Jacob Rees-Mogg
Discussion
Hayek said:
Non-conservatives have long been in control of the Conservative party. You've got one in charge now, and you had Cameron, Major, and whilst Mrs Thatcher held right wing small state views, she wasn't particularly conservative in the true sense of the word.
Being "socially conservative" is ever changing. JRM is vehemently condemned because he doesn't support gay marriage. A "Social conservative" from the 1950s no doubt supported the imprisonment of men who committed homosexual acts.As far as I can see Major fits the bill. He let his Home secretary introduce tougher sentence and had his "back to basics" campaign. The fact that he did the latter while having an affair reminds me of the old saying "The more he talked of his honor, the more we counted the spoons"
jjlynn27 said:
Stick to his guns? He is a homophobe, hiding behind the church for his abhorrent views. A person who is using his position as an MP to try and prevent equal rights to people purely on the basis of their sexual orientation.
He's not hiding behind anything because he's pretty much the only one who has the integrity to "stick to his guns" when put on the spot about it. You may not agree with his beliefs but you should reserve your anger for those MP's who wouldn't think twice about lying about it to your face (or anything else for that matter) in order to pander to popularity, thinking they've pulled the wool over your eyes.
You seem to believe he's the only one voting in line with his devout religious beliefs. That's clearly not the case.
irocfan said:
Silverbullet767 said:
JR-M's views, as devout as they are. Have no place with the majority of voters.
And yet despite these views he's been voted in as an MP....irocfan said:
Silverbullet767 said:
JR-M's views, as devout as they are. Have no place with the majority of voters.
And yet despite these views he's been voted in as an MP....People don't like him because of Brexit, people use his personal views as nothing other than a smokescreen.
Prior to Brexit Mogg was largely ignored, his personal views certainly were.
Silverbullet767 said:
There's a difference between socially conservative and fiscally conservative.
The former has no place in todays society, the latter does. JR-M's views, as devout as they are. Have no place with the majority of voters.
Social conservatism is certainly just as valid in today’s society as in any other, it’s just where the ‘normal’ boundaries are drawn that changes overy time, as already identified above.The former has no place in todays society, the latter does. JR-M's views, as devout as they are. Have no place with the majority of voters.
sidicks said:
Silverbullet767 said:
There's a difference between socially conservative and fiscally conservative.
The former has no place in todays society, the latter does. JR-M's views, as devout as they are. Have no place with the majority of voters.
Social conservatism is certainly just as valid in today’s society as in any other, it’s just where the ‘normal’ boundaries are drawn that changes overy time, as already identified above.The former has no place in todays society, the latter does. JR-M's views, as devout as they are. Have no place with the majority of voters.
Some aspects of this change in society over time, such as attitudes to homosexuality, others do not such as attitudes to crime and punishment.
One mistake is to assume that change must inevitably be "progressive". Sometimes it is progressive such as in ending discrimination against people of different sexual orientation, but this is not necessarily the case.
No doubt the young of today will in time be complaining about some bizarre fad of the youth in twenty to thirty years time. "did you just assume my species" perhaps
Edited by JagLover on Thursday 13th September 12:31
Having turned 30 yesterday, I can't agree with the above, most of my friends around my age are of a conservative nature even though we are from a strong working class background in a "safe" labour seat. (or they don't care).
JRM can believe whatever he wants, good for him when questioned on it he doesn't try and wriggle his way out with "what I really mean", I do not agree with his views but he is a man of strong conviction (rightly or wrongly) and the manner in which he dealt with those idiots outside his house is exactly what one would expect from a leader.
The question is as to whether he would impose his own personal views on the wider Tory agenda or allow a more "centre-right" path to drive the policy which is arguably based along the popular vote.
JRM can believe whatever he wants, good for him when questioned on it he doesn't try and wriggle his way out with "what I really mean", I do not agree with his views but he is a man of strong conviction (rightly or wrongly) and the manner in which he dealt with those idiots outside his house is exactly what one would expect from a leader.
The question is as to whether he would impose his own personal views on the wider Tory agenda or allow a more "centre-right" path to drive the policy which is arguably based along the popular vote.
Lord.Vader said:
The question is as to whether he would impose his own personal views on the wider Tory agenda or allow a more "centre-right" path to drive the policy which is arguably based along the popular vote.
JRM said:
I don’t wish to change the law to enforce my moral views on people. But it would be absurd to pretend my Catholicism doesn’t influence my view of the world.
https://www.politico.eu/article/jacob-rees-mogg-maoist/sidicks said:
It’s no wonder you have the reputation that you do.
