Trump for Pres

[micknew]

You make the assumption that I'm right wing. Maybe pay a little more attention to my signature next time

The problem is, phrases like 'cultural Marxist', 'regressive left', and 'cultural authoritarian' are no longer political clichés like you claim. I am a socialist. Ultimately, I sit firmly on the left, at least economically speaking. The sad thing for me however is to see the left nowadays infected with what can only be described as a victimhood culture that seeks to be offended all of the time whilst doing its upmost to silence those with dissenting views.

It's an issue that the 'right' simply don't have. You won't here people like Nigel Farage calling you a racist if you happen to have a different view to him on immigration. You won't find Tommy Robinson calling you a xenophobe if you happen to have a different view to him on Islam. You won't find Donald Trump calling you a bigot if you happen to have a different view to him on Mexican border policy.

I haven't dismissed any arguments the left have, and do you know why? Because they've run out of bloody arguments! They're too busy now policing language, policing thought and chastising anyone who gets in their way or presents them with a problem and smearing them as a 'racist, UKIP supporting, Hitler loving, fascist'.

The left lost the argument when it started favouring intersectionality over individuality. It lost the argument when it started favouring Islam over critics of it. It lost the argument when it started favouring white guilt over British pride. It lost the argument when it started favouring multiculturalism over British values. It lost the argument when it started favouring globalisation over the nation state.

The left was originally there as a movement fighting back against the privelidged few. It was there supporting the working man. It's roots are proud, but they have long since shrivelled up and died. All that's left now is a bloody stump on which those who are dedicated to cultural genocide now stand.

Spot on!

 

[rfears]

Yeah right, how, if he gets in as Pres, is that going to effect the UK if you all thought Saddam was stupid this bloke beats all of the recent despots hands down, what an absolute dipstick, God help the world if this pillock is Pres USA, might as well give in to the terrorists hordes now without a fight, I mean you only have to look at his Barnett for Gods sake.

POTUS please

 

[YoungScud]

You make the assumption that I'm right wing. Maybe pay a little more attention to my signature next time

The problem is, phrases like 'cultural Marxist', 'regressive left', and 'cultural authoritarian' are no longer political clichés like you claim. I am a socialist. Ultimately, I sit firmly on the left, at least economically speaking. The sad thing for me however is to see the left nowadays infected with what can only be described as a victimhood culture that seeks to be offended all of the time whilst doing its upmost to silence those with dissenting views.

It's an issue that the 'right' simply don't have. You won't here people like Nigel Farage calling you a racist if you happen to have a different view to him on immigration. You won't find Tommy Robinson calling you a xenophobe if you happen to have a different view to him on Islam. You won't find Donald Trump calling you a bigot if you happen to have a different view to him on Mexican border policy.

I haven't dismissed any arguments the left have, and do you know why? Because they've run out of bloody arguments! They're too busy now policing language, policing thought and chastising anyone who gets in their way or presents them with a problem and smearing them as a 'racist, UKIP supporting, Hitler loving, fascist'.

The left lost the argument when it started favouring intersectionality over individuality. It lost the argument when it started favouring Islam over critics of it. It lost the argument when it started favouring white guilt over British pride. It lost the argument when it started favouring multiculturalism over British values. It lost the argument when it started favouring globalisation over the nation state.

The left was originally there as a movement fighting back against the privelidged few. It was there supporting the working man. It's roots are proud, but they have long since shrivelled up and died. All that's left now is a bloody stump on which those who are dedicated to cultural genocide now stand.

Nothing of what you said changes the fact that you use simple generalisation to blanket a very wide, varied part of the political spectrum. Indeed, the fact that you claim to be of the left while asserting that the left has no plausible argument leaves you in an invidious position. If , by the 'left', you mean the Labour party, then I think they departed the mainstream of leftist thinking with the advent of the Blair years. jeremy Corbyn, despite his own shadow cabinet constantly undermining him, seems at least to be trying to take the party back to where it belongs. He may well fail, but he at least appears to be having a good go at it. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the more marginal parties, then what does it matter? They have no power to truly affect public life. The danger I see here is that, while you claim that people are accused of various 'isms' while being, in your view at least, innocent of those charges, we may well dangerously ignore the real, insidious forces which threaten our perceptions and eventually our society.

To give one example, let's take homophobia. If a Christian says that they cannot support gay rights, as a matter of conscience, they are being disingenuous. they are being homophobic because they are being highly selective in quoting Christian teachings. When Christian moralists demand the death penalty for eating pork, or eating black pudding, perhaps I'll take them seriously. Until then, I'll continue to call them homophobes. We could go on all day swapping examples, but it would be fruitless. All sides of politics have their moderates, critical thinkers and lunatics. The left isn't unique there.

 

[telectrix]

you don't have to be homophobic to disagree with a homosexual's preferences. nor islamophobic to disagree with their version of religion. these terms are used too loosely by the politically correct loonies to justify their miserable existence.

 

[YoungScud]

you don't have to be homophobic to disagree with a homosexual's preferences. nor islamophobic to disagree with their version of religion. these terms are used too loosely by the politically correct loonies to justify their miserable existence.

There it is, right there. Where do you get off using the word 'preferences'? Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual any more than I choose to be a redhead. It's not a preference, it's a fact. I was referring more to the loud protestations on moral/religious grounds so beloved of so many. For too many years, sexual orientation had been legislated for some, while others were left alone, because they had the ear of those in power. That's not democracy in action.

As to Islam's choice of religion, well, if you're referring to how they may choose to interpret and live by the scriptures of their religion, the it is Islamophobia (for want of a better word) when you simply choose to ignore the vast majority who live by the tenets of peace, tolerance and abide by their chosen (or birth) nation's laws.

 

[D Skelton]

Nothing of what you said changes the fact that you use simple generalisation to blanket a very wide, varied part of the political spectrum.

Yes. Because what was once wide and varied, is now narrow and blinkered.

Indeed, the fact that you claim to be of the left while asserting that the left has no plausible argument leaves you in an invidious position.

The left gave up on their socialist principles a long time ago in favour of unfettered corporatism. Now its trying to wrench it's way towards socialism but missed it by a mile on its way past on its journey to outright regressive authoritarian leftism.

If , by the 'left', you mean the Labour party, then I think they departed the mainstream of leftist thinking with the advent of the Blair years. jeremy Corbyn, despite his own shadow cabinet constantly undermining him, seems at least to be trying to take the party back to where it belongs.

No, he's not. He panders the the vocal minority. He cozies up to enemies of the state. He preaches nuclear disarmament in a world with increasing nuclear threat. And he apologises for Islam, one of the most dangerous and most backward ideologies ever to face humankind.

He may well fail, but he at least appears to be having a good go at it. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the more marginal parties, then what does it matter? They have no power to truly affect public life. The danger I see here is that, while you claim that people are accused of various 'isms' while being, in your view at least, innocent of those charges, we may well dangerously ignore the real, insidious forces which threaten our perceptions and eventually our society.

I'd far rather live under David Cameron than Jeremy Corbyn, and for someone who genuinely wouldn't pi$$ on a tory if they were on fire, that's saying something!

To give one example, let's take homophobia. If a Christian says that they cannot support gay rights, as a matter of conscience, they are being disingenuous. they are being homophobic because they are being highly selective in quoting Christian teachings. When Christian moralists demand the death penalty for eating pork, or eating black pudding, perhaps I'll take them seriously. Until then, I'll continue to call them homophobes. We could go on all day swapping examples, but it would be fruitless. All sides of politics have their moderates, critical thinkers and lunatics. The left isn't unique there.

I couldn't disagree more. If by 'gay rights' you mean equality, then I'm not sure I know of anyone other than a very small section of society (and I'm talking probably a few thousand people nationwide here) who wouldn't want that. If however what you're doing is conflicting gay rights with gay marriage, then not only is that wrong, but this is what is disengenuous.

The gay marriage argument has never been about some sort of liberation of gay people. What it is however is an attempt, mainly by leftists, to impose upon society the most grandest of all bigotries, in that anybody who holds the OPINION that gay marriage should not take place will not just be excluded from debate, no platformed and silenced, but they will be hounded, bullied and treated as pariahs just as gay people were treated before the law making homosexuality a crime was rightly abolished.

Now for the record I am not religious, nor as a result do I believe in the institute of marriage, however I do respect the right of religious people to believe in their own bonkers ways of allowing people to commit to each other. The assertion however that despite a religious person's belief in a make believe deity their belief that gay marriage should not take place somehow means that they dislike gay people, has got to be one of the most false assertions I've ever heard!

Gay people had equal rights under the eyes of the law with civil partnerships. Marriage, as far as I understand it, was and always has been a religious institution. It's my opinion that anyone has the right to believe in whatever they want, and the simple belief, no matter how odd it may seem, that under God marriage is between a man and a woman, is not in itself homophobic.

 

[D Skelton]

As to Islam's choice of religion, well, if you're referring to how they may choose to interpret and live by the scriptures of their religion, the it is Islamophobia (for want of a better word) when you simply choose to ignore the vast majority who live by the tenets of peace, tolerance and abide by their chosen (or birth) nation's laws.

It is NOT Islamophobic to criticise Islam. Islam is an idea. All ideas must be open to any and all criticism.

And when you cite 'vast' majority?!

Can I ask you something? Have you ever read the Quran or any of the Hadith? I have. Have you ever been to an Islamic country? I have been to many.

Before you continue, I'll say most politely that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

You talk earlier about homophobia among Christians and then you add to the same discussion later on about the 'vast majority' of Muslims who live by the tenants of 'peace'?!

