Britain First threatens to target London Mayor Sadiq Khan with 'direct action'

First topic message reminder :

The group say they consider all Muslim elected officials 'occupiers'

The far-right group Britain First has threatened to target where Sadiq Khan “lives, works and prays” as part of their apparent organised action against British Muslim politicians.

In a press release, the “loyalist” group claim they specialise in direct action which they will use against Mr Khan.
The group's leader Paul Golding, who ran for Mayor of London and scored abysmally gaining 31,372 first preference votes compared to Mr Khan’s 1,148,716, has made his feelings clear about Mr Khan before, having been pictured with his back turned when the newly appointed Mayor gave his victory speech earlier this month.

In the release, Mr Golding says: “Britain First specialises in militant direct action and has tracked down and confronted numerous hate preachers and terrorists.

“Britain First now considers all Muslim elected officials as ‘occupiers’ and will start to oppose their strategy of entryism and take-over of our political system.”

The statement concludes by reminding readers of their “official” policy to ban Islam in the UK and say they will “not stop until all Islamist occupiers are driven out of politics completely”.

The group’s “direct action” has previously included “invading” a Halal meat factory, the Islamic Sharia Council in east London and bombarding their way through a mosque.

Citing the apparent “intelligence” they receive, the group pledges to “focus on all aspects of their day-to-day lives and official functions, including where they live, work, pray and so on”.

As well as Mr Khan, the group mentions fellow ‘targets’ Tory business minister Sajid Javid, the mayor of Oxford Mohammed Altaf-Khan, the mayor of Blackburn Hussain Akhtar and also Shafique Shah who they say is the mayor of Birmingham.

However, Mr Shah is not the mayor of Birmingham anymore. Ray Hassall is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sadiq-khan-britain-first-london-mayor-threaten-direct-action-a7047991.html



Nice!   Issued before Thomas Mair killed Jo Cox, no wonder they are backpeddling.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

You are as seen defending two islamist beliefs.
So if a woman is told to wear a dog coillar, being led on the lead and the religion she believes in makes her naive to the fact she is a mere slave. You are saying you are going to defend her right to be fooled into being a slave are you?

All right, Didge, you want to play this stupid-ass game? Well then ...

You support the slaughter of innocent Palestinian children by Israeli forces. You must support that, after all, since you support Israel. You must be totally in favor of what the worst of Israel does, since you support Israel's statehood and freedom.

You let the worst speak for the best, so I'm going to hold you to the same standard. You want all Palestinians -- elderly grandmothers, decent hard-working men who provide for their families, little kids not old enough to form their own opinions -- you want them dead. You want the streets of Israel to run with their blood.

You call me an Islamist sympathizer, I call you someone who rejoices in the blood of dead Muslims regardless of anything they've done.

That's YOU'RE infantile game, I just decided to play it against you. Ball's in your court, shithead.

First of al this is not a game.
This is about your constant defense of bad beliefs

So now we see where you cannot answer you look to deflect, divert and cover up.
I do not want to see any innocent peopole killed but I back the right of a nation toi defend itself from unpovoked attacks.
If you are saying to me, that rockets fired by your neighbour and injured your partner, you would not try to defend yourself against these weapons? You are blatantly lying. If they were firing from within the enclosed civillian area and you warned them to cease and if they refused and were using humans as shields. Then by the rules of engagement you have a justified right to take out that target, because the safety of your family superscedes that of those abusing the rules of conflict. So spare me what you do not know on the rules of engagement and that has to be the biggest deflection yet to date
So to claim i want all palestinian civillians dead is a blatant lie. Like I said the left invent lies constantly and cliam they are just people, lol that is clearly being shown to be false and for the whole forum to see you lie Ben. I only have stated that terrorists should be shot on site in the act of terrorism and I have never claimed all palestinians should be killed and so as per usual the left invent a load of lies to again character assassinate me
Its seems to be the pattern when you cannot answer simple questions
Now show me anywhere where I have called for the deaths of innocent civillians?
If not I expect an apology for your blatant lies.


So back to the points you tried to deflect on and tried to also wind me up with lies based against th rules and you are the owner which is as low as it gets

You understands that like with any school, religions have copmpulsary dress codes. So its not a choice over what you wear but what doctrine you follow in islam. So the question is do you defend the belief that women should be shamed over what they wear and are taught to believe they are at fualt for the sexual desires of men? Either you back this belief in Wahabbism or you are against it. Hence the absurdity in regards to religious freedom, as this is subjucation. Its not a choice on whether to wear but a choice on what doctrine you chose to follow which has the compulsary burka. It then ceases to be a choice on what to wear but the choice is on the faith you follow. A belief system is not free from criticsm and progression did not occur from defending beliefs, but standing up to them.

So Ben, do you back the subjugation of women as taught in Wahhabism in the form of the Burka?

Yes or no

So you can be abusive when you do not like questions and i get banned when i do

Go figure

Didge, I don't have the time tonight to address all the hopelessly flawed premises upon which you base your arguments. But if you ever, EVER, accuse me of excusing terrorism again, I will deal you to the point that you could actually imagine the feeling of my foot connecting violently with your precious little ass.

I don't know what's wrong with you where you have the capacity to accuse fair-minded people of supporting and defending attacks like Paris and Pulse, but I do have the ability to make sure you never-fucking-do it again.

That said -- neither you or I can say what goes on in any person's mind, because we have our minds and they have their own, and we're all more or less equally informed by love and trauma.

Did I choose to love country music? No, because so many people I'd be friends with think it's stupid hayseed yokel shit.

But that's nothing compared to the fundamentals of how other people were raised and taught and what they have to grapple with every day. So if you're going to be a dickhead about what they, in light of their upbringing, have decided they want to wear, you just go right on ahead. I'm going to worry about things I deem to be far more important.

Ben Reilly wrote:Didge, I don't have the time tonight to address all the hopelessly flawed premises upon which you base your arguments. But if you ever, EVER, accuse me of excusing terrorism again, I will deal you to the point that you could actually imagine the feeling of my foot connecting violently with your precious little ass.

I don't know what's wrong with you where you have the capacity to accuse fair-minded people of supporting and defending attacks like Paris and Pulse, but I do have the ability to make sure you never-fucking-do it again.

That said -- neither you or I can say what goes on in any person's mind, because we have our minds and they have their own, and we're all more or less equally informed by love and trauma.

Did I choose to love country music? No, because so many people I'd be friends with think it's stupid hayseed yokel shit.

But that's nothing compared to the fundamentals of how other people were raised and taught and what they have to grapple with every day. So if you're going to be a dickhead about what they, in light of their upbringing, have decided they want to wear, you just go right on ahead. I'm going to worry about things I deem to be far more important.

So simply put you again use character assassination, avoid answering my points which will lead people to continue to believe you do defend bad beliefs. I am giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong and instead you take personally. To me I think you do not realise that you do end up defending and hence why you get so defensive and as seen blatantly rude. I have been on your side of the fence and once did the same defending bad beliefs inadvertantly. I mean how do you think slavery ended Ben?

It ended by people standing up against a belief system, that look to justify slavery based off religion. It took both religious and non-religious people to stand up to this abhorant belief system. Women once could not get the vote, homosexuals were persecuted as were women claimed to be witches. You see you confuse the issue thinking something is a choice. When children are indoctrinated from a young age to be in fear that if they do not follow a command, then it ceases to be a choice and they are led by their insecurities on fear. I have studied psychology and you simply fail to understand the significance of how such fears are played upon humans.

Now if you do not want to answer my questions, then its you that ends up loooking poor to the forum, when you do as you do above make excuses and even worse previously take offense over me asking questions. To the point you then again tried to character assassinate me with lies. The point is you fail to see by not speaking out on bad beliefs of which the Burka is not even religious but cultural and is compulsary within Whabbism. The doctrine followed by ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, AlQaeda, would think it would make you sit up and think to condemn wahhabism. But you think by doing so will make you a bigot and think you are being hateful to islam. Its your beliefs that stop you doing the right thing to be critical of bad teachings. If some teacher taught children to racially hate, you would call for that teacher to be banned. Yet we allow many religious teaches to indoctrinate women to make them believe they should be ashamed of who they are,

So why would you defend one and be critical of the other?

You know what?

FUCK YOU, MORON.

There. Sorted. Don't know why I bothered with any preamble.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I love the way "lefties" like to distance themselves from any kind of unpleasantness and think that they're all tree huggers who just lurve all mankind.

RW'rs are the conservatives.  To conserve is to stay the same...to be content with whatever misery there is.  Lw'rs are mindful of any suffering, and want to change things for the better.  It follows that LW'rs are active and mentally progressives.