I don't worry too much about my 'reputation' on the internet forum. If you exclude a group of brexiteers, who'll agree with your post before they read them, what do you think your 'reputation' is like? sidicks said:
You’ve repeatedly refuse to answer many questions that have been posed to you, as is your right.
Did I?sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Unlike you, I'm not finding it very difficult to condemn Nazi-style propaganda posters.
I have no such difficulty. sidicks said:
Choosing to ignore your obnoxious and insistent questioning ...
Like this?sidicks said:
sidicks said:
sidicks said:
Regardless, more obfuscation from you - where's the link?! 
It’s “money where your mouth is” time and, once again, Helicopter123 is suddenly AWOL...!
Gameface said:
He's not hiding behind anything because he's pretty much the only one who has the integrity to "stick to his guns" when put on the spot about it.
That's not integrity. That's intellectual cowardice. He relies on the church to tell him what's right and what's wrong? At any rate, his personal beliefs are none of my concern. Him voting to deny equal rights to some of my friends, purely on the basis of their sexual preference is despicable. In addition, the same people trying to justify his 'beliefs' as 'integrity', would be the first to jump on the incompatibility of his beliefs with 'western culture' if his name was Abu Al Moggadi. Question if I may, if JRM was the follower of the fictitious religion that think that black people shouldn't have equal rights, would you call his openness about it, 'integrity'?Gameface said:
You may not agree with his beliefs but you should reserve your anger for those MP's who wouldn't think twice about lying about it to your face (or anything else for that matter) in order to pander to popularity, thinking they've pulled the wool over your eyes.
As for other MPs, their voting record is the what's relevant. As above; that record is available. Gameface said:
You seem to believe he's the only one voting in line with his devout religious beliefs. That's clearly not the case.
I don't believe that at all. Just because there are other homophobes out there that's not an excuse.jjlynn27 said:
I don't worry too much about my 'reputation' on the internet forum. If you exclude a group of brexiteers, who'll agree with your post before they read them, what do you think your 'reputation' is like?
If you don’t care, why should I?jjlynn27 said:
Did I?
Yes.jjlynn27 said:
Available evidence suggests otherwise.
The same ‘evidence’ could equally suggest that I’ve simply chosen not to reply to you, which is of course the truth (as I explained at the time). Once again your mind reading skills have let you down. Jjlynn27 said:
Like this?
I think there’s a difference between simply not wanting to engage with a particular question and refusing to evidence a claim that you have made (on multiple occasions). YMMV.Derek Smith said:
Silverbullet767 said:
zygalski said:
Yeah....
He also believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that women who have been raped shouldn't be able to have abortions.
A man with such questionable judgment shouldn't have any sort of power.
This +1, anyone who believes in this dark age sky fairy nonsense should never be able to hold the most important job in the country. The world has moved on. The Tories could do well by moving Ruth Davidson up the ladder. Even if half of England wouldn't have a clue who she is.He also believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that women who have been raped shouldn't be able to have abortions.
A man with such questionable judgment shouldn't have any sort of power.
He's weird.
Imran Khan married a woman whose face he had never seen, prior to the wedding night.
A man that takes that level of risk shouldn't be in charge of a country
Jonesy23 said:
La Liga said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
Given that the police are now asking us to report non-crime hate incidents, why did they stand there and allow this to happen?
Nothing to do with non-crime hate incidents (the police have been asking people to report those for about 20 years now). The police need a power to act upon something. Someone exercising their freedom of expression / right to protest isn't unlawful. Free speech can sometimes be unpleasant, like this example. That doesn't mean it's illegal.
It does start heading towards a minor public order offence when he's swearing in front of the children, but there could be hurdles with that for various reasons.
I know you'll defend almost anything the police do (or don't do) but this was a simple one.
4A, good one, prove intent.
5, closer, especially with the swearing, but requires evidence those in sight / hearing were likely to be caused H,R&D. Probably struggle given the context of a protest against a public figure.
Naturally, should JCB wish to make a complaint the matter could be considered at a later stage.
2Btoo said:
Agree with the comments about the police; what did they think they were there to do? Had that been someone from a far-right group trying the same stunt on a known lefty things would have ended very very differently.
Facilitate freedom of speech and the right to protest as per their legal obligations under such laws as the Human Rights Act, perhaps. Lots of 'far right' protests are facilitated. See EDL and Britain First.
Lord.Vader said:
Having turned 30 yesterday, I can't agree with the above, most of my friends around my age are of a conservative nature even though we are from a strong working class background in a "safe" labour seat. (or they don't care).
JRM can believe whatever he wants, good for him when questioned on it he doesn't try and wriggle his way out with "what I really mean", I do not agree with his views but he is a man of strong conviction (rightly or wrongly) and the manner in which he dealt with those idiots outside his house is exactly what one would expect from a leader.
The question is as to whether he would impose his own personal views on the wider Tory agenda or allow a more "centre-right" path to drive the policy which is arguably based along the popular vote.
Exactly why I'm a fan. He also repeatedly demonstrates that he is more than happy to fully respect & politely debate with those who have different views to his own, despite often not being afforded the same courtesy in return. He often speaks with praise of those who represent other parties, fully recognising their own contributions, again despite such praise often being completely one way. Those on the hard left in particular seem to fail to recognise the hypocrisy of what they say they stand for compared to their own personal behaviour JRM can believe whatever he wants, good for him when questioned on it he doesn't try and wriggle his way out with "what I really mean", I do not agree with his views but he is a man of strong conviction (rightly or wrongly) and the manner in which he dealt with those idiots outside his house is exactly what one would expect from a leader.
The question is as to whether he would impose his own personal views on the wider Tory agenda or allow a more "centre-right" path to drive the policy which is arguably based along the popular vote.
I also have an interesting question with reference to a point made by another poster above - is someone against gay marriage necessarily a homophobe ? It's a question I struggle with. The argument against gay marriage from the likes of JRM seems to be based solely on the fact that their definition of marriage is that of the bible, which is between a man and a woman, making it quite literally impossible for two people of the same sex to 'marry'. However much one supports gay marriage (as I do), I'm not convinced that his argument is necessarily homophobic. Thoughts ?
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
I don't worry too much about my 'reputation' on the internet forum. If you exclude a group of brexiteers, who'll agree with your post before they read them, what do you think your 'reputation' is like?
If you don’t care, why should I?sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Did I?
Yes.sidicks said:
The same ‘evidence’ could equally suggest that I’ve simply chosen not to reply to you, which is of course the truth (as I explained at the time). Once again your mind reading skills have let you down.
No mind reading skills needed. Given your history of 'mistakes'; Ocamm's razor and all that. sidicks said:
I think there’s a difference between simply not wanting to engage with a particular question and refusing to evidence a claim that you have made (on multiple occasions). YMMV.
No.Your initial line was; 'Choosing to ignore your obnoxious and insistent questioning'. Repeating the same question by quoting yourself twice IS 'obnoxious' and insistent questioning'.
As for the rest; If you claim that someone else's choice of years was disingenous*, isn't it obvious that you'll be asked to say which ones would you chose, as to not be disingenuous, or whichever adjective you were using? See, I'm asking you question based on your own claim (without quoting myself twice).
To try to segue (thanks duck) this to the thread, do you support homophobic MPs? Do you think that people with different sexual preferences don't deserve to be equal? I'll understand if you don't want to answer that.
jonby said:
I also have an interesting question with reference to a point made by another poster above - is someone against gay marriage necessarily a homophobe ? It's a question I struggle with. The argument against gay marriage from the likes of JRM seems to be based solely on the fact that their definition of marriage is that of the bible, which is between a man and a woman, making it quite literally impossible for two people of the same sex to 'marry'. However much one supports gay marriage (as I do), I'm not convinced that his argument is necessarily homophobic. Thoughts ?
I think you can be against gay marriage without being a homophobe, though I imagine those people are in the minority of gay marriage opposers.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc
This is the only argument against gay marriage I've seen that I would consider as being a valid point. I really love how eloquently and cohesively he's able to make his point
jonby said:
I also have an interesting question with reference to a point made by another poster above - is someone against gay marriage necessarily a homophobe ? It's a question I struggle with. The argument against gay marriage from the likes of JRM seems to be based solely on the fact that their definition of marriage is that of the bible, which is between a man and a woman, making it quite literally impossible for two people of the same sex to 'marry'. However much one supports gay marriage (as I do), I'm not convinced that his argument is necessarily homophobic. Thoughts ?
It's not just a question of his personal belief. It's a question of what he is doing with his personal belief. In case of JRM he is using his position as an MP to vote against equality of someone on the basis of their sexuality. What he is doing, IMO, is abdicating critical thought in favour of a text in a book written a long time ago. If you go down that road, where do you stop? Preventing women from deciding on abortion even in the case of rape? Incest? Because a good book told him that life begins at conception? Where do you go with;leviticus 20 13 said:
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.
Believe in anything that you like, but don't discriminate against people based on what was written thousands of years ago. It seems that quite a few people are doing;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psy...
because they respect/admire JRM for unrelated reasons.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff