That argument isn’t being made in any coherent way. You have nothing but the amplifications of anti-abortionists. This is Q’Anon baby eating Democrats reprised. Do you really think it’s a liberal/left position to kill children? Barmy. Your own position on abortion is confused to say the least. On the one hand you accuse Democrats of being responsible for a (black) genocide by claiming that abortion is responsible for the destruction of life. Yet you claim to support it in some circumstances. How can there be circumstances you support it in if you believe it is taking a life and comparable to taking an adult life?
I strongly believe the ‘one’ doesn’t actually read Hooter’s posts. He never comments on them. I think he sadly believes liking them is sticking it to Wokey McWokeface.
So. Do you think the EU has a right to be involved in the domestic democracy of member states? Go ahead. Make me laugh. I do not claim victory, rather you grudgingly cede victory to me by admitting I am right with responses like that above, when all I have done is express my opinion. Go on. Show it to a psychologist Remember, of the two of us, you are the only one who speciffically say that your opinions are absolutely correct.
Because we live in a society where we have to accept that not all people see things the same way. If I was as intolerant as, say for example, you, then I would take the opposing view that you state above is unavoidable. But not everyone thinks like you do. Not everyone is an old school gammon that thinks anyone who disagrees with them is unacceptable. I don't like abortion. But I live in a society that accepts that some level of abortion is acceptible, and given that I once felt similarly, I have maintaed some sympathy for their position. It's like capital punishment. Any murder is wrong in my opinion, but if the society I live in believes it is acceptible in certain circumstances, that is the privilege of democracy, however detestable it seems to me. So, at what age, assuming you have no issue with pre-birth termination, do you believe a baby to be beyond termination? Seeing as you bring up the idea that an adult life is worth more than a baby's life? I find that argument as unpleasant and revealing about you as it is regarding the Democrats. But kudos for the brass balls you show by saying it openly on a football forum. Mods, please note I am only throwing his own words back at him. Please do not delete this post because he can't look himself in the mirror. Rather, let him explain why he said what he said. What I have said about the Dems and abortion is no different than what has been said on here about Repubicans and Conservatives regarding racism and white supremacy, only I condemned racism and white supremacy.
The usual strawman arguing method. I’ve said no such thing about ‘babies’ and adults. Embryos are not babies. They are a collection of cells. Embryos don’t have the rights babies or adults do. Bizarre that you now want to call me a ‘gammon’. God knows what that is about. And as for your own arguments on abortion, absolutely bizarre. What’s clear is that you know abortion is sometimes necessary, but you love the slagging others off for genocide thing the anti-abortionists do. That’s a particularly feeble, emotionally incontinent, dishonest and childish way of behaving. The only reason I replied to your abortion nonsense is that it’s foolish and laugh out loud silly. But now you are getting boring.
I’ve been calling you a gammon for months because of your intolerant and formerly right wing views. You made the argument about foetal and baby lives being worth less than adult lives, by asking me to justify such arguments… If you need that explaining to you, you clearly do not posses such a view, and feel it needs justifying. My response, in view of your nastiness above, would be that life is something worth preserving, no matter the colour, the age, the status of the person that possesses it. I am not not like you. I believe all human beings are equal and entitled to respect and protection by law. I do not believe humans should be subdivided into groups against which prejudices and hatred can be focussed. Identitarianism isn’t my thing; I do not think of people as having characteristics dictated by the colour of their skin, black or brown or white, like you seem to do. Remember, my comments you are objecting to are women saying that a baby can be terminated at any stage, including speculation that it should remain a mothers choice even after the baby is borne. So stop trying to deflect from the unpleasant and life dismissing argument you have been making.
But what about those who are intolerant and currently have right wing views? Except when you want to split up whether people are economic migrants or refugees I guess and deny them their rights that they're allowed. But hey who's counting. This is all in your head, Moose has said multiple times that nobody is advocating killing babies that have already been born and yet you persist with claiming the opposite. Utterly bizarre.
Hooter simply invents some lurid fantasy of what his opponent believes and argues against it. Quite mad that he says I do not believe humans should be subdivided into groups against which prejudices and hatred can be focussed as he accuses Democrats of advocating killing babies and children.
You don't listen to a word I say do you? I constantly condemn right wing extremists and explain that they are, as far as I am concerned, the exact same thing as any other extremist. The whole point of this current discussion is to point out the hypocrissy of criticising the far right for its white supremacist rhetoric, but accept the far left's abortion rhetoric as if it is something completely different. I condemn both. What about you? You're talking absolute bibble babble mate. Where do I say that any migrant be treated outside of the law? Go on, dig it out. All you are doing here is pointing out your ignorance of everything I said. There's people saying it in the videos, and he is criticising me for criticising them. Do the maths. Do your research. Utterly bizarre, outside of this bubble, that you should have missed the entire reason for my original post
Right wing views and right wing extremism are 2 different points. You said Moose was a gammon for having previously held right wing views. You currently hold right wing views. That makes you a self confessed gammon does it not? I obviously condemn right wing extremism. I also condemn lunatics who say mothers should be able to kill their actual born children and can assure you that belief is not held by many people at all. I'm really not, your naivety to immigration law and the rights allowed to migrants was very obvious. That was flagged and addressed numerous times. No denial of the splitting of refugees + economic migrants though so at least we've made some progress of your hypocrisy. And he's clarified multiple times in his posts which people he agrees with and which he criticises as lunatics, which you have decided to completely ignore. You don't have to agree with every single point in a video you know?
You are being criticised for portraying a false picture. Your videos are distortions presented by anti-abortion groups from which you make wild extrapolations about ordinary views of left wing and liberal people. Maybe you could find a person daft enough to claim mothers should be able to kill their children. What would that prove? It would prove one person is very odd indeed and needs help. It tells you nothing about the general pro-choice view. Stop this thing of claiming your wild accusations are someone else’s view. If you can’t, you should be slung off the forum.
Sorry Moose, but I made it clear in the first post on the subject that I did not believe the views being expressed in the videos reflected those of forum members. So please stop lying about what I have said. However, you attacking the point I have been making and doubling down on the idea that I should not point out the extremism within pro abortion groups, in the same manner that you criticise the extremism of white supremacists (without example), is a situation you have invited everyone to judge you on. Don't blame me. Again, no one put those words into the mouths of those women, unless it was the mental and hate filled pro abortion rhetoric that lies just below the mainstream.
No wonder he is confused. Wait until he tries to work out which one’s his arse and which one’s his elbow.
I have been called a gammon enough times by you guys, so what is your point? Show me anywhere that I contradicted or disowned the description you gave of me. 0However, the right wing views I have accused Moose and GoBE of possesing have been described and discussed without any rebuttal by either party and have been much discussed on here. Why you want to white knight for them now, as if you feel they can't defend themselves, I do not know. Though I would urge you to review the arguments I have made, because it is clear you are not familiar with them. It is difficult, but not impossible, for me to argue the toss with a person who has no idea what he is talking about. Er, that is your opinion. I could justifiably say exactly the same about you. One thing I can say for sure is that you were unable to seperate or recognise the difference between a genuine war refugee and an economic migrant, and repeatedly indicated that you felt the two should not be treated differently. But to return from your straw man to the subject, just show me where I said any person be treated contrary to the law. Go on, put your money where your ill informed mouth is... No. He says that the ideas are lunatic and that no one is saying them, yet clearly they are being said in the video. My only point is that these things ARE being said. Do your research and get your story straight, white knight.
No. In Hooterland, the left have adopted the worst of what was once considered the extremes of the right. CRT alone is absolute proof of that, but then add worker exploitation (a deliberate factor in free movement), support for corporate power and the pro capitalist "what is the tangible benefit for me" argument against Brexit, and I am afraid Hooterland reflects reality far more accurately than EUAbsolutelyOwnsUKDemocracyLand that you live in.
Just watching Ricky Gervais' Super Nature on Netflix. At about 30 minutes he refers to the extremist anti-abortionists in US and their wild claims on the internet that babies are aborted at 9 months and ripped from their mothers. I assume that is the kind of made up **** being repeated on here by our resident "special" thinker.
Sidney celebrating total ignorance of the subject he has chosen to comment on, as ever. Got a like though, but where, in all my posts, do I make any claim other than of what some pro abortion lunatics are saying. Celebrating ignorance, and pontificating on clearly made up scenarios, is a very dodgy approach to discussion. Out side of this bubble. Honestly, all I have to do is point out the hypocrissy of the left, and I get a massive queue of people wanting to show they do not read a thing I say but wish to shut it up, and who, in doing so, demonstrate all the hoary old tropes of impotent left wing cancel culture, amounting to 'go away, you make me sad.'
And right on cue, another mass-shooting. 14 elementary age kids dead plus a teacher. And scores wounded. Ages between 8-11. Just fu*king sickening.
Jesus fu*king Christ. I went to eat lunch with my Kindergartner and 3rd grader this afternoon. It’s the last week of school before summer for them, and many other kids in TX. The happiness and excitement for summer was everywhere. End of year testing is complete. It’s class parties and picnics all week. To think somebody walked into that atmosphere, armed to the teeth, and did what he did. It’s just beyond comprehension. Fu*king horrifying. This place man. Fu*k.
Mass shootings are almost a daily occurrence in the US. The obsession with guns is frightening, but the lack of will to do anything about it but waffle on and score political points, by both sides, is infuriating.
The sad reality is that you'll soon get numb to it. Democrats want gun control, Republican block it. Republicans say it's a mental health issue, but block any and all attempts to move to socialised healthcare. It's a sad state of affairs and nothing is going to change. The only reason we'll have a couple of months respite is most schools are now out for ten weeks.
The mass shootings are terrible, but guns also cause routine, everyday tragedy. Republicans maintain that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. Maybe so, but they make it a whole lot easier. When I saw this the other day I wondered how unlikely it would be to end up in a murder in most countries where guns are not easily available? https://news.sky.com/story/professi...e-murder-by-her-ex-lovers-girlfriend-12620270
After Dunblane de Pfeffel wrote: “Nanny is confiscating their toys. It is like one of those vast Indian programmes of compulsory vasectomy.”
It is a mental health issue, in my opinion, but the reaction to Republicans saying that, at the moment at least, is for Dems to say they are deflecting from the white supremacist issue. Mental health is a far more pressing problem in the US, but the Democrats lose political leverage if they accept that argument. Biden, Harris, etc., abetted by the media, are all focussing more on white supremacy as a root cause than they are mental health, yet there are few mass shooting incidents that cannot be put down to mental health or gang related issues. Guns being legal is a huge issue, and fills me with horro, but it is and always has been a part of American life. It is fair to oppose it, but it is not fair to dismiss it as wrong per say. But introducing policies that open up protesting parents to accusations of being terrorists, or new departments that are going to decide what the truth is for you (led by mentally partisan narcisists) is not going to negate any fears that Americans may one day have to defend themselves from a tyranical government. And, though your comment about gun control being a policy of the Dems is absolutely correct, gun ownership is a much beloved and protected right of the left as well as the right. Gage Grosskreutz, the screaming lefty activist who got himself shot by Kyle Rittenhaus, stated he never went anywhere without his gun. That is not intended as a what abouting, but a clarification of the wider issues of gun control.
WOWSERS!! That puts party gate into perspective. When was this? Last week? Last year? Last decade? Last century?
The US is in the lower end of the homicides per capita, and stats show that where gun crime/homicide is low, knife crime/homicide is high, so there is at least something to the claim that it is the person that does the killing, not the gun. That said, there is no doubt that the fact that the killer in this latest case was using a gun meant more people died, and fewer people would consider tackling him. Guns are bad. No doubt about it. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
'The left': which part of the entire spectrum starting at 'left-centrist' out to 'extreme left' are you accusing? 'CRT': are you referring to the initial positing of this socio-political theory and its ongoing modification under continued academic debate, or simply to the apparent misinterpretation and mis-application to which it has at times been subject? I have read nothing that suggests the original tenets of the theory, nor subsequent considered academic debate attached to it, is specifically 'right wing'. 'Free movement = worker exploitation': if, in certain areas and under certain conditions, such free movement can lead to a significant worsening of the situation of some groups, then this is certainly unacceptable, and targeted solutions should (and could, given the political will) be implemented. However, it is clearly stretching credulity to suggest such an outcome was deliberately planned for within the concept of 'free movement'. It is not correct argument to ignore the reduction in overall unemployment consequent upon free movement, nor to ignore the flexibility it has given many groups of said workers to travel to find work; a personal freedom many could never have envisaged without said concept. And where do you draw the line? Should a worker from Carlisle be prevented from moving to Reading to get a job that pays much more than he could get in Cumbria? Maybe they should all stay on the manor and work on the lord's demesne. As for your continued insistence that anyone who may argue against Brexit from an economic standpoint is a supporter of 'corporate power and pro-capitalist': yet again you exhibit a totally unacceptable propensity for accusing other people of selfish, self-seeking, nefarious ends with absolutely no justification. Has it ever occurred to you that the economic argument could be (maybe even should be) made on the basis of the long-term good of those self-same 'workers' you so loudly proclaim to support? That people who make the economic argument against Brexit sincerely believe the 'common man' in the UK (maybe, even, what may remain of the UK) will end up being much WORSE off due to Brexit as their protections included in the EU regulations are slowly eroded; as the horrendous additional costs of doing daily business with the EU result in even more damaging price increases for the 'normal working family'; as lower-regulated 5h1t is imported into the country as part of some half-baked 'global trade' approach we were effectively participating in before Brexit; as it slowly dawns on other countries that the UK, outside of the EU, is actually a pretty minor player, so we get shunted down the pecking order and up with the 5h1ttiest deals. Has that reason for despairing of Brexit for the economic harm it will eventually do, harm that will be disproportionately borne by the poorer elements of our society, ever entered your 5ucking head? I worry about all these eventual penalties that will be suffered by those less able to absorb them. I've got no 5uck1ng motivation to see any specific personal 'tangible benefit' so I take great exception to a cyclopic muppet like you accusing me of it. You see Brexit as some sort of escape from the Babylonian Captivity of an evil, semi-fascist, corrupt EU; and that such new-found freedom is worth whatever else follows. The EU from which you have convinced yourself Brexit delivered the UK is a construct of the minds of deluded fantasists such as yourself. Even if it results in penury for all those 'workers and normal people' you pretend to be representing, 'at least we've got our freedom.' Let's not bother about the uncomfortable possibility that 'freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'; but at least they can all suffer knowing they're no longer members of the Behemothic EU, eh? It may be that the worst economic woes some of us fear will not come to pass. 'If we make it, we can all step back and laugh, but I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.' In the meantime, please desist from implying that my views are driven by purely selfish motivations. This is not the first time I've had to object to you accusing me of views I have spent all my life arguing against.
You do it to me. Why should you complain if you get it back? But at least you have explained in this post that you are simply butt hurt about Brexit, and because of that you resent me having positive views. You are defining the bubble you exist in, and, despite your self appreciative words that exempt you of any of the things you accuse me of, despite you demonstrably being the thing you repetetively describe me as, you are, I believe, following exhaustive reviews of your posts, exactly what I describe you as, and no amount of likes from guys who are in the same bubble as you are going to persuade me otherwise. But relax. It is only my opinion. Re free movement, Moose made me aware of a pro EU professor who didn't like Brexit, and I watched a video of a lecture he gave, in which he described his role in formulating, on behalf of and in conjunction with the EU, a system by which countries would use freedom of movement to mitigate the fiscal leverage weaknesses of having a shared currency in the Euro Zone. He explained that freedom of movement could be used to move cheap labour from one part of the continent to another, otherwise referred to, outside the bubble, as exploitation of the poorest. I linked and time called the comment in a video, but it has since been taken down, along with the rest of the original politics section, because people were complaining that not everyone agreed with them, but wouldn't shut up. Stop simply having a go at me because I disagree with you. Read your post above, and you will see that that is all you are doing. If you don't, you are going to find my responses to you even more annoying than you already do (because I will not change my mind because of your ranting), only I will keep it civil, and I will not lie to you, as you have done to me. The EU may not involve itself in our democracy, as you have agressively and abusively told me they can. The term Third World was not formulated as a neutral term to describe non-communist/capitalist countries, as you insisted was an absolute fact, but to describe the unloved deplorables, as I told you was the case. I have posted the law and the evidence that proved my views to be factually accurate. All you do is tell me how much you disagree with me, and how that justifies you being factually inacurate.
'You do it to me': I have never implied you are racist as you have me; you have implied my concern about the possible negative economic impacts of Brexit is driven by a desire for my own financial benefit, and I have simply outlined how other motives may be at play, yet apparently that only means I am 'butt-hurt' by Brexit. For me personally, I doubt Brexit will have that large an impact unless the whole UK economy collapses, but please keep on repeating your mantra that 'they're all only upset because it'll affect them in a (pro-capitalist) financial way'. I do not resent you 'having positive views'. I hope to God your confidence proves correct, although I have my doubts. For you to frame my sincere concerns over this issue as 'resentment' says more about your own bunker mentality than anything else. I was not 'ranting at you' because you disagree with me. I was expressing my anger at you openly stating that my economy-based concerns over Brexit were purely based on financial self-interest. I view that as an unjustified, groundless calumny that I will not let pass unanswered. You do not 'keep things civil'; if you did, you would not consistently impute views and opinions to other posters in such an underhand manner. Your continued insistence on your interpretation of the origin of the term 'Third World' being the 'correct' one is further evidence of your limited critical capability and flawed approach to any sort of intelligent debate. You previously used your flawed interpretation of this issue to suggest I was a racist. If that's you being civil.... You have not proven any of your assertions to be 'factually correct'. You have certainly presented strong arguments that prevent anyone to prove you are 'wrong', but the subtlety of that differentiation seems to evade you. You have effectively accused me of holding viewpoints I abhorr and which I have tried all my life since I was about 14 to argue against. You have done this with no grounds so to do and now seem to be trying to suggest you were justified to do so. Do not tell me that you have acted in a civil manner. You have not.
You double down on that. Point out where I called you are a racist. Point out where I said you were arguing in your own self interest, as opposed the general lefty arguments on here. Don't defend GoBE, BW and Moose by saying that you don't agree with them. I have never engaged with you on economic issues, other than to say that we all understood things would get worse before they got better. Ipso, you can only be raging at me for disagreeing with you. I have even said elsewhere that such concerns are valid (sympathising with that view), whilst pointing out that the economic issues were, at least for some of us, secondary to other issues. Answer my much often asked question of why you lied, saying you do not make absolute arguments, when I have quoted you saying you were absolutely right. I quoted the original article to you, three times, where the author who coined Third World described the term in the manner I put to you. I quoted the very EU law to you that prohibited the EU from involvement in UK domestic democracy, and that is before the Brexit Referendum Act and International law. But you still know that you are right about me. Heal thy self, physician. Show me where I have treated uncivilly without you acting uncivilly First. I'll not hold my breath for your response. Understand this, you have convinced me that you do not understand how to properly make an argument, and that you are so deranged by Brexit that you cannot perceive reality because you filter everything through that as a filter. Everyone in the world knows that the EU is not permitted to interfere in UK democracy, but that is your cause celeb. I am afraid I take you less seriously even than I do Reids. And at least Moose's subversive commentary is worth dispelling, given he actually frames his comments in a persuasive manner.
Can we just not talk to the ****? He's obviously an odious specimen who is either a WUM, or just a nasty little ******, or he has issues, or all three.
