Election

[Wickerman]

I can't stand the Reformists because they are racist, prejudice bigots who give white British people like myself a bad name.

Seeing as you mentioned it, let me ask you a question.

Given that Muslims (Jews & Christians) are members of the Reform party, do you believe a Muslim can be racist towards their own kind?

[Wickerman]

You do know who was in power in Britian for 14 years up until this month, don't you? If the BBC has edited out or reworded anything to spare the blushes of the British Government during that time, they were licking the boots of the right, which is what I just told you they were doing.

We will have to wait and see if the BBC returns to any semblance of balance under the new lot. Many decent journalists took off from the BBC because it had shackled itself to the Tories, who didn't know the meaning of the word 'impartial', or didn't want to know.

You just confirmed my point.
Unless you have forgotten, the Cons. lost power due to their left-leaning values. Britain had two leftist parties, the populous are giving the other left party a chance this time.

The BBC gets into bed with any govt. - they need your license fees, but a left or left-leaning govt. is preferable - Lab. or Cons.

[Wickerman]

Karl.
First thing, let me explain how to play the game.

When you are offering interpretation, theory or beliefs, as we see below, no support is necessary - you are only objecting to the facts.

However, when you are replying to points of fact supported by official statements & links for your consumption. It is expected that you reply in kind. When you contest a point of fact you are expected to provide a quote with references, or a link to support your argument.

As it stands you only betray your ignorance about the subject by replying to factual information with opinion.

Incidentally, if you knew what supplies were provided among humanitarian aid, you would be able to recognise what Hamas confiscate the aid for.
Hamas need food for their terrorist gangs, humanitarian aid includes food.
Hamas need fuel for their vehicles, humanitarian aid includes fuel for hospital & school generators.

If you want to contest my previous post, be so kind as to provide factual quotes from official sources or links that support your arguments.

No, they did not. They made a partial disengagement, but they are still, by all legal definitions, occupying Gaza and controlling everything that comes in or out. That's not "abandoning" anything.

The first sentence is a lie so egregious it merits no further comment. It is impossible that you do not know you're lying.
The second sentence is also a lie, one that you perhaps even tell yourself. You do not hunt anyone by indiscriminate bombing, and the deliberate targeting of hospitals and refugee camps. "But there may be Hamas there". So what? There are definitely innocent people there. This is pure revenge, not even a thought for the hostages; Israel is simply out to kill as many Palestinians as possible. Hell, they even bombed the West Bank. What did they do that for?

Yeeees, but just because a certain party is in government doesn't mean that everything in the country IS that party. When you go to the hospital, you're treated by the NHS - you're not treated by Labour. Labour will now affect how the NHS can treat people, but it's still not Labour that makes a diagnosis or prescribes treatment, or performs surgeries. It's not like hospitals are staffed according to political affiliation.

Yeees, Hamas seizes stuff. As does the IDF. Care to tell me how humanitarian aid can be used militarily?

Educate yourself.

[Geddy2112]

And if you had said any of that, you'd have been on the wrong thread and I'd have suggested you start one on pointless observations. I have no doubt you'd have been in a class of your own there.

Wrong thread? - that is a Christeresque cop out. So since you can't answer what the differences are in those examples I'll take that I've been wrongly accused of racism etc. The fact of the matter is making observations (akin to the ones I did) are not racist, xenophobic or Islamophobic. The fact is Tab threw out the insults wrongly. If I'd made another observation that did not include 'brown skin' 'white skin' if would have gone unnoticed. Just because someone mentions 'brown skin' does not make the comment racist and to think so it bloody ignorant.

Just for the record I've just seem an African man walk down the street, he was wearing a cream suit and a very shiny pair of shoes. <--- racist or not?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing that I’ve said on this thread shouldn’t be a problem to anyone with a brain. Sadly, with posters like yourself and Karl all we have are examples of the pathetic level of ‘thinking’ that we get from the new Left. We are surrounded with moral cowards whose backbones turn to jelly whenever they are faced with a problem so much so that they prefer to pretend that it doesn’t exist rather than upset anyone.

As predicted the thread soon degenerated into an exercise in name-calling. Standard procedure.

Apologies to mods/admin. I think this post is an issue to do with the amount of links. I didn’t grasp the potential issue at the time and was too late to edit.

[Wickerman]

We must also remember that Jesus's mother Mary was only 14 when she conceived.

Or was it God who...

Anyway...

Nothing in the Bible indicates that, but there is a line in an Apocryphal book that suggests this.

Some unproven apocryphal accounts, such as the apocryphal Gospel of James 8:2, state that at the time of her betrothal to Joseph, Mary was 12–14 years old. Her age during her pregnancy has varied up to 17 in apocryphal sources. In a large part, apocryphal texts are historically unreliable. According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary technically could have been betrothed at about 12, but some scholars hold the view that in Judea it typically happened later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_mother_of_Jesus

At the time being 14 would have been considered normal of course; but if we take that and apply it to today's morals...

The strict adherence to their religion has held the Muslim world back, whereas Christianity has evolved, materially, spiritually, and socially.
Prior to the industrial age in the west, the middle east was still living in the dark ages of 1500 years ago, and their customs reflect this.
It was the need for oil by the west that raised the middle east up out of its stagnant state of tribal societies.

But I do see your point how SOME young Muslim men do feel they can treat women like dirt; the same can be applied to those scumbag Romans who raped their way across Europe.
The Romans treated women just as bad, and became even worse when they adopted Christianity with Emperor Constantine.

