Gay Nazi Thugs attack ex-UKIP councillor

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

The home of UKIP councillor David Silvester, who blamed recent floods on gay marriage, has been targeted by protesters.

Mr Silvester did not wish to comment but Henley Town Council said eggs had been thrown at his house this week.

Insp Mark Harling told the Henley Standard police were investigating and condemned the act as "pointless".

An online petition demanding Mr Silvester's resignation has attracted more than 24,000 signatures.

As well as being hit by eggs, the town council said a "rainbow banner" had also been attached to the wall of Mr Silvester's house.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25977349

These Gay Nazi's should not be tolerated

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:48 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:What possible reason can justify denying consenting adults the right to marry?

None, BUT the right to deny the ukip the chance to do any such thing (even if that IS their intent), lies in the ballot box, NOT in the MOB.

You cant have it both ways (well actually liberalists DO want it all ways at once but hey ho)

the rule of law and the rule of democracy (even if it is flawed)

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:48 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:

You mean you spout all this stuff about UKIP and don't know what is on their site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know exactly what is on their website - I am also fairly conversant with the dozens of sites that claim to have what is on their website and do not.
When debating with people about it I prefer to make sure we are reading from the same page of the hymnbook.

But you were saying they were not stopping the rights of gay people. If you had read the website, you would have known that is exactly what they want to do.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:50 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:What possible reason can justify denying consenting adults the right to marry?

None, BUT the right to deny the ukip the chance to do any such thing (even if that IS their intent), lies in the ballot box, NOT in the MOB.

You cant have it both ways (well actually liberalists DO want it all ways at once but hey ho)

the rule of law and the rule of democracy (even if it is flawed)

Hate to bring it up Vic, but nearly every law that oppresses people has been defeated by people getting out and opposing it, and that includes breaking laws. How else did women get the vote, how else did trade unions get rights etc.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:51 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I read the whole page; how about instead of being a coward and saying that I missed something, you actually say what it is that I'm supposed to have missed, so I can prove you wrong once again?

Well personally I do have a problem with Gay Marriage being in line with that of a man and woman, but if ever those rights exceed that of a normal marriage then I think people will react to that and rightly so.

In what way would the rights extended to gay couples "exceed" those extended to hetero couples?

Who cares what you think about gay marriage "being in line with" straight marriage? What gives you the right to tell people they can't have this right?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:51 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I read the whole page; how about instead of being a coward and saying that I missed something, you actually say what it is that I'm supposed to have missed, so I can prove you wrong once again?

Well personally I do have a problem with Gay Marriage being in line with that of a man and woman,(why? how does it affect YOU?) but if ever those rights exceed that of a normal marriage then I think people will react to that and rightly so. that is a different matter, and one quite frankly that is just a bit more R/W hysteria

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:53 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The protection of the rights of religious believers.

How are the rights of religious people harmed in any way by gay marriage?

Because British and European law is not the same as US law and this law will allow the EU to force churches and other religious organizations like those of the Jews, Islam, etc to perform marriages that are against their beliefs.

UKIP believe in equality - and that means the religious man is as important as the gay man.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:54 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's right on their website. But if you must be led by the nose:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=UKIP+position+on+gay+marriage

I would advise posters not to use this Link , but find the OFFICIAL UKIP response.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:55 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:question ...do we or do we not have the rule of law?

did that ukip cabbage break any laws?
did the equally green looking gay supporters mob break any laws?

no if or buts.
no ah buts

did they or didnt they....

The ex tory who defected to UKIP did not break any laws.
The gay supporting mob did break laws.

Unfortunately I do not think we do have rule of law. The lady of justice is no longer blindfolded.

What about when John Prescott was egged, the majority on the right applauded that, so double standards being employed.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:55 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

How are the rights of religious people harmed in any way by gay marriage?

Because British and European law is not the same as US law and this law will allow the EU to force churches and other religious organizations like those of the Jews, Islam, etc to perform marriages that are against their beliefs.

UKIP believe in equality - and that means the religious man is as important as the gay man.

Sphinx, suggest you read a bit, the law does not force ANY religious institution to hold gay marriages unless they want to - like the Quakers.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:55 pm

Sassy wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

None, BUT the right to deny the ukip the chance to do any such thing (even if that IS their intent), lies in the ballot box, NOT in the MOB.

You cant have it both ways (well actually liberalists DO want it all ways at once but hey ho)

the rule of law and the rule of democracy (even if it is flawed)

Hate to bring it up Vic, but nearly every law that oppresses people has been defeated by people getting out and opposing it, and that includes breaking laws. How else did women get the vote, how else did trade unions get rights etc.

and much good its done us....now get back in the kitchen Razz

seriously though are you suggesting that because i dislike the law on some issue I should egg the local councillor???

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:56 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I know exactly what is on their website - I am also fairly conversant with the dozens of sites that claim to have what is on their website and do not.
When debating with people about it I prefer to make sure we are reading from the same page of the hymnbook.

But you were saying they were not stopping the rights of gay people. If you had read the website, you would have known that is exactly what they want to do.

No.

There is no legal difference between a civil partnership and a registrar office wedding.

What rights are denied?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:57 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Hate to bring it up Vic, but nearly every law that oppresses people has been defeated by people getting out and opposing it, and that includes breaking laws. How else did women get the vote, how else did trade unions get rights etc.

and much good its done us....now get back in the kitchen

seriously though are you suggesting that because i dislike the law on some issue I should egg the local councillor???

Might make them sit up and take notice, because they are not taking any notice of anyone at the moment.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:59 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Because British and European law is not the same as US law and this law will allow the EU to force churches and other religious organizations like those of the Jews, Islam, etc to perform marriages that are against their beliefs.

UKIP believe in equality - and that means the religious man is as important as the gay man.

Sphinx, suggest you read a bit, the law does not force ANY religious institution to hold gay marriages unless they want to - like the Quakers.

I have read a bit - of the way this law can be interpreted and used to get the EU court of human rights to over-rule religious institutions and force them.

Why do you think UKIP exists Sassy? We are not in charge of our justice because EU rules can and do overrule those of our own parliament.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:00 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:

But you were saying they were not stopping the rights of gay people. If you had read the website, you would have known that is exactly what they want to do.

No.

There is no legal difference between a civil partnership and a registrar office wedding.

What rights are denied?

Do they, or do they not, want to stop two people of the same sex getting married? As they do, they are trying to stop those people's rights. They can try and scabble out of it by saying they can have a civil partnership, but that is denying them the right to have something that everyone else can have without thinking about it. And just to put the point over again, you are also wrong when you say that churches etc will be forced to carry them out, that has been specifically excluded until they want to do it, as the Quakers do.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:00 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
ALLAKAKA wrote:

Well personally I do have a problem with Gay Marriage being in line with that of a man and woman, but if ever those rights exceed that of a normal marriage then I think people will react to that and rightly so.

In what way would the rights extended to gay couples "exceed" those extended to hetero couples?

Who cares what you think about gay marriage "being in line with" straight marriage? What gives you the right to tell people they can't have this right?

I have told anybody they can't have this right , but you seem to be saying that people do not have rights to oppose things.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:03 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Sphinx, suggest you read a bit, the law does not force ANY religious institution to hold gay marriages unless they want to - like the Quakers.

I have read a bit - of the way this law can be interpreted and used to get the EU court of human rights to over-rule religious institutions and force them.

Why do you think UKIP exists Sassy? We are not in charge of our justice because EU rules can and do overrule those of our own parliament.

Why do I think UKIP exists? Because people haven't got the courage of their convictions and won't join the BNP etc, but as there is a party that will dress their views up and make them look fairly respectable, and the bloke in charge is such a happy chappy who likes a pint, they will go for that. But when all is said and done, they are the same, and the same people are attracted to them that were attracted to the BNP.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:04 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No.

There is no legal difference between a civil partnership and a registrar office wedding.

What rights are denied?

Do they, or do they not, want to stop two people of the same sex getting married? As they do, they are trying to stop those people's rights. They can try and scabble out of it by saying they can have a civil partnership, but that is denying them the right to have something that everyone else can have without thinking about it. And just to put the point over again, you are also wrong when you say that churches etc will be forced to carry them out, that has been specifically excluded until they want to do it, as the Quakers do.

Exactly.

Until gay marriages come into force in March, there has always been a two tier system, so discrimination.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:08 pm

I just think it's funny if you really think through what UKIP is asking for. Religious sensibilities? Really?

If we're to believe the likes of Allakaka, Andy and a half-dozen other posters here, the U.K. is teeming with Muslim terrorist pedophiles who run filthy kebob shops, and immigration is such that they'll be the majority in roughly three months or so.

So do you really want to open the door on passing laws that cater to religious beliefs?

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:11 pm

Catman wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Do they, or do they not, want to stop two people of the same sex getting married? As they do, they are trying to stop those people's rights. They can try and scabble out of it by saying they can have a civil partnership, but that is denying them the right to have something that everyone else can have without thinking about it. And just to put the point over again, you are also wrong when you say that churches etc will be forced to carry them out, that has been specifically excluded until they want to do it, as the Quakers do.

Exactly.

Until gay marriages come into force in March, there has always been a two tier system, so discrimination.

Well you have got it , now rush out and MARRY Doug , then you can live happy forever after and STOP WHINGING.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:12 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I have read a bit - of the way this law can be interpreted and used to get the EU court of human rights to over-rule religious institutions and force them.

Why do you think UKIP exists Sassy? We are not in charge of our justice because EU rules can and do overrule those of our own parliament.

Why do I think UKIP exists? Because people haven't got the courage of their convictions and won't join the BNP etc, but as there is a party that will dress their views up and make them look fairly respectable, and the bloke in charge is such a happy chappy who likes a pint, they will go for that. But when all is said and done, they are the same, and the same people are attracted to them that were attracted to the BNP.

Yes that is why the horrible racist UKIP were the first party calling for us to take syrian refugees.

(oh yes and why they refuse to have ex BNP as members)

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:14 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I just think it's funny if you really think through what UKIP is asking for. Religious sensibilities? Really?

If we're to believe the likes of Allakaka, Andy and a half-dozen other posters here, the U.K. is teeming with Muslim terrorist pedophiles who run filthy kebob shops, and immigration is such that they'll be the majority in roughly three months or so.

So do you really want to open the door on passing laws that cater to religious beliefs?

But those guys are not UKIP.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:16 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Why do I think UKIP exists? Because people haven't got the courage of their convictions and won't join the BNP etc, but as there is a party that will dress their views up and make them look fairly respectable, and the bloke in charge is such a happy chappy who likes a pint, they will go for that. But when all is said and done, they are the same, and the same people are attracted to them that were attracted to the BNP.

Yes that is why the horrible racist UKIP were the first party calling for us to take syrian refugees.

(oh yes and why they refuse to have ex BNP as members)

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:19 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I just think it's funny if you really think through what UKIP is asking for. Religious sensibilities? Really?

If we're to believe the likes of Allakaka, Andy and a half-dozen other posters here, the U.K. is teeming with Muslim terrorist pedophiles who run filthy kebob shops,
Not teeming , but more than the average

and immigration is such that they'll be the majority in roughly three months or so.

It will take more than that ,but will happen ,if immigration is not curbed

So do you really want to open the door on passing laws that cater to religious beliefs?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:22 pm

Ukip 'Will Attract Most BNP Voters And Should Let Them Join', Say Party Members

The Huffington Post UK | By Asa Bennett Posted: 07/01/2014 13:13 GMT | Updated: 23/01/2014 15:53 GMT

Ukip is on track to pick up most of the votes from the British National Party in upcoming elections as Nick Griffin's party is set for a disastrous performance at the ballot box, according to Ukip grassroots members.

The prediction came amid discussions on Ukip's members-only forum in the wake of BNP leader Nick Griffin's bankruptcy. Brian Otridge, campaign manager for Ukip's North West Hampshire Branch, wrote:

"He never was very bright was he? BNP got 564,321 votes in GE2010 [General Election] and 943,598 in EE2009 [European Elections]. We should be picking up 50-75% of those now."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/07/ukip-edl-bnp_n_4549306.html#slide=more332126

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:31 pm

Sassy wrote: Ukip 'Will Attract Most BNP Voters And Should Let Them Join', Say Party Members

The Huffington Post UK | By Asa Bennett Posted: 07/01/2014 13:13 GMT | Updated: 23/01/2014 15:53 GMT

Ukip is on track to pick up most of the votes from the British National Party in upcoming elections as Nick Griffin's party is set for a disastrous performance at the ballot box, according to Ukip grassroots members.

The prediction came amid discussions on Ukip's members-only forum in the wake of BNP leader Nick Griffin's bankruptcy. Brian Otridge, campaign manager for Ukip's North West Hampshire Branch, wrote:

"He never was very bright was he? BNP got 564,321 votes in GE2010 [General Election] and 943,598 in EE2009 [European Elections]. We should be picking up 50-75% of those now."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/07/ukip-edl-bnp_n_4549306.html#slide=more332126

You do understand the difference between people voting for you and having them as members dont you?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:38 pm

Yep, those who vote for you are the ones you try to please to keep them on board ://?roflmao?/:

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:41 pm

Sassy wrote: Ukip 'Will Attract Most BNP Voters And Should Let Them Join', Say Party Members

The Huffington Post UK | By Asa Bennett Posted: 07/01/2014 13:13 GMT | Updated: 23/01/2014 15:53 GMT

Ukip is on track to pick up most of the votes from the British National Party in upcoming elections as Nick Griffin's party is set for a disastrous performance at the ballot box, according to Ukip grassroots members.

The prediction came amid discussions on Ukip's members-only forum in the wake of BNP leader Nick Griffin's bankruptcy. Brian Otridge, campaign manager for Ukip's North West Hampshire Branch, wrote:

"He never was very bright was he? BNP got 564,321 votes in GE2010 [General Election] and 943,598 in EE2009 [European Elections]. We should be picking up 50-75% of those now."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/07/ukip-edl-bnp_n_4549306.html#slide=more332126

There has always been a very close relationship between UKIP and the BNP supporters, as we have seen displayed now over many years.....Especially on forums!!!!

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:42 pm

Agreed!

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:43 pm

Sassy wrote:Yep, those who vote for you are the ones you try to please to keep them on board ://?roflmao?/:

Well UKIP better work hard at pleasing all those former Labour supporters who are not only voting for them but have joined the party as well - there is an awful lot more of them than there is BNP supporters who may or may not vote for them but who certainly will not be joining them.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:45 pm

Catman wrote:
Sassy wrote: Ukip 'Will Attract Most BNP Voters And Should Let Them Join', Say Party Members

The Huffington Post UK | By Asa Bennett Posted: 07/01/2014 13:13 GMT | Updated: 23/01/2014 15:53 GMT

Ukip is on track to pick up most of the votes from the British National Party in upcoming elections as Nick Griffin's party is set for a disastrous performance at the ballot box, according to Ukip grassroots members.

The prediction came amid discussions on Ukip's members-only forum in the wake of BNP leader Nick Griffin's bankruptcy. Brian Otridge, campaign manager for Ukip's North West Hampshire Branch, wrote:

"He never was very bright was he? BNP got 564,321 votes in GE2010 [General Election] and 943,598 in EE2009 [European Elections]. We should be picking up 50-75% of those now."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/07/ukip-edl-bnp_n_4549306.html#slide=more332126

There has always been a very close relationship between UKIP and the BNP supporters, as we have seen displayed now over many years.....Especially on forums!!!!

ASSOCIATION FALLACY

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:45 pm

Sassy wrote:Agreed!

Forum cheat! lol!

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:46 pm

Catman wrote:
Sassy wrote:Agreed!

Forum cheat!

What? lol

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:47 pm

Sassy wrote:
Catman wrote:

Forum cheat!

What? lol

KaKa?

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:48 pm

Catman wrote:
Sassy wrote:Agreed!

Forum cheat!

Well theres your chance , ask Sphinx.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:51 pm

Anyone that has you as a moderator must have lost their marbles imo, and anyway, this has been well documented by others as well, over the years.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:52 pm

Catman wrote:
Sassy wrote:

What? lol

KaKa?

You put it under my quote lol, although it was obvious it was KaKa.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:02 pm

Catman wrote:Anyone that has you as a moderator must have lost their marbles imo, and anyway, this has been well documented by others as well, over the years.

Then show the evidence, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

by ALLAKAKA Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:12 pm

Sassy wrote:Agreed!

Now can you tell us all on here some of those timely stories that just happened to coincide with forum topics over the years.

by veya_victaous Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:48 am

Where are these thugs? can I shake their hand?

Mr Silvester Deserves all the hate he gets.

Although I must admit the head line had me Imagining Allakaka (like his portrait on the side) attacking the fucktard Silvester Laughing

by Ben Reilly Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:19 am

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Catman wrote:Anyone that has you as a moderator must have lost their marbles imo, and anyway, this has been well documented by others as well, over the years.

Then show the evidence, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Maybe you should shut the fuck up, you racist waste of oxygen.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:59 pm

So the general consensus of opinion is that a Christian man may not express his opinions based on his beliefs and that if he does criminals who vandalize his house should be congratulated.

This from people who spent the other week claiming they supported freedom of speech - it seems they supported it right up until someone said something they did not like. It is sickening.

Get this straight - I do not for a microsecond agree with what the man said - I think he is a uneducated idiot. However I do believe he has the right to speak his opinion without fear of criminal reprisals and that he also has the right to the protection of the law.

Anyone thinking this man got what he deserved is a dictatorial hypocrite who should hand their head in shame but wont because they are too caught up in their own grandiosity to actually realize that they can quote the immortal "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
without understanding it yet alone practising it.

Anyone who truly believes in freedom of speech and that quote would stand in front of this man and take the abuse and eggs thrown at him onto themselves not shake the hands of the criminals trying to force this man to stop speaking his opinions.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:10 pm

sphinx wrote:So the general consensus of opinion is that a Christian man may not express his opinions based on his beliefs and that if he does criminals who vandalize his house should be congratulated.
General consensus Since when? Never realised you were now judge and jury on this debate?

This from people who spent the other week claiming they supported freedom of speech - it seems they supported it right up until someone said something they did not like. It is sickening.
Oh behave Mrs Righteous, people on anything can become incensed and most of what has been stated here is actually taking the piss. So yes it was wrong to target his house, but I have no sympathy for him what so ever

Get this straight - I do not for a microsecond agree with what the man said - I think he is a uneducated idiot. However I do believe he has the right to speak his opinion without fear of criminal reprisals and that he also has the right to the protection of the law.
I agree, but then he should also be responsible for talking such balderdash, being as now it is globally known

Anyone thinking this man got what he deserved is a dictatorial hypocrite who should hand their head in shame but wont because they are too caught up in their own grandiosity to actually realize that they can quote the immortal "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
without understanding it yet alone practising it.
So if the killers of Lee Rigby were murdered in prison and I stated they got their just rewards, would I be wrong? Oh that old chestnut line, not even written by Voltairer, which basically means you will defend the right for people to spout hate and discrimination, even though the law does rightly so disagree with you, as you have no understanding of damage and affects hate speech has

Anyone who truly believes in freedom of speech and that quote would stand in front of this man and take the abuse and eggs thrown at him onto themselves not shake the hands of the criminals trying to force this man to stop speaking his opinions.

Freedom of speech is an illusion because people are not responsible with it, hence why laws are made to help stop those who do abuse it!

by ALLAKAKA Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:16 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
ALLAKAKA wrote:

Then show the evidence, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Maybe you should shut the fuck up, you racist waste of oxygen.

Was I talking to you , you Texas cock sucker .

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:19 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Maybe you should shut the fuck up, you racist waste of oxygen.

Was I talking to you , you Texas cock sucker .

It would be "Texan", he is not the state of Texas you know, plus your homophobia has no limits it seems, as why would being called a cock sucker be an insult unless you use it to imply there is something wrong with homosexuality

by ALLAKAKA Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:23 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
ALLAKAKA wrote:

Was I talking to you , you Texas cock sucker .

It would be "Texan", he is not the state of Texas you know, plus your homophobia has no limits it seems, as why would being called a cock sucker be an insult unless you use it to imply there is something wrong with homosexuality

Never doubted for a minute that the Wankstain was indigenous and now the ultimate from another WANKSTAIN , '' Cock sucker '' is a Homophobic insult ..

lol!

by ALLAKAKA Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:27 pm

You heard it from the Newsfix Numpties '' Linda Lovelace was a man''. And'' Clinton was Gay by getting a blowjob off a man ''.

lol!

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:36 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:

You heard it from the Newsfix Numpties '' Linda Lovelace was a man''. And'' Clinton was Gay by getting a blowjob off a man ''.

Now there is logic for you, what has linda lovelace being a woman, got to do with a man being called a cock sucker?
Thus your view is to insult him either for sucking cocks being heterosexual still with the view cock sucking is wrong for men, being as it was directed at a man or that you are trying to claim he is homosexual.

Very homophobic

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:38 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

It would be "Texan", he is not the state of Texas you know, plus your homophobia has no limits it seems, as why would being called a cock sucker be an insult unless you use it to imply there is something wrong with homosexuality

Never doubted for a minute that the Wankstain was indigenous and now the ultimate from another WANKSTAIN , '' Cock sucker '' is a Homophobic insult ..

Now was nothing short of complete rubbish, you stated a Texas cock sucker, very illogical, so you were saying now the state of Texas, being land and industrialization, animals and people can actually sock cocks.

I suggest you quite before you further embarrass yourself, even worse you keep replying with even more absurd notions

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:43 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:So the general consensus of opinion is that a Christian man may not express his opinions based on his beliefs and that if he does criminals who vandalize his house should be congratulated.
General consensus Since when? Never realised you were now judge and jury on this debate?

This from people who spent the other week claiming they supported freedom of speech - it seems they supported it right up until someone said something they did not like. It is sickening.
Oh behave Mrs Righteous, people on anything can become incensed and most of what has been stated here is actually taking the piss. So yes it was wrong to target his house, but I have no sympathy for him what so ever

Get this straight - I do not for a microsecond agree with what the man said - I think he is a uneducated idiot. However I do believe he has the right to speak his opinion without fear of criminal reprisals and that he also has the right to the protection of the law.
I agree, but then he should also be responsible for talking such balderdash, being as now it is globally known

Anyone thinking this man got what he deserved is a dictatorial hypocrite who should hand their head in shame but wont because they are too caught up in their own grandiosity to actually realize that they can quote the immortal "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
without understanding it yet alone practising it.
So if the killers of Lee Rigby were murdered in prison and I stated they got their just rewards, would I be wrong? Oh that old chestnut line, not even written by Voltairer, which basically means you will defend the right for people to spout hate and discrimination, even though the law does rightly so disagree with you, as you have no understanding of damage and affects hate speech has

Anyone who truly believes in freedom of speech and that quote would stand in front of this man and take the abuse and eggs thrown at him onto themselves not shake the hands of the criminals trying to force this man to stop speaking his opinions.

Freedom of speech is an illusion because people are not responsible with it, hence why laws are made to help stop those who do abuse it!

Firstly that was not aimed at you - it was aimed at some of the other sanctimonious idiots that spent last week claiming they supported freedom of speech only to spend last night expressing their delight at criminal acts.

What the hell have the killers of Lee Rigby got to do with freedom of speech? They are not in prison for speaking they are in prison for a particularly nasty brutal murder. If they were killed in a revenge attack it would be because of the murder not because of what they said. If they were killed you would have every right to say "good" - I would probably be saying the same. However I would not be at the front of a mob calling for them to be killed - I would be the one stood off to one side trying to tell everyone to let their fate be decided by the law. I call for the return of the death penalty, I state I am not going to be distressed if someone kills them I also state whoever kills them should be tried and punished for it according to the law.

I never claimed it was voltairer - I am not a complete idiot.

I fully understand what hate does to people - I am just not stupid enough to imagine that if people are stopped from vocalizing their hate that it will stop either the hate itself or the damage that hate does.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:50 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Freedom of speech is an illusion because people are not responsible with it, hence why laws are made to help stop those who do abuse it!

Firstly that was not aimed at you - it was aimed at some of the other sanctimonious idiots that spent last week claiming they supported freedom of speech only to spend last night expressing their delight at criminal acts.

What the hell have the killers of Lee Rigby got to do with freedom of speech?
Eh, you made the absurd notion it is never right to seek justification onto people or be satisfied, DOH

They are not in prison for speaking they are in prison for a particularly nasty brutal murder.
Irrelevant, this is about those backing the view "get what people deserved" for their actions[/color] not about free speech, but the concept of "got what he deserved" You are thus either saying it is never right or that it can be right to believe what you claim people are being hypocritical over, when clearly they are not

If they were killed in a revenge attack it would be because of the murder not because of what they said. If they were killed you would have every right to say "good" - I would probably be saying the same. However I would not be at the front of a mob calling for them to be killed - I would be the one stood off to one side trying to tell everyone to let their fate be decided by the law. I call for the return of the death penalty, I state I am not going to be distressed if someone kills them I also state whoever kills them should be tried and punished for it according to the law.
See above

I never claimed it was voltairer - I am not a complete idiot.
never said you were, a tad touchy today are we not

I fully understand what hate does to people - I am just not stupid enough to imagine that if people are stopped from vocalizing their hate that it will stop either the hate itself or the damage that hate does.

It has repercussions for those who cannot be responsible and again who abuse free speech to discriminate against people to further a spread of hate

Right have to go

Bye

by Sponsored content