive messages.
Compare that to the Corbyn's disastrous speech...:harold:
Fuck that, I'd hate that. 'Hi you're live on the BBC'
Stomach contents ejected. How do these guys look like it's all pre-rehearsed? Or am I just socially retarded?
Christ this dude has a Harry Potter scar.
EDIT: Christ :D Good to see some other young blokes make complete cunts of themselves.
EDIT 2: I feel unemployed. :(
There's something very wrong with people that young hanging around at party conferences.
Probably been groomed from a young age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
:henn0rz:
I haven't said those findings are insignificant, but attempts to suggest Sweden actually has significantly more incidents of rape than elsewhere just don't stand up to scrutiny. The demographic breakdown of who is doing the raping doesn't play in to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Again that post and your follow ups suggest you're looking for an argument that isn't being made. Your reading comprehension gets more tragic by the day.
What an odious cunt Cameron is.
Cameron with a land grab of epic proportions here. Labour have given him a free pass to take the whole of the centre ground and he's marched the troops in already.
This period of Tory rule will last a long, long time.
I was very much making the argument suggested in my very first post. Unless you were unable to deduce that my initial inference was that more immigration = more rape. I didn't make it that hard for even you to understand. But now that is crystal clear, perhaps you can address the uncomfortable truth? Or are you going to repeat your disingenuous self again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
But if they're in the centre is it really Tory rule at all?
:pards:
I'm going to keep using that until I figure out what it is.
They need to work on getting 'Big Ruth' a safe seat somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Peter Hitchens has it right - they are not really Conservatives any more.
It'll end in about 2065 when they try to put gays into workhouses or something, but until then I'm going to ride the wave.
We'll all be working for Korean companies with five years.
Peter Hitchens' definition of conservative is to conserve a particular day he had in 1956.
An often repeated jibe he swats away regularly. Back in the day he was a Marxist, lest you forget. That's why the left hate him - he knows how they think and can see through the bollocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
It looks that way but it wasn't so long ago people were writing the Tories off. Labour will bin Corbyn eventually and there's always the risk that the stories pick a shit leader after Cameron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
The Asian baldie and Johnson are their best options. Osborne is clever but plays badly with people and they could go properly mental and choose May. A new recession would mean all bets are off too. Four years is a long time.
Say what you like about Tories 1997-2005, but they never elected Peter Bone as leader. Labour have gone much, much further off the cliff than they ever did. Nobody in the south will ever vote Labour again, and it was those people who won Blair three elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
100% shameful lustage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
The domination. :drool:
He moans about social liberalism and laments the decline of Christianity as the centre of national life. His ex-Marxism just marks (arf) him out as somebody prone to believing crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It's interesting to see his fan club to be honest, because he would argue that his Christianity is the very center of his personal philosophy, which is pivotal to the rationale of every aspect of his worldview and political stances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Absolutely drowning in opinion on this speech but can't find anywhere to actually read it.
I'd like to know what centre ground Cameron has claimed. A lot of self-congratulatory noise and not much substance to that claim.
That's the centre ground isn't it?
And as I've said already, my initial post was never specifically to disagree with that premise, but to put forward the other factors for what are on the face of it some shocking numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
You were sparring for an argument and clearly leaped in to it before checking you'd actually understood what was happening, as you so often do.
He spent most of it talking about equality. He also SNUBBED Theresa May.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
He's just a load of hot air.
Whereas the left...
No he didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
It was a joke about a man saying the word fart. Don't be too precious. The Ukipper in you is showing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Apologies, my phone isn't showing whatever link there presumably is. You're normally the king of dfs in this thread.
The king of dfs?
You say 'moan', I say legitimately criticises. In his early years he would agree with you. I agree with him that most people tend to believe all manner of wrong things in their youth which most grow out of. What it does show is a willingness to change one's mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Yes, and one I disagree with him on. He's not right about everything, but he's right that modern Christian values are a damn sight better than the mongoloid ones we have incoming. Of course Christianity has been forced to adapt to secular reasoning over a long period.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Are you on the Metro mobile skin? It should show now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
By pointing out that there may have been other factors too you were trying to water it down at the very least. Otherwise why bother responding to it? But okay if your only point was that there may have been other factors which also made the rape cases rise, great! You can leave now. The main factor is pretty clear, which is backed up by swathes of other evidence both from within Sweden and elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
I say moans because in The Abolition of Britain he argues that we've hit the skids because the Church of England is no longer over-bearing and repressive and because we had the sexual revolution. Which bits of that 'conservatism' would you like to see return?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It's actually not changing his mind. It's the same morally certain collectivism. He's just found a slightly less stupid version of it. Christopher Hitchens was the same, but his Trotskyism (or rather anti-Stalinism as far as I understand it) was defined by its opposition to totalitarianism, which is how he seamlessly turned against religion.
Ah well that's your interpretation since I'm fairly sure he didn't ask for the church to repress or be overbearing upon anyone. He argues that the death penalty should be re-introduced and that drug use is punished instead of endlessly trying to 'rehabilitate' people who choose to do wrong things. Just look at the Conservatives today - rattling on about equality, sexism and racism. Not bad in itself, but not what one might expect a traditional Conservative party to be focusing on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
And yes, it is him changing his mind - something I've seen him say himself more than once.
As I've said, I pointed out purely because anybody reading it would have thought, "Christ, that's a sharp rise" and may have been interested to also read about some factors behind it. That you're an overly defensive pleb with a victim complex about this sort of thing is the only reason it has been dragged out further than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
He thinks the Church of England has become pointless because, by embracing social liberalism, it doesn't act how it used to when it used to (according to its followers at least) sit at the centre of a stifling collective morality. If I was having a pop at the other Hitchens you would be claiming that the Church of England is repressive in its very existence and its expected adherence to the 'celestial dictator'.
The modern Conservative Party rattles on about those things as a means of talking about the shifting nature of self-advancement; the thing they've defined themselves by for about eighty years now. Which 'traditional' things would you like to return? No abortion? No gayness? The old restrictions on selling alcohol? Less television (another thing Hitchens slags off)? No easy access to divorce?
I don't think either brother is right about everything, you know. The Church of England is the opposite of repressive, it's a nothingness. The only part of it I dislike a lot is that is has representatives in the Lords. Otherwise, who cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
lol at that tenuous link. You could say that about just about anything they say or do.Quote:
The modern Conservative Party rattles on about those things as a means of talking about the shifting nature of self-advancement; the thing they've defined themselves by for about eighty years now. Which 'traditional' things would you like to return? No abortion? No gayness? The old restrictions on selling alcohol? Less television (another thing Hitchens slags off)? No easy access to divorce?
Yes, it is a sharp rise, mostly explained by immigration and multiculturalism, as I keep pointing out. But you don't want that argument, because you know you can't explain away such obvious truths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Its 'nothingness' is why he doesn't like it. He wants it to be substantial, and to have a significant presence in people's lives; that is to say be repressive. I expect you would care then.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Not really. Equality of opportunity (tied in to sexism/racism) is pretty central to self-advancement. But whatever. Which bits of 'traditional' conservatism do you want to return?Quote:
lol at that tenuous link. You could say that about just about anything they say or do.
I think you're making tenuous links again. It doesn't follow that it being a more substantial factor in the lives of believers would make it more repressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Not really. Equality of opportunity (tied in to sexism/racism) is pretty central to self-advancement. But whatever. Which bits of 'traditional' conservatism do you want to return?[/QUOTE]
Who would be against equality of opportunity? I'm not a Conservative and I don't want Conservatism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
It isn't mostly explained by that, it is mostly explained by legislation changes in the mid-2000s and a attitude shift of revealing the scale of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It may be that there is an actual rise, rather than an apparent one due to this change, and it may be that that is caused by immigrants, but that isn't what your numbers show.
Well I've backed up my claim with further evidence, you haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJp8zxduWk
Nige letting rip today :thbup:
Has Harold actually read The Abolition of Britain, I wonder.
If the Church of England reverts back to having more and stricter rules for its followers to live by... Why is it you're against religion again?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
What are you then? Because you're always quoting his pronouncements on conservatism (and the Conservatives not being right-wing) approvingly, and you were agreeing with his balls about the sexual revolution a few weeks ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Are you so unspeakably stupid that you think immigrants being up to "23 times more likely" to commit rape has by itself led to an almost fifteen times increase in the overall number of rapes? How many immigrants do you think Sweden has?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I never said 'itself', you'll find.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
You don't have to be an immigrant to be a Muslim, of course. But I'm fairly sure facts such as these point in a very clear direction. If you aren't scared of the truth, that is.Quote:
Sweden: 77.6% of all rapes are committed by Muslim males, who total only 2% of population – Gov report
I'm against it being obviously false and people being stupid enough to believe it. I have on many occasions stated that some are worse/more dangerous than others, and the COE is never going to be on that list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I posted approvingly because he is correct about those things. I also said it's god that Labour have become more left wing, even though I think it's bollocks. I voted UKIP last time, but no party has my undying love since there will never be a party which speaks to me completely.Quote:
What are you then? Because you're always quoting his pronouncements on conservatism (and the Conservatives not being right-wing) approvingly, and you were agreeing with his balls about the sexual revolution a few weeks ago.
Maybe they were all wrongly convicted, like Ched Evans.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
You mocked me for saying it wasn't the key factor. You're being incredibly dense if you can't recognise that the change in the statistical method is the key reason for the "1457%" increase. I'll repeat again, since you're too stupid to take it as implied, that that doesn't mean it is the sole factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I will continue to mock you. Even were I to agree with you, it wouldn't change my overall point, which you are singularly unwilling to confront. And I know why that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
I have no reason to dispute it - I'm not sure why you think I would - I just wanted to point out the insignificance of your numbers and, since you chose to be a dick upon me doing so, subsequently mock your complete lack of logic.
Even if you were right, the number are not insignificant and immigration, particularly from Muslims, is a key reason. To deny this is to be burying your head in the sand and ignoring reality.
They are completely insignificant, because there are too many other, bigger factors for them to mean anything. If you'd led with the other stuff, fine, but you didn't and subsequently tried to argue when I pointed out the limitations of those figures. I've never once claimed that increased incidents of rape by immigrant men is not a factor. What it comes down to is you yet again not understanding what you're talking about.
So the evidence that Muslim immigrants causing sharp rises in rapes in other countries means nothing to you? You see, those of us without agendas can see clear evidence for what it is.
But something being false/stupid is only a problem if it convinces people to repress themselves and others. The Church of England won't do that, because it has embraced social liberalism; but Hitchens doesn't support the Church of England in its current state. He wants it to be 'worse' (as you put it).Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
If he's correct about the sexual revolution and other ills of liberalism (which makes him more of a reactionary than a conservative), which bits would you like to reverse?Quote:
I posted approvingly because he is correct about those things. I also said it's god that Labour have become more left wing, even though I think it's bollocks. I voted UKIP last time, but no party has my undying love since there will never be a party which speaks to me completely.
What are you even talking about you fucking thicko? Can you seriously not read what I am writing?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Err, not correct. It can result in laws I disagree with which aren't repressive. It can result in unelected people sitting in the House Of Lords. That's not repressing me but I disagree with it on principle. You don't have to keep telling me what Hitchens thins, I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
You're making lots of assumptions here. I dislike modern feminism (of the type you brought up earlier) which was spawned from the sexual revolution. And it's pointless talking about reversing anything, it can't be done. Most things about 'rights' start out with good intentions and get taken too far.Quote:
If he's correct about the sexual revolution and other ills of liberalism (which makes him more of a reactionary than a conservative), which bits would you like to reverse?
Yes I can, thicko. You keep saying that immigration is irrelevant to the figures even though it's clear from Sweden and elsewhere that immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, is a major factor in those figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
No, I haven't. I have never claimed that immigration is not a factor. You are an insufferably stupid man if you genuinely don't understand that by this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It's not just about laws. It's about how the Church of England recommends people live their lives, which, if Peter Hitchens had his way, would repress them by denying them the ability and/or right to think for themselves by prescribing certain behaviours. This was the entire basis of Christopher Hitchens' opposition to religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Not reversing it then. Just opposing it. You can't oppose the move towards a permissive society (as Hitchens does) because of 'modern feminism'. I don't think you oppose legalised gayness, abortion, easier divorces, and so on; so overall you must agree with it.Quote:
You're making lots of assumptions here. I dislike modern feminism (of the type you brought up earlier) which was spawned from the sexual revolution. And it's pointless talking about reversing anything, it can't be done. Most things about 'rights' start out with good intentions and get taken too far.
You said it was completely insignificant. So I can deduce from that, that you don't think they're a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
I said the numbers used in claiming a 1457% rise were insignificant, and I've explicitly accepted that disproportionate incidences of rape by immigrant men could be a factor...Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=adult+literacy+classes+hatfield
You keep bringing them both up as if I am bound to agree with them about everything they both say. I'm perfectly happy that the Church Of England is as meek as it is, but I don't think it being a bit stronger would necessarily repress anyone. Of course those who want it stronger would argue their views are being repressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I oppose certain aspects yes, such as all 'insert here' quotas of any kind. I didn't oppose legalised gayness and neither did Peter Hitchens. Abortion is a lot more tricky but I still just favour it. You need to stop asserting what I must agree with.Quote:
Not reversing it then. Just opposing it. You can't oppose the move towards a permissive society (as Hitchens does) because of 'modern feminism'. I don't think you oppose legalised gayness, abortion, easier divorces, and so on; so overall you must agree with it.
That figure was only part of a much larger bunch of statistics. And at what figure would they become 'significant' to you? I just want to know what your line in the sand is here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
How is Cameron still getting away with saying that Corbyn thought that OBL's death was a "tragedy". It's clearly taken out of context and to keep repeating the statement is pretty disgraceful.
Well, great? At the time I responded it was the only figure you had posted and I was pointing out why it was seriously limited. All of my posts since have remained on that same topic, but you keep trying to shift to another argument because you don't want to admit you've ballsed this one up.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
You don't have to agree with them both on 'everything', but it's difficult to sit between them on this one. Those who want it stronger are also being repressed. That is the very nature of religion as repression. It strives to tell you what you should think.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Then you don't oppose social liberalism, and all your moaning about liberals and/or liberalism is mis-directed (see: blaming it for quotas).Quote:
I oppose certain aspects yes, such as all 'insert here' quotas of any kind. I didn't oppose legalised gayness and neither did Peter Hitchens. Abortion is a lot more tricky but I still just favour it. You need to stop asserting what I must agree with.
I'm afraid that is non correct. Your first response on this was simply to the link I posted, which goes into great detail about numerous stats from Sweden and other places:Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
On what one? 'Religion' and the 'Church of England' are completely different things. I don't believe Peter Hitchens, himself, thinks he is told what to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
As if social liberalism is one or two issues as defined by you. My issues with 'liberals' is most often aimed at those who call themselves such and attribute liberal values to themselves. If you want to agree with me that they're not really liberals at all that's fine with me.Quote:
Then you don't oppose social liberalism, and all your moaning about liberals and/or liberalism is mis-directed (see: blaming it for quotas).
No, it wasn't, it was to your quoted section, which referred to the number I have repeatedly referenced.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I just checked it. Your very first post which claimed it was because of the changed laws was, I'm afraid, in response to exactly what I said it was.
If you're finally going to just stoop to outright lies I'll take my e-victory and be off to bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
[IMG]http://i61.tinypic.com/ok7t74.jpg[/IMG]
If you're going to all that effort to demonstrate just how wrong you are, you might as well include your original post while you're at it.
No, I'm correct. That was the first time you brought up rape being reported in a different way. Why even bother to deny it when there's a big picture of it?
:harold:
I guess you've wriggled enough to at least convince yourself.
There's nothing else needed, there's a big picture of it.
Above is your second post in response to the same article. Basically reaffirming the same point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
That second post where I say, "additional factors beyond societal changes", therefore recognising that societal changes are a factor. You're not even smart enough to lie properly.
If they're a factor then they're not 'insignificant'.
:happycry:
So I guess we're back to your inability to read.
:happycry:
So did you say the numbers of immigrants was insignificant or not? Keep in mind that I can and will screenshot again to prove you wrong (again)
I did not. If you'd like to post another screenshot demonstrating your incomprehension, be my guest. :happycry:
The Church of England still has doctrine, even if it's not as potent as Peter Hitchens would like. Do they let you into Heaven if you're an atheist or a Muslim? I wouldn't have thought so. Therefore, they're telling you what to think. Whether Hitchens believes he's told what to think is irrelevant. If he chooses to follow the doctrine (even with reservations) then he is, like every other religious person that you would happily laugh at for not being a 'free thinker'.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Then (returning to the other day) you're using the wrong word. It's not 'one or two' issues. It's an entire movement that Hitchens opposes, and you selectively oppose until you don't.Quote:
As if social liberalism is one or two issues as defined by you. My issues with 'liberals' is most often aimed at those who call themselves such and attribute liberal values to themselves. If you want to agree with me that they're not really liberals at all that's fine with me.
Toby, I have to ask - why do you bother?
http://i57.tinypic.com/21keaf5.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Toby
http://i60.tinypic.com/2j5kt1v.jpghttp://i60.tinypic.com/2j5kt1v.jpghttp://i60.tinypic.com/2j5kt1v.jpg
In this sort of case it's amusing to watch him squirm and dig an ever more spectacular hole for himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by SvN
I fear based on the post above that he's actually just too stupid to know what's going on though, which puts a bit of a dampener on laughing at him.
As an outsider, it's like watching an adult beat a down syndromed lad at connect four. Just utterly pointless for everyone involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
I'm not sure if the COE believe in hell. The fact Peter can believe in such nonsense just goes to show how powerful religion can be. But I don't laugh at anyone religious by any means. That's more exaggeration on your part, I fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Yes, I do selectively oppose. That's because I am not a left/right person and I take things on their own merits.Quote:
Then (returning to the other day) you're using the wrong word. It's not 'one or two' issues. It's an entire movement that Hitchens opposes, and you selectively oppose until you don't.
You haven't even bothered reading. I am factually correct on this and backed it up with clear evidence. Not that it would make a difference to someone like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by SvN
The difference between you and I is that I back up everything I'm saying, while you repeatedly resort to name-calling and providing no evidence at all and, in fact, still claim to be right in the face of clear evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
They believe in heaven. If you don't accept their core bullshit you don't get in (whatever form that takes). That is totalitarian, even if they spend increasing amounts of their time bumming up to gays and Muslims to Peter Hitchens' annoyance, which is why his brother opposed religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It's not a left/right issue. It's a liberalism/authoritarianism issue, and you can't 'selectively oppose' the wider trend on the misguided belief that it has led to quotas and 'modern feminism'.Quote:
Yes, I do selectively oppose. That's because I am not a left/right person and I take things on their own merits.
What's your point? I know full well what they both believe and don't believe in. This is getting a bit boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
And what happens if I believe in one thing which is seen as 'authoritarian' and something else which is seen as 'liberal'? Do you go into meltdown? The quotas I brought up is because that is what it can lead to. I can oppose certain aspects of whatever I like, thanks.Quote:
It's not a left/right issue. It's a liberalism/authoritarianism issue, and you can't 'selectively oppose' the wider trend on the misguided belief that it has led to quotas and 'modern feminism'.
E-embarrsement here. :henn0rz:
Harold believes in liberal authoritarianism? This is a turn up for the books.
Because you said it isn't repressive, which makes you wonder why exactly you've spent so much time arguing against religion (and using Christopher Hitchens' lines to do so).Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
You can, but it doesn't make sense to do so. Peter Hitchens at least realises that (or maybe doesn't, but he is consistent).Quote:
And what happens if I believe in one thing which is seen as 'authoritarian' and something else which is seen as 'liberal'? Do you go into meltdown? The quotas I brought up is because that is what it can lead to. I can oppose certain aspects of whatever I like, thanks.
I said it isn't necessarily repressive. And again, 'religion' is different from the Church Of England. Jainism isn't repressive and it's a religion. Most religion is repressive, but the main reason I argue against it is because it's plainly wrong and ignores evidence. In the case of Islam it's clearly dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
So you think it's not possible to have authoritarian views on some issues and liberal views on another? That's ridiculous. Peter Hitchens believes in the death penalty but also does not believe in going to war under almost any circumstances and was opposed to identity cards. What scale do those views fall under, I wonder?Quote:
You can, but it doesn't make sense to do so. Peter Hitchens at least realises that (or maybe doesn't, but he is consistent).
But it is if you have to go along with it to receive favour, which is the case with the Church of England (and would be more so if Peter Hitchens got his way). That is such a crap reason to oppose religion. You might as well have started all those threads having a go at Father Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It is (war isn't related to either), but you put yourself in a difficult position deriding 'liberals' (even pretend ones) when you yourself are unable to remain consistent.Quote:
So you think it's not possible to have authoritarian views on some issues and liberal views on another? That's ridiculous. Peter Hitchens believes in the death penalty but also does not believe in going to war under almost any circumstances and was opposed to identity cards. What scale do those views fall under, I wonder?
And I would if the belief in Father Christmas was as widespread and led to the kind of consequences that certain religious beliefs do. I.e not the Church Of England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I don't just 'deride liberals' in a vacuum - I deride them on certain aspects of what they believe. If you can't accept that a person can believe in some liberal views as well as some seen as authoritarian then you clearly lack imagination. Do you think Peter Hitchens is 'inconsistent' with his opposition to ID cards, he ultimate authoritarian fantasy? Maybe you should pop him an email in the 'ask an expert' mode as I'd like to see him tear you apart.Quote:
It is (war isn't related to either), but you put yourself in a difficult position deriding 'liberals' (even pretend ones) when you yourself are unable to remain consistent.
So you're against religion because of 'consequences' (which I take to mean violence)? Why aren't you against all violence-inducing ideas?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
And when you do you attribute it to their liberalism, like when you were blaming them for the deliberate erosion of patriotic feeling. I would think Peter Hitchens was inconsistent were he to oppose ID cards with claims that he opposes authoritarianism, but I've no idea whether he does or not. He can oppose them on their own merits.Quote:
I don't just 'deride liberals' in a vacuum - I deride them on certain aspects of what they believe. If you can't accept that a person can believe in some liberal views as well as some seen as authoritarian then you clearly lack imagination. Do you think Peter Hitchens is 'inconsistent' with his opposition to ID cards, he ultimate authoritarian fantasy? Maybe you should pop him an email in the 'ask an expert' mode as I'd like to see him tear you apart.
Henn0rz using the Henn0rz smiley is just about the greatest thing to happen to the new board.
Also: Toby :D
Why do you take that to mean violence? I thought you were someone who paid attention to detail? I've goner into great detail in the past about which aspects of religion I find appalling and which religions are especially dangerous. The Church Of England was never something I brought up, and no, I won't fall into your poorly thought-out, attempted traps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Yes, I've said I deride modern liberalism in most of its forms. So great, you think Peter Hitchens is inconsistent, now what? Why not confront him on it? I don't think it's inconsistent but even were it to be, so what?Quote:
And when you do you attribute it to their liberalism, like when you were blaming them for the deliberate erosion of patriotic feeling. I would think Peter Hitchens was inconsistent were he to oppose ID cards with claims that he opposes authoritarianism, but I've no idea whether he does or not. He can oppose them on their own merits.
I took it to mean violence because you don't appear to be that concerned about how religions impinge on freedom of conscience. So what 'consequences' motivate your opposition to religion (I'm sure you've identified as an anti-theist in the past, but I don't think that fits if you aren't primarily concerned with religious repression)?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It's just nice to know where we all stand.Quote:
Yes, I've said I deride modern liberalism in most of its forms. So great, you think Peter Hitchens is inconsistent, now what? Why not confront him on it? I don't think it's inconsistent but even were it to be, so what?
Impinging on freedom of conscience wouldn't only lead to violence. And again, 'religion' and 'the Church Of England' are two separate things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I'm afraid I won't go around in circles.Quote:
So what 'consequences' motivate your opposition to religion (I'm sure you've identified as an anti-theist in the past, but I don't think that fits if you aren't primarily concerned with religious repression)?
Don't worry, henry was as baffled as you when I said I had some left leaning ideas as well as right. You're both guilty of a lack of imagination. You obviously think in straight lines. Are you religious?Quote:
It's just nice to know where we all stand.
You said that even a stronger Church of England 'would[n't] necessarily repress anyone', so you clearly don't think that the very idea of having to accept certain ideas to gain favour and go to Heaven is repressive. What is it then that you object to if not only violence?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
We're more likely baffled by your mis-use and/or mis-understanding of basic terminology.Quote:
Don't worry, henry was as baffled as you when I said I had some left leaning ideas as well as right. You're both guilty of a lack of imagination. You obviously think in straight lines. Are you religious?
Yes, that's correct. it would depend rather on how far it went. If it's still a religion of choice that didn't interfere in government then people who choose to follow it of their own accord wouldn't be repressed. Repression is something which comes about more through indoctrination, but that's another issue. I object to non-thinking, the rejection of clear scientific facts and many other things which I've gone over many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I've told you very clearly that I believe in some issues which are considered liberal and some considered more authoritarian. I couldn't be any clearer. Now answer my question, just so we know where we stand.Quote:
We're more likely baffled by your mis-use and/or mis-understanding of basic terminology.
So Christopher Hitchens was wrong about religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I am not religious.Quote:
I've told you very clearly that I believe in some issues which are considered liberal and some considered more authoritarian. I couldn't be any clearer. Now answer my question, just so we know where we stand.
No, and that doersn't fly in the face of anything I've said. Theistic religion has at its core totalitarianism. But most people don't take it a'la carte - another thing Christopher Hitchens has said. You've been trying to set up that trap all night, haven't you? You're such a bore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Theistic religion?
Yes, problem?
I've been making the same point all night. It just came to a head with that gibberish.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I mean most people take it a'la carte, of course. Which means while it's totalitarian at its core, our great friends such as Italf...aussie would not think they are repressed in the least. Do you think he's repressed?
As opposed to?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Non theistic religions, of course.
You have to admit that does sound like something of an oxymoron.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
No, it's factually correct. There are lots of religions which do not have Gods. By the way, tell Lewis about how repressed you are.
That's quite curious to me. I've always thought that theism is the essential part of a religion, but I'm open to other definitions. At what point does it instead become a philosophy rather than a religion? And what is a religion, if not a theistic belief system?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Well Buddhism is described as a religion, as is secular humanism in many parts. It's getting a bit deeper than I have the need or want to go into but, like you and your ilk were pretty intent on telling me, religion is different things to different people. And I'm not sure you get to tell Buddhists that their religion isn't a religion just because they don't believe in invisible, magic entities.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
That's totally fair. Again, I wasn't coming out swinging here - this is something I hadn't really thought much about.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I wonder where the distinction between a philosophy and a religion really is.
If he believes he has to do [i]x/i], y, or z to gain favour then yes. So although it is 'totalitarian at its core' (finally), the fact that most people don't go along with everything, and they themselves don't see a problem with it... This undermines your given reasons for opposing religion slightly doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Watson's being urged to apologise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34484611
The git.
I really thought Watson and Fatpie were on to something, turns out it was all bollocks.
I forgot this was actually the politics thread.
Well unfortunately for you, he doesn't like to let you know where he stands. And no, it doesn't. Because in case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are getting thrown off buildings, raped and decapitated because of 'religion' if you want to use it that broadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
You said you oppose it because you 'object to non-thinking, the rejection of clear scientific facts and many other things'. But if 'most people take it a 'la carte', and '[do] not think they are repressed in the least', then you're left with the 'other things' that (having said was not the case earlier) you've just identified as violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It seems strange that you would defend the Church of England despite it being 'totalitarian at its core'. Was all the anti-religion stuff really just anti-Islam?
Nooo, surely not?
Yes and, as I keep pointing out, some religions are obviously more dangerous than others. I do identify obvious violence within Islam, it's not really a big secret. That's why I keep saying 'religion' is too broad a term. Jainists are never going to commit any violence due to their religion. Stop ignoring what I tell you. I could easily level this kind of nonsense at you regarding immigration, some of which you say is good but you don't half hate the Muzzies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I don't defend it, I still say it's wrong and we'd be better off without it. It's just not dangerous in the least. But you've shifted the conversation from the consequences of religion to its core, which are different things. It is mostly anti-Islam, yes. If we were having this conversation 70-80 years ago I would say it was mostly Catholicism. That's the problem when you keep saying 'religion', which encompasses only something in the region of 4,000 separate religions.Quote:
It seems strange that you would defend the Church of England despite it being 'totalitarian at its core'. Was all the anti-religion stuff really just anti-Islam?
Just make sure you keep in touch with how things are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtphgwLOYZA
If you oppose the 'consequences' (violence) of religion rather than its 'core' (totalitarianism) then the 'obvious violence within Islam' isn't a concern is it? Why oppose Islam if most Muslims take it 'a la carte' and don't carry out acts of violence? It sounds like you're opposed to violence rather than any particular belief system[s], which is nice to know (post #338), but think of all that time wasted watching/having religious debates when you could have been reading Gene Sharp.
I didn't say violence, you did. You keep trying to insert things I did not say and arguing against them. Stop it. I oppose the core as well but, as I am now saying for the third time, most people do not take religion seriously and do not follow core beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
The 'core belief' of Christianity (for example) is that you accept Jesus as the son of God (and associated pish). and that through him you gain favour. If you don't follow that you're not really a Christian are you? Going around gay-bashing is peripheral stuff when you consider the central totalitarian aspect of it all.
You don't have any issue with the 'core' ('I don't think it being a bit stronger would necessarily repress anyone'). Your issue is with the 'consequences', which we can take to be violence from your willingness to accept the repressive aspect of it as well as your claims that violence comes from certain faiths. So again, why oppose Islam as a belief system when you're actually just a big fruity pacifist?
That's one core belief among many. I don't think they would put it as 'gain favour'. I'm not sure what this has to do with violence but I'm sure you're saving something really exciting on that.
And there you go making up things I never said again. I never said I 'never had issues with the core'. If I ever said that then show where I did. Why can't you ever argue in an honest fashion? You continually bring up things I did not say anjd do not think and then argue against them. I will continue to tell you to stop doing that.
Maybe at the point of rituals or worshipping/revering a god/person (then you can shove Buddhism into the definition).Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
You've accepted that the 'core' of religion is inherenty totalitarian, but you've also claimed that 'Jainism isn't repressive' (does it not depend on believing certain things for salvation?) and that a strengthened Church of England would not 'necessarily repress anyone'. That (along with your earlier confusion about repression and man-made laws) means your focus is on the 'consequences' of religion, in which case your opposition should be directed towards idiots and their actions rather than beliefs.
Yes, and that's why I keep saying that you shouldn't use 'religion' as a blanket term. That is why I separated theistic religion from the likes of Jainism. But why let such facts get in the way? And what you say after is incoherent nonsense. I should focus on individual's actions instead of their beliefs? Well I do. Unless it's obvious that their beliefs lead to their actions, which is rather often the case. You really do choose the most boring, pedantic, inconsequential things to argue about.
Your insistence on that distinction is irrelevant. Jainism still requires people to believe/do certain things in pursuit of salvation, which is why Christopher Hitchens used 'religion' as a blanket term when he called it totalitarian. But why let such facts get in the way?
It's one thing to accept that particular interpretations of Islam might provide justifications for violence, but you talk about the 'obvious violence within Islam' to criticise the entire belief system even though hundreds of millions of them don't act on this 'obvious violence'. If we got another David Copeland would you criticise anti-immigration rhetoric in its entirety?
Not really, there's no eternal punishment for not following rules within Jainism. Maybe you should research on that. As for Hitchens, he never mentions Jainism, and is very clear that his ire is directed squarely at Abrahmic religion. In case you hadn't noticed, his book title is 'God Is Not Great'. Jains do not believe in God. Now if you want you can keep directing the exact same points at me while I refute them in the exact same manner, but I'm sure even you would find that a bit tiresome.
As for Islam, which interpretation do you know which repudiates the actions of Muhammed? Just as I wouldn't criticise anti-immigration in its entirety (and I'm not anti-immigration, anyway), neither would you criticise pro-immigration because of Muslim immigrants. Something you completely ignored when I brought it up earlier. Any more non-sequiturs?
What has 'eternal punishment' got to do with anything? There wasn't an East German conception of hell. If you have to live your life in accordance with certain rules in pursuit of enlightenment and/or salvation then you are adhering to a totalitarian system, as it seeks (whether successful or not) to control the entirety of your behaviour. That is how Hitchens defined it, and it isn't 'very clear that his ire is directed squarely at Abrahmic religion', because in the aforementioned God is Not Great he says the following:
Although many Buddhists now regret that deplorable attempt to prove their own superiority, no Buddhist since then has been able to demonstrate that Buddhism was wrong in its own terms. A faith that despises the mind and the free individual, that preaches submission and resignation, and that regards life as a poor and transient thing, is ill-equipped for self-criticism. Those who become bored by conventional 'Bible' religions, and seek 'enlightenment' by way of the dissolution of their own critical faculties into nirvana in any form, had better take a warning. They may think they are leaving the realm of despised materialism, but they are still being asked to put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals.
That (with my emphasis) reads remarkably like him calling Buddhism totalitarian. I should say I've just Googled that, so if you've read the book feel free to put it in context; but it's looking like you haven't actually understood Hitchens and what he was about.
As for Islam, I don't know of any interpretation that repudiates Mohammed's violence; but most of its adherents don't seem to be violent, so the belief system itself doesn't seem to be doing that much damage. If you place the emphasis on beliefs rather than actions you effectively absolve the individual, when they are the ones who choose to act on the shithouse version of something unlike the hundreds of millions who don't (I wouldn't criticise pro-immigration because of shit Muslim immigrants, but that's the point I'm making).
Shut up. Absolutely pointless talking with you when you repeatedly ignore what I say and repeat your same points over and over again. I don't care if you think I'm inconsistent (you are as well, if you use your criteria).
:evictory:
You went to the trouble to save that smiley? Says it all. :happycry:
It's part of the board. :o
So it is. Still, you would have anyway. I'm glad I don't have to tinypic my victories now. Since it's so easy:
:evictory::evictory::evictory::evictory::evictory: :evictory:
Ffs. :D
On Harold's hero's quote that Lewis posted:
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/2060
Watch this heroic woman finally get what we never knew out of Peter Hitchens - he doesn't like multiculturalism! Well done, moron. This is what I would describe as the typical lefty cunt. It's a bit like Lewis in here, actually - ascribe things to someone that they do not believe and never said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnlyL5yMTnk
Quick summary for those not watching:
"I'm saying this".
"No what you're really saying is this"
"No I'm saying what I am saying"
"No you're not you're saying this"
all a midst incessant interruptions, of course.
[Sir] Charles Moore giving it to Twatson. :drool:
He's absolutely bang on.
Watson is a disgusting, attention seeking fantasist who has no place being deputy leader.
One of the stated goals of an organisation he heads up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reg
Not a man to be taken seriously.Quote:
Investigate and refine definitions of personhood and those criteria sufficient for the recognition of non-human persons.
"Celebrate" must be the worst word in politics at the moment.
As for Hitchens there, I don't know why he doesn't just say the Hijab's a bit rubbish.
Because it adds nothing. He believes in liberty, which means he is opposed telling people what they can or can't wear. Had he been given a chance to speak without being interrupted I think this would have been made clear.
That's fine, but believing in liberty doesn't stop him having his own opinion.
Peter Hitchens is a serious columnist, and he [supposedly] revels in not caring what people think about him, so how does he get himself into a position where he's having to argue about a baking contest with such a pleb? He doesn't do himself any favours half the time.
I've seen him say before that he doesn't like it and I think he would readily express that view here if the interview was longer and he was given a chance. That isn't what the twat was asking, though. He would say he also doesn't like baseball caps, but who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
Hitchens has touched on this today in a very long and very qe article. Here is the second half of it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by QE P. Hitchens
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....ht-police.html
[Lord] Andrew Gilligan has given Corbyn/McDonnell a right going over, as only he can.
That picture of McDonnell with Gerry Kelly should be the end of him.
I think you'll find that article is a Tory smear.
Andrew Gilligan is so fucking good.
:drool:Quote:
Lord Tebbit, whose wife, Margaret, was permanently crippled by the Brighton bomb, said: "It’s hard to think how Corbyn could sink any lower. It’s the classic definition of the snake’s belly. He betrays his hatred of democracy and his love of violence, which survives to this day.”
The bit about Diane Abbott is good. He's summed her up and given her a good solid smack in about forty words.
Whatever your politics, that article is pretty serious stuff when you're talking about the alternative PM.
I don't see how he survives until the local elections. No doubt the likes of Henry and Boyd will be in to apologise for them shortly.
It's hard to see how all of that isn't going to end up in political suicide. I don't purport to be an expert in British politics (let alone The Troubles), but surely supporting an organization that killed soldiers and politicians of the government you're attempting to run just isn't going to fly with the general public.
To put it into perspective, we had our own period of separatist violence (the Quebeckers, natch), and I can't even begin to fathom the idea of a former member/public sympathiser of the FLQ running for office in Quebec, never mind national office.
In the post Corbyn era it's acceptable to think or be associated with pretty much anything if you're on the left, as long as you're not an evil TORY.
The fascist left think they own the monopoly on morality. Always have, always will.
Everyone does. Nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guy.
That maybe so, but most don't smear their opponents in the worst way possible and deliberately put words in their mouths. Most on the right would frame their argument more on the common sense side than the moral, emotional side. I think that's the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
I think that's more a function of whose arguments you're personally more sympathetic towards, to be honest. Consider the invective that's been thrown at the gay equality movement over the past decade or two, for example. Or you on just about any topic, if we aren't pulling punches.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Both sides get nasty, because both sides think they have the moral high ground. We're just more inclined to believe one side than the other, and hence parse their arguments as at worst "reasonable, if a little over-the-top".
Yeah, sorry Harry; I'm certainly on the right side of the spectrum (at least in the economic sense), but there's proverbial shit being slung from both sides. Look at the American Right's campaign against Planned Parenthood.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...n-leon-brittan
It's all going well in Labour circles at the minute.
No, I really don't think so. The lefty types such as that trollop in the video I posted with Peter Hitchens are always trying to paint their oppponents as racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever other kind of 'ist' or 'phobe'. It seems to me that this happens very little in reverse. I mean look at her first sentence, and I'll quote Peter Hitchens on this:Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Hitchens
The American right is very different from the British right, much more entwined with religion and all the garbage that comes with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca
See also: Peter Hitchens.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Except he distances himself from the religious right in the US. Don't test my Hitchens knowledge or I guarantee you that you will fail.
His point is that the likes of Peter Hitchens don't always 'frame their argument more on the common sense side than the moral, emotional side'. Hitchens thinks that culture, morality, and politics have been systematically undermined by 'Eurocommunism', which implies non-native subversion, and he generally ascribes nefarious motives to everybody but himself. UKIP do likewise with their 'Westminster' pish, the implication of which is that everybody except UKIP is working against the Great British Public.
I didn't say they 'always' did, you'll find. Whenever they don't it tends to be for religious reasons, which doesn't surprise me. I'm not sure Hitchens, himself, would agree with your assertions on what he thinks. As for UKIP, if UKIP means Farage, then he's dead right. Those in power have indeed been undermining Britain for a long time. That doesn't mean they do it deliberately.
Farage says they have been doing it deliberately (so does Hitchens, and so you do with your belief in the Andrew Neather crap).
Well that was New Labour, and Neather never said anything about Britain. And yes many do it deliberately, but that doesn't account for everyone in the party. It also depends on who Farage and Hitchens are talking about. I'm sure if you bothered to ask them they wouldn't say everyone within a party wanted to destroy Britain and, even if they did, it would be destroying Britain as they see it. After all, why would anyone seriously want to destroy the country they live in? (except Muslamics)
Lewis tested it the other day with a quote from a book you claim to have read and your response was 'Shut up.'Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
'That doesn't mean they do it deliberately' to 'yes, many of them do it deliberately' in the space of a single reply is some going.
Who said 'everyone within a party'? I thought we were talking about people on the left/right (unless you originally meant everyone in the Labour Party) accusing one another of underhand motives? That said, just today Peter Hitchens has claimed that 'concreting over what remains of the English countryside, [was] a long-term New Labour obsession' (even though they hardly built any houses), so apparently he thinks it's parties as well.
Yes, just another example of you not being able to think in anything but straight lines. There is nothing contradictory in that sentence.
You're the one who brought up Labour under Andrew Neather.
I brought it up as an example of people on the right (Peter Hitchens, you even though you're not really right-wing) accusing their opponents of underhand tactics. Neather (supposedly) alleged that Labour let the entire Third World in to create a multicultural society simply as a means of winding their opponents up. Hitchens is rightly opposed to such a society because it wrecks the social cohesion upon which the nation and nation state are founded. How is that not deliberately undermining Britain, and doing so for shadowy, partisan reasons?
There's your autistic thinking again. Hitchens doesn't always or even usually accuse people of underhand tactics (aside from those who accuse him of some kind of phobia) - if you think that then you don't pay much attention to what he says or writes. He also doesn't say Labour let the ethnics in just to wind people up Neather said that, he doesn't need to do anything but quote him. It isn't necessarily undermining Britain in the eyes of those who support mass-immigration, since they obviously think that's good for Britain. They're wrong of course, and thus are undermining Britain without deliberately or knowingly doing so. I don't know why you can't or won't see this very obvious point.
The EXPLOSIVE revelation in what Neather said (and then clarified) was that they did it largely to 'rub the rights noses in diversity'. His other points about cheap labour and whatever else could conceivably be spun into an argument about doing what was right for the country; but that is strictly partisan, and what the likes of Hitchens emphasised as a means of accusing Labour of acting with malicious intent.
He's accusing New Labour (whose big names were all ex-Marxist proponents of 'Eurocommunism' remember) of concealing their shadowy plans for a 'slow-motion putsch'. It's fucking deranged, and it makes some twat 'putting words in his mouth' in a debate over cakes look a bit trivial. Try paying attention to what he says and writes in future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Hitchens, 1 November 2009
Clarified lol. And luckily there weren't that many 'big names' in the party beyond Blair and Brown. Undermining British culture and undermining Britain are two separate things. There's a group of people who think Britain is better off with more multiculturalism, and Blair is certainly among them. You're still not quite getting the very obvious point that Blair does not think his actions were undermining Britain and he felt it was good for Britain, wrongly. Obviously from Hitchens point of view and mine, his actions were serving to undermine Britain. It's called a difference of opinion.
I'd also point out that he's written and spoken quite a lot more than your little quote there.
Here is Hitchens noting the Marxist links to a whole bunch of them (he doesn't mention Jack Straw there, the Home Secretary at the time of the Neather business, although he has mentioned it elsewhere), so there were more of them in his eyes at least.
You're still not getting the obvious point that whilst Blair would have thought more immigrants were good, he obviously didn't think 'rub[ing] the Right's nose in diversity and render[ing] their arguments out of date' was good for the country as a whole, otherwise they wouldn't have concealed it as part of their secretive 'gigantic, irreversible cultural, social and sexual revolution' (Jesus that gets more mental each time you read it). In the initial Hitchens article you posted (where he's crying about that cake debate) he says 'she began her inquisitorial, nay prosecutorial attempt to establish what I was "really saying". The clear implication *here* is that I had some hidden message that I was concealing, presumably for reasons of shame'. That is exactly what he does with Labour and immigration in the passages I've just quoted. He takes a throwaway quote by his mate and accuses them of subverting the entire national life.
In case someone's interested:
Another article on Hitchens' quote on Buddhism - http://flappingmouths.blogspot.co.uk...1_archive.html
In short, he's massively mistaken.
The Britain Stronger in Europe campaign (good acronym that, lads, 'BSE') launch has been getting a bit of a hammering. Stuart Rose just comes across as your classic Big Business twat, and the political 'heavyweights' set to play a prominent role are either a) the same divs who wanted us to join the Euro; b) John Major. The less said about the luvvies in the baggage train the better. Meanwhile, Vote Leave is run by professional headcase Dominic Cummings, has a load of dirty Conservative money behind it, and makes nifty POSITIVE videos like this.
In an aside related to my E-Victory yesterday, Nigel Farage responded to the BSE launch by saying 'Most preposterous of all is Lord Rose’s claim that what he is doing is patriotic'. Questioning his patriotism. He must have a hidden message that he's concealing, presumably for reasons of shame.
There was no victory, I was just bored of answering the same stuff regurgitated over and over again. And your usual dishonest style of debating. You should consider getting a job doing it, you'd fit right in with the interviewers these days. You continue to ignore, on purpose, that Farage there is speaking from what he defines as patriotic, as opposed to his opponent who probably thinks that patriotism means something completely different. Only a few days ago Corbyn claimed he was a patriot because Britain is a fair society who welcomes immigrants bla bla etc.
That's the entire point you pleb. Nigel Farage defines patriotism as agreeing with him. That means leaving the European Union. If you want to stay in, Farage doesn't regard you as a patriot, and in doing so he attempts to claim the monopoly on morality. Had Farage just said Rose was wrong that would constitute a respectable disagreement; but instead (to use Hitchens' whinge about that Muslim woman and the cake debate) he claims that 'only one opinion on the matter was permissible'.
Why the fuck was June Sarpong at the launch? June fucking Sarpong?
Of course he does. So therefor the 'underhand' thing doesn't come into it. Underhandedly doing something means you're doing something deliberately. If the opposition feel they're being patriotic then they're not undermining Britain deliberately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Watson still refusing to apologise. The man has no shame
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34504385
The *accusation* made by Farage (Nigel Farage of UKIP; not me) is that because it is 'preposterous' for Stuart Rose to be a patriot then he cannot be advocating we stay in the European Union with Britain's best interests in mind. So why is he doing it? There is no suggestion that he is stupid. Therefore, he must be deliberately undermining Britain (much like how Big Business works against the people on immigration).
Her Career of T4 > Celebrity Big Brother > Serious Journalist has to be one of the oddest televisual moves I've seen growing up. Although Cat Deeley's face always worries me on Strictly. SMTV Live might be my childhood highlight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
By serious journalist do you mean being on a (seemingly serious) show about conspiracy theories with Jesse Ventura?Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
I've already abnswered this, and every other version of it. You can choose not to accept my view if you want, but I'd refrain from continually boring away at the same issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
:harold:
He's a completely shameless wanker.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Wasn't she on the News or presenting tramatic documentaries at some point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco
:evictory:s stacking up. I might publish them all as Harold Is Not Great.
What's the deal with this whole Tom Watson thing?
He lobbied for the investigation of allegations of abuse against Leon Brittain to be re-opened, now the police have stopped investigating again because there wasn't enough evidence and the press are shitting themselves at Watson for taking the allegations seriously? Is that it? I've not read into it in much depth, like.
He used Parliamentary Immunity to out him and protect himself from any potential reprecussions is what most should take issue with. Rather than him raising the issue in the first place. Tom Watson was also the first to come out against the Phone Hacking stuff before everyone got behind it. You can say the man goes around things in a sleazy way but he has a set of morals that you can actually view and judge which I do like about him.
He used his Parliamentary privilege to spur the investigation on and make allegations which the police couldn't then ignore (no matter the veracity).Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
What I like about Tom Watson is that he was just as vocal in his criticism of the hacking done by The Mirr... Oh wait no he wasn't he's a cunt.
He went beyond his brief as an MP, and effectively attempted to weigh in to an investigation when spurious evidence existed that it should be pursued. The bigger issue, I suspect, is that he a) he probably wouldn't have done so had it been a Labour peer and b) he fancies himself as some sort of great moral crusader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
It's probably not a resigning matter given, you know, Labour etc. Still, he acted like a massive cunt and is trying to brazen it out.
Pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
If this was a resigning matter then Corbyn and McDonnell would be out on their ear tomorrow on the basis of their now-proven support of the IRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
We're playing on a different level in Labour at the present time.
I think Watson should resign over it, but he won't.
I think they need to have a democratic meeting about this.
The Conversative Secretary of State for Health believes in homeopathy. It's the equivalent of having your top science guy believe in alchemy. Pretending the idea of being a tit not a resignable matter as a Labour thing, rather than a politics thing, is absolutely pathetic and sums up your view on politics quite succinctly. Partisan as fuck.
If you can't see that Labour, right now, are somewhat detached from the regular "rules of the game" then you're off your rocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
"The membership" not caring will probably be used as the excuse, as it is for so much else.
What are the 'regular rules of the game' because going off what I know of them, Boris has broken them left and right including the worst of all the rules, shagging about and nobody cares (and rightly so). But nah, it's a Labour thing.
Almost everybody shags about.
Indeed.
As it is, "the membership", or elements of the new members certainly, are the type of people who are turning up at the Tory conference to throw eggs and spit at people.
To that type of "active" left winger, Watson will be some sort of hero because anything goes when you're targeting a Tory.
Shagging about probably isn't as bad as falsely accusing someone of being a paedophile/murderer. Unless you're accusing them of being a paedohile-murderer, which has a ring of cosmic balance about it.
And since when is the minister for health any sort of 'top science guy'? Politicians believe crazy shit all over the shop. Most of them are probably religious, for one.
Now the Tories are allowing big business to design their own tax loopholes
http://gu.com/p/4d8ty?CMP=Share_Andr...y_to_clipboard
Senior Tories have lent support to far more odious things than the IRA campaign, as people have already been told, and ignored.
What is more odious than organised murder of innocent people?
Labour are an utter shambles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
I don't know, why don't you ask General Pinochet?
If you're going to go down that route I think I can bring out some bigger hitters to be honest, like Mao.
It's almost like there's dicks on both sides that both say/believe in things we don't like. It's almost THE ENTIRE POINT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Glad we got there eventually though.
Serious question as I don't actually know - were any of the Labour Party ever cosying up to Mao like Thatcher did with Pinochet?
That's not what he said. He said that putting someone who believes in magic medicine being in charge of the health department would be like putting someone who believes in magicking gold out of lead in charge of science. Not that Jeremy Hunt should be a 'top science guy'.Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
And it is proper mental. It's as ridiculous as the Ron Swanson character in Parks and Rec.
Having Jeremy Hunt in charge of health (or any major department) is a far worse crime than having someone who believes in homeopathy in charge of health.
The government always works with shithouse regimes, but they do so reluctantly because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that it furthers British interests. Supporting the IRA doesn't really do that. It's the difference between sending the Soviet Union weapons in 1942 and speaking at dinners for Nazi industrialists.
For all the bike riding nonsense, the last Government have done an absolutely piss poor job on energy. And that's not even taking into account that bills haven't gone down despite Oil being nearly half the price per barrel these days.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...som?CMP=twt_gu
Wait, that can't be real can it? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
That he believes in homeopathy? Certainly can be:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...edical-officer
Here's a more detailed piece on that Gove/Saudi/MoJ story
http://jackofkent.com/2015/10/michae...he-background/
edit: It's just been announced that we won't be running Saudi jails. Yay.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3451870...e=news_central
Gove is such a hero. They should spend the next 15 years sending him round every department in turn sorting it the fuck out. Already made the teaching unions cry and undone Chris Grayling's absolute bollocks around prisons.
He made the teaching unions cry because his ideas were shit.
Aye, he was fucking mental even if I did briefly like him winding them up. In the end he got shifted as he was just becoming a joke.
His problem was giving it back to them. Had he just rammed everything through and kept it shut (except for trumpeting achievements) nobody would have cared, since his main ideas have been accepted anyway.
His ideas were almost exactly what Tony Blair did and they weren't crying then.
They're not so much crying as just leaving.
It's tempting to believe that anything your ideological opponents don't like is a good idea. But sometimes a turd is just a turd.
But, you know, Labour.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
I hope you enjoy doing this for the next 20 years as people continue voting for these terrible ideas instead of Labour ones.
That would be bad, but not as bad as supporting the murder of your own citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
His main policies were extending the academies programme and introducing free schools, and they both seem to be successful (and are being carried on without the same level of opposition). The stuff like messing about with the curriculum and sending out personally-signed Bibles... Yeah. Not so great.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Isn't Gove the one that's banned books and planning on banning smoking in Prisons? Because I can see those two going down well.
No, that was Grayling. Gove is looking to repeal the books 'ban'.
I wouldn't be surprised if you've read more about why people vote than I have, but I'm not convinced people vote for ideas, or are too often correct about what ideas they're voting for... I think a lot of people vote based on political catchphrases, faces, personalities, and very vague ideas about what parties mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
And also, some parties are terrible at getting their ideas across (e.g. Labour for the past 2 elections).
Why in the fuck would they ban books in prisons?
The ban got lifted in the end.
They banned the sending in of books, not books in general. They have a library, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer
It's not obvious. I read 'ban books' and I think 'ban books', funnily enough. Hence my question.
Well I'll rephrase that - it's obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw8vF78K_Ks
4:30 for what I've wanted someone to say for a long time to these stupid BBC, leftist, automaton, interruption merchants.
Now you're quoting Marine Le Pen? Who's next on your list of youtubers, fucking Pol Pot? That woman is an absolute disgrace and anything that comes out of her mouth is immediately discredited by the bile that was fallen out of it over the past 20 years.
edit: And now I've watched the video it's the same old shit. A Le Pen telling people that 'your/their' traditions disgust them and they shouldn't be able to do it in public or interact with the public. They've just moved on from the Jews to Muslims. How progressive.
I don't see any connection between Le Pen and Pol Pot - more sensationalist claptrap, I fear. Followed by an insinuation that Muslims are suffering just as the Jews did. Fucking lol at you. I also didn't quote her, I just like the way she stuck it to the stupid bint. Your description of the video is absolute nonsense, of course. She didn't say anything 'disgusted' her and merely reiterated that praying in public is not acceptable in France, among other things which no sensible person would dispute. That isn't just for Muslims either, you'll find.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
It's refreshing to see someone white sticking up for their own culture for a change. It certainly scares twats like you, which is good.
Yes, I know, they're egalitarian in their hatred of those different from them. They're the Le Pens!Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
That makes no sense. They're against public prayer. That goes for everyone, so why cry about Muslims?
You really can't read can you? Like genuinely, you struggle to read. Do you just miss words or what? Do you see the word Muslim and it sends you into such a froth you've forgotten what words came previously? At this point it's coming across as a genuine mental disability.
To be fair she does give her a bit of a donning in that video.
I would like to see some polling on the Le Pen brand. On the one hand it obviously helps get the message out there, with the existing party and that; on the other you wonder whether it prevents some people from voting for them (then again, it's not like the French care about anti-Semitism). Maybe their 'modernisation' will only be complete when the hot niece gets the job.
Well the whole video you were crying about was about Muslims, and you have previous form. Are you upset for the Christians, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
And you did shed a tear about Muslims here, as I stated:
Like genuinely, like.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Had to look that up. Fucking hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Sexist!
Yes, she's moved onto Public Prayer (a Muslim issue) from Hasiddic Jews and Kippahs (Jewish issues). I live on the border of the country, I've been surrounded by this insane familiy's opinion for a decade and a half. And while she's slightly better at tone than her Father, it's the exact same core message.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I didn't realise only Muslims wanted to pray in public. Still, you live near there.
I've long imagined Daddy Le Pen being one of Harold's heroes, having seen the need to be a racist shit and frame it in vaguely modern terms in the seventies. This is an interesting development.
What are you even disagreeing with? I said it's more of her same old shit but this time it's about Muslims (Public Prayer is a specifically Muslim issue due to it 'having' to happen at certain times which lead some of the more devout to publicly pray in 'weird' places like those guys at the Liverpool game whereas the rest don't) instead of the Jews, (who have outfits etc.) as well as Kosher and Halal food (equal opportunities again). She also went big on not wearing Crosses anywhere, which I think is pathetic, if you'd like me to mention it. There's got to be some sort of Reading for Beginners class we can enrol you in.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I've never paid attention to him. I deal in true things, whether they're deemed racist or not. Sometimes the truth hurts.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
I made it abundantly clear - it's not only Muslims who want to pray publicly. Regardless, they're in France and they know the law. Simple as that. And I fear again I have to tell you, it's not 'we'. You are not speaking as a collective, you speak for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Sometimes the truth is racist,eh?
By the standards with which you define racism (as long as the victims aren't white), I expect so.
So are Corbs and co going to fall at the first Gideon hurdle tonight?
Was Adolf Hitler a racist, Harold?
Marion Le Pen is not fit and has always looked like the result of generations of inbreeding to me. She's nearly fit, but there's something I can't put my finger on that is very wrong somewhere. It's not even the racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
:happycry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
What do you think about laws on public expressions of religion, like public prayer?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I'm not personally bothered.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Sure, it doesn't affect you directly. But what are your thoughts on the principle of the thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I'm neither for nor against it. In other words, I don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Let's put it differently then. You don't have any objections at all to restrictions on the free exercise of religious speech?
Tell you what, you tell me what your religious beliefs are and I'll answer that.
Blatant dodge. Valiant but obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
For someone who squeals like a stuck pig about fascists blocking free speech when it suits you, you're rather evasive here. Let's just remember this next time you tear off about a similar topic. Free speech for me but not for thee.
Evasion on this one too.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Yes, blatant dodge by you. Why do you insist on digging into my beliefs when you refuse to espouse your own? I'm fairly certain I've already said freedom of religion is fine by me many times over.
Yes, because asking if I think Hitler was racist is like asking if I think the pope is Catholic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Considering you now have gone so far as to express support for French fascist leaders, the question is certainly relevant.
Well in that case, are you in favour of the IRA?
Just to add to this, I never expressed support at all. If I'm wrong then show me. I'll be waiting.
But you've also indicated that you're fine with it being curtailed. Being as you don't care one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It's a bit more nuanced than a simple yes or no answer. I scarcely think that the outlawing of praying in public streets counts as oppression in any real sense. There is still freedom of religion there, broadly speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Whether or not you personally feel it's "oppressive", it is still a textbook example of curtailing of both freedom of religion and speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Apparently, neither of which you care about one way or the other. And more power you to do so, but let's not forget this next time you complain about fascist curtailing of free speech - because apparently you don't mind it at all if it's aimed at people you disagree with.
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-con...e__768_re2.jpg
Well this is a prime example of curtailing freedom of travel. If religious people really need to pray in public (they don't) then they can do so without public spectacles like this, which only serve to separate people. I doubt someone doing it by themselves would be a problem at all.
I'm glad to see you using the Lewis tactic of laying traps on complicated issues and trying to trip me up, all without having to defend any of your views, naturally.
So you're fine with curtailing freedom of speech if it "separates people"? That's what you're going with? Anything divisive in any way can be blocked in the interests of unity? Let's not forget the rhetoric you generally line up behind, which isn't exactly a warm bubble of cohesion.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
The take-home message here is that actually, you're not all that bothered about freedom of speech (and religion) - being as you don't care one way or the other - and that you don't mind them being curtailed as long as they're aimed against groups you don't like. And you're more than welcome to take that stance, but it'll get brought up next time you complain about free speech in any other context.
I don't see the act of praying as free speech in any way.
What's your opinion? Do you think any speech should be allowed? Even incitement to murder?
Harold. Go and kill your neighbour for us, mate. Cheers.
I hold with the legal principle behind the US Supreme Court interpretation of free speech, which specifically permits limitation in the case that it is both directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (the key terms being "directed", "likely", and "imminent"). Other than that, I'm pretty much an absolutist on the free speech issue. "Creating division", "Expressing religious sentiment", or "Being someone Harold doesn't like" are all covered by any reasonable legal definition of free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
In truth, it doesn't bother me at all that you don't actually believe in free speech as an absolutist concept. Reasonable people can disagree on the topic. It's just something to remember the next time you get on your high horse about it in a different context.
You're more than welcome to take that stance, but it'll get brought up next time you complain about free speech in any other context.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Suits me. Disagreement with an idea does not necessarily mean a desire to abrogate the expression of that idea in a public space. If I ever slip into the latter, then I'd be glad to have that pointed out to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
But, and I suspect that you're just going to whinge about this next time you get a warning, TTH is not a public space either. Nor are the staff in any sense representatives of the government. Private entities are permitted to decide what is expressed within their space, just like newspapers are not obliged to print every letter that gets sent to them.
That's already occurred.
Moving on, look at this cunt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPbGpx2M7ew
Some quality porridge propaganda here:
https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/654620139552268288
If only Culloden had been fought via the medium of YouTube, things could have been so very different.
The Spectator would have me believe that the SNP are shittest governing party in the developed world. Why is it only Ruth Sandison sticking it to them?
If they're the shittest governing party it makes the opposition all the more tragic. Kezia Dugdale is a complete embarrassment, and yet somehow not all that bad by Scottish Labour standards.
I was waiting for Tomkins' Spectator piece to appear online and it hasn't disappointed. Just as the 'one-party state' tagline promised, it's a paranoid lolfest from start to finish.
EDIT:
And she's spoiled it slightly with her parenthesis but Sturgeon's response is pretty good.
If you don't support freedom of speech for people with whom you disagree, then you don't support it at all.
Her response (and everyone loving it) kind of proves his point about them 'avoid[ing] proper scrutiny'.
How's that work then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
"Here are some criticisms of me and my government that you might not have seen already. Just please don't ask us about them.
Not exactly ducking from scrutiny to publicly share it with half the country.
It's all been discussed in Holyrood before and will be again in the wake of this, but laughing at is the most sensible option because it's Magic-tier hyperbole of the "I disagree with the SNP so refuse to accept they've done anything good" persuasion.
Half of those policies were brought in with multiparty support, as is required in a "one party state" where they leading party has rarely ever had an actual outright majority.
It's not really sharing it with half the country. It's dismissing it and counting on her followers being twats (see the comments on the article).
There are plenty of people following her who aren't ardent supporters, and that tweet has given it exposure far beyong her own followers anyway. It's a nonsense criticism.
I'm sure she'll be responding to all those followers who question her on the contents of the article, but in the meantime lots of people (let's say most) can take it as the definitive verdict.
I don't even get what you're talking about now. She's not going to be wanking on answering every point on Twitter. These things have been and will be discussed in parliament, even the utterly incompetent opposition just about manage that.
Old man Lew still doesn't understand how Twitter works.
I know she's not going to respond to the article on Twitter; but posting it with a 'lol' is a deliberate attempt to dismiss it as shite, thereby avoiding the scrutiny that the claims made within it might merit (you yourself called it a 'paranoid lolfest' and avoided the main point). It doesn't matter if people question her on education in the parliament. Who watches that shit?
That's because it deserves to be dismissed as shite. If he wants a more reasoned response he should write a more reasoned article, rather than marking it as absolute shite from the off with his trumpeting of the nonsense suggestion that Scotland is a "one party state" under Orwellian rule. It's absolute headbanging, swivel eyed bollocks, that undermines other fairer points that have been better made by better writers.
To suggest that Sturgeon laughing at it on Twitter - with a direct link for anybody to view the article for themselves - plays into that reputation, simply doesn't make sense.
You'd think, for example, that a "one party state" wouldn't have allowed the Named Person thing to be manipulated in such a manner that it's almost entirely accepted to talk complete shite about it, but that's largely what has happened.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/sco...plans-1.898151
The "State Guardian" claims are just idiotic.Quote:
Lord Pentland refused an initial petition for the judicial review of the legislation at the Court of Session in January but campaigners appealed against the decision.
A panel of three judges who reconsidered the case in June have refused the appeal, stating the legislation does not breach human rights or European Union law.
A judgment issued today said: "The mere creation of a named person, available to assist a child or parent, no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children than the provision of social services or education generally.
"It has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family. The assertion to the contrary, without any supporting basis, has the appearance of hyperbole."
I can't be bothered to read the article but it's pretty clear the SNP are largely a bunch of cunts, run with an iron fist.
It's refreshing that you admit to not having read it, at least.
There are many problems with the SNP, but Scotland's biggest issue is that the opposition parties are an absolute laughing stock and completely unelectable. I actually agree with Tomkins about the police thing, it's just a shame that his party did not.
The 'named person' thing is sinister shite however you look at it, and the SNP are 'archetypes of the top-down, authoritarian, one-size-fits-all school of government' (see: Nick Cohen's article on their attempts to politicise universities). Saying so with a bit of political licence does not make it a 'paranoid lolfest', worthy of being dismissed out of hand by the First Minister. It's a bit like when David Cameron just used to shout 'WEAK!' over Ed Miliband, and people figured that out quickly enough.
It's sinister shite as wilfully misrepresented by people like Tomkins, but I don't get the issue with giving a singular point of contact for services and powers that already existed. What's the big deal exactly?
I took the LOL to be a lol at the cover featuring her as BIG SISTER, which I'm pretty sure would induce a lol in any of us in that position, rather than the contents of the article.
I find her very creepy. Her face doesn't move in the traditional fashion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNpXwpYAahg
Fucking glorious on every level.
Nothing to do with Politics and you post that video every 6 months. I'm quite surprised you're not a GamerGater by the way Harold. You'd like them. It's about ethics in game journalism.
I'm curious as to how many people watch Harold's youtube video's, which he uses in lieu of intelligent comment. I never do.
Yes, you do. You've commented on the videos many I post many times and if I know one thing about you, Henry, it's that you would never post a comment about something in ignorance. Definitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I have no idea what moronics is on about.
I watch some of them if they're reasonably short and seem interesting. I've seen that one before. Laurie Penny's a knob. She's one of those people who you're embarrassed to have on your 'side'.
I'd like to marry her one day, and I would sulk until she took my surname.
I couldn't put up with her voice.
Does the very real chance of being hectored into an early grave instantly make it shameful lustage?
Speaking of which, Jack Monroe came out (or whatever their reveal is) as 'non-binary', so you're basically gay, mate.
Are you actually serious with this now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Yeah, she was in a relationship with Allegra McEvedy for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Seriously? That's quite the couple. Imagine James in that threesome.
I was always serious. I'm going to infuriate whoever I marry, so I may as well go all-in.
I used to have a bit of a thing for Laurie Penny but she irritates me too much now.
I'd have to woo her being really vague about my beliefs, and then drop them on her when she's fully-committed.
'I went to that fucking breastfeeding protest, so why won't you delete all the minorities off your Facebook?'
Weirdos.
You forget about them and then they find a new way to give you a lol
Quote:
The move comes after Mr Munday's mother passed away earlier this year.
Asked on his facebook page if he was giving up on politics Mr Munday replied he was giving up "on everything."
Isn't that hilarious. Seems like he just wants to get away.
What a disgusting, disgusting man.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
That is quite excellent. The fucking state of her as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
That David Starkey appears to be smashed makes it a bit better as well.
What a mug she comes across as.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09bs3apFe3k
The perfect dissection of the left, by former Liberal lefty come good, Melanie Phillips.
Worth doing just to see that his intellectual dishonesty remains as unparalleled as ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
In what way?
Well I for one like Harold's vids (not always, but in the main) so keep them coming.
The new board getting Dave Challoner posting means this thing is way more successful than I imagined. We've started getting guests as well :cool:
I don't agree with everything she's saying, however it is quite clear that "the left" can get viscerally angry against people who disagree with them - as if people who aren't on "the left" are illiberal, intolerant and hate poor people. Virtue resides only on the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
It's quite poor form, really.
I had no idea Phillips was a Guardian writer/editor for 20 years.
And anyone on the left is a scrounger loving, immigrant sponsoring Britain hater but the lefts monopoly on virtur doesn't let them express it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
I didn't say this, which is why I put "the left" in "". "The left" and the left are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Henry and Boydy, for instance, are of "the left". The likes of Tobias are of the left. The former are ANGRY all the time. The latter's just a liberal type.
I was wondering who that was. Dave Challoner. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
It's The Righteous Mind (to use the title of the book that covers it) rather than left/right. The ranks of the left clearly contain more self-righteous wanks than the loosely-assembled right, but the likes of Melanie Philips put enough moralist graft in to cover for those of us on the live 'n' let live wing.
Who wouldn't describe themselves as part of the live 'n' let live wing?
If they were being honest with themselves most people would have to disqualify themselves from it (you included).
What about those who don't want any more Muslim immigrants?
They understand what they're on about and don't see how those are related (not that I ever recall advocating some sort of faith-based embargo on certain immigrants).
Anyway, I turned that Melanie Philips (who I don't mind generally) video off when she got onto talking about how the left doesn't like having a debate with facts and that. I'm sure I remember her calling the Question Time audience 'trivial' and 'ignorant' when they lolled at her trivial and ignorant calls to use the Syria aggro as an excuse to 'neutralise Iran'. How would that one have gone down, love?
She didn't mean the whole of 'the left' - it's a certain section of the left. The media left, as she put it. And she's correct.
And I'm afraid you've highlighted a definite inconsistency (which I know you hate) since you always say certain Muslim immigrants are the problem. That's not 'live 'n' let live'. Perhaps, to get out of this massive ditch you find yourself in, you should describe what it is you mean by 'live n let live'?
I mean letting individuals do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. It's a pretty straight-forward concept that not a lot of people seem to actually embrace, and it doesn't have anything to do with immigration. It doesn't give the world the right to settle here, but it also doesn't place any restrictions on their lifestyles if they do get here.
So what have I ever said which makes you think I am not a 'live n let live' proponent on that definition?
Just to add, the argument you use against Muslim immigrants would see you described as either a racist or bigot, and probably both. Which is the thrust of her point.
The obvious place to start would be the fact you don't think cannabis (and other drugs) should be legalised. Then you've got your less-than-solid commitment to free speech. There are other things that come to mind ('sharia courts', and didn't you support the French burqa ban?), but I can't be bothered with those debates again.
I'm not sure what my argument against 'Muslim immigrants' is meant to be. I think we should be more wary of immigration from shit countries generally, rather than Muslim countries specifically (although they do tend to dominate the list of shit countries we tend to receive immigrants from), so shithead Christians and other plebs who believe in witchcraft from deepest darkest Africa don't exactly top the wish list either.
Well that would then entail a further discussion on what you mean by 'hurt other people'. Clearly the drug addled suicide merchants do harm other people and, as a further result of drugs fueling other crimes, it hurts other people indirectly as well.
How does being 'more wary' manifest itself on a practical level?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcngNMaPnD8
Tobes loves it.
He demonstrated perfectly well that he was among the many, many opponents to Scottish independence that simply didn't understand what people were asking for. To compare them to Nazis should lose him any credibility on the matter - it's just total nonsense. He doesn't manage to make any point against the differences between civic and "blood and soil" nationalism, because it's obvious to anybody sensible and not on the wind up (as his various digs at Scotland suggest he is) that the modern approach to Scottish independence has little to do with "nationalism" in the sense of where you were born.
Make it harder for them to get in than a similarly dense German (assuming we regained control of that).Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I'm not interested in what hurts people 'indirectly'. Pissheads commit crimes as well, and there are people out there who think advertising turns people into anxiety-ridden wrecks.
Yeah, that's fucking ridiculous of Starkey there, He isn't half a twat at times.
Those cannabis smokers doing their mary j wana doobies and comitting crimes.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...5118359430.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-started.html
From a year before we went to Iraq.
Where's the Chilcot enquiry at these days?
Still being blocked while Cameron and friends pretend they want it released. I think they're at the point where they're contacting people who are slagged off in it to ask them if they're okay with being slagged off or something.
Wiki has it down as concluding on 2nd November 2011, nearly four years ago now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry#Criticism
What a complete shambles.
I took 'should military options be necessary' to be the key phrase in that document. I'd like to know what they have whited out, but it's not quite as sinister as the headlines suggest (the implication of which seems to be that they decided they were definitely doing it a year in advance), and probably what you would expect from a British Prime Minister (sadly).
Blair committed to going to war in Iraq ahead of telling us? I'm truly shocked. It was going to happen from the moment he pledged to stand "shoulder to shoulder' with the Americans. From memory it was never a secret that he wanted us to go in. He took it through parliament and won the vote. If he had lost that vote he would have resigned. I don't see that the process was undemocratic or deceptive. The case for war is another matter, of course.
So an i.q test?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
And the drunk argument doesn't hold up. That's just saying 'well drink is legal so everything else harmful should be'. If alcohol were a completely new drug, knowing what we do now, it would not be legal.
I was thinking more of a system that prioritises developed countries.
And yes, drink is legal so everything else harmful should be. Got it in one.
That's a ridiculous argument which doesn't show you in a good light at all. Making the point that drink causes untold damage as a good reason to legalise other things whoch cause untolkd damage is not the most moral case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Your point about 'developed countries' is without doubt a clear case of Islamicophobiaism, masked.
Cultural supremacism ftw.
The moral case I care about is people doing what they want (and not telling me what to do).
It's quite amusing how quickly Harold went from arguing he was one of the "live and let live" crowd to telling Lewis why he was wrong about certain restrictions on how people should be allowed to live.
"Let's move on", will be the refrain from the establishment, of course.
I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies. But I wouldn't expect you to get that. I also don't recall saying any such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Since there have been a few unreasonable arguments about them in the past couple pages, here's a good take on the SNP conference from a far less partisan writer: http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/...np-conference/
Toggle Spoiler
Blair had made it very clear in the course of events that he would exhaust diplomatic avenues. A commitment to go to war proves that that was (another) lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
It's also illegal, but then so was the whole thing.
It's time for them to roll out the psychopath again.
http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs...esa-may-pa.jpg
Quote:
The home secretary has vowed to "systematically confront and challenge extremist ideology" as she detailed new curbs on those who "spread hate".
Radical preachers will be banned from posting material online and anyone with convictions for extremist activity will be barred from working with children.
Deradicalisation classes will be made mandatory for others deemed a threat.
But Muslim leaders warned the strategy "continues down a flawed path" and risks "alienating" Muslims in the UK.
Also among the measures within the counter-extremism strategy are:
- A full review of public institutions such as schools, further and higher education colleges, local authorities, the NHS and the civil service to ensure they are protected from "entryism" - or infiltration - by extremists
- An official investigation into the application of Sharia law in the UK
- Extremism disruption orders to stop individuals engaging in extremist behaviour
- Closure orders for law enforcement and local authorities to close down premises used to support extremism
- Tougher powers for broadcasting regulator Ofcom so action can be taken against radio and television channels showing extremist content
- Demands that internet service providers do more to remove extremist material and identify those responsible for it
She really is fucking hateful. Who decides the next Tory leade? The members? If things are going to shit and they decide they need somebody less wet than Dave/George/Boris they might just go mental enough to give her the job.
How is extremism defined and who decided what constitutes extremism? There is a thin line between extremism and dissent.
If you substitute one for the other in the above list, things begin to get very worrying.
How would you define extremism?
In any case, it's no good letting in all these Muslims from the world's backwaters and then trying to deal with the mess you create by doing so. Closed or very closely controlled borders was the only way, even though it's probably too late to actually achieve much now.
Do you think every Muslim country is a "backwater", or just the ones those currently seeking asylum are from?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Pretty much, yes. Those which aren't backwaters (there aren't many) still have backwards ideas and practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
I think people underestimate the hold Islam has over its followers compared to those of other faiths.
I think you have a warped perception of what many of the countries are like. For sure, there will be some shitholes, but there are also a lot of regular looking countries, with regular looking cities, with regular people who just happen to be Muslim.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Yes, London being one. What Islamic countries are you thinking of?
Well, there's Indonesia, population 255 million.
Malaysia, Algeria, Indonesia, Albania, Qatar (if we exclude human rights from shitholery).... Shall I go on?
They're still pretty shit. Not that it's really Islam's fault. The Arabs could have embraced atheism a thousand years ago and they would still have never progressed beyond slotting goats behind tents.
That's not exactly a brilliant list to showcase...Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
All those countries are perfectly fine. Certainly not shitholes.
They seem to be going utterly mental with this anti-extremism shit. The only upside is that it looks as if a few emails might be enough to land some of my work colleagues on a government hit-list.
Something needs to be done. You can argue May's approach is ultimately the wrong one (and there's a legitimate worry that the general tone of it may play into the hands of extremist groups), but a few of those bullet points in that post above seem reasonably sensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davgooner
"Muslim leaders" might not like it, but I don't see them coming up with anything better, let alone something that might actually work. In the main, all they really seem to do is piss and moan.
Speaking of making sure institutions are 'protected from "entryism" - or infiltration - by extremists', Twitter sez that a former Labour minister has resigned the whip and called them a sack of shit.
EDIT: Stand down. It's nobody good.
Lord Warner. Who?
I'm tempted to quote Thomas Jefferson at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
Crack on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I'm sure you've heard it before. Those who sacrifice liberty for security will lose both, and deserve neither.
If "something" is to be done, it should be "something" consistent with personal freedoms.
As long as the said personal freedoms exercised aren't hurting anyone then I'd absolutely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I don't think any of these, for example, come under that category though:
A full review of public institutions such as schools, further and higher education colleges, local authorities, the NHS and the civil service to ensure they are protected from "entryism" - or infiltration - by extremists
An official investigation into the application of Sharia law in the UK
Demands that internet service providers do more to remove extremist material and identify those responsible for it
It goes back to my question of what constitutes extremism. The last point could potentially be used to suppress all sorts of dissent.
It would have been easier for everyone if she'd just said 'Islamic Extremism', I agree.
It's a bag of shit. The effort within education seems to be particularly fucked; the training course that we're being made to take is the more power-puff thing I've ever sat through. From an IT point of view were now subject to safeguarding protocols that are completely unworkable and seem designed purely to ensure someone at the bottom of the ladder and their institution can be blamed if one of their gimps becomes the new Jihadi John.
What do you do Dav? Teach and Internet Service Provide?
I run an ISIS recruiting centre in the West Midlands.
Fucking knew it.
If it's anything like the recruitment centers I've been going to lately the success rate is so poor, we're probably safe till at least 2022.
Why do we exclude human rights? Surely the complete lack of such rights is at the very forefront of what a shithole is?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
It's funny how such 'non-shitholes' have so many people wanting to leave them and come to Europe, I find.
That's definitely not true. They were, at one time, at the forefront of understanding. The problem is, they have stayed at that point because of their shit religion. Islam is a non-progressive religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
And I'll ask you again, what constitutes extremism to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
LOL at Harold's understanding of history. LOL once more.
You won't get away with that without expanding, I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
He's kind of right. Putting it all down to Islam is a bit of a stretch but it's not that far off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
It's very far off. The Islamic world achieved and maintained their position at the "forefront of understanding" for some time while Islam was at the height of its power.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
To recognise this (or not, if you're aggressively philistine like Harold) but then maintain that Islam is synonymous with backwardness is pretty contradictory.
The problems that the Islamic world are experiencing are relatively recent (i.e. not endemic) and are attributable mainly to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent collapse of things like Arab nationalism. Yes, Islam is not blameless but there's no reason why we should identify the extremes like salafism with the entire thing. And at the end of the day, Islamic countries are mostly middle-income. They're not economically dominant, but then they do exist mainly in the middle of some very large deserts and don't have the other advantages that western society has had.
Err, that's pretty much what I alluded to. 'Science' wasn't really a thing back then. When it became a thing, proving Islam backwards in many ways, Islam and those following it strictly, have been left behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
You only have to look at the attitudes towards gays and women in the Islamic world to see this highlighted.
What the fuck are you on about? How did science "becoming a thing" "prove Islam backwards in many ways" and how does that counter the fact that Muslims led the world for some time?
Are you seriously confused as to how science and religion has conflicted? And you claim to 'lol' at my take on history......
It doesn't counter the fact, it helps explain it.
I'm well aware of how science and religion conflict. But whatever half dozen lines or so that you're remembering from The Portable Atheist doesn't explain all of human history.
The main point being that neither Islam or any other religion is monolithic or unchanging. The Islam of the 8th century caliphate is wildly different to the Islam of the 18th century enlightenment (when science arose) which is again wildly different from the 21st century faith, and there are many currents within each. The fact that you don't like some of the more extreme modern ones in particular in no way entitles you to apply what you think of them to the previous fifteen centuries.
It's like saying that the Roman Empire collapsed because Jehovah's Witnesses waste their time going door to door.
And no, insisting that it's backwards doesn't help explain why Islamic civilisation once led the world.
Between the Crusaders and the Mongols the Islamic world took a battering, and then it all ended up under stagnant and insular Ottoman control. The end result being that Europe got busy killing itself and came out the other end with innovative systems of government and economies. It was a very similar story in China, and they weren't particularly Islamic.
Never read it. Don't make assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Well this is just what I was saying earlier. You refuse to see the obvious distinction between religions. Islam claims to be the final word, it will never have a 'New Testament' as it claims to be perfect.Quote:
The main point being that neither Islam or any other religion is monolithic or unchanging. The Islam of the 8th century caliphate is wildly different to the Islam of the 18th century enlightenment (when science arose) which is again wildly different from the 21st century faith, and there are many currents within each. The fact that you don't like some of the more extreme modern ones in particular in no way entitles you to apply what you think of them to the previous fifteen centuries.
It's like saying that the Roman Empire collapsed because Jehovah's Witnesses waste their time going door to door.
That's just you not being able to read. I said it once was because at that time it was ahead of the other backwards religions, which have since evolved a lot more, leaving behind the barbarism of Islam. The enlightenment escaped the Islamic world.Quote:
And no, insisting that it's backwards doesn't help explain why Islamic civilisation once led the world
ZOk, take it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
However, you still don't see people from Indonesia, Malaysia or Qatar (or Pakistan, or Bangledesh....) clambering to get to Europe - what complete nonsense.
I suspect there are about 0.73 people who actually care, but here's a piece challenging the view that the SNP - and it's removal of tuition fees - has harmed access to university for young people from the poorest backgrounds:
http://tomforth.co.uk/uniaccess/
http://tomforth.co.uk/uniaccess/Ineq...cess_Table.png
Yet another criticism of the SNP government that has blanket acceptance in the media and from the opposition, and yet it's the SNP that are supposedly running a one-party state without proper scrutiny.Quote:
There should be never complacency in education, but combining Scotland's strong position in the table above with the evidence from my first graph showing its recent improvement I would argue that current criticism of its higher education system is unfounded.
(I'm going to end up sounding like Sebo if I keep harping on about it, which I don't want to because I don't even support the SNP that strongly as a party. :moop:)
Interesting piece on us buying our energy commitments from foreign states.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-privatisation
Quote:
Take Hinkley, which at £24.5bn will cost as much as the London Olympics, Crossrail and a new terminal at Heathrow put together. Osborne will proudly blare that taxpayers aren’t chipping in a penny towards the costs. True enough, but his civil servants will quietly admit that we are guaranteeing up to £17bn of the total cost. In the screwy logic of Britain’s renationalised capitalism, the public assumes the risk while the corporations get to scoop the profits.
Because rest assured, there will be profits – all of us will be making sure of that. To secure EDF as a builder, Cameron guaranteed a fixed price for electricity from Hinkley of £92.50 per megawatt hour. That is around double the going rate for electricity on the wholesale markets, a price so high that equity analysts term it“financial insanity”. Change your supplier as often as you like, you and everyone else in Britain will be paying for that de facto subsidy in your electricity bills for decades to come. Britons will in effect be paying more for their energy so that French households can pay less. Indeed, so generous are the terms of this deal that the government of Austria is currently taking Britain to court on the grounds that it’s handing out state aid to EDF.
Of course you haven't. Silly me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold
Do you know what a Shi'ite is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold
You say wrongly, because you don't understand history, or anything else about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold
Yeah, but it's Tories so they know what they are doing with the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Security security security.
I'm sure the Chinese will look after the nuclear power very well.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/...20140708022358
I'd say David Cameron should raise the issue of human rights with them, but with the way things are going, maybe it should be the other way around.
Bwahahaha.
So you will retract your silly assumption, then? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Yes, Scoobs in bed. Glen isn't much better.Quote:
Do you know what a Shi'ite is?
You asserting things does not make them so. Try and make the point by showing me where I'm wrong.Quote:
You say wrongly, because you don't understand history, or anything else about this.
I did show that you're wrong, but you turned it into a jibe about "Scoobs", so what's the point?
It's coming. That's also not true of Pakistan. Pakistani-borns are the third highest immigrant group coming to Britain, after India and Poland.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
No, you didn't. You asked if I knew about the Shi'ite. Well yes, I do. Explain what that has to do with my correct assertion that Islam has rather stood still in its progression compared to other religions? Iran is the most famous Shia-run country in the world - who gave the order to kill Salman Rushdie? Who said the following?:Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shia believer
Where do you think it is still acceptable to be punished for 'swearing at the Prophet'? Or leaving the faith?
