Nigel Farage Launches New Brexit Party.
Discussion
And then she said:
alfie2244 said:
And then she said:
Oh dear, did I hit a raw nerve?
Ah bless................Brexit party couldn't have a better recruiting sergeant...keep up the good work 
The naivety of
But you must be congratulated for having used two descriptions of me in consecutive posts that IIRC have never been used before - Troll & naive........gammon has been used many times though.
Not-The-Messiah said:
It's all down to what you think hate is or more precisely what the media thinks it is.
Telling a man that they never can become a biological women is hateful to some but it's true. Having concerns about the Islamic ideology is also seen as hateful but we've got highly organised teams killing hundreds in its name and so on and so on.
We've got to a point where society is like a spoilt kid and telling them "no you can't have that" results in a tantrum and ends up in name calling "your nasty you, you just hate everyone".
I think you miss the most objectionable part of Widdecombe. She believes the normal religious fanatical rubbish with regards homosexuals. OK, so a number of people, especially of her age, think that way. She also thinks women are inferior to men. She also reckons that the victims of Weinstein brought it on themselves. There's nothing anyone can nor should do about personal beliefs, and if there is no offence in saying what she believes, then there's nothing to stop her saying what she believes either regardless of how irritating it may be.Telling a man that they never can become a biological women is hateful to some but it's true. Having concerns about the Islamic ideology is also seen as hateful but we've got highly organised teams killing hundreds in its name and so on and so on.
We've got to a point where society is like a spoilt kid and telling them "no you can't have that" results in a tantrum and ends up in name calling "your nasty you, you just hate everyone".
However, it would appear that the woman voted in the HoC along lines dictated by the boss of another country without any filter, certainly not her brain, modifying it in any way. Look at her voting record in such matters that the christian sect she believes in concerns itself with the most. I don't really think that's on for a representative of this country. It is verging on treason. Some foreign vicar, the boss of one of the biggest, and richest, countries and corporations in the world has her unquestionable fanaticism.
She is partial in her concerns as well. Given that most families have just two children they should be attacked with the same venom she reserves for homosexuals as it is in the book that birth control is as naughty, an abomination in fact, as homosexuality. And why is she not demonstrating against everyone who east prawns? Does she think only homosexuals eat them?
The woman is a fraud. The woman does not make any moral decisions nor any moral stand. Her beliefs have not moved on from the 19thC. Her opinions on many matters are repulsive. It's not her of course, just the various vicars she hangs out with and who dictate what she should think and do.
I don't think that every religious persons should be excluded from a position of authority in government, apart from those in the HoL by right of course, as most appear to be quite normal. Most ignore what the boss of the western catholic multinational says because they find the pronouncements immoral or perhaps inconvenient. But those like Widdecombe who have shown themselves to care little for people and more for doctrine are dangerous. She is especially so because there are many who think that she's a nice person.
She's not. She's a religious fanatic.
Blue62 said:
PositronicRay said:
She's a name, and a bloody well known one too. If you're passionate about breaking ties with the EU, and wish to register your voice. She's a credible candidate in the up and coming MEP elections.
I don't disagree with that Ray, but my point was that I don't think she will attract new voters to the Brexit Party, though I guess she could tip a few anti EU Tories over.
Lets hope that remainers can hold their noses and still vote for them following the revelations that their new party has chosen racist and sexist candidates...
Derek Smith said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
It's all down to what you think hate is or more precisely what the media thinks it is.
Telling a man that they never can become a biological women is hateful to some but it's true. Having concerns about the Islamic ideology is also seen as hateful but we've got highly organised teams killing hundreds in its name and so on and so on.
We've got to a point where society is like a spoilt kid and telling them "no you can't have that" results in a tantrum and ends up in name calling "your nasty you, you just hate everyone".
I think you miss the most objectionable part of Widdecombe. She believes the normal religious fanatical rubbish with regards homosexuals. OK, so a number of people, especially of her age, think that way. She also thinks women are inferior to men. She also reckons that the victims of Weinstein brought it on themselves. There's nothing anyone can nor should do about personal beliefs, and if there is no offence in saying what she believes, then there's nothing to stop her saying what she believes either regardless of how irritating it may be.Telling a man that they never can become a biological women is hateful to some but it's true. Having concerns about the Islamic ideology is also seen as hateful but we've got highly organised teams killing hundreds in its name and so on and so on.
We've got to a point where society is like a spoilt kid and telling them "no you can't have that" results in a tantrum and ends up in name calling "your nasty you, you just hate everyone".
However, it would appear that the woman voted in the HoC along lines dictated by the boss of another country without any filter, certainly not her brain, modifying it in any way. Look at her voting record in such matters that the christian sect she believes in concerns itself with the most. I don't really think that's on for a representative of this country. It is verging on treason. Some foreign vicar, the boss of one of the biggest, and richest, countries and corporations in the world has her unquestionable fanaticism.
She is partial in her concerns as well. Given that most families have just two children they should be attacked with the same venom she reserves for homosexuals as it is in the book that birth control is as naughty, an abomination in fact, as homosexuality. And why is she not demonstrating against everyone who east prawns? Does she think only homosexuals eat them?
The woman is a fraud. The woman does not make any moral decisions nor any moral stand. Her beliefs have not moved on from the 19thC. Her opinions on many matters are repulsive. It's not her of course, just the various vicars she hangs out with and who dictate what she should think and do.
I don't think that every religious persons should be excluded from a position of authority in government, apart from those in the HoL by right of course, as most appear to be quite normal. Most ignore what the boss of the western catholic multinational says because they find the pronouncements immoral or perhaps inconvenient. But those like Widdecombe who have shown themselves to care little for people and more for doctrine are dangerous. She is especially so because there are many who think that she's a nice person.
She's not. She's a religious fanatic.
Would you have a group of people elected on the basis that they are metronomic in thinking?
crankedup said:
Reads more like a personal vendetta against her and her principles and morality, different things have different outcomes. This individual is only one amongst a growing group, imo, it is a good thing to have a wide and varied vision of life in a political party. Certainly it is up to electorate to vote her into a position of power, or not as the situation may be.
Would you have a group of people elected on the basis that they are metronomic in thinking?
You should keep that safe somewhere for future use - after all, The Brexit Party is going to attract a whole raft of fruitcakes with axes to grind about people 'not like us'.Would you have a group of people elected on the basis that they are metronomic in thinking?
And no, religious dogma should have no place in political thinking.
crankedup said:
Reads more like a personal vendetta against her and her principles and morality, different things have different outcomes. This individual is only one amongst a growing group, imo, it is a good thing to have a wide and varied vision of life in a political party. Certainly it is up to electorate to vote her into a position of power, or not as the situation may be.
Would you have a group of people elected on the basis that they are metronomic in thinking?
Risible.Would you have a group of people elected on the basis that they are metronomic in thinking?
I don't think Derek's post could have been any clearer - she doesn't think, she follows religious dogma. That is the problem.
And did someone say the party is attracting "regular joes" with a straight face? Annunziata Rees-Mogg anyone? Clearly speaks for the common man!
crankedup said:
Derek Smith said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
It's all down to what you think hate is or more precisely what the media thinks it is.
Telling a man that they never can become a biological women is hateful to some but it's true. Having concerns about the Islamic ideology is also seen as hateful but we've got highly organised teams killing hundreds in its name and so on and so on.
We've got to a point where society is like a spoilt kid and telling them "no you can't have that" results in a tantrum and ends up in name calling "your nasty you, you just hate everyone".
I think you miss the most objectionable part of Widdecombe. She believes the normal religious fanatical rubbish with regards homosexuals. OK, so a number of people, especially of her age, think that way. She also thinks women are inferior to men. She also reckons that the victims of Weinstein brought it on themselves. There's nothing anyone can nor should do about personal beliefs, and if there is no offence in saying what she believes, then there's nothing to stop her saying what she believes either regardless of how irritating it may be.Telling a man that they never can become a biological women is hateful to some but it's true. Having concerns about the Islamic ideology is also seen as hateful but we've got highly organised teams killing hundreds in its name and so on and so on.
We've got to a point where society is like a spoilt kid and telling them "no you can't have that" results in a tantrum and ends up in name calling "your nasty you, you just hate everyone".
However, it would appear that the woman voted in the HoC along lines dictated by the boss of another country without any filter, certainly not her brain, modifying it in any way. Look at her voting record in such matters that the christian sect she believes in concerns itself with the most. I don't really think that's on for a representative of this country. It is verging on treason. Some foreign vicar, the boss of one of the biggest, and richest, countries and corporations in the world has her unquestionable fanaticism.
She is partial in her concerns as well. Given that most families have just two children they should be attacked with the same venom she reserves for homosexuals as it is in the book that birth control is as naughty, an abomination in fact, as homosexuality. And why is she not demonstrating against everyone who east prawns? Does she think only homosexuals eat them?
The woman is a fraud. The woman does not make any moral decisions nor any moral stand. Her beliefs have not moved on from the 19thC. Her opinions on many matters are repulsive. It's not her of course, just the various vicars she hangs out with and who dictate what she should think and do.
I don't think that every religious persons should be excluded from a position of authority in government, apart from those in the HoL by right of course, as most appear to be quite normal. Most ignore what the boss of the western catholic multinational says because they find the pronouncements immoral or perhaps inconvenient. But those like Widdecombe who have shown themselves to care little for people and more for doctrine are dangerous. She is especially so because there are many who think that she's a nice person.
She's not. She's a religious fanatic.
Would you have a group of people elected on the basis that they are metronomic in thinking?
That's why we have governments not dictatorships, everyone's extremes get curtailed and we end up with a workable middle ground?
'The Brexit Party', it's clear what that means.
WTF were 'Change UK - The Independent Group' thinking of by naming themselves after completely the opposite of what they stand for? They want neither change nor independence.
'The Remain Party', was that just too difficult for them to come up with?
WTF were 'Change UK - The Independent Group' thinking of by naming themselves after completely the opposite of what they stand for? They want neither change nor independence.
'The Remain Party', was that just too difficult for them to come up with?
Scootersp said:
Indeed, there is a sliding scale of most things and we are all different parts of it. Views change over generations and people will always exist that disagree with the current laws/popular thought. The way democracy works (should work) is that as a group if a decision is reached then while you may not like it you accept it as the majority view and the majority are generally right (or if not 'right' have agree on the way forward). Anne would have been 19 and no doubt a strict Catholic? when homosexuality was made legal in England and Wales, her whole life she will have been told it's wrong, so the best you can hope for is she accepts the new status quo which she does. It's like abolishing racism, bringing in hates crime laws etc it doesn't cure people from it but it slowly disappears.
That's why we have governments not dictatorships, everyone's extremes get curtailed and we end up with a workable middle ground?
I'm afraid your excuse for her doesn't stand scrutiny. She became an Anglican in her 30's and converted to Catholicism over the ordination of women when she was 46. She has followed the dogma rather than "accepted the status quo". Not a pleasant person at all.That's why we have governments not dictatorships, everyone's extremes get curtailed and we end up with a workable middle ground?
Derek Smith said:
I think you miss the most objectionable part of Widdecombe. She believes the normal religious fanatical rubbish with regards homosexuals. OK, so a number of people, especially of her age, think that way. She also thinks women are inferior to men. She also reckons that the victims of Weinstein brought it on themselves. There's nothing anyone can nor should do about personal beliefs, and if there is no offence in saying what she believes, then there's nothing to stop her saying what she believes either regardless of how irritating it may be.
However, it would appear that the woman voted in the HoC along lines dictated by the boss of another country without any filter, certainly not her brain, modifying it in any way. Look at her voting record in such matters that the christian sect she believes in concerns itself with the most. I don't really think that's on for a representative of this country. It is verging on treason. Some foreign vicar, the boss of one of the biggest, and richest, countries and corporations in the world has her unquestionable fanaticism.
She is partial in her concerns as well. Given that most families have just two children they should be attacked with the same venom she reserves for homosexuals as it is in the book that birth control is as naughty, an abomination in fact, as homosexuality. And why is she not demonstrating against everyone who east prawns? Does she think only homosexuals eat them?