How many Christian countries prescribe death by hanging as the only suitable punishment for homosexuality?? Because I can think of at least 15 or so Islamic countries that do!

 

[telectrix]

but you never hear of a "hetrosexuals' rights movement", nor do you hear of christians blowing up innocent muslims. immay not agree with socialist ideals. does that make me socialistophobic? neither do i agree with BNP policies. am i then BNPophobic?

 

[YoungScud]

but you never hear of a "hetrosexuals' rights movement", nor do you hear of christians blowing up innocent muslims. immay not agree with socialist ideals. does that make me socialistophobic? neither do i agree with BNP policies. am i then BNPophobic?

For the very reason I laid out, choosing my words carefully, it's pretty obvious why there has never been a need to demand equal rights for heterosexuals, because they have always enjoyed civil rights which homsexuals often did not. Your comparison to the BNP is laughable. The BNP chooses to take a stance despite heavy evidence that they are wrong on so many levels about immigration. Homoesexuality, and you appear to have trouble either comprehending or accepting this, is not a choice, it's a simple biological fact. You can choose to belong or not to belong the BNP. You can't choose to be or not to be homosexual.

As for 'Christians' blowing up Muslims, well Baghdad in 2003 springs to mind first. The 'Coalition of the Willing', led by a religious maniac, managed to comprehensively slaughter many thousands of innocent Muslims, and have continued to do so to the present day, in Iraq and in other countries. Meanwhile, ISIS, or Daesh, 'Islamic Warriors', are being opposed in the main by other Muslims, mainly Kurds. While that's going on, our own country both pretends to take a meaningful stand against Daesh in Syria while cosying up to the Turks, who are themselves persecuting the Kurds. Given a little time, I could find many instances throughout history of 'Christians' slaughtering Muslims. Similarly, I could find many instances where the opposite is true. I could also find examples of most major religions having their hands covered in blood, but why bother? The hypocrisy lies in apportioning this behaviour to one 'side' or the other.

 

[D Skelton]

The hypocrisy lies in apportioning this behaviour to one 'side' or the other.

Not really. We can confidently say that all religions are equally factually incorrect, however that doesn't necessarily mean to say that they are equally as dangerous.

When it comes to waging war and killing in the name of... Islam is by far the worst culprit I'm afraid. Just as it's an accurate assertion that Christianity, in particular Catholicism is responsible for more deaths than any other religion due to their promotion of contraception being sinful in the heart of AIDS ridden Africa.

You'd be right to say that all religions have a lot to answer for, however Islam, and the appeasement that inevitably goes with it, currently, is the biggest threat to western civilisation.

The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, destroy its culture, destroy its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.

By importing millions and millions of Muslims into Europe en masse that hold dear to values that are completely incompatible to our own, our governments are settling people here with the purpose of reshaping the religious and cultural landscape of Europe, therefore reengineering its ethnic foundations and attempting to eliminate the last barrier to internationalism; the nation-states.

This my friend is leftism, and it's an ideology I refuse to subscribe to.

 

[rfears]

Is that ---- General Rommel you use as a logo?

 

[egg67]

Is that ---- General Rommel you use as a logo?

I use a pig for mine doesn't mean I am one

 

[rfears]

Oink Oink neither am I...

however there are some points in D Skeltons post that must be addressed.

By importing millions and millions of Muslims into Europe en masse that hold dear to values that are completely incompatible to our own, our governments are settling people here with the purpose of reshaping the religious and cultural landscape of Europe, therefore reengineering its ethnic foundations and attempting to eliminate the last barrier to internationalism; the nation-states.

Sieg Heil - Hitler would approve. After all, the reshaping of the ethnic mix in Europe was his ultimate goal (albeit Jews rather than Muslims). So now we should approve the Islamiphobic views of hopefully a small minority on this group.

importing millions and millions of Muslims into Europe en masse - sorry, who is importing multiple millions? The last figure I hear (OK, Radio 4, clearly a marxist mouthpiece) was about 1.5 million.

our governments are settling people here with the purpose of reshaping the religious and cultural landscape of Europe

fascist b****s. As I said, Seig Heil mein Arshloch

 

[D Skelton]

Sieg Heil - Hitler would approve.

Hitler was a very intellegent man who did a lot of great things for Germany. He was also a tyrant who did great harm to the human race.

Ones flaws does not negate ones qualities.

Like I said. It is NOT Islamophobic to criticise an idea. Jews have ethnic and tribal roots that stretch back thousands of years before Judaism ever became a religion. Islam after all is only an idea, it has no race, and it has nothing but 1400 years of war torn, murderous and bloody history to base itself upon.

 

[D Skelton]

Is that ---- General Rommel you use as a logo?

No, it isn't, because Rommel was never a ----.