It may well be that it's 'progressive' compared to the worst form of Islam but that's not my contention. My contention is that Islam, in all its guises, is much less progressive than any other religion has been and is necessarily so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
A 30 second Google shows that 14,500 Pakistanis went to the UK in the past 12 months.... That's a mind-boggling 0.000075% of the Pakistan population. They don't exactly seem desperate to head to the UK to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
If you knew what Shia Islam was, then you wouldn't make comments about Islam being the "final word" that can't be added to. HINT: They've done just that.
And no, the Iranian political system isn't very nice but that's not what we were discussing.
Well ask yourself how many Europeans are going to those countries in comparison. It's something of a one-way stream, you'll find.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
No, they haven't. They interpret things a bit more but, like I said, there is no new testament equivalent and there never will be. The Iranian system is based on Shia Islam, which is the official state religion. Those punishments I gave examples of were based on Shia Islam. What progress!Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Apparently in 2010 Pakistan had 4.2m migrants, plus another 1.6m asylum seekers (most in the world).
80,000 of the migrants were British (2010). Unfortunately, I couldn't find any country-by-country/year-by-year breakdown.
Interestingly, emigration-wise, the most population destination for Pakistani's (in 2010) are;
- UAE (Muslim)
- Bahrain (Muslim)
- Kuwait (Muslim)
- Libya (Muslim)
- Malaysia (Muslim)
In fact, 96.5% of Pakistani emigrants end up in the Middle-East
https://www.budapestprocess.org/comp...s/download/167
It seems like they are heading from shithole to shithole.
Nope. Do some reading. TTH isn't school.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Here's some reading for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
http://www.al-islam.org/articles/tho...m-mahdi-azizanQuote:
The Jurists of the Shia faith have divided the apostate into two categories – Milli and Fitri. The ‘Murtad-e- Fitri’ is the one who is born into a family in which either one or both parents are Muslims and after he/she reaches to the age of maturity and willfully accepts Islam, then leaves the faith. However, the ‘Murtad-e-Milli’ is the person who was born into a family in which neither of his parents were Muslims and after reaching to the age of maturity and willfully accepting Islam then leaves Islam to another tradition.
In regards to the ruling for being an apostate, the Jurists of the Shia differentiate between the male and female apostate. As for the woman who apostates – whether of the ‘Fitri’ or ‘Milli’ – if she repents, her repentance will be accepted and the penalty for apostasy will be removed from her. However, if she does not repent and recant, then she is to be flogged and imprisoned.
However for the man who apostates – either the Fitri or the Milli - there are different rulings. The most well known position of the Jurists is that the repentance of the Murtad-e-Fitri is not accepted and thus his ruling is that he is to be executed. However the Murtad-e-Milli can repent and recant his statement of apostasy and if he does so, he will not be subject to the death penalty.
Progress!
Why do you insist on appeasement of Islamic barbarism? Why do the left always do this?
I fear this is following a predictable pattern of me actually presenting evidence and being met with opposition and no evidence to back that up.
Why are you trying to pretend that we're arguing about whether the Iranian theocracy is a nice place to live? We already agree that it isn't, so you've no need to be producing "evidence" of it.
The issue that you're trying to get away from is your understanding of the history of Islam.
The whole point of Shia Islam is that the Koran is not the final word, and that the writings of Muhammad's successors (the Imam's) also apply.
See here.
And to per-empt your repetition of your previous points, this is not to argue that Shia Islam is nice and cuddly - just to point out that it's an evolution and that things are not as monolithic and final as you keep proclaiming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
:harold:Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
These stories about Seamus Milne becoming Labour's Director of Communications makes me think it's all some sort of performance art.
That clip of Dave and Jeremy having a chat earlier is quality. They both look properly into whatever the conversation is. Gardening, perhaps, or manhole covers.
Guido Fawkes has cum in his pants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
By 'British' I think you'll find they are largely Pakistani/British, probably either going to training camps or visiting their fucked up relatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
How many 'refugees' have you seen saying their dream is to reach Pakistan?
That Theocracy is directly based on Shia Islam, which we are talking about. You will not deflect this, I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Even if I agree with you, which I don't, then it would beg the question - why is a faith open to progression not progressing much? Why is homosexuality still punishable by death, as is apostasy? And so on.Quote:
The issue that you're trying to get away from is your understanding of the history of Islam.
The whole point of Shia Islam is that the Koran is not the final word, and that the writings of Muhammad's successors (the Imam's) also apply.
See here.
All those refugees in Pakistan are Afghans (obviously). Unless that number is people leaving Pakistan? In which case they get snapped up as migrant labour in the Gulf. I would guess that there are many, many more Pakistanis in the UAE than Emiratis.
Since this hero was banned from speaking in Britain recently, let's indulge ourselves in the sound of many of his well aimed strokes of the hammer hitting that nail firmly on the head, from a few years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBtsScLjV8M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3KKYvW9AHc
You can get barred for telling the truth, it seems.
He sort of sounds like a Dutch Jose Mourinho.
Luca, why have your countrymen elected a total cuntweasel?
Actually, I'd be curious as well. Not the cuntweasel part but more what is Trudeau like? Only thing I've heard is that he's the son of the politician regarded as the 'father of Modern Canada'
I should have included you in my ranting PM to Lewis. To paraphrase:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Idiots got caught up in a wave of YOUTH VOTE HYPE, CHANGE, and STRATEGIC VOTING. Harper has, in truth, done plenty of boneheaded things (muzzling government scientists, Patriot Act lite) to distract voters from the things (the economy) that people usually vote on, leading to plenty of backlash, especially from swing voters.
I voted Conservative, obviously (to ensure strategically that they'd be the opposition, and not the fucking NDP), but I'm glad Harper has resigned. He's the sort of religious-right type of Conservative that we could use less of here. Unfortunately, the collateral damage includes Joe Oliver, who would probably have been the best choice for leader. If it's Jason fucking Kenney (Harper v0.8), I'm going to rage at the idiocy. In summation, Harper has lost here by doing what Labour did over there; ie. try and govern from one hard side and not from the centre. Kenney would just be more of the same shite.
'JT' won't change anything (he's a drama schoolteacher, for fuck's sake), but he takes selfies, so people like him.
This is a pretty good summation of how I feel.
So Twitter won? Oh dear. Here, or in England at least, Twitter always loses.
He's got the looks and the charm of his father, that's for sure. He's been an MP for about 7 years now. Some of his main platform positions include include shifting tax benefits from the upper class/corporations to the middle class, electoral reform (moving from FPTP to STV), and marijuana legalisation (fair play). My issue is that he's full of piss and wind, even relative to the general level of shit that politicians talk, and constantly flip-flopping his opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/w...kplace-pension
And that 'striking physical embodiment of the workplace pension looks like...Quote:
A new character is introduced to Britain’s television screens this evening (Wednesday 21 October) with the launch of a campaign which aims to change the country’s perception of pensions in the workplace.
Workie, a striking physical embodiment of the workplace pension, will be seen visiting people in all sorts of work environments over the coming months, asking them not to ignore him.
Toggle Spoiler
I bet they spent thousands on that. Johnny Vegas and Monkey would have done it for petrol money and a crate of beer.
Thousands? Try fucking millions. £8.5 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
'a striking physical embodiment of the workplace pension' has probably topped that sausage roll shite as a new low for politics.
The worst bit is that the thrust of the argument itself is clearly just that pensions are the "elephant in the room" that nobody wants to talk about, but they clearly felt too smart to just use an elephant.
These Government contractors... It's absolutely fucking embarassing. We can't even get a quote from someone without spending a few hundred thousand pounds.
Imagine what happens when TPP comes in and any corporation can sue us to shit for the last idiots guff. Eight point five million pounds. That's so depressing.
It's the bill to ban 'legal highs'.Quote:
A Conservative MP who was famously tricked into condemning a made up drug called “Cake” has been put in charge of scrutinising the Government’s new drugs policy.
David Amess appeared on the satirical television programme Brass Eye in 1997 where he was filmed referring to Cake as “a big yellow death bullet”.
As a result of the encounter he asked ministers a real life question in Parliament about the made up drug.
It was announced this week that Mr Amess will chair the bill committee for the Government’s Psychoactive Substances Bill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbq3kc29Tmg
That picture is Floyd's life.
But with hair.
Mr Xi looks a lot more convincing in a pub than some.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...61_634x400.jpg
He's got the 'I've been cornered by the pub bore' face down to a t.
'Maintaining harmony in Manchester'
Wut?
What's going on with that woman's hair on the right?
It's been photoshopped a bit to bring colours out, she's moving and there's a shitload of purple in the room so it's interpolated the light into her hair.
As in they're going to both grounds so as not to deharmonise either set of supporters.
Why do they always do that shit with their hands when they're talking? Act like proper people, dickheads.
Poor selfie game from the big DC there.
I want to know how the Premier gets his hair to stay like that.
I bet he absolutely stinks of hairspray and cheap aftershave.
I reckon he smells like wax.
That sounds shit on the face of it, but I can never quite bring myself to believe 'campaigners' when they say he was 'brutally manhandled' by police officers.
He also wasn't arrested for protesting - he was arrested for standing in front of the motorcade, blocking them. That sounds fair enough to me. Not like the police went looking for him.
I don't see how it's any different from when we have the Americans over. We're a medium power. Impressing Asians with flags and palaces (and the City) is about the best diplomatic hand we've got.
Top effort in The Spectator's letter pages this week:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSEhU_8WcAAqdif.png
Tory scum may have bitten off more than they can chew on tax credits. LOL if they have to do a u-turn.
To be fair, I have no issue with the tax credits. I think they should be brought in gradually in line with the wage increases but scrapping them isn't the worst thing in the world.
The lol part is them saying it would be unconstitutional to oppose it (it isn't) and threatening to flood the Lords with 150 peers if it doesn't go through.
I agree - if tax credits were eased out then it would be less of an issue. The fact that it isn't and will put people's lives at risk is the deal breaker.
I think 'putting people's lives at risk' is proper emotional scaremongering.
You're obviously a single mother who stands to lose £1,000 of what little she has to feed her kids, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
People will not starve to death in this country unless they allow it to happen to themselves. Their lives are not 'at risk'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Oh right, so I guess that money they have know that ensures they can feed their family is superfluous and next year with less they'll do just as well. Thanks for the clarification.
They're only spending it on booze and fags anyway, init.
You're not arguing with what I actually said though, are you? How many of those families actually starve to death? Like I said - people do not starve to death in this country unless they allow it to happen and do not take advantage of the services this country offers to stop such things happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
Services on offer such as food banks?
Starving to death is unlikely. But malnutrition is already a problem, and will grow more acute. As will other social problems that this exacerbates.
Surely the reason people don't starve "in this country" currently is that it is relatively wealthy, and surely removing some of that wealth from the worst off is at some point going to have a noticeable effect.
What's the tipping point of lost income at which people might starve?
£2000? £5000?
And what does the country gain by making more people less healthy? Especially those who are actually working. Seems pretty short sighted and counter productive.
Malnutrition is much more to do with parents feeding their kids shit. Often not inexpensive shit, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
There is no such tipping point if you have safeguards in place to stop such things happening (food banks, emergency funds etc). That was my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Don't worry about it, there's plenty of fit, young men coming from Immigrantstan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
Food banks and emergency funds? I thought this was the 21st Century, not Oliver Twist.
That's nice. But what I said is correct, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
So what happens now?
That people are unlikely to die of starvation? Yes, it's correct. It's not a great bar to hold your government to I must admit, a lack of widespread famine.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
People who oppose the House of Lords temporarily forget that they oppose the House of Lords.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
It'll be the second time in a week that Cybernats have been in the tricky situation of agreeing with things they don't normally agree with, since there were a bunch of people getting worked up over the 'EVEL' proposals supposedly being barred by the wording of Act of Union.
So, the stronger motion has been passed, asking the government to bring on the cuts over three years on a gradual basis, which would be the smart option.
Question though, surely the government can just get the Lords to reject it a couple more times in quick succession and then use the Parliament Act to force it through? Basically what happens now?
The Parliament Act has only been used a handful of times IIRC (one of them, laughably was for foxhunting). Not sure why, but they don't like using it.
Osborne: 'the vote has raised constitutional issues that need to be dealt with'
Prepare for another hundred Conservative peers soon.
It damages Gideon personally, which is good.
I agree, but it was only mentioned to refute the ridiculous, emotive claptrap that Kiko served up.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
It's not emotive claptrap.
Where are all these dying poor people, then? We don't actually have real poverty in this country.
Jesus wept.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
"They've got widescreen TVs."
Where are all the dying people? Probably in the ground. DEAD. BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS HAROLD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
:dc:Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Peter Hitchens
Fuck Peter Hitchens. The fact that some poverty is worse than other poverty is not demonstrative of anything.
At what point in your libtard world does someone become poverty-less?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I mean don't get me wrong - I'm glad we've moved away from 'omg people will die!'.
We haven't moved away from that. People die because of social problems, and health problems - and Tory policy increases those.
There's a pretty well defined poverty line with 10 million people beneath it, a figure that has risen in recent years. I doubt you can ever eliminate it completely, but several other countries have done better.
In your opinion. If that's the case they will be voted out, won't they?
It's surprising all these EU migrants come here to live in poverty.
No, their being voted out doesn't follow. People (rightly or wrongly) vote based on all kinds of other things.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was good on Newsnight.
Henners interviewing Farage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngmoUfjh0cc
It does envoke that Thatcher quote though, and there's no doubt that the term poverty is thrown around like confetti as far as the UK is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
FWIW, I'm glad the Lords kicked this out/postponed it though.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about - when it's defined on those levels it ceases to mean anything. Like fuck do 1 in 6 people in this country live in actual poverty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
For fuck's sake, what is wrong with the left?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
The Tories are bad bad people for doing this in the way they've proposed, but putting people's lives at risk? Fucking hell.
Getting people off the drug of tax credits is the right idea, but the solution has been ill thought out. What should have happened, if there needed to be an overlap, was that those better off (myself being one of them at this moment in time) should have covered that overlap - the Tories are wankers for not proposing this and deserve all the fair criticism they get as a result. But "putting people's lives at risk"? Have a day off.
Don't people pretty regularly "freeze to death" in Britain? I'm sure there's a news report every year saying the figure has risen as well.
There's no need to cut tax credits if the Tories were actually creating the higg wage, low welfare economy they say they're trying to because if people were on high enough wages, they wouldn't be getting tax credits anyway.
It's a credit to British democracy that a shit government plan is getting cunted without the official opposition having any influence on proceedings at any stage.
Argument from incredulity isn't really valid though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
Hold up - have you ever suffered poverty? Just because it's inconceivable to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen (it's inconceivable to me as well thankfully.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
I agree with the idea as well, if you're going to get rid of tax credits, you do it so they overlap to correctly incentivise people to work.
UK GDP growth slows more than expected to 0.5%
More great new for those promoting expansionary austerity!
Unless you're ninety you shouldn't be freezing to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Yes, the elderly do sometimes. But that's not the fault of the government. Pensioners have been treated very well by this government and yet I'm sure some will freeze to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
I'm not entirely sure the tax credits would help them much, just to put it in the correct context.
If 'poverty' means not always being able to eat what one wants, yes. I don't see many emaciated children walking around, do you? Aren't we the most obese nation in Europe? Doesn't seem many are going hungry to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
The alternative to austerity elsewhere has done much worse though, hasn't it? Let's just ignore that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Only China and Japan have had their data added for this Quarter but outside of that this is a great resource for this stuff.
https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=350
No, let's insist that it isn't true, such as in the United States, where a policy of moderate stimulus was pursued, and where the economy is doing much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Not really comparable due to its ability to act as its own market and its large industrial sector. You want to compare France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Spain etc.
That and its ENERGY REVOLUTION.
You can rarely compare any two countries directly. Most of those have undertaken austerity as well anyway, and don't have their own currency (and thus control over monetary policy).Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
That well known European country, the United States, well known for having an economy entirely synonymous with our own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Greece went anti-austerity.... until they realised that when in power you actually have some responsibility.
Greece did not go anti-austerity. They have had ruinous austerity year on year for almost a decade. That you think otherwise is utterly ridiculous and speaks to a complete disconnect with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
So Syriza didn't come in on the anti-austerity ticket and then be forced to change their mind because of reality?
They changed their mind - that is, they didn't actually implement anti-austerity policies.
(The reason being that they weren't in control of their currency and had no other option without leaving the Euro.)
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...JS74494464.jpg
I'm getting into Politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
:happycry:Quote:
The pseudo-left covers up for Syriza’s betrayal
:happycry:Quote:
Wednesday’s vote in the Greek parliament, in which Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras rammed through over 900 pages of European Union (EU) austerity measures dictated by Berlin, completes a devastating betrayal of the Greek people by Tsipras’s Syriza (“Coalition of the Radical Left”) party.
Virtually overnight, Syriza has embraced austerity as if it were the most natural policy in the world, trampling its electoral pledges to end the EU Memorandum and the 61 percent “no” vote against EU austerity in the July 5 referendum. Its agenda of social cuts, reactionary legal “reforms” and privatizations totaling tens of billions of euros will devastate Greece. The consequences will be horrific for millions of Greek workers already facing hunger, joblessness and lack of medical care.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../pers-j24.html
Who would post on something called The World Socialist Website.
Right, so that states the very opposite of what you claimed a few posts ago. Why are you highlighting it?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
No, it states exactly what I said - Syriza came to power on an anti-austerity ticket and then caved in to austerity almost immediately.
I feel like every thread I visit, Harold is arguing with someone.
It's true, because they won't desist from lieing about things, just seemingly to disagree with me.
What you said is that Greece "went anti-austerity". This was in the context of a discussion of countries who had actually implemented anti-austerity policies, so what you meant is that they had implemented such policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
You'll now deny this of course. So fuck you very much, I'm out.
It has gone anti-austerity, as is pointed out. It's been forced to, by reality. Something I also said.
http://peoplesppe.com/
Lads.
Our local Uni looks like something out of The Prison Experiment but seems to be good.
http://www.tdgemploi.ch/images/detai...-28_165024.jpg
Foreigners may be charged for A&E treatment under new proposals
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...bJZ?li=AAaeUIW
Terrific news. Let's hope this sticks. Although they should be charging EU foreigners, too.
What a mighty shit catchphrase "emotive claptrap" is.
It does its job.
We already charge non-EU foreigners, just not in advance of treatment. We have reciprocal arrangements with EU (and some Commonwealth) countries which means British citizens get health benefits if they require care abroad.
That's great, but we have nearly double the amount of EU immigrants come here as we do leave. Net loss, and by some distance.
Indeed. Loads of us go on holiday to southern Europe and end up in states requiring hospital treatment though.
This isn't really going to make a financial difference given we charge these people anyway. It is clever politics though. It all adds to the false notion that there is a financial crisis in the NHS and penny pinching is necessary.
It will make a difference in that people won't come here solely for free treatment, and any cuts in waiting times/costs to the NHS ought to be encouraged. I'm not sure why you claim it to be a myth that the NHS costs too much.
We pay less for our health service than almost any other developed nation. What we get in return for what we put in is massive value for money. Anyway I didn't say it doesn't cost too much (although it doesn't) I said there was no NHS financial crisis as reported by Mr Hunt and the newspapers.
Are there any papers which don't acknowledge that the NHS costs too much money as it is?
Anyway, moving on - what is it with Labour MP's and their terrorist sympathies, mixed with a side order of anti-Jew narrative?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS9XP5sy4V0
The Prime Minister - you know, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - has just said in the Commons that he gives Jeremy Corbyn 'full Marx' for leading Labour to the left.
Stunning Bantz there.
He's basically nicking stuff from Private Eye now.
That's a solid defence of your policy, Dave. Well done.Quote:
Cameron also dismissed a warning from Corbyn that the proposed cuts to tax credits would hit a private in the army with two children and a partner would lose more than £2,000 a year. The prime minister replied that the Labour leader was in no position to talk about soldiers because they would be out of a job under his plans for the armed forces.
This crap about using individual cases is never going to work. Of course some people are going to lose out in every policy.
How many individual cases would be enough to make them not individual cases, Harold?
I think, on balance, they have the right idea. Some will lose out, some won't. You can't please everyone.
Who will they please?
How many individual cases would be enough to make them not individual cases, Harold?
2, technically. But I could make the case that those not affected or affected in a positive way because of the living wage is much, much higher. Does that mean I win?
I've been confused by this living wage stuff, by the by. Are they raising the Minimum Wage to the Living Wage or rasing the recommended Living Wage? We don't have minimum wage laws here so it's all a bit confusing.
No, it means that you can't dismiss arguments that refer to "individual cases", since those are simply representative of a much larger number of cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Nor is it okay to hurt the working poor because they're a minority.
Thy're raising the minimum wage but not to the actual 'living wage' as calculated by some low-pay charity organisations. But they're calling it the living wage anyway even though it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
The Living Wage Foundation now recommends the living wage as £8.25 per hour and £9.40 per hour in London. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34692382
The government's 'living wage' will be £7.20 when it comes in and only apply to over 25s.
Will London still have a different Living Wage from elsewhere? Will it be adjusted across the country?
I have no idea about tax credits really, but is it unfair to characterise them as the government topping up (inadequate? [private sector??]) wages. If that is the case, allowing companies to not pay their staff enough and making up the difference doesn't seem an overly leftist ideal, in any sense other than the vote buying one (the key ideal of all modern political parties).
Great, so if I show those individuals who will benefit, do I win?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I don't think so. London's current living wage (the one calculated by the Living Wage Foundation) is £9.15. The Tories' one isn't planned to reach £9 until 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Read my last post rather than ignoring it.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Not an unfair characterisation. It's pretty much what they are. It's not a leftist ideal but it's better than people getting shit wages and being told to like it or lump it.Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
With inflation, wouldn't minimum wage be 9 quid by 2020 anyway? I'm sure I remember calling Ed Miliband a cock for suggesting the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Probably, yeah. It's just an outright lie by the Tories, really. It's only a raise in the minimum wage and younger people don't even get it because fuck them, they don't vote Tory.
The minimum wage didn't go up for years. You should be applauding what the Tories have implemented there. It's much higher than the minimum Labour wanted to bring in.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
As mentioned above, I called the Labour idea crap. It's called 'independent thought' where I can agree with something on one level and disagree with it on another. Maybe you'll learn it some day.
I go against the grain on most issues. I scarcely think I can be accused of non-independent thought. Still, we can both agree then that the Tories are ahead of all the other parties on the minimum wage, can't we?
It will make little difference, anyway. If everyone gets paid more then the prices of goods and services will simply go up.
Is that what would happen (was happening?) though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
And if the answer is no, because there is always someone who will work for a pittance, then that probably throws up other questions.
Yes, it's about keeping the wages higher than the price of goods going up. It's the basic premise of inflation/deflation :cab:Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
You really do struggle when it comes to economics, don't you?
No, you struggle with reality. If the wages go too high then the big companies will find a way around it and the smaller companies will struggle. It will make no difference to people in the end as the price of goods and services will go up accordingly and people will be laid off. It's all very nice saying we should pay more than inflation but you can't make that the case when people will happily work for less. And we all know who those people are, largely.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Oh, and economists are also shit.
If there's always someone who'll work for a pittance, isn't the answer to your question 'yes'?Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
Hang on, weren't you the one going on about how if jobs picking fruit or whatever that foreigners come over to do for a pittance paid proper wages then British people would work them and we wouldn't need immigrants and everything would be fine and dandy?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I don't believe I said everything would be fine and dandy? But yes, it would help. It doesn't change anything I said. Those fruit pickers I referred to are getting less than minimum wage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Even if they are (I'd imagine most aren't), there are laws to force the employers to pay minimum wage. You were, at the time of that discussion, advocating those jobs pay more so British people would do them but now you're saying higher wages would mean higher prices (which you were told at the time but I think your defence was "it's not all about economics"). Seems like you want higher wages when it's part of an anti-immigrant stance but don't agree with when it comes from a leftist perspective like of those who have been advocating it in here. Not very consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
At this point I'd like to point everyone to the existence of the "Ignore" feature on their profile pages. Alas I cannot use it being a moderator, but targeted correctly it may make the board a more enjoyable place. :)
Yes, they should pay minimum wage, at least. There is a medium you must get to, and simply paying every £10 an hour plus or whatever the class warriors demand these days will only serve to see more people out of jobs. It's a matter of striking the right balance which is what the Tories are trying to do. The left always love a good whinge at them but they never have any answers of their own, besides borrowing and borrowing. Let the next generation deal with the shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Well, yeah. Caveat with wrong word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg_NMTrgZrk
:evictory:
The honest answer is, I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
If you can get employers to pay more then I don't mind tax credits being taken away but to just cut them and then hope that employers are going to pay doesn't seem like the best way to go about it. It's like their expansionary fiscal contraction idea. It just seems to be "we'll cut this and then hope this other stuff fills in for it but if it doesn't we don't really care because all we want is to cut anyway".
The next generation is already dealing with it since they're not getting any wages rises if they can even find jobs to begin with and they're going to be stuck renting for years if not forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
The idea of public debt as being borrowing from the next generation is bullshit anyway. It's a claim of one part of society (pension funds etc.) on another (taxpayers).
The easier solution would be to cut taxes to match/exceed the money people are losing. Inevitably some people might still lose out, but it solves the welfare issue.
They will be getting rises, though..... quite significantly so in some cases. More jobs would be available if we didn't insist on shipping in immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
The Tories' 'National Living Wage' doesn't apply to under-25s.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
That's true but they are giving a rise to apprentices as well. It's broadly the right way to go. Not everyone can get what they want. Most people these days don't leave home until their mid/late twenties, so maybe that was taken into consideration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
I'm not sure if it's most people don't leave home until their mid-late twenties but even for those who are still at home, it's probably because they can't afford to move out rather than not wanting to. So it's not really taking that into consideration so much as exacerbating the problem.
The underlying issue to it all is the cost of housing. If it hadn't climbed so much, wages wouldn't even need to go up much. Bring it back down by building more houses and wages won't matter quite so much. But that won't happen because all the twats who have benefited from rising house pages would shit themselves and throw the government (whoever it happens to be) out.
We all know that house prices are ridiculous and most of us will probably not own our home. I'm not sure what could actually be done about it, though. I agree with your sentiments on this.
Build more, surely?
Under twenty-fives should pay less taxes if they get stiffed on benefits and the minimum wage.
I thought that's what they were planning to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
I'm not sure the levels they're planning are even enough to keep up with demand though, never mind actually increasing supply enough that prices will go down.
Well, if the population goes up by 500,000 every year it's not going to be easy to build your way out of that.
I've always wondered why they get stiffed on this. What is the rationale behind it? Either you're an adult or you're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
It's the experience argument, isn't it? At least it was for the lower levels of the minimum wage for under 21s. They need training etc whereas older people don't apparently. As if their employers were investing loads of money in training them in how to use a till in a supermarket.
On the minimum wage it's that it gives them a better chance of finding work if employers can pay them less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I'm less sure what the rationale of the benefits argument is.
That's interesting. Given that we're a pretty conservative country, and taking it to mean what came to pass rather than wanky theory ('Ooh, the state just withers away...'), my guess is that people 1) think fascism automatically means Nazism; 2) possibly don't know much about communist states.
Lewis the fascist.
I'd wager it's the first point where people assume Facism = Hitler.
It just goes to show that the Conservatives are not really Conservative by most definitions. Another endorsement of Peter Hitchens, I feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Well yeah, given the choice between it and communism. Until it went ape shit during the war the vast majority of Germans were much 'safer' (as in less prone to being killed for no reason) than their Soviet equivalents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I said 'conservative'. Not 'Conservative'.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
That doesn't alter my point at all. The Conservatives used to cater to 'conservatives'. Hence the name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Presumably most people don't make the automatic equation between communism and Stalinism which you do then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
In which case your point has nothing to do with mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
There wasn't another established communist state running alongside Nazi Germany, so it's the only fair comparison (especially since it compares 1939 poll results). Then again even the non-Stalinist regimes managed to do millions in, so they were hardly an improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Obviously people don't agree with what you think is a fair comparison. They're free to make up their own minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
And no, the ones who killed millions were more or less all Stalinist.
The likes of China (biggest killer) and Cambodia (worst killer) were not Stalinists beyond also having paranoid shithouses in charge. Let's not get into how far they did and didn't adhere to wot Karl Marx said. In terms of what actually existed (which was presumably the basis for asking the question in 1939 given the context) the non-specific communist regimes were all worse.
No, those were both Stalinist.
The Sino-Soviet split happened when the Russians started denouncing Stalin and moved to the "peaceful coexistence" stuff, while the Chinese called themselves "anti-revisionists" and kept all the Stalin iconography, like so:
http://kasamaproject.org/wp-content/..._stalin_g1.jpg
The Cambodians and others were just further developments from that.
I'm not big on Marx either, but not everyone identifies the base idea with the perversions of it, and that's reflected in the poll, whether you like it or not.
You've always been weak on fascism too.
It had nothing to do with communism because I like communism!
I don't like communism, and it did have something to do with communism, so wrong on both points.
Stalin's crimes probably weren't as bad as those of the British Empire anyway.
:roflol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
That was cynical national interest stuff. Maoism and Stalinism differed on the peasantry/industrial workers crap, if only because China didn't have any of the latter, and Chinese policies were more ideologically-driven than what transpired in the Soviet Union (I would say Chinese policies were more concerned with creating a certain culture as well). It's a pretty meaningless difference really, but then if you're claiming that 'communism' in 1939 didn't mean what actually existed (Stalinism) then you have to accept those differences. Cambodia though was nothing like Stalinism. They completely rejected industrialisation (and therefore urbanisation) and thought they could jump to communism without any transitional phases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I don't see how I'm 'weak on fascism'. It's a bag of shit. I just recognise that communism (or whatever you want to call what went on behind the Iron Curtain) was equally as bad, and actually far more murderous in 'peacetime' conditions.
I think it could be said for a lot of people that fascism is theoretically bad, whereas communism has just proven to be practically bad. And, given the question, I think a lot of people will choose the one they see as having any potential (communism) over the one they find irredeemable no matter what.
What I often wonder is what would've happened if the Czechoslovaks' "Communism with a human face" hadn't been crushed by the Russians. That always struck me as by far the most appealing version of communism as practiced in the world, but would it have just gone the way of 1989 within a few years anyway?
No form of socialism or communism will ever succeed anywhere. It's against the laws of physics.
Scandanavia disagrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
It wasn't "the same", but it was a development that came directly from Stalinism. The Khmer Rouge was another step along the line. All of this stuff ultimately is a development of Leninism, where a small group is entitled to appoint itself as a vangaurd on behalf of "the revolution", regardless of the feelings of the rest of the people. That was a radical departure from most Marxist/communist ideas of the early 20th century, and was harshly criticised as such. The only reason we're discussing it here is that it won in Russia and then spread elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Clearly people are still aware to some extent aware that it was a perversion.
You've said in the past that those who were part of the anti-Nazi resistance were stupid and deserved what they got, among other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Scandinavia doesn't have socialism, it has social democracy. The difference is that the individual is acknowledged by the latter but dismissed by the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Debating what is shitter, communism or fascism, is rubbish. Heres a picture of a giant David Cameron and Friend at the Lewes Bonfire night.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTHJ5MJW4AIBuVD.jpg:large
Social democracy is a "form" of socialism, be it mixed with capitalism. Your attempt to elevate right-wing doctrine to the same level of "the laws of physics" is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Intentionally so, one would imagine.
If you look at the social structures of animals in the wild, most are naturally right wing, or at least small-c conservative. You don't get leopards clubbing together and saying actually, let's redistribute that impala for the good of leopards as a whole.
I'm pretty sure I saw a dog in a purple coat this morning too, which suggests they are naturally Ukip-leaning. It's arrogant to think we've got very far beyond basic survival mechanics.
It's a stupid comparison, but the idea that animals aren't social or don't share is bullshit. One of our closest relatives is the bonobo. We could do with learning a thing or two from them.
Henry....
FFS, Henry.
It's a bit of a cop out from Floyd, as he's said that sort of thing before and clearly believes it to a greater extent than he's now making out.
I do believe it (the 'facts of life are conservative' at least), I just like drawing Henners into deadpan posts on absurd topics.
Henry's best po-faced posts tend to come unsolicited.
That, from a Lofty thread on Halloween, is my favourite. So, so creepy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Ah, what use would a Friday morning be if I wasn't getting baited on TTH...
It's not really baiting, I think you were snared a while ago.
Any response from these two?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
That's a proper jemble post.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
They were pretty important (to them at least) developments and differences, and a vanguard was clearly necessary to getting any form of communism to get off the ground instead of waiting for the workers' rapture, so its 'perversion' made it possible. But whatever you want to call it, it was crap and gets an easier ride than fascism, which is surely reflected in the poll unless people are more clued-up on Marxist history than I give them credit for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I think it was more that leafleting in the middle of wartime Hamburg was a bit stupid, not that opposing Nazism was.Quote:
You've said in the past that those who were part of the anti-Nazi resistance were stupid and deserved what they got, among other things.
Workers control was already a reality in much of Russia in 1917 - before the Bolsheviks took over and subordinated everything to themselves instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
They don't have to be "clued up" to recognise that the ideal was the antithesis of the perversion of Stalinism. Whereas someone who is "clued up" such as yourself, shouldn't insist that they conflate the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
You said that they deserved it what they got, and that it'd been better for them to keep shtum. And you're now claiming that there was clear blue water between fascism and "communism" that made the latter worse. I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
That thing you were trying to pull looked fairly close. Scoobs, wasn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Bonobos do nothing but fuck so I'm with Henry.
They steal jobs, too.
That reality was an ineffectual circle-jerk, hence the soviets supporting the Bolsheviks as the best way of actually getting something done, and the need for a civil war to make it stick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
People clearly conflate the two (just as they conflate fascism and Nazism). You see Soviet iconography at pinko parades all the time for that very reason.Quote:
They don't have to be "clued up" to recognise that the ideal was the antithesis of the perversion of Stalinism. Whereas someone who is "clued up" such as yourself, shouldn't insist that they conflate the two.
Well it would have been wouldn't it? You can't oppose much when you're dead, as 'communist' regimes realised all too well when they were racking up unprecedented death tolls.Quote:
You said that they deserved it what they got, and that it'd been better for them to keep shtum. And you're now claiming that there was clear blue water between fascism and "communism" that made the latter worse. I disagree.
The Soviets (the ones that did, anyway) supported the Bolsheviks because they adopted the slogan "all power to the Soviets" - that is, they promised to deepen the system that had been created following the February Revolution, not to destroy it to "get something done" and start a civil war as they ended up doing. The vanguard party had not been necessary in setting up the workers control, only in destroying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Some people do, but this is a poll of the general public, not of people on pinko parades. I know it hinders your ability to knock lefties because Maoism but it is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
It would not. Actions that put ones-self in danger but which assist in a small way in turning people against Nazism are admirable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Some aspects of Nazism are laudible.
The workers control was going nowhere and the soviets were sick of the provisional government, so you're making their support sound quite naive. Plus the soviet system was wrecked pretty incrementally, with the accumulation of war powers and what have you, so it's not like they rolled up and binned it all (other than the Constituent Assembly, which most people seem to accept was bent) like Oliver Cromwell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
You had a hammer and sickle avatar when I joined TD, and you aren't stupid or a Stalinist, so obviously you were using that as a general left-wing statement. I think it's unlikely that the people polled know more about the nuances of communism than you.Quote:
Some people do, but this is a poll of the general public, not of people on pinko parades. I know it hinders your ability to knock lefties because Maoism but it is what it is.
Next time it's going off in Northern Ireland, go down the Shankill and tell them they're all twats. Or is that - whilst possibly admirable - not a great idea?Quote:
It would not. Actions that put ones-self in danger but which assist in a small way in turning people against Nazism are admirable.
Go on....Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I have a feeling that you're three and out rule might turn into a one and out rule, Yev.
I suspect so too.
I'm not speaking of their destruction of races or anything, don't worry. But some of their social and welfare prgrams were superb. Sending people on vacations, helath programs etc. Strong family values - not the fatherless, feckless ones we tend to get these days. Low crime rates, animals welfare. The list goes on, really. They were also the foirst to ban smoking in public places.
Did Harold just suggest the government should pay for us to go on vacations? What are fatherless family values? So many questions, so little time.
Most sane people agree that a child is better growing up with a mother and a father.
'National socialism' has such a nice ring to it as well. That probably sounds like I'm taking the piss but I'm actually not.
What sort of stuff did they do on animal welfare, Harold? Again, I'm being serious. I don't know and I'm not trying to have a go or lay any traps.
Douglas Murray at his most lucid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX914A6dbbs
There's certainly good statistical evidence that two parents provide better outcomes than one. Makes sense, given that parental attention is a hugely important factor in child development.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
But interestingly, studies on the topic indicate that children of same-sex partners have similar outcomes (even better in some cases, although there's evidence that this disparity may be down to the fact that people in same-sex relationships need to go through a lot of effort to have a child, and need to be very sure of their financial situation, etc.). Gender is certainly a non-factor compared to having two caring, attentive parents. Not that it's either/or, but it's helpful to focus on the right causes.
I've heard left leaning same sex Muslim partners have made the best parents.
Well seeing as a very small percentage of gay couples raise children it's still the case that the mother/father is the norm and the ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
That also sounds like propaganda to me - I wonder how they determine what a 'better parent' is?
Oh and look:
Quote:
In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-st...vious-researchQuote:
There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
- Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
- Have lower educational attainment
- Report less safety and security in their family of origin
- Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
- Are more likely to suffer from depression
- Have been arrested more often
- If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:
- Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
- Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
- Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
- Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
- Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
- Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
- Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
- Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
- Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
- Use marijuana more frequently
- Smoke more frequently
- Watch TV for long periods more frequently
- Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense
I've highlighted my favourite statistic.
The Family Research Council sound like a bastion of fair and balanced reporting, going off their website anyway.
:harold:Quote:
FRC does not consider homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and transgenderism as acceptable alternative lifestyles or sexual "preferences"; they are unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families, and society.
Harold really does not give a fuck with his sources. He doesn't even try to hide it.
It's because Harold decides to hold the opposite or most controversial view and then back it up on the fly if called out on it.
"I'm not homophobic but I think homosexuals are child molesters."
You could tell from one of the negative consequences being woman supposedly having more sexual partners that is was coming from a pretty judgemental source.Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_R...ps_controversy
The study by that academic doesn't seem to have actually been on same-sex relationships and was only on instances where one of the parents of a heterosexual partnership turned out to be gay.
Harry: conflating science with "science" since 2005.
Interesting that both of Harold's sources there are incredibly and overtly religious.
I thought 'low crime rates' was the better endorsement.
From reading the excerpts I did wonder whether that was the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Some actual studies, rather than the Regnerus study, which is considered an embarassment even within the anti-gay community (specifically for comparing broken homes with a non-heterosexual parent to stable homes with two heterosexual parents).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000058/ (the big US-census-data study)
https://www.nllfs.org/ (the longest-running study, going since the '80s)
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publication...ented-families (summary of research literature, with links)
http://journalistsresource.org/studi...search-roundup (research roundup for journalists)
This is one of those things where it's trivial to find a dozen studies or more, which is why I included a pair of research summaries, each of which collates a number of individual studies. The studies follow the same trends when it comes to positive outcomes (measured in terms of education attainment, later mental health issues, etc.) - attention from multiple parents is the most important factor, with socioeconomic effects the next after that.
I'm sure you believe in equality, but you (and others) seem to be trying a bit too hard to prove that gay = better. That's not equality. There's nothing about being gay that makes you a better parent. I put it to you that it's virtually all down to class/money. How many working class gay couples are adopting? Not many, I bet.
Yeah, it's definitely down to class and money because the qualifications for adopting are so much higher than for having your own kids by shagging.
I'm not sure anyone's trying to prove it's better though. Just that it's not any worse.
I wonder if straight adoptive parents make better parents? Anyone bothered with that yet?
Better than the average natural parents? They probably do, yeah, for the same reasons. I'd imagine some sociologist somewhere has studied it.
That's actually exactly what I said, and what the studies reflect:Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Same-sex parents tend to score higher on socioeconomic factors and parental attention. Largely because they have to adopt, and therefore have to both make the deliberate decision to have a child, and also prove that they are financially capable of raising the child. Once you account statistically for those factors, there's no statistical difference in measurable outcomes between same-sex and different-sex couples.Quote:
But interestingly, studies on the topic indicate that children of same-sex partners have similar outcomes (even better in some cases, although there's evidence that this disparity may be down to the fact that people in same-sex relationships need to go through a lot of effort to have a child, and need to be very sure of their financial situation, etc.).
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't be encouraging families. But in terms of child welfare outcomes, the most beneficial thing you can work towards is making sure that families (no matter what bits the parents are smuggling) stay together, and that people plan sufficiently for children. Encouraging family stability, parental care of children, and sensible family planning, are the most effective things you can do to ensure children get the best start they can.
Nobody has said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Has anybody tried to prove that gay = worse?
Better than gay adoptive, since the studies which claim the gays make magnificent parents doesn't seem to compare like with like.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Better to just stop the lower classes breeding, perhaps.
Lord Corbyn giving it back to the Chief of the Defence Staff is good stuff. I seem to remember Gordon Brown keeping it shut when ex-officers were giving him grief, presumably for fear of being seen to DISRESPECT OUR BOYS, where as Jezza obviously figures it doesn't really matter what he does there. Good for him.
I see Corbyn has COMPROMISED HIS PRINCIPLES wearing a red poppy and so forth.
He didn't even bow enough today. Burn him.
Only the Liberal Britain hating left would bow in the manner that Corbyn did. He should be hounded out of the country for such disrespect.
There was a piece on Sunday Politics today which was pondering why there was a lack of Londoners wanting to join the armed forces. This after they were confused as to the polls showing Londoners were more anti-gay than was expected.
I'm baffled, too.
They've probably also got better things to do.
Pray?
Theatre and meat liqor.
The BASTARD!
If a war came along he'd be on the front line with 'em.
What really annoyed me about Corbyn and his ridiculous cheerleader Owen Jones - and I usually find them laughable rather than annoying - was telling the Chief of the Defence Staff he had no right to comment on 'political matters' such as Trident.
They aren't saying that when doctors comment on 'political matters' such as Our NHS.
Big Pete in playful mode here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TZ8tsElppo
The lefty libertarians will actually be on his side on this, I think.
And one not for the left perhaps, even though he's gay and therefor this will confuse some of the left. The irrepressible Milo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZMQJSzaY3g
Insghtful, articulate, powerfully straightforward. I think we are kindred spirits in many ways.
Does anyone else really dislike Peter Hitchens' face? You can absolutely tell what kind of twat he'll be.
I judge him by what he says and how he acts.
Me too. Shame his views are as shit as his face.
He's just another Oxbridge bore whose life is basically one long sneer.
Peter Hitchens' review of The Long Good Friday is one of the best things on the internet.
Just read that. Bloody hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I'm pretty sure he isn't Oxbridge educated.....not that it would invalidate what is an extraordinary man.
There also is nobody else like him, so what you mean by 'another' I don't know.
It's probably the most revealing thing he's ever written. Imagine living your life like that. It's the same sort of mindset that finds everything offensive on some level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I think you misread him entirely. Complaining about things does not mean finding them offensive - a term he hates being bandied around. He is a man of great integrity.
I think you've misread my post entirely.
If you're not complaining about the almost impeccable Peter NHitchens then it's fine. Meanwhile, I've also dug this out for the people. More proof that I am not homophobic too, because I like what some gay people say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUVY-ZDwkxY
This mangina gets torn limb from limb. A great watch.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTcB7MJXAAAbqKS.png
Fucking hell.
I'll give them a 2% ticking off for Blairish mawkishness but other than that they are absolutely spot on. It astonishes me that people are willing to give this man the time of day because the 400,000 most left wing people in the country voted him in.
I might get a Cecil Parkinson on my arse.
I've just read this. I didn't agree with everything but it's pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Not sure what you're on about "living your life like that".
On Corbyn, that's a predictably disgraceful piece from The Sun. And LOL at right-wingers who condone interference in politics and implicit threats of mutiny by the head of the armed forces (not the first one since Corbyn was elected).
I bet I know the bit you agreed with. :checkit:
What bit?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
The fascination with Corbyn is embarrassing. Concentrate on the guys in charge who are floundering about with tax credits, handing over the keys to China and struggling to get anything meaningful from the EU.
Chiefly his opposition to Thatcher, which is/was strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Would you stay in the EU no matter what he gets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
Well, yes, but I obviously come at it from a somewhat different perspective than him.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I think I will be voting to stay in the EU yes but I'll read the arguments before I vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
There's going to be a joyous coming together of sections the hard left and right on Europe. We should arrange a party.
You must know the arguments already? I was just trying to ascertain why you would criticise what he's going to get from them (virtually nothing) when it will make no difference to the idealogues, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
Corbyn is the chief alternative to said people in charge. 'Concentrating' on them is pointless unless something better is available, which plainly it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
Concentrating on the alternative when the government is at the start of a five year term seems pointless.
Harold - I have an idea but I still would like to read it before I decide finally.
Holding the government to account for the policies it's actually implementing is pointless?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
It's okay, 'John' from Dunstable hasn't told Corbyn to address that yet.
To which account precisely are you holding them?
Based on Kiko's argument you'd have been 'concentrating' on the Blair and Brown governments between 2005 and 2010 and thinking Cameron's Tories irrelevant until election time, which I'm sure everyone on the left was definitely doing.
They were. Is there something about being right wing that makes them so paranoid?
You do remember that Cameron only just squeaked into power due to some of the left splitting to the LiB Dems, right? Cameron wasn't even a factor outside of being consodered a lightweight.
What does that first sentence even mean? Their policies can be analysed and criticised whether you think there's a credible opposition/alternative government or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I can't remember 2005-2010 all that well but Cameron's Tories weren't getting anything like the shit Corbyn is getting.
It almost breaks my heart, this. As a UKIP supporter I can trump your perceived grievances.
Of course had Farage appointed known terrorist sympathisers (whilst sympathising with terrorists, himself) then I might have difficulty defending him.
I think the concentration on the opposition rather than the incumbent is massively different to the norm. I can't remember the opposition party leader getting so much grief especially with 5 years to run on a cycle. Cameron seems to be getting an easy ride considering the wave of crap that seems to be happening around him and the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Kiko is right. Just look at any news website - the coverage Corbyn is getting compared to other opposition leaders is bizarre.... especially so far out from an election.
Probably because he's a fucking mentalist who generates legitimate news stories without even having to do anything.
I get that but how many times can you fake insult about a bloke that surely has no relevance to whether our glorious leaders will win re-election? Easier to poke at him than take a look at the reality of the situation.
- Rising house prices
- Disregard for human rights or security by cosying up to China
-Tax credits being on the ropes
- Syria - do we don't we
- Migrant crisis - how many do we take/do we not take
-EU stay or go (what this guy is hanging his PMship on)
Just all seem infinitely more interesting than whether a guy bowed to a specific height. Maybe the Sun needs to wear two black armbands.
If Corbyn is so incompetent and unelectable on policy, why is it they feel the need to attack him personally on nonsensical things like how deeply he bowed?
Swing voters don't really care for policy, presumably.
That's because the opposition are exteremly different. The Conservatives are pretty boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
I don't know what you're so worried about, anyway. The effects papers have is next to nothing these days.
Must say I do enjoy a newspaper who in record of law hacked the phones of dead soldiers and their families, so they could listen to them wubbing, getting uppity about how far a mans head tilts on Remembrance Sunday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM&feature=youtu.be
Not stricly political but it deserves an airing.
Going off the @hendopolis feed, everyone is leading with a picture of Camilla holding a knife looking angry. I don't have a clue what the story is even having seen 3 front pages but it's a great photo.
Orwell himself would be envious of such original satire.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Or well, it was worth a go.
David Cameron hasn’t the faintest idea how deep his cuts go. This letter proves it
http://gu.com/p/4e4kq?CMP=Share_Andr...y_to_clipboard
You'd think that sort of thing would be more important than how low someone bowed.
Policies shouldn't be up for debate. Appearance is much more important.
Today is the final day of Alistair Carmichael's election court trial. In giving evidence yesterday he essentially said, "yes of course I lied, but it was purely politically motivated and not to protect my own reputation", which is essentially what he needs people to believe if he is to be found innocent, or whatever the term is in an election court. The law is essentially that political lies are A-okay but lying about the personal character of oneself or another candidate is not. Which seems ridiculous.
I don't think anything will come of it - and it doesn't really matter for him personally as he'd already said this would be his final term - but I think he'll have seriously harmed the Lib Dems position going in to the Holyrood elections next year.
(I know literally nobody here cares about Scottish politics, let alone local politics within Scotland, but this seems interesting in that it's such an unusual case)
What did he lie or not lie about?
He denied having authorised the leaked memo about Nicola Sturgeon supposedly telling a French ambassador she would prefer a Tory government.
The ultimate nimby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Why do the Scotch want to stay in so badly? Wales are equally as shit and poor and shit, but they seem no more insistent on remaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by YouGov European Union poll
Probably because they see it as a big plank of their post-independence strategy.
I think it's because the main arguments put forward so far for leaving have been focussed on immigration, which isn't much of an issue for Scotland.
The anti-EU sentiment is much stronger here, but that's almost entirely because of fishermen who are upset about quotas.
John Major coming out against the Tory cuts today. And they claim not to have moved to the right. :lol:
This is the sort of thing you'd never get with a John Major or even a Margaret Thatcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Oxford City Council might have a bit more to spend on the needy if they ceased in their mission to dig up every road and roundabout in the county and replace them with orange traffic cones.
I seem to recall neverending roadwork on High St for basically the entire four years I lived there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yevrah
Isn't Oxford officially the worst/most expensive/most pointless place to live in the UK?
Cameron is having a belter of a week - produces the lamest set of "demands" for changes to our relationship with Europe, which pleases absolutely no-one, fails to recognise the link between his cutting funding and closing local children's centres in his own constituency, and then buggers off from a conference on migration, the crisis that's gripping Europe, in order to schmooze the Indian PM on the latest round of his globetrotting.
What a miserable excuse for a leader he is
Well you can't exactly send someone else when you've got the leader of a state visiting.
I'm not the biggest Dave fan but to be fair, I think if any PM since the war had twitter and a load of baying shot-to-nothing opponents following their every move he wouldn't stand up any worse than the others.
:d