Jacob Rees-Mogg

[Sway]

La Liga said:

I can recall a Labour MP being shot and stabbed by someone on the (extreme) right.

Perhaps generalisations don't reflect the nuance and finesse of the real world.

Agreed. An extremist, and thankfully so far a unique one.

Having those mainstream enough for the Shadow Chancellor to endorse them only very recently hurling abuse at a MP and his family (indeed, directing abuse directly at kids) is abhorrent - and sadly appears to becoming fairly regular. This is the third time I can think of in the last 12 months for JRM alone.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

You shouldn't. Given that you've mentioned it, it's obviously something that you think about. 'Reputation' on a car forum. Bless.

It’s ‘obvious’ that your mind-reading skills are still failing, perhaps better to give up totally, rather than incorrectly (and tediously) keep making false guesses about what other people think.

You came up with 'reputation' then asked me if why you should be worried about it. To me, it's weird to even think/mention 'reputation'. Kind of needy.

sidicks said:

Did I say that your “choice of years was disingenuous”, or that “you were being disingenuous with data...”?

You chose to highlight the word ‘collapsed’ and tried to ignore the word ‘anomalous’. You then ‘doubled up’ with your comment:

jjlynn27 said:

See that word in bold? That's a rather suitable description of what going from 196Bn to 15Bn means

This was explained to you quite a few times. Data is pre / post Brexit. As are the years. In that context, "anomalous" is completely irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. It's collapsed from the previous year too. And the year before that. Both words that you are complaining about were used by the analyst, the author of the article or the person quoted. Not mine. However you dress it up, it's not an 'increase since Brexit' contrary to the claims by a couple of brexiteers.

sidicks said:

No I don’t support those views. However I don’t think that JRM lacks integrity, just because I don’t agree with some of his views.

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 13th September 17:58

Quite fascinating how people still defend someone, who relies on religion to tell him what's right and what's wrong. As long as he is honest about his views.

[irocfan]

James_B said:

I’m attacking those who use I timidation and hatred in place of discourse. It has become mainstream on the Left since Momentum were in the ascendancy, it seems absent entirely on the mainstream right.

I’ve heard people on the left advocate lynching bankers, the worst those on the right manage seems to be letting people have a slightly tough life while maintaining a reasonable safety net.

regrettably, this isn't exactly the case. The hard-right are just as bad as the cocks at momentum

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

This was explained to you quite a few times. Data is pre / post Brexit. As are the years. In that context, "anomalous" is completely irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. It's collapsed from the previous year too. And the year before that. Both words that you are complaining about were used by the analyst, the author of the article or the person quoted.

The analyst didn't highlight one and gloss over the other.

jjlynn27 said:

Not mine. However you dress it up, it's not an 'increase since Brexit' contrary to the claims by a couple of brexiteers.

Neither have I presented it as such. HTH

sidicks said:

Quite fascinating how people still defend someone, who relies on religion to tell him what's right and what's wrong. As long as he is honest about his views.

I've not defended his views. HTH

[jjlynn27]

jonby said:

I'm not sure that's right - he would presumably argue that he is in favour of equality, that anyone can get married, but that the definition of marriage is that it's an act between a man and a woman. The rights of a same sex couple to marry don't only require a change in the law. They also require a re-definiton of 'marriage'. As I say, I'm in favour of same sex marriage, but it does require that re-definition. Personally, I favour the French system where the state conducts the legally recognised marriage (which they have effectively re-defined) and churches/synagogues/mosques/jedi priests/etc can use their definitions to decide who and how to marry their members, as their marriage ceremonies are not legally recognised unions. Makes life much simpler for everyone

Definitions change as the time goes by. I don't see the problem with 're-definition' of both the term and the law. If anything, it's long overdue. If that makes some religious relics uncomfortable, so be it. A rather small price to pay. I'm not familiar with the French system, but from your description, I wouldn't have a problem with it either. It would prevent intellectual cowards from trying to enforce inequality based on their belief system.

[Vanden Saab]

irocfan said:

James_B said:

I’m attacking those who use I timidation and hatred in place of discourse. It has become mainstream on the Left since Momentum were in the ascendancy, it seems absent entirely on the mainstream right.

I’ve heard people on the left advocate lynching bankers, the worst those on the right manage seems to be letting people have a slightly tough life while maintaining a reasonable safety net.

regrettably, this isn't exactly the case. The hard-right are just as bad as the cocks at momentum

No doubt, but the point is they are not being encouraged and cheered on by the chancellor.... The shadow chancellor on the other hand...

[anonymous-user]

jjlynn27 said:

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.

The position of the Catholic church is set by the Vatican, which interprets the bible and then makes a judgement call on what the policy will be. Its often a changing policy over a generational timescale.

The Catholic position is not set via strict following of bibĺe text, which itself has many different translated versions which are still being rewritten as we speak.

[amusingduck]

gregs656 said:

amusingduck said:

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

Definitions are descriptive not prescriptive. If society understands marriage to mean something different than it once did, it’s definition changes with that understanding.

Legalising Gay marriage is a reaction, I would say, to an already changed understanding and definition of marriage.

Yep, completely agree

[DeejRC]

So the answer is basically: cos Brexit & cos posh then?

The Catholic thing is not a because, it’s a consequence as nobody would have cared or known about his views if it wasn’t for the media interest in him.

I think I will merrily default back to my original position of not getting the hype. The bloke isn’t gaining any position of power or influence anytime soon.

[Jazzy Jag]

jj said:

Quite fascinating how people still defend someone, who relies on religion to tell him what's right and what's wrong. As long as he is honest about his views.

Does that opinion apply to all religions or do you leap to defend others, when it's "on message" to do so?

Edited by Jazzy Jag on Friday 14th September 12:54

[LoonyTunes]

Gameface said:

LoonyTunes said:

Gameface said:

LoonyTunes said:

irocfan said:

And yet his constituents voted for him...

Yep - it seems you can fool most of the people most of the time...

Spurs fans certainly.

Well were certainly fooled

Shame you can't be fooled into writing a coherent sentence.

Shame you can't post this in the football forum.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

The analyst didn't highlight one and gloss over the other.

So? The word that you are getting your knickers in the twist about is irrelevant to the point. Completely and utterly irrelevant. You waded in, without understanding what the conversation was about, in a trademark attempt at lending support, and now are looking for a way to make yourself look less silly. Once again; 'anomalous' was irrelevant given the context.

The other word that upset you, the 'highlighted' one, was worth highlighting as the value 'collapsed' compared to other years too, not just 'anomalous' one.

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Not mine. However you dress it up, it's not an 'increase since Brexit' contrary to the claims by a couple of brexiteers.

Neither have I presented it as such. HTH

I didn't say that you did. However;

Tuna said:

So according to the ONS... has FDI risen since the referendum? Yes, it definitely has.
Which makes you either uninformed, or a liar.

Yes?

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Quite fascinating how people still defend someone, who relies on religion to tell him what's right and what's wrong. As long as he is honest about his views.

I've not defended his views. HTH

Nobody said that you defended his views. HTH

[jjlynn27]

Jazzy Jag said:

sidicks said:

Quite fascinating how people still defend someone, who relies on religion to tell him what's right and what's wrong. As long as he is honest about his views.

Does that opinion apply to all religions or do you leap to defend others, when it's "on message" to do so?

You misattributed that post to sidicks. Since it's my post, few things;

I have equal disdain for all religions. I don't mind people using any of them if it provides them with the comfort. I do mind when they are abdicating their responsibility for their actions to a religion. That applies to all religions equally.

'on message'

[dromond]

jjlynn27 said:

sidicks said:

The analyst didn't highlight one and gloss over the other.

So? The word that you are getting your knickers in the twist about is irrelevant to the point. Completely and utterly irrelevant. You waded in, without understanding what the conversation was about, in a trademark attempt at lending support, and now are looking for a way to make yourself look less silly. Once again; 'anomalous' was irrelevant given the context.

The other word that upset you, the 'highlighted' one, was worth highlighting as the value 'collapsed' compared to other years too, not just 'anomalous' one.

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Not mine. However you dress it up, it's not an 'increase since Brexit' contrary to the claims by a couple of brexiteers.

Neither have I presented it as such. HTH

I didn't say that you did. However;

Tuna said:

So according to the ONS... has FDI risen since the referendum? Yes, it definitely has.
Which makes you either uninformed, or a liar.

Yes?

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Quite fascinating how people still defend someone, who relies on religion to tell him what's right and what's wrong. As long as he is honest about his views.

I've not defended his views. HTH

Nobody said that you defended his views. HTH

Don't you ever get bored of day in day out petty little arguments?, Is there really anyone interested to the extent that its worth
devoting a huge amount of your time to this?, You really have nothing better to do with your day have you?.

[jjlynn27]

dromond said:

Don't you ever get bored of day in day out petty little arguments?, Is there really anyone interested to the extent that its worth
devoting a huge amount of your time to this?, You really have nothing better to do with your day have you?.

No.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

So? The word that you are getting your knickers in the twist about is irrelevant to the point.

I’m not getting my “knickers in a twist” about anything. Your ability to interpret my emotions is as bad as your ability to read my mind.

I was simply highlighting your hypocrisy where the standards of rigour you apply to posts from other people are not applied to your own.

jjlynn27 said:

Completely and utterly irrelevant.
You waded in, without understanding what the conversation was about, in a trademark attempt at lending support, and now are looking for a way to make yourself look less silly. Once again; 'anomalous' was irrelevant given the context.

‘Waded in’ :rofl

I fully understood what the conversation was about. I simply pointed out your deliberate attempt to downplay the word ‘anomalous’ and highlight ‘collapsed’.

Once again, your attempts at trying to read my mind as to my motives are very wide of the mark - you really need to stop this.

jjlynn27 said:

The other word that upset you, the 'highlighted' one, was worth highlighting as the value 'collapsed' compared to other years too, not just 'anomalous' one.

Still not ‘upset’, despite your silly claims.

[Fermit and Sarah]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-h...

[davey68]

jjlynn if you genuinely have nothing better to do than argue on a PH forum you are a very sad individual. Try going out and living your life, you will feel better for it!

[citizensm1th]

davey68 said:

jjlynn if you genuinely have nothing better to do than argue on a PH forum you are a very sad individual. Try going out and living your life, you will feel better for it!

But it is not just jjlynn is it? after all it takes two to totally derail a topic.

[anonymous-user]

citizensm1th said:

davey68 said:

jjlynn if you genuinely have nothing better to do than argue on a PH forum you are a very sad individual. Try going out and living your life, you will feel better for it!

But it is not just jjlynn is it? after all it takes two to totally derail a topic.

Exactly. People pick on jjlynn because they disagree with him. They ignore that sidicks is arguing the same amount because they’re all JRM fans.