Conservatives, wishing to just sleep, become angry at changes.  Mentally unpracticed, they cannot comprehend.  Their response to any changes is to feel threatened.  Anger is the first step of violence.  All violence comes from RW'rs.

Ah but sometimes lefties want to change things for the worse, and they want to fix things that aren't broken. They can do a lot of damage that way.

Ben Reilly wrote:You know what?

FUCK YOU, MORON.

There. Sorted. Don't know why I bothered with any preamble.

So i get countles warnings, offer up reasons for my views and I get constant abuse in return


One rule for one and one rule for those on the left

Well Ben as all can see you failed to answer my questions, were down right rude, its you looking like mud and not me

What sort of example are you setting to guests looking in?

I am very happy you have acted this way, as it just proves my point.

Most people can debate and counter views, it seems you cannot

I'm just sick of your bullshit, that's all. Anybody with intelligence looking in would side with me. Just go get your KKK hood and your EDL patch and to thine own self be true, for Pete's sake.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm just sick of your bullshit, that's all. Anybody with intelligence looking in would side with me. Just go get your KKK hood and your EDL patch and to thine own self be true, for Pete's sake.

I am against all racism
So there you go again.
i am asking you honest questions, whcih if you have the answers there is no reason to get wound up over
Its like I say, you simply fail to see how and when you do defend bad beliefs, as the burka is born from wahhabism.
Its compulsary, so there is no choice but to wear if you follow that doctrine
To then claim people wil side with you has to be the biggest failure to date.
At every turn you fail to reason, if you think moral support is a factor in debating, then its no wonder you are so anrgy at yourself and it is at yourself you are angry with.
Again I back progressive and secular Muslims, so again your character assassinations are both embarressing and just making me laugh now at how immature you are being.
If this had been me, the way you are responding, i would have been placed in the basement by now.

Go figure

I'm just asking you to consider that other people were raised in conditions as fucked-up or worse than we were, and to think about whether clothing is something to be fussing about over-much when there are so many more important things going on.

Christ but I'm tired of people making me the bad guy by default, or because they won't take the time to try to understand what I'm trying to say.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm just asking you to consider that other people were raised in conditions as fucked-up or worse than we were, and to think about whether clothing is something to be fussing about over-much when there are so many more important things going on.

Christ but I'm tired of people making me the bad guy by default, or because they won't take the time to try to understand what I'm trying to say.

i was raised in poverty, am half irish growing up with prejudice against me, due to the IRA. Had two of my uncles murdered by the IRA, howe much more fucked up can you get with my upbringing. I am not saying you are a bad person.
Again i simply believe you do not realise you are doing it, hence inadvertantly. I think you believe any criticsm is bigotry and I am challenging you on this as wrong. You are taking this personally, and being insensitive are you not?

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm just asking you to consider that other people were raised in conditions as fucked-up or worse than we were, and to think about whether clothing is something to be fussing about over-much when there are so many more important things going on.

Christ but I'm tired of people making me the bad guy by default, or because they won't take the time to try to understand what I'm trying to say.

I don't try to make you the bad guy, but sometimes your claims to be the good guy do suggest that you're a bit up yourself at times.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm just asking you to consider that other people were raised in conditions as fucked-up or worse than we were, and to think about whether clothing is something to be fussing about over-much when there are so many more important things going on.

Christ but I'm tired of people making me the bad guy by default, or because they won't take the time to try to understand what I'm trying to say.

I don't try to make you the bad guy, but sometimes your claims to be the good guy do suggest that you're a bit up yourself at times.

Okay. I'm fine with that. I want to be a good person, and I accept that that might seem weird to others who, for whatever reason, don't make that as important in their lives as I do.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't try to make you the bad guy, but sometimes your claims to be the good guy do suggest that you're a bit up yourself at times.

Okay. I'm fine with that. I want to be a good person, and I accept that that might seem weird to others who, for whatever reason, don't make that as important in their lives as I do.

Yes, but whilst you're trying to be a good person, you often put others down and imply that they're not good - anyone who you perceive as "right wing", for example, or anyone with religious faith - unless they're a Muslim.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Okay. I'm fine with that. I want to be a good person, and I accept that that might seem weird to others who, for whatever reason, don't make that as important in their lives as I do.

Yes, but whilst you're trying to be a good person, you often put others down and imply that they're not good - anyone who you perceive as "right wing", for example, or anyone with religious faith - unless they're a Muslim.

Spot on

I am castigated as bad for when i reason points because i am liberal RW and classed as Mr nasty, but its okay for the left to do exactly the same and be classed as good for doing so.
That is not being open minded but a closed book

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't try to make you the bad guy, but sometimes your claims to be the good guy do suggest that you're a bit up yourself at times.

Okay. I'm fine with that. I want to be a good person, and I accept that that might seem weird to others who, for whatever reason, don't make that as important in their lives as I do.

+1

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't try to make you the bad guy, but sometimes your claims to be the good guy do suggest that you're a bit up yourself at times.

Okay. I'm fine with that. I want to be a good person, and I accept that that might seem weird to others who, for whatever reason, don't make that as important in their lives as I do.

Yes, but whilst you're trying to be a good person, you often put others down and imply that they're not good - anyone who you perceive as "right wing", for example, or anyone with religious faith - unless they're a Muslim.

I will defend anyone who does good in the world regardless of what faith they might belong to -- despite the fact that I think faith is bogus. You're not going to get that from Didge. I try to be fair and judge people in a context similar to the conditions in which I was brought up, for the most part.

I will put down people who seem to have little compassion for other human beings, especially if they seem to have that based on a single experience or, worse yet, they base it on newspaper headlines.

My faith is that most of us are decent, and I'll preach that until proven wrong.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but whilst you're trying to be a good person, you often put others down and imply that they're not good - anyone who you perceive as "right wing", for example, or anyone with religious faith - unless they're a Muslim.

I will defend anyone who does good in the world regardless of what faith they might belong to -- despite the fact that I think faith is bogus. You're not going to get that from Didge. I try to be fair and judge people in a context similar to the conditions in which I was brought up, for the most part.

I will put down people who seem to have little compassion for other human beings, especially if they seem to have that based on a single experience or, worse yet, they base it on newspaper headlines.

My faith is that most of us are decent, and I'll preach that until proven wrong.

I've been accused on here of not having any empathy or compassion, so I guess you think I'm a bad person.

I also think most people are decent, lots of people think I'm a doormat or an idiot.

I don't like to be good all the time though. Sometimes it's good to let the naughty side out - otherwise pfffffff.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but whilst you're trying to be a good person, you often put others down and imply that they're not good - anyone who you perceive as "right wing", for example, or anyone with religious faith - unless they're a Muslim.

I will defend anyone who does good in the world regardless of what faith they might belong to -- despite the fact that I think faith is bogus. You're not going to get that from Didge. I try to be fair and judge people in a context similar to the conditions in which I was brought up, for the most part.

I will put down people who seem to have little compassion for other human beings, especially if they seem to have that based on a single experience or, worse yet, they base it on newspaper headlines.

My faith is that most of us are decent, and I'll preach that until proven wrong.

I have faith in humanity and faith in humanity people will understand that some humans are misguided and led along the wrong paths.
You need to see that also, and they all stem from bad beliefs, whether that be racism, homophobia, sexism etc.
You need to helpd guide them back onto the right paths and being afraid to say something is wrong, is only going to allow them to continue down the wrong paths in life.

eddie wrote:I also think most people are decent, lots of people think I'm a doormat or an idiot.

I don't like to be good all the time though. Sometimes it's good to let the naughty side out - otherwise pfffffff.

Actually you are intelligent and that is what frustrates me because you can be misled eddie, which you should never be and I think its because you are easily swayed by those around you. You say to question the media of which i constantly do, but do you question those who most influence you?
Not knocking you but where i see how things are with you and you are intgelligent which i why i get frustrated with you at times

I, sir, have never shied away from deeming wrong anything that I think is wrong. I'm pretty sure I've been chastised for doing just that -- within the past hour, in fact.

Let me just say once more, I am against holding people down, no matter what reason is given. I am all about lifting people up -- no matter who they are. That is my heart and soul laid bare.

So anybody forced to do something they don't agree with, I'm against. But if they agree with it, fine -- so long as they're not hurting others in the process.

We really should all just mind our own biscuits ...

Well ben you will either have to accept or not accept that i simply disagree with you.
I know your heart is in the right place but because you feel that you may hurt or come across as hateful for speaking out, it to me a failing. Society did not progress in the west by people not speaking out on wrongs, espcially within religion. Where it was constantly religious institutions that attempted to thwart any progression.
So at no point do I think you are a bad person, in fact the opposite and because of your christian upbring, which certain morals have had effect on you. Which is good becuase Jesus was a good teacher, you should also remember that he also spoke out on things that were wrong also.
Just remember that

Ben Reilly wrote:I, sir, have never shied away from deeming wrong anything that I think is wrong. I'm pretty sure I've been chastised for doing just that -- within the past hour, in fact.

Let me just say once more, I am against holding people down, no matter what reason is given. I am all about lifting people up -- no matter who they are. That is my heart and soul laid bare.

So anybody forced to do something they don't agree with, I'm against. But if they agree with it, fine -- so long as they're not hurting others in the process.

We really should all just mind our own biscuits ...

Well there's a dilemma. In order to please some people, you have to piss others off sometimes, right? You have to choose which "rights" take priority.

veya_victaous wrote:it is simple, do you stand for freedom or fear?

Standing for freedom means letting people make their own choices including mistakes
unitl they impinge on the freedom of another you have no rigth to interfere with their freedom or it is YOU that impinges on the rights of another and therefore in the wrong.

That's a conerstone of the progressive movement, If you don not follow that you cannot not be progressive.

That is why we got to get out the eu... for freedom and democracy!!!

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:I also think most people are decent, lots of people think I'm a doormat or an idiot.

I don't like to be good all the time though. Sometimes it's good to let the naughty side out - otherwise pfffffff.

Actually you are intelligent and that is what frustrates me because you can be misled eddie, which you should never be and I think its because you are easily swayed by those around you. You say to question the media of which i constantly do, but do you question those who most influence you?
Not knocking you but where i see how things are with you and you are intgelligent which i why i get frustrated with you at times

And you, could do with sometimes accepting that you are lied to.
I don't actually lean further to any side Didge - much as you think I do. I'm in the middle, waiting to be pulled either way. Mostly it doesn't happen.

When I'm reading an "alternative truth site" I'd probably argue the opposite - that's how I get my answers (and I actually do this - I question everybody).


As a general rule of life, I wish people would actually say exactly what they mean though!

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:



Actually you are intelligent and that is what frustrates me because you can be misled eddie, which you should never be and I think its because you are easily swayed by those around you. You say to question the media of which i constantly do, but do you question those who most influence you?
Not knocking you but where i see how things are with you and you are intgelligent which i why i get frustrated with you at times

And you, could do with sometimes accepting that you are lied to.
I don't actually lean further to any side Didge - much as you think I do. I'm in the middle, waiting to be pulled either way. Mostly it doesn't happen.

When I'm reading an "alternative truth site" I'd probably argue the opposite - that's how I get my answers (and I actually do this - I question everybody).


As a general rule of life, I wish people would actually say exactly what they mean though!

Aagin i research eddie and question near everything, hence why I am an athiest.
I look at all views and hypoethsis and many fall apart before they even started by simple mistakes.
The problem is you think I do not check, when growing up for one I believed in and was against evolution and bought into flawed views by Michael Cremo. I am still very open to civilization being that much earlier than is historically stated and think most of the early settlements are now under water after the ice age ended. There is many things I look at and constantly research Eddie. Which is what my history training has taught me to do, as I question many things. You though before antything is out hve decided thre lizarmen and the New world order is behind the attack, before the bodies of the victims have even been buried. With such a closed mind, where you already believe in something so crackpot, which has been resoundly debunked. Then  you are always going to wrongly accuse such tragic events because your mind is made up before they even happen

Do you think governments and presidents and prime ministers are as high up as it gets?

eddie wrote:Do you think governments and presidents and prime ministers are as high up as it gets?

Up a oak tree or sycamore?

Please tell me what you have secretly discovered about the world Eddie

I asked you a question Didge
Don't answer it but don't take the piss.

eddie wrote:I asked you a question Didge
Don't answer it but don't take the piss.

Look Eddie, there was one other poster so deluded by all this crap anmd that was Tess and you never used to be bought by all this bull, so its clear to me either she or someone else has easily swayed you with bullshit.
I have one easy point to debunk the gibberish you believe.,

Edward Snowden

I am think he is a traitor and he leaked to the world what the US governement was doing secretly.
He has not of course said the world is run by Lizardmen or the New world order and yet he set out to expose the US Goverment
Its things like this that make the things you buy into eddie embarressing hence why I take the psis out of you

I am sure I've never said I believe in lizards yet you seem to mention them all the time.
Perhaps you do?

Didge no one on this forum ever gets debunked. Don't you know that?
You all sit and rubbish eachother' links and opinions and I laugh because no one actually believes anyhing ulness they want to.

So you might say....you all believe in your own "conspiracies"

Head fuck huh?

eddie wrote:I am sure I've never said I believe in lizards yet you seem to mention them all the time.
Perhaps you do?

Didge no one on this forum ever gets debunked. Don't you know that?
You all sit and rubbish eachother' links and opinions and I laugh because no one actually believes anyhing ulness they want to.

So you might say....you all believe in your own "conspiracies"

Head fuck huh?

Actually many people have their views debunked and I have at times had mine debunked and can easily give two examples by Victor if you like, where I happilly will admit I was wrong.
You see Eddie, you think there is no wrong answer on some things, when there is poor answers.
To be honest I am bored trying to reason with someone so easily led, its simply not worth it anymore with you.
The only advice I can give you is to use the outsider test on the claims you have been bought into. In other words look at them in reverse to how you believe the conspiracies.
You may end up surprising yourself

Thanks for your advice but, no one on this forum ever gets debunked. Don't you know that?
You all sit and rubbish eachother' links and opinions and I laugh because no one actually believes anyhing ulness they want to.

So you might say....you all believe in your own "conspiracies"

Head fuck huh?

eddie wrote:Thanks for your advice but, no one on this forum ever gets debunked. Don't you know that?
You all sit and rubbish eachother' links and opinions and I laugh because no one actually believes anyhing ulness they want to.

So you might say....you all believe in your own "conspiracies"

Head fuck huh?

Cuckoo

Yes people have been debunked because they have been wrong


Please talk to the wall, you have become that irritating and boring

I thought I was?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

RW'rs are the conservatives.  To conserve is to stay the same...to be content with whatever misery there is.  Lw'rs are mindful of any suffering, and want to change things for the better.  It follows that LW'rs are active and mentally progressives.

Conservatives, wishing to just sleep, become angry at changes.  Mentally unpracticed, they cannot comprehend.  Their response to any changes is to feel threatened.  Anger is the first step of violence.  All violence comes from RW'rs.

Ah but sometimes lefties want to change things for the worse, and they want to fix things that aren't broken. They can do a lot of damage that way.

Yes, but with good intentions. Which would you rather have? Someone who is negligent, or someone who is malevolent?

Humans are imperfect beings, and are bound to make mistakes. But the one who intends harm, is truly the one evil one.

LW'rs are intending to correct some defect in the social fabric, and sometimes it unravels. RW'rs intend to leave the edges of the social fabric untended, and fully intend it to fray while they find some way to overcharge those who are falling through into the abyss of nothingness.

It comes down to this: LW'rs represent the interests of the people, while RW'rs represent the special interests. LW'rs see the herd as needing protection; RW'rs see the herd as prey. The difference is caring vs. selfishness.

Rubbish.

nicko wrote:Rubbish.

Really now? All Quill is saying is what a lot of right-wingers concede -- that left-wingers are the idealists among us. They pish-posh idealism, of course, and tend to ultimately arrive at the assertion that human beings aren't really capable of doing things that improve quality of life for the public -- but there's a reason they use terms like "bleeding heart" and "tree hugger."

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:Rubbish.

Really now? All Quill is saying is what a lot of right-wingers concede -- that left-wingers are the idealists among us. They pish-posh idealism, of course, and tend to ultimately arrive at the assertion that human beings aren't really capable of doing things that improve quality of life for the public -- but there's a reason they use terms like "bleeding heart" and "tree hugger."

Nicko is right because you are basing this off generalisations, which is based of you knwoing a miniscule amount of RW people?
Many RW are idealists but in many different ways than you are. Idealism comes in many different aspects so when nicko said its rubbish, he was right. You need to get out more.

Our Torys are more like your Democrats...

Tommy Monk wrote:Our Torys are more like your Democrats...

No, not at all. Your Tories are to the right of Attila the Hun. Lol.

The general population of the US has moved quite a bit to the left of the general population of the UK. Reaction to that is what is prompting Trump's rise on the right...and why it will be defeated.

A new generation has moved in. Why do you think Sanders, an avowed socialist, did so well?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Our Torys are more like your Democrats...

No, not at all.  Your Tories are to the right of Attila the Hun.  Lol.

The general population of the US has moved quite a bit to the left of the general population of the UK.  Reaction to that is what is prompting Trump's rise on the right...and why it will be defeated.

A new generation has moved in.  Why do you think Sanders, an avowed socialist, did so well?

Tommy is actually correct



The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom has hired an unexpected-but-certainly-qualified person to advise its general election team: Jim Messina, architect of the Barack Obama re-election and former Deputy White House Chief of Staff. What gives? How could a self-described lifelong Democrat go work for the Conservatives?
In short: Money. But also because the U.K. Conservatives are not like U.S. conservatives.
Let's be clear: This is not a Benedict Arnold-style move. The BBC reports on the hire, noting that Messina will remain in the U.S. (where Messina runs Organizing For Action) and will be used largely to advise on social media and campaign structure. The outlet also notes that it's not the first time the Conservatives and the Obama team have been linked.

In the run-up to the TV debates of the 2010 U.K. general election campaign, the Tories brought Obama adviser Anita Dunne over to advise Mr .Cameron on how to handle the debates, which are a familiar feature of U.S. presidential races.

Then, in the year of the presidential election, Mr. Cameron flew to the US in a trip interpreted by many as an endorsement of Mr. Obama.

When you break down the parties (and their leaders) by policy, it's easy to see why.
[th]Policy[/th][th]Republican Party[/th][th] [/th][th]U.K. Conservatives (Cameron)[/th][th] [/th][th]Democratic Party (Obama)[/th]

Abortion	Oppose		Support, but limit		Support
Death penalty	Support		Oppose		Support
Same-sex marriage	Oppose		Support		Support
Heavy cuts to government	Support		Support		Oppose
National healthcare policy	Oppose		Support		Support
Renewable energy	Oppose		Support		Support
Carbon tax	Oppose		Support		Support
Stricter border security	Support		Support		Not a priority
And most importantly:
(Semi-)Official color	Red		Blue		Blue

Yes, that's right: Messina can still wear his all-blue outfit when he has to take meetings in London.
The final tally from the above? Two Conservative policies similar to the Republican party; six to the Democrats. And in two instances — the death penalty and nationalized healthcare — it runs further to the left.
In other words, Messina doesn't need to change his policy arguments that much, either.

 

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/08/how-conservative-would-uk-conservatives-be-us/67930/

I am always correct... just not politically correct...

Tommy Monk wrote:I am always correct... just not politically correct...

lol mostly wrong but on this you are correct.

Donlt let it go to your head

Evening folks. I see this topic has drifted into what I would call a philosophical conundrum, ie:

(And it's a question I have asked before) Who is right, who is wrong? Devout Moslems are so true to their faith that they believe everyone else is wrong, hence we have people like IS, killing those they believe to be wrong and evil.

Some Western and Syrian forces are slowly killing them off because of our Western beliefs.

The Referendum also depends on a majority of people believing they are right to vote IN, whilst the OUTs believe they are right.

I could go on and on with all manner of reasons why people behave the way they do but again I ask, who are we to judge them? For we too have our faults so, once again I ask: Who is right, who is wrong?

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:Rubbish.

Really now? All Quill is saying is what a lot of right-wingers concede -- that left-wingers are the idealists among us. They pish-posh idealism, of course, and tend to ultimately arrive at the assertion that human beings aren't really capable of doing things that improve quality of life for the public -- but there's a reason they use terms like "bleeding heart" and "tree hugger."

Nicko is right because you are basing this off generalisations, which is based of you knwoing a miniscule amount of RW people?
Many RW are idealists but in many different ways than you are. Idealism comes in many different aspects so when nicko said its rubbish, he was right. You need to get out more.

You think living in Texas that I know a "miniscule" amount of RWers? You must be out of your mind.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:



Nicko is right because you are basing this off generalisations, which is based of you knwoing a miniscule amount of RW people?
Many RW are idealists but in many different ways than you are. Idealism comes in many different aspects so when nicko said its rubbish, he was right. You need to get out more.

You think living in Texas that I know a "miniscule" amount of RWers? You must be out of your mind.

In comparrison to the variety of RW people around the world?

Yes

So lets question this

How many people in the US?

How many in the world?

How many people do you actually know?

I keep telling you... our Torys are more like your Democrats...


If you had our lefties over there then you would be calling them extremists and commies and mentalists!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:I keep telling you... our Torys are more like your Democrats...


If you had our lefties over there then you would be calling them extremists and commies and mentalists!!!

Indeed the present labour leadership are more in line with Stalinist Russia, who I might add hated the Jews also

nicko wrote:
Rubbish.

Please, explain your reasoning, nicko...

If there is any..