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.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.
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:
The American right is very different from the British right, much more entwined with religion and all the garbage that comes with it.
See also: Peter Hitchens.
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.'
'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.
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.
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.
By serious journalist do you mean being on a (seemingly serious) show about conspiracy theories with Jesse Ventura?
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.
He's a completely shameless wanker.
Wasn't she on the News or presenting tramatic documentaries at some point?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote