Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Bizarre last paragraph. 

 

How can you possibly claim Blair and Cameron weren't polite, articulate and intelligent? I didn't like either but they were hardly thick uncouth yobos were they. I give you Brown and May are / were dour as **** but the other two could orate at least. 

 

In fact, I'd go so far as to say Tony Blair was an absolutely sensational orator. A scumbag of the highest order but the man could talk. 

 

What you actually seem to mean is you want to see a stereotypical member of the English gentry leading the country which baffles the **** out of me given you're a lad from the New Parks. 

I didn't see Blair as polite at all, intelligent, articulate and ruthless yes but certainly not polite. Cameron was lucky, by the end of his reign it was clear he had the political intelligence of an A4 piece of paper, disasterous decision making of the highest order in calling the EU referendum and then an even worse attempt at winning it with his fear project, got incredible lucky to win in 2015 on the back of the SNP threat and such a spread vote that he won a majority on about 36% of the vote.

 

I'm actually from Glenfield - Although I'm just as baffled as to why I wouldn't want JRM as PM if I was from New Parks? I side with him on most of his political opinion and hold the same beliefs as him when it comes to parliament sovereignty, low taxation, ECJ jurisdiction, economic liberalism, free trade and on top of that he appears to be a conviction politician - I don't see why those things would be overruled because he's a bit posh?

I couldn't care less whether he's a stereotypical member of the English gentry or a working class black guy from London, if he holds similar views to me I'll vote for him, he's bright, has exceptional knowledge of parliamentary protocol and pursues policy which has only made society better (imo of course), I think he'd struggle to win an election across the UK because of his stereotype but it would be worth watching him get the job just to watch him annilhilate Corbyn every week.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

If Labour can't beat a deeply religious 18th century aristocratic social conservative like Rees-Mogg then I give up. This is a man who has had six kids but never changed a nappy, is against same sex marriage, doesn't care about the environment, doesn't think women should have the right to choose abortion and so on. He is basically a walking stereotype of a Tory tosswank. Let's be honest he'd have had the shit kicked out of him daily at school had he grown up outside the safe space of elite wealth. He might curry favour with the alt-right super-virgins on account of being almost as nerdy-looking and hateful as they are but mainstream appeal? Not in any Britain I recognise.

Even for your left wing persona Moose this is seriously wet stuff, maybe we can give Sharon the job from Newport if it's nappy changing you want?

 

We are looking for a politician, not a nanny, I couldn't care less about his religious beliefs, he isn't going to pursue those beliefs through policy and even if he did they would have no chance of passing through the house.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Even for your left wing persona Moose this is seriously wet stuff, maybe we can give Sharon the job from Newport if it's nappy changing you want?

 

We are looking for a politician, not a nanny, I couldn't care less about his religious beliefs, he isn't going to pursue those beliefs through policy and even if he did they would have no chance of passing through the house.

1

I wish that I shared your confidence on that topic.

 

Guess being in a country where such views and policy are very closely entwined makes me wary.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I wish that I shared your confidence on that topic.

 

Guess being in a country where such views and policy are very closely entwined makes me wary.

There would be zero chance of religious based legislation getting through the house at this point in time, even with a large Tory majority. Maybe in the future, but not in our lifetime.

 

Anyway, probably best not to turn this thread into more politics. 

[Rogstanley]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Even for your left wing persona Moose this is seriously wet stuff, maybe we can give Sharon the job from Newport if it's nappy changing you want?

 

We are looking for a politician, not a nanny, I couldn't care less about his religious beliefs, he isn't going to pursue those beliefs through policy and even if he did they would have no chance of passing through the house.

No idea what any of your first paragraph means.

 

But as for the second, it's interesting that you now say policy is more important than personality given that you often seem to make criticising aspects of Corbyn's personal views your full time occupation.

 

I actually agree that policy is more important than personality, but there is a point where you can be just too out of touch, and I think Rees-Mogg crosses that threshold and then some. Things like the nappy changing demonstrate how out of touch he is via a topic most people can relate to. Labour ought to be able to rip him to shreds over things like that.

 

Not to mention the feminists who will surely have a field day with the man.

Edited 17 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

There would be zero chance of religious based legislation getting through the house at this point in time, even with a large Tory majority. Maybe in the future, but not in our lifetime.

 

Anyway, probably best not to turn this thread into more politics. 

Yeah, agreed - best leave that to the dedicated thread.

 

I'll leave it with the assertion that I'm wary of anyone with reasonably fundie religious views and the willingness to share them with others being in any kind of position where they could affect state policy anywhere in the world. Perhaps that's my unpopular opinion since it seems to be more prevalent around the world than not.

[Finnegan]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

I didn't see Blair as polite at all, intelligent, articulate and ruthless yes but certainly not polite. Cameron was lucky, by the end of his reign it was clear he had the political intelligence of an A4 piece of paper, disasterous decision making of the highest order in calling the EU referendum and then an even worse attempt at winning it with his fear project, got incredible lucky to win in 2015 on the back of the SNP threat and such a spread vote that he won a majority on about 36% of the vote.

 

I'm actually from Glenfield - Although I'm just as baffled as to why I wouldn't want JRM as PM if I was from New Parks? I side with him on most of his political opinion and hold the same beliefs as him when it comes to parliament sovereignty, low taxation, ECJ jurisdiction, economic liberalism, free trade and on top of that he appears to be a conviction politician - I don't see why those things would be overruled because he's a bit posh?

I couldn't care less whether he's a stereotypical member of the English gentry or a working class black guy from London, if he holds similar views to me I'll vote for him, he's bright, has exceptional knowledge of parliamentary protocol and pursues policy which has only made society better (imo of course), I think he'd struggle to win an election across the UK because of his stereotype but it would be worth watching him get the job just to watch him annilhilate Corbyn every week.

 

I'm not talking about his views at all in the slightest, more your assertion that you wanted someone in charge who sounded like a member of the upper classes. 

 

I just find that a bit odd. 

 

I'm aware you didn't say that directly but when clearly the majority of mainstream politicians present as polite, articulate and intelligent, we're clearly talking about the added gravitas that JRM possesses which is clearly his stereotypical image as a member of the landed gentry, like a caricature of victorian England. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

56 minutes ago, MattP said:

he isn't going to pursue those beliefs through policy and even if he did they would have no chance of passing through the house.

He does tho. Bloke votes against anything that improves rights for women or the gays. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I didn't see Blair as polite at all, intelligent, articulate and ruthless yes but certainly not polite. Cameron was lucky, by the end of his reign it was clear he had the political intelligence of an A4 piece of paper, disasterous decision making of the highest order in calling the EU referendum and then an even worse attempt at winning it with his fear project, got incredible lucky to win in 2015 on the back of the SNP threat and such a spread vote that he won a majority on about 36% of the vote.

 

I'm actually from Glenfield - Although I'm just as baffled as to why I wouldn't want JRM as PM if I was from New Parks? I side with him on most of his political opinion and hold the same beliefs as him when it comes to parliament sovereignty, low taxation, ECJ jurisdiction, economic liberalism, free trade and on top of that he appears to be a conviction politician - I don't see why those things would be overruled because he's a bit posh?

I couldn't care less whether he's a stereotypical member of the English gentry or a working class black guy from London, if he holds similar views to me I'll vote for him, he's bright, has exceptional knowledge of parliamentary protocol and pursues policy which has only made society better (imo of course), I think he'd struggle to win an election across the UK because of his stereotype but it would be worth watching him get the job just to watch him annilhilate Corbyn every week.

He's also an absolute nut job.

[Guest]

Is this the polotics thread that I try my best to stay out of?

[Lovejoy]

Personally I think it's hilarious when someone throws a political grenade in here and lets the chaos ensue. Not sure if that's an unpopular opinion or not.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

If Labour can't beat a deeply religious 18th century aristocratic social conservative like Rees-Mogg then I give up. This is a man who has had six kids but never changed a nappy, is against same sex marriage, doesn't care about the environment, doesn't think women should have the right to choose abortion

Didn't you say you wanted to move to Oman?

[Lovejoy]

@UpTheLeagueFox I've always wondered, is Adrian Durham actually a top bloke who is just very good at trolling the masses, or is he genuinely a massive tosser?

 

I actually enjoy listening to him and Goughie, sure that's unpopular.

[Rogstanley]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Didn't you say you wanted to move to Oman?

For the money yeah

[Webbo]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

For the money yeah

You'll be glad when JRM gets in then, we'll all be better off.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

If Labour can't beat a deeply religious 18th century aristocratic social conservative like Rees-Mogg then I give up. This is a man who has had six kids but never changed a nappy, is against same sex marriage, doesn't care about the environment, doesn't think women should have the right to choose abortion and so on. He is basically a walking stereotype of a Tory tosswank. Let's be honest he'd have had the shit kicked out of him daily at school had he grown up outside the safe space of elite wealth. He might curry favour with the alt-right super-virgins on account of being almost as nerdy-looking and hateful as they are but mainstream appeal? Not in any Britain I recognise.

I am sure Labour could win an election against an incompetent Tory party if they didn't have a crazy old Islington socialist running the party. This is a man who divorced one of his wives because they wanted to send their child to private school, this is a man who calls the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends', a man who claimed that the break up of the Soviet union was a travesty, a man who wants to disband Nato, He has never had a proper job in his life. He is basically the walking stereotype of a mad 1970s Socialist tosswank. Let's be honest he'd have had the shit kicked out of him daily at school had he grown up outside the safe space of elite wealth. He might curry favour with the alt-left super-virgins on account of being almost as nerdy-looking and hateful as they are but mainstream appeal? Not in any Britain I recognise.

 

Good analysis on the scary twat here, frightening that people would even consider voting for this man:

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/07/voting-for-jeremy-corbyn-isnt-just-dumb-its-dangerous/

[Rogstanley]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You'll be glad when JRM gets in then, we'll all be better off.

Sure mate, whatever you reckon. Jam tomorrow!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am sure Labour could win an election against an incompetent Tory party if they didn't have a crazy old Islington socialist running the party. This is a man who divorced one of his wives because they wanted to send their child to private school, this is a man who calls the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends', a man who claimed that the break up of the Soviet union was a travesty, a man who wants to disband Nato, He has never had a proper job in his life. He is basically the walking stereotype of a mad 1970s Socialist tosswank. Let's be honest he'd have had the shit kicked out of him daily at school had he grown up outside the safe space of elite wealth. He might curry favour with the alt-left super-virgins on account of being almost as nerdy-looking and hateful as they are but mainstream appeal? Not in any Britain I recognise.

 

Good analysis on the scary twat here, frightening that people would even consider voting for this man:

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/07/voting-for-jeremy-corbyn-isnt-just-dumb-its-dangerous/

There's another thread for this stuff.

Though your description of 40% of the electorate tells us rather more about you than him.

Edited 17 April 2018 by Guest

[Rogstanley]

6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am sure Labour could win an election against an incompetent Tory party if they didn't have a crazy old Islington socialist running the party. This is a man who divorced one of his wives because they wanted to send their child to private school, this is a man who calls the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends', a man who claimed that the break up of the Soviet union was a travesty, a man who wants to disband Nato, He has never had a proper job in his life. He is basically the walking stereotype of a mad 1970s Socialist tosswank. Let's be honest he'd have had the shit kicked out of him daily at school had he grown up outside the safe space of elite wealth. He might curry favour with the alt-left super-virgins on account of being almost as nerdy-looking and hateful as they are but mainstream appeal? Not in any Britain I recognise.

 

Good analysis on the scary twat here, frightening that people would even consider voting for this man:

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/07/voting-for-jeremy-corbyn-isnt-just-dumb-its-dangerous/

Probably the most well written post you've ever made foxin, me old chum.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Sure mate, whatever you reckon. Jam tomorrow!

C'mon Moose, wages are above inflation again, you've got no reason to keep pretending your a lefty anymore.

[Wymsey]

19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

C'mon Moose, wages are above inflation again, you've got no reason to keep pretending your a lefty anymore.

Why did you (presumably) ban a female member earlier that seemed genuine and only joined yesterday?

Edited 17 April 2018 by Wymeswold fox

[Webbo]

Just now, Wymeswold fox said:

Why did you (presumably) ban a female member earlier that seemed genuine and only joined yesterday?

I haven't banned anyone. Give me some details and I'll look into it.

[ScouseFox]

41 minutes ago, Lovejoy said:

Personally I think it's hilarious when someone throws a political grenade in here and lets the chaos ensue. Not sure if that's an unpopular opinion or not.

but the posts are so bloody long man. i like twitter for political arguments, 140 letters is easy enough for someone to call someone else a tory c unt. 

[Wymsey]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I haven't banned anyone. Give me some details and I'll look into it.

They were called Charlie or something. Said they were a teacher.

Only joined yesterday and posted in the member introduction yesterday and General Chat earlier saying how others' days were going before being banned.

 

Perhaps someone thought they were a troll but they seemed genuine to me imo.

Edited 17 April 2018 by Wymeswold fox

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

They were called Charlie or something. Said they were a teacher.

Only joined yesterday and posted in the member introduction yesterday and General Chat earlier saying how others' days were going before being banned.

 

Perhaps someone thought they were a troll but they seemed genuine to me imo.

Apparently it was the same person who keeps signing up to ask if you'd let children go to the toilet. she's either a troll or a bit weird.