leicsmac Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 6 minutes ago, Webbo said: Stop being melodramatic, who's being walked off a cliff? Yeah, pardon the theatricality. The idea of air and water pollution regulations being removed as a result of the gutting of the EPA doesn't worry you at all, then?
The Doctor Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Persecuting? Do you honestly believe that? Lighten up,try and be a bit more liberal, live and let live. Stop pretending that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. Ffs. Follow the conversation back through - you're currently arguing that stopping conversion therapy is oppressing people's religious freedom. As I said - religious freedom is not carte blanche to abuse other people and take away their freedoms. I'm not pretending anyone who disagrees with me is evil. I'm suggesting people who support the abuse of people for being LGBT are disgraceful.
Webbo Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 15 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Ffs. Follow the conversation back through - you're currently arguing that stopping conversion therapy is oppressing people's religious freedom. As I said - religious freedom is not carte blanche to abuse other people and take away their freedoms. I'm not pretending anyone who disagrees with me is evil. I'm suggesting people who support the abuse of people for being LGBT are disgraceful. I thought we'd moved on from that. If Obama not stopping it ,for any reason, didn't disqualify him from office, why should it Trump? You've presented no evidence that the present policy is going to change so I'm saying it's pretend indignation to justify your hate. Now we're talking about the individual states having their own autonomy instead of having policies imposed on them from the federal govt. If that's the way it works in America then that's their business. And then it's some people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they think the world is only 6000 years old, well so what? What this argument is basically about is authoritarianism from people who don't believe anyone should be allowed to vote against what they believe and liberalism from people who believe in freedom of speech and thought. What annoys me most is that you're making me defend Trump when I have no particular affinity with him or his policies.
The Doctor Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 42 minutes ago, Webbo said: I thought we'd moved on from that. If Obama not stopping it ,for any reason, didn't disqualify him from office, why should it Trump? You've presented no evidence that the present policy is going to change so I'm saying it's pretend indignation to justify your hate. Now we're talking about the individual states having their own autonomy instead of having policies imposed on them from the federal govt. If that's the way it works in America then that's their business. And then it's some people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they think the world is only 6000 years old, well so what? What this argument is basically about is authoritarianism from people who don't believe anyone should be allowed to vote against what they believe and liberalism from people who believe in freedom of speech and thought. What annoys me most is that you're making me defend Trump when I have no particular affinity with him or his policies. I didn't say it should prevent trump from taking office. What should have prevented him was his treason (supporting Russian hacking of a us official) and his refusal to move away from conflicts of interest. Legally nothing may change, but you're being wilfully ridiculous if you think that means that nothing will change at all - they're going from an administration that actively tried to put an end to it, to an administration that actively approve of it. Theres limits to freedom of speech - you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre because it puts lives in danger and similarly you shouldn't be able to use freedom of speech to attack other freedoms (also freedom of speech is being exercised by those who protest against trump as well). At no point have I made you defend trumps policies. It would have been incredibly easy for you to just agree that abusing minorities was abhorrent. That you didn't is on you, not me.
Webbo Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 4 minutes ago, The Doctor said: I didn't say it should prevent trump from taking office. What should have prevented him was his treason (supporting Russian hacking of a us official) and his refusal to move away from conflicts of interest. Legally nothing may change, but you're being wilfully ridiculous if you think that means that nothing will change at all - they're going from an administration that actively tried to put an end to it, to an administration that actively approve of it. Theres limits to freedom of speech - you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre because it puts lives in danger and similarly you shouldn't be able to use freedom of speech to attack other freedoms (also freedom of speech is being exercised by those who protest against trump as well). At no point have I made you defend trumps policies. It would have been incredibly easy for you to just agree that abusing minorities was abhorrent. That you didn't is on you, not me. We keep being told that Clinton won the popular vote so you're the 1 abusing a minority.
SpacedX Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 55 minutes ago, Webbo said: Now we're talking about the individual states having their own autonomy instead of having policies imposed on them from the federal govt. If that's the way it works in America then that's their business. And then it's some people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they think the world is only 6000 years old, well so what? Obviously electioneering is aiming to capture this sizeable vote, but what frustrates me - as I intimated to you on the other thread - is the flagrant pandering to this idiocy.
The Doctor Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 3 minutes ago, Line-X said: Obviously electioneering is aiming to capture this sizeable vote, but what frustrates me - as I intimated to you on the other thread - is the flagrant pandering to this idiocy. ****ing Nora - wakefield was exposed two decades ago, why are people still parroting his lies?
Guest FriendlyRam Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 Trumps team seem more concerned about crowds than actual policies tbh Say what you like about Obama but at least the bloke was professional and had a professional team behind him, we've gone from Josua Earnest who was down to earth and treated reporters with the utmost respect, to this Spicer who shouts and wont even let the press ask a question. I knew Trumps admin would be a total failure but their picking fights with everyone as well, what a nice country the US is
Guest MattP Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 4 hours ago, The Doctor said: The alt-right are neo-nazis, Bannon is a promoter of the alt-right. Don't pretend there isn't a problem in giving neo-nazis more of a voice. It may not end with auchswitz again but that doesn't mean it's not bloody dangerous. ****ing hell Everyone is losing any sense of reality now, bonkers.
The Doctor Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 11 minutes ago, MattP said: ****ing hell Everyone is losing any sense of reality now, bonkers. let me guess, it's just the red hand of utah?
WiFoxes Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 "Leicester City are top of the form table. Period."
Strokes Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 2 hours ago, The Doctor said: I didn't say it should prevent trump from taking office. What should have prevented him was his treason (supporting Russian hacking of a us official) and his refusal to move away from conflicts of interest. Legally nothing may change, but you're being wilfully ridiculous if you think that means that nothing will change at all - they're going from an administration that actively tried to put an end to it, to an administration that actively approve of it. Theres limits to freedom of speech - you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre because it puts lives in danger and similarly you shouldn't be able to use freedom of speech to attack other freedoms (also freedom of speech is being exercised by those who protest against trump as well). At no point have I made you defend trumps policies. It would have been incredibly easy for you to just agree that abusing minorities was abhorrent. That you didn't is on you, not me. We've gone from an administration that was totally against fox hunting, to one that actively approves of it. I've not seen any fox hunting, despite being told in similar vain, I would have by now. If there is no proposed change in policy, maybe it's not a priority, maybe he has a big wall to occupy his time.
The Doctor Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 18 minutes ago, Strokes said: We've gone from an administration that was totally against fox hunting, to one that actively approves of it. I've not seen any fox hunting, despite being told in similar vain, I would have by now. If there is no proposed change in policy, maybe it's not a priority, maybe he has a big wall to occupy his time. Except unlike fox hunting it isn't already illegal. The change in policy has already happened, and it's to not try and ban it.
Strokes Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 19 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Except unlike fox hunting it isn't already illegal. The change in policy has already happened, and it's to not try and ban it. What were Hillary Clintons plans on it? Did she have plans to ban it?
leicsmac Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 2 hours ago, The Doctor said: let me guess, it's just the red hand of utah? On a similar note, here's Richard Spencer being introduced to the type of debate he would like to implement.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 22 January 2017 Posted 22 January 2017 Brexit, Trump, champions of England getting relegated... it's been a weird last 12 months.
Guest MattP Posted 23 January 2017 Posted 23 January 2017 14 hours ago, The Doctor said: let me guess, it's just the red hand of utah? So he represents the whole of the alt-right does he? I get the feeling if I picked out one person and claimed they represented a whole group it wouldn't be tolerated, yet as usual it's fine for the left to do it.
BigFoxForYou Posted 23 January 2017 Posted 23 January 2017 12 hours ago, leicsmac said: On a similar note, here's Richard Spencer being introduced to the type of debate he would like to implement.
Guest MattP Posted 23 January 2017 Posted 23 January 2017 As an aside, I read not a single person arrested in Washington on the anti-Trump, sorry...."wimmins march" Not even Madonna, who went into another foul mouthed rant and said something about blowing up the Whitehouse. Which makes Trump the shittest fascist already ever to hold office.
lgfualol Posted 23 January 2017 Posted 23 January 2017 12 hours ago, leicsmac said: On a similar note, here's Richard Spencer being introduced to the type of debate he would like to implement. Satisfying watch. Richard Spencer is such a ****, calling for "peaceful extermination" of non-white people in America. How disturbing.
Carl the Llama Posted 23 January 2017 Posted 23 January 2017 Peaceful extermination? What is he going to go around smothering every non-white person with a pillow while they sleep?
Jon the Hat Posted 23 January 2017 Posted 23 January 2017 15 hours ago, WiFoxes said: "Leicester City are top of the form table. Period." This guy is modelling himself on the Iraqi information minister!
lgfualol Posted 23 January 2017 Posted 23 January 2017 20 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Peaceful extermination? What is he going to go around smothering every non-white person with a pillow while they sleep? Probably thinks if they ask nicely, every non-white person will walk into the ocean and never come back I guess. From Wiki "He advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture " Lovely.
The Doctor Posted 23 January 2017 Posted 23 January 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: So he represents the whole of the alt-right does he? I get the feeling if I picked out one person and claimed they represented a whole group it wouldn't be tolerated, yet as usual it's fine for the left to do it. Richard Spencer was the founder of the alt-right movement so... yes?
Finnegan Posted 23 January 2017 Posted 23 January 2017 I'm getting so bored of hearing what "THE LEFT" and "THE RIGHT" do as if there's only two ideologies in the whole ****ing world. Has it always been like this and I've never really cared or is it getting worse?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.