The woman is a fraud. The woman does not make any moral decisions nor any moral stand. Her beliefs have not moved on from the 19thC. Her opinions on many matters are repulsive. It's not her of course, just the various vicars she hangs out with and who dictate what she should think and do.
I don't think that every religious persons should be excluded from a position of authority in government, apart from those in the HoL by right of course, as most appear to be quite normal. Most ignore what the boss of the western catholic multinational says because they find the pronouncements immoral or perhaps inconvenient. But those like Widdecombe who have shown themselves to care little for people and more for doctrine are dangerous. She is especially so because there are many who think that she's a nice person.
She's not. She's a religious fanatic.
If the objection is to Catholic MPs, you could always lobby to repeal the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829... However, it would appear that the woman voted in the HoC along lines dictated by the boss of another country without any filter, certainly not her brain, modifying it in any way. Look at her voting record in such matters that the christian sect she believes in concerns itself with the most. I don't really think that's on for a representative of this country. It is verging on treason. Some foreign vicar, the boss of one of the biggest, and richest, countries and corporations in the world has her unquestionable fanaticism.
She is partial in her concerns as well. Given that most families have just two children they should be attacked with the same venom she reserves for homosexuals as it is in the book that birth control is as naughty, an abomination in fact, as homosexuality. And why is she not demonstrating against everyone who east prawns? Does she think only homosexuals eat them?
The woman is a fraud. The woman does not make any moral decisions nor any moral stand. Her beliefs have not moved on from the 19thC. Her opinions on many matters are repulsive. It's not her of course, just the various vicars she hangs out with and who dictate what she should think and do.
I don't think that every religious persons should be excluded from a position of authority in government, apart from those in the HoL by right of course, as most appear to be quite normal. Most ignore what the boss of the western catholic multinational says because they find the pronouncements immoral or perhaps inconvenient. But those like Widdecombe who have shown themselves to care little for people and more for doctrine are dangerous. She is especially so because there are many who think that she's a nice person.
She's not. She's a religious fanatic.
But I'm not quite sure why it is necessary to eradicate the expression of views that run counter to your own. I have no truck at all with Papism and I'm fairly sure I could not bring myself to vote for a practising Catholic who would vote according to doctrine but AW has never to my knowledge been shy about expressing her views and, as she put herself up for election, and was returned repeatedly by her constituents who had a choice of candidates to vote for, they presumably didn't share my views. Well, that's democracy.
I can't really see what the problem is.
Or is it part of the Remainer trope that ordinary people are too thick to know what's good for them?
Lotobear said:
I don't like AW or JRM's religious dogma but in their defence they don't try to hide it and what you see is what you get 'warts and all'. They must know it will alienate them to a lot of the electorate and even bring on the hate and vitriol on PH!
Contrast that with I'm a regular guy, just call me 'Tony', slipping quietly into the catholic church and being all things to all men. He probably hates poofs and abortions as well but we never hear any of it!
Quite the charmer aren't you? Under Tony Blair Labour brought in the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Ann Widdecombe voted against it.Contrast that with I'm a regular guy, just call me 'Tony', slipping quietly into the catholic church and being all things to all men. He probably hates poofs and abortions as well but we never hear any of it!
Roman Rhodes said:
Quite the charmer aren't you? Under Tony Blair Labour brought in the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Ann Widdecombe voted against it.
I'm not quite sure how you'd offset his resumption of the Crusades against the Civil Partnership Act but I think the pointless slaughter of tens of thousands of people to impose his and Dubya's values on the benighted weighs somewhat heavier. Roman Rhodes said:
crankedup said:
Reads more like a personal vendetta against her and her principles and morality, different things have different outcomes. This individual is only one amongst a growing group, imo, it is a good thing to have a wide and varied vision of life in a political party. Certainly it is up to electorate to vote her into a position of power, or not as the situation may be.
Would you have a group of people elected on the basis that they are metronomic in thinking?
Risible.Would you have a group of people elected on the basis that they are metronomic in thinking?
I don't think Derek's post could have been any clearer - she doesn't think, she follows religious dogma. That is the problem.
And did someone say the party is attracting "regular joes" with a straight face? Annunziata Rees-Mogg anyone? Clearly speaks for the common man!
TX.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff