The Queen provides 'best moral leadership' for Britons - but Farage provides the worst

The Queen has been voted the person in the UK who provides the best moral leadership for Britons, and Farage the worst, according to a poll.

In her annual Christmas speech this year, the Queen discussed a number of topics from the poppies at the Tower of London to the efforts of aid workers in disaster zones across the world and of those working to help Ebola stricken countries. She also received praise from people on Twitter after making an unexpected reference to the Game of Thrones in her address.

The Queen’s position as moral leader was closely followed by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and David Cameron, in the YouGov poll for the Sunday Times.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-queen-provides-best-moral-leadership-for-britons--but-farage-provides-the-worst-9947888.html

I think Farage could have been really good as an obscure fringe leader, so long as most people didn't know much about him, but his jumping into the spotlight has shown sane people what he's really about.

Do I feel close to the queen in lifestyle and do I see her as an elder peer who is similar to me?

No I dont.

Who are these people who were asked?

Polls are misleading.

I've got a feeling Farage is more in touch with peoples morals than the queen simply because he doesn't live in a castle, isn't over 1,000 years old and has shopped in a fucking supermarket.

What a load of old bollocks!

Have a "green" eddie.

eddie wrote:Do I feel close to the queen in lifestyle and do I see her as an elder peer who is similar to me?

No I dont.

Who are these people who were asked?

Polls are misleading.

I've got a feeling Farage is more in touch with peoples morals than the queen simply because he doesn't live in a castle, isn't over 1,000 years old and has shopped in a fucking supermarket.

What a load of old bollocks!

Not a load of bollocks at all.
First we need to extend the boundaries of what is ethically and morally right.

Is Elitism right No

That means the Queens position based on birth right is wrong, but certainly her views are right about unity and peace, which you cannot find the same with Farage.

Again this is based on who has better morals as a role figure of which at every turn what Farage promotes is ugly and unethical. For example he claimed nobody would live next door to Romanians based off a guilt by association to those who are Gypsies. He thought it was okay to hold homophobic views based off where you have been brought up. Sorry but he holds outdated and backward views, which is trying to make being offensive to people acceptable.
He uses fear as a means to make out this country is full when it is far from full and that we should only allow people born from elitism who have been educated with the skills he thinks is necessary as an entrance requirement to enter this country. Every view point he makes is based off only helping people born here (elitism) and not of humans around the world where he even wishes to want to cut foreign aid and raise vastly the defense budget. His views are utterly vile and selfish Eddie. He claims to have Judeo-Christian values, yet it happens to be the worst values I have ever come across.

Yes you can argue very much many factors onto the Queen based on her wealth etc, but she does stand  by moral and ethical views on some points far more than Farage.
To claim Farage has any good moral views would be a joke, being as he and his party has voted against or abstained form every single policy that has been brought to vote for eual rights for homosexuals within the EU
I would place the Queens views a thousand times that of Farage any day. Just because some people back his selfish views, do not make them ethical or moral.

So you need to show what ethical and moral views he has that are good, but you will find there are not many you can come up with.
On that I would love to see your answers Eddie

Why the eye roll nicko? Did didge say anything unfair? Care to argue your point? Just rolling your eyes doesn't discount anything didge said.

As to the Queen, she is a fairly neutral choice as providing 'good moral leadership'. She has hardly ever been out of line in that regard and compared to the politicians is practically a saint. The celeb world hardly has any outstanding candidates...

Farage however is divisive. He may have more in common with a few million is the UK but only the racist, small minded gutter rats if we are being totally honest (even if some of the gutter rats go hunting and drive posh cars...). I shudder at any comparison being made between me, my family (who are working class), and the likes of that plonker.

So all ukip's are racist, small minded gutter rates? only a few million then?

Not all nicko, a few million probably. Tragically high I know. Some UKIP voters are just easily led or misguided, probably due to disillusionment. Which is a shame.

Exactly Eilzel not all, but they have certainly drawn all the racists to them out of a hope they see as UKIP pressing forth their ideals.

Lets face it if people want to argue over moral and ethical views they have to show Farage having views that place the well being of all people equally. As what is morally and ethically right is the well being of others through equality, if ever this comes into conflict you are not placing the well being of others equally and it would thus be unethical and immoral.

I doubt you willfind many views he has that can fall into that category

You do make I laugh didge,UKIP are all racists! get a fucking grip you idiot.

PS I vote tory, but I don't dismiss a few million voters as racist

nicko wrote:You do make I laugh didge,UKIP are all racists! get a fucking grip you idiot.

Are you blind?

"Not all nicko, a few million probably."

Are you illiterate?

"Exactly Eilzel not all, but they have certainly drawn all the racists to them out of a hope they see as UKIP pressing forth their ideals."

Are you deliberately ignoring what people say in response?

nicko wrote:You do make I laugh didge,UKIP are all racists! get a fucking grip you idiot.

Not once did I claim all UKIP are racists again proving you only want to see what you want to see.
There are many different UKIP supporters, but again it has drawn all the racists, that does not mean all UKIP are racist, but they have drawn all the racists to them.

Do you understand the difference, or would you like me to provide you a class in English comprehension?
Seriously how many times do I have to make you look like a complete an utter ignoramus?

nicko wrote:PS I vote tory, but I don't dismiss a few million voters as racist

Nobody has even considered them all racist. Seriously, what language did you learn, because it certainly does not seem to be English?

Some of your posts seem to be in a lost language , but as your not English it's understandable. don't bother answering , it'll be another load of hypocritical bollocks from a prat with a skin as thick as an Elephant.

nicko wrote:Some of your posts seem to be in a lost language , but as your not English it's understandable. don't bother answering , it'll be another load of hypocritical bollocks from a prat with a skin as thick as an Elephant.

I am English and it seems I understand its language better than yourself.
It must pain you that I am in fact English ha ha

More like you were just made to look the complete idiot you are again.

So one last chance post anywhere above where I stated all UKIP were racist, if not I expect one of two things.

You show some decency and apologise or you crawl away from this thread like the pathetic worm you are.

In your own time

The Queen is a jolly sort.  Of course, the Cambridges are the new, fun children of child-bearing age.  Of course they are going to be popular.  Remember Diana and Charles at that stage?

Too bad the British can't get their religions straight...or their sense of tolerance sorted out.  I liked the Stuarts.  But you fools had to trade them in for Germans!  You loons.  You started WWI, which indirectly beget WWII...which left us with the Cold War and two downed Malaysian aircraft.

And you could have had Stuarts...miles and miles of Stuarts.  The French name Stuart, was originally the Scot: Stewart, which goes back to Robert II, the Steward, or the hereditary High Stewards (Stigeweard) and Justiciar of Scotia.  Walter the Steward's true surname was FitzAlan.

So y'all could have had the House of fitzAlan, but nooooo...y'all went German.  Battenburg...pffft, doesn't even exist anymore. Only ever had a population of 6,000. It existed along the River Eder, to the west of its drain into the River Weser. It lies in the Ederbergland, or Eder Highland, to which the Burgwald abutting the town to the east also belongs, on the southern edge of the Sauerland and the Rothaargebirge. Today, it has been incorporated into the greater district of Waldeck, Frankenberg.

Y'all coulda had a Stweart.

???

Kind of a bizarre post Quill lol

The Stuarts were lost after Anne as you know, and the Pretenders were Catholic which wouldn't have worked back then.

We didn't start WWI, at least not any more than the other European powers. In fact with or without Britain WWI would have happened so if anything the others were more to blame

Eilzel wrote:???

Kind of a bizarre post Quill lol

The Stuarts were lost after Anne as you know, and the Pretenders were Catholic which wouldn't have worked back then.

We didn't start WWI, at least not any more than the other European powers. In fact with or without Britain WWI would have happened so if anything the others were more to blame

Your German Queen Victoria had a daughter, Princess Royal Victoria, who was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm.  WWI came right out of the German loins of British royalty.

PS: Les, I'm kiddin y'all.  Crissake, we coulda had a Mormon president if the Republicans had won last time.  Wouldn't that be a mess?

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:???

Kind of a bizarre post Quill lol

The Stuarts were lost after Anne as you know, and the Pretenders were Catholic which wouldn't have worked back then.

We didn't start WWI, at least not any more than the other European powers. In fact with or without Britain WWI would have happened so if anything the others were more to blame

Your German Queen Victoria had a daughter, Princess Royal Victoria, who was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm.  WWI came right out of the German loins of British royalty.

PS: Les, I'm kiddin y'all.  Crissake, we coulda had a Mormon president if the Republicans had won last time.  Wouldn't that be a mess?

It thus goes back full circle to Germany.
It certainly did not come out of the loins, being as all these nations had been gearing up for war for years, it was only a matter of time before it kicked off.
The Austro-Hungarians kicked it all off anyway.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Your German Queen Victoria had a daughter, Princess Royal Victoria, who was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm.  WWI came right out of the German loins of British royalty.

PS: Les, I'm kiddin y'all.  Crissake, we coulda had a Mormon president if the Republicans had won last time.  Wouldn't that be a mess?

It thus goes back full circle to Germany.
It certainly did not come out of the loins, being as all these nations had been gearing up for war for years, it was only a matter of time before it kicked off.
The Austro-Hungarians kicked it all off anyway.

Absolutely right, Didge.

If you really want to get serious, WWI goes back to British colonialism.  The theme of the first great war of the 20th-century was A Place in the Sun:

Like a long lonely stream
I keep runnin' towards a dream
Movin' on, movin' on
Like a branch on a tree
I keep reachin' to be free
Movin' on, movin' on

Living space...that was the Germanic ideal.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



It thus goes back full circle to Germany.
It certainly did not come out of the loins, being as all these nations had been gearing up for war for years, it was only a matter of time before it kicked off.
The Austro-Hungarians kicked it all off anyway.

If you really want to get serious, WWI goes back to British colonialism.  The theme of the first great war of the 20th-century was A Place in the Sun:

Like a long lonely stream
I keep runnin' towards a dream
Movin' on, movin' on
Like a branch on a tree
I keep reachin' to be free
Movin' on, movin' on

Living space...that was the Germanic ideal.

Shody Quill as the Germans had the Pan Germanic league in the 19th century which is quite appalling how much living space they wanted, you may want to look it up. This later echoed into the Nazi party.
Again it was down to all European nations trying to carve up the world for themselves.
They were all as guilty as each other.
The Germans had the death camps in Namibia at Shark Island for example in the early part on the 20th century.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you really want to get serious, WWI goes back to British colonialism.  The theme of the first great war of the 20th-century was A Place in the Sun:

Like a long lonely stream
I keep runnin' towards a dream
Movin' on, movin' on
Like a branch on a tree
I keep reachin' to be free
Movin' on, movin' on

Living space...that was the Germanic ideal.

Shody Quill as the Germans had the Pan Germanic league in the 19th century which is quite appalling how much living space they wanted, you may want to look it up. This later echoed into the Nazi party.
Again it was down to all European nations trying to carve up the world for themselves.
They were all as guilty as each other.
The Germans had the death camps in Namibia at Shark Island for example in the early part on the 20th century.

Still it goes back to colonisation, refined by the British:

Wiki wrote:Lebensraum.  German for "habitat" (or literally "living space") was an ideology proposing an aggressive expansion of Germany and the German people. Developed under German Empire, it became part of German goals during the First World War and was later adopted as an important component of Nazi ideology in Germany. The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories. The German Nazi Party claimed that Germany inevitably needed to territorially expand because it was facing an overpopulation crisis within its Treaty of Versailles-designed boundaries that Adolf Hitler described: "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources".

*   *   *   *

The Nazi regime invoked a variety of precedents to justify the pursuit of Lebensraum. One was invoking the precedent of the United States. Hitler declared that the size of European states was "absurdly small in comparison to their weight of colonies, foreign trade, etc.," which he contrasted to "the American Union which possesses at its base its own continent and touches the rest of the earth only with its summit." Hitler believed that the colonization of the continental United States by Nordic peoples of Europe that had a large internal market, material reproduction, and fertile biological reproduction, provided the closest model to that of Lebensraum.

As A.J.P. Taylor wrote in the forward to his book, The Origins of the Second World War:

Taylor wrote:It is equally obvious that Lebensraum always appeared as one element in these blueprints. This was not an original idea of Hitler's. It was commonplace at the time. Volk ohne Raum (People Without Space) for instance, by Hans Grimm sold much better than Mein Kampf when it was published in 1928. For that matter, plans for acquiring new territory were much aired in Germany during the First World War. It used to be thought that these were the plans of a few crack-pot theorisers or of extremist organisations. Now we know better. In 1961 a German professor [Fritz Fischer] reported the results of his investigations into German war aims. These were indeed a "blueprint for aggression" or as the professor called them "a grasp at world power": Belgium under German control, the French iron fields annexed to Germany, and, what is more, Poland and the Ukraine to be cleared of their inhabitants and resettled with Germans. These plans were not merely the work of the German General Staff. They were endorsed by the German Foreign Office and by the "good German", Bethmann Hollweg.

Again they were all at this Quill being as colonization started hundreds of years back which included the French, the Spanish, Portuguese, so its a tad lame to lay the blame solely at the feet of Britain to say the least. 
Again not denying this has played a part but again your history is very wonky to say the least. This is the reason that brought European nations to a head in the end.
The British just had the best Navy through excellent Sea Victories as to why it more than dominated over the rest.
It is this domination that gave them the edge, nothing more nothing less.

Brasidas wrote:Again they were all at this Quill being as colonization started hundreds of years back which included the French, the Spanish, Portuguese, so its a tad lame to lay the blame solely at the feet of Britain to say the least. 
Again not denying this has played a part but again your history is very wonky to say the least. This is the reason that brought European nations to a head in the end.
The British just had the best Navy through excellent Sea Victories as to why it more than dominated over the rest.
It is this domination that gave them the edge, nothing more nothing less.

Well, I don't fault the British or anyone for that matter.  But the best at colonization were the British, and perhaps the Spanish...although Spain appears to have merely followed the 'rip-off' plan.  But at that Euro-neighborhood gang, the British seemed to be the best at everything.

Anyway, back to the subject: donch'a wonder if y'all had left your monarchy in the hands of the Scots, y'all would have been better off?  I mean, who today really gives a shiet about Roman Catholicism?  With the intelligence of the Scots, y'all could be miles ahead of where you're at today.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:???

Kind of a bizarre post Quill lol

The Stuarts were lost after Anne as you know, and the Pretenders were Catholic which wouldn't have worked back then.

We didn't start WWI, at least not any more than the other European powers. In fact with or without Britain WWI would have happened so if anything the others were more to blame

Your German Queen Victoria had a daughter, Princess Royal Victoria, who was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm.  WWI came right out of the German loins of British royalty.

PS: Les, I'm kiddin y'all.  Crissake, we coulda had a Mormon president if the Republicans had won last time.  Wouldn't that be a mess?

Actually she became Empress Frederick - albeit for 99 days.

WW1's origins could in fact be traced back to his grandfather Wilhelm I and Bismarck who gained control of his education from a very early age.


back on topic - I like and respect The Queen and think she has done a tremendous job.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:???

Kind of a bizarre post Quill lol

The Stuarts were lost after Anne as you know, and the Pretenders were Catholic which wouldn't have worked back then.

We didn't start WWI, at least not any more than the other European powers. In fact with or without Britain WWI would have happened so if anything the others were more to blame

Your German Queen Victoria had a daughter, Princess Royal Victoria, who was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm.  WWI came right out of the German loins of British royalty.

PS: Les, I'm kiddin y'all.  Crissake, we coulda had a Mormon president if the Republicans had won last time.  Wouldn't that be a mess?

Actually she became Empress Frederick - albeit for 99 days.

WW1's origins could in fact be traced back to his grandfather Wilhelm I and Bismarck who gained control of his education from a very early age.


back on topic - I like and respect The Queen and think she has done a tremendous job.

Cass wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Your German Queen Victoria had a daughter, Princess Royal Victoria, who was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm.  WWI came right out of the German loins of British royalty.

PS: Les, I'm kiddin y'all.  Crissake, we coulda had a Mormon president if the Republicans had won last time.  Wouldn't that be a mess?

Actually she became Empress Frederick - albeit for 99 days.

WW1's origins could in fact be traced back to his grandfather Wilhelm I and Bismarck who gained control of his education from a very early age.


back on topic - I like and respect The Queen and think she has done a tremendous job.

No gettin' round it Cass. By any name, Vikki was Queen Victoria's first-born. But I don't really mean to say that meant anything more then that her son was a tremendous embarrassment to his uncle Edward and the cousins. Wilhelm and Bismark were mere players; the real causes of both wars were thematic and ideological, what with what was going on in Europe at the time.

Well, it was really, like all wars, fought over resources (in this case both real and realistically forecast), but I'm just so happy to see y'all talking like me ... haven't had this much fun since the pigs ate m' brother.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, it was really, like all wars, fought over resources (in this case both real and realistically forecast), but I'm just so happy to see y'all talking like me ... haven't had this much fun since the pigs ate m' brother.

It's like a chain.  Which ever link you grasp, you're still gonna pick up the whole chain.

Resources?  Liebestraum?  Every age has its own way of saying the same thing. The only difference is that Liebestraum emphasizes nationalism, which was rampant as a holistic Germany came into being. Nationalism, on the other hand, puts emphasis on leaders, and we shift to Wilhelm i and Bismark. History is all of those things.

Eilzel wrote:Not all nicko, a few million probably. Tragically high I know. Some UKIP voters are just easily led or misguided, probably due to disillusionment. Which is a shame.

For the record, Ive never voted for UKIP and I'm unlikely to, but I don't think you can call people who do vote for them 'racist'
Isn't that a bit like me saying all blacks are drug dealers?


Sorry les, I think your blind hatred of Farage means you have tarred him with a racist brush and that's that thank you.

I know a few people who are not White who are voting UKIP.
I know a few people who are not english who are voting UKIP.

I have a very good friend who is voting UKIP and she is definitely not racist.

I think you'll find people don't want any more influxes of people arriving into this over-crowded country.

And please, don't anyone show me boring facts and figures.
Sometimes living something is all we need to know - not someone's facts and figures which, let's face it, change with the wind and are at best, tampered with

So in all, I would say Farage is not a dreamboat (certainly didn't think he deserved man of the year) but I dint think the queen has much choice about sticking to her morals: she's old! All old people stick to their moral codes, they're old and set. End of.
And let's face it, she wasn't very nice to Diana was she?
Hardly a loving mum in law! And didn't her son fuck a bird behind his wife's back?????
Didn't the queen then let her son marry the bird he fucked??

Yes. Great morals. What a fine example of fuckdom.

eddie wrote:Sometimes living something is all we need to know - not someone's facts and figures which, let's face it, change with the wind and are at best, tampered with

Lol--right, like the floor is flat, so must be the earth. Soz eddie, but there's nothing wrong with statistics as long as you get the right ones.

I don't think of UKIP as particularly racist. It is xenophobic: intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries. It is eurosceptic, which sentiment, as I understand it, has spilled over into dislike for non-British. Hence, it appears racist. But the dislike for others is simply derived from the euroscepticism.

In other words, it is nondiscriminatory discrimination.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Not all nicko, a few million probably. Tragically high I know. Some UKIP voters are just easily led or misguided, probably due to disillusionment. Which is a shame.

For the record, Ive never voted for UKIP and I'm unlikely to, but I don't think you can call people who do vote for them 'racist'
Isn't that a bit like me saying all blacks are drug dealers?


Sorry les, I think your blind hatred of Farage means you have tarred him with a racist brush and that's that thank you.

I know a few people who are not White who are voting UKIP.
I know a few people who are not english who are voting UKIP.

I have a very good friend who is voting UKIP and she is definitely not racist.

I think you'll find people don't want any more influxes of people arriving into this over-crowded country.

And please, don't anyone show me boring facts and figures.
Sometimes living something is all we need to know - not someone's facts and figures which, let's face it, change with the wind and are at best, tampered with

So in all, I would say Farage is not a dreamboat (certainly didn't think he deserved man of the year) but I dint think the queen has much choice about sticking to her morals: she's old! All old people stick to their moral codes, they're old and set. End of.
And let's face it, she wasn't very nice to Diana was she?
Hardly a loving mum in law! And didn't her son fuck a bird behind his wife's back?????
Didn't the queen then let her son marry the bird he fucked??

Yes. Great morals. What a fine example of fuckdom.

Jesus wept Eddie that has to be the poorest round about way of trying to deny you are in fact a UKIP supporter.
I do not mind and neither does Eilzel, you are different and not racist, just like the other 50% of people who do support UKIP. The fact you come so outlandishly in defense of Farage not just once but now multiple times, failing to conceal your intent like a poker hand , proves more than anything you are afraid to back your horse as to what others may think of you.
Don't be, I have seen your arguments and know your views even if controlled by negative emotions are genuine, so I will not knock you and never would.
I would not hold it against you and never would Eddie, I just read people too well and how they try to play me, not you of course, I mean the games the others play on picking up on anything I see easily.

The fact is here Eddie, where you give yourself away here. Is you still are attempting to big up Farage on a thread where Charisma is not a factor on moral or ethical views, yet you are trying to defend Farage based off wrong views you have perceived of others. AS you have wrongly perceived of Eilzel. He never claimed all UKIP were racist, but you have wrongly perceived he did . The Queen has far better morals hence why people voted fr her and yet you are still arguing the opposite.
Hey ho.
It is cool Ed's, you have to understand I really read people like a book, its not a gift but a curse.

No didge.
I'm not a UKIP supporter. That's why I said Ive never voted for them and probably never would.

Hey ho. Not my fault you don't listen and don't undertand that I can have an opinion that is right for me but isn't necessarily yours, hence neither of us are right or wrong

eddie wrote:No didge.
I'm not a UKIP supporter. That's why I said Ive never voted for them  and probably never would.

Hey ho. Not my fault you don't listen and don't undertand that I can have an opinion that is right for me but isn't necessarily yours, hence neither of us are right or wrong

No worries Eddie

You seem to defend their leader loads though.
Odd that.