Yes, the past is the past, we shouldn't judge the past by modern standards, but neither should we follow customs of the past that treat others like they are worthless.
Did you know child theft is common in Iran? Adult men snatching infant children from homes in towns and villages, either to sell or to use in sex parlors.

In Iran, the capital at Tehran is like a modern western city, at least the center is. Air-conditioned buildings & Malls of marble, chrome & glass, where women dress like western women in colorful clothes. You would swear you were in America, the same can be said of Dubai. Yet the Muslim condemnation of the west suggests they deplore western society, but they copy it.

However, just step out of the city, just 30 minute drive and you are in a totally different world. Some people still live in caves dug out of the hill side, those who can afford them live in small hiking tents. Others who have a little money buy those ash-bricks we call Breezeblock. They build a four walled structure, with wood pallets & plastic sheeting for a roof. Everybody lives between those four walls. They cover the soil floor with carpets, they eat off the floor, they sleep on the floor. The structure they live in is designed after the nomadic tent of their ancestors.
It's people who live like that who are coming to Europe as migrants. Of course they don't assimilate into a modern society, they can't, many of them have never seen a modern society, with customs, rules and laws.

Religion has raped the world.

Yes, and religion has caused more wars and deaths than anything else.

[caz]

If I'd I said and come to think about it, it may have been true 'I was the only bald man in the street' what would that make me? Baldist? Folicallychallengedophobic? What would you have called me if I'd said 'I was the only person in the street who had Crocs on?' What real difference is there is making these three observations?

And if you had said any of that, you'd have been on the wrong thread and I'd have suggested you start one on pointless observations. I have no doubt you'd have been in a class of your own there.

[caz]

That goes some way to highlight that the majority of "Muslims" are not literal Islamists; because many are unaware of the Quaran's literal teachings; ergo, the word of God.

The same can be said for the Majority of Christians who aren't really Christians at all, because they do not follow the literal teachings as set out in the Bible.

According to the Bible; if you don't believe in Jesus; you can't go to heaven, whether you have faith in God or not...which is pretty ridiculous if you have a deep faith in God.

So we have the 2 major religions of the world that live in their own reality that just so happens to clash.

That's the problem with trying to define the difference between Religion and Faith.

To have faith in God or some form of higher power is perhaps a human condition whereby we need to seek our own relevance in this life and are eager to feel that it all has some longer term meaning that goes beyond our own life span.

Whereas being religious, is to have a particular belief that by proxy opposes other religions. Religion is divisive, restricting and designed to control the masses through fear and conformity, so that those in power have the ability to remain in power.

Religion and Faith are NOT the same thing because with having a personal faith in God, it empowers us to be individuals and to give us the freedom to be ourselves and have the feeling we have a higher purpose. Religion on the other hand suppresses that natural human need and turns it into something that we can't control and feel compelled to follow.

Religion is based on fear, power, conformity, and control

Faith is based on the joy of celebrating life through the belief there's a higher power that protects us through time.

Only when we can differentiate between being religious and having faith, can we truly progress in a positive way.


Ultimately, Christians and Muslims are on opposite sides of the same coin and together those 2 religions have caused more death and destruction than we could ever possibly comprehend.

Have a deep and beautiful belief and faith in your own God and live in peace with yourself and others. But once you start to label yourself into a category of being a Christian or a Muslim etc...and feel compelled to follow a book that serves only to control and suppress you and turn you into a sheep... then you lose the meaning of what it truly means to have faith in God.


RD

Lovely stuff, Rookie.

My late father-in-law was a simple man - in the nicest sense - with simple pleasures. He was not religious and used to wonder why people felt they had to go to church in order to pray to God, when God was supposed to be everywhere, hearing everything.

He also used to say, only half jokingly, that the sun was his God, because at least he could see it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Prepare yourself for an education...

52% of the UK think the number of immigrants should be reduced.

33% say the present state of immigration is a Bad thing.
31% Say it is a Good thing.
36% think it is neither, or don't know.

37% - Asylum seeking should be made more difficult.
30% - accepting people from Afghanistan should be made more difficult.
36% - accepting low skilled people should be reduced.

Views on immigration/migration appear to be split by age & by education.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/

52% of those who were invited to have their say and agreed to take part, Jon, is not the same as 52% of the UK.

I wasn't asked, and I don't take part in opinion polls anyway, so my views will not be represented, along with everyone else who was either not invited or declined to take part. If you don't know what percentage of the UK population was asked to take part and eager to do so, the results are misleading and fairly meaningless, and are not going to educate anyone. Even with a high percentage taking part, it will be down to the exact wording of the questions and how impartial and representative the survey set out to be. It's all too easy to design questions so you get the answers you want.

I worked for a market research company in the 1970s and my favourite task was to redesign a questionnaire so that even dummies could not mess up. It wasn't to influence anyone's answers, but because so many had been coming back unusable due to unclear instructions, ambiguous, badly worded or overly complicated questions, or just poor design in general. We needed the data to be as complete and accurate as possible. You still have to trust that the answers are given in good faith and that any undetected human error will be minor.

But actually, these percentages - whether they are based on 90% of the UK population or 1%, and whether the questions were designed to get most participants foaming at the mouth about immigrants and asylum seekers, or to make them all cuddly-wuddly towards them - are nothing for anyone to get particularly worked up about. I guess some would have been much happier if 90% of the entire adult UK population took part and 90% of those thought all immigrants were probably illegal and that those already here should be deported along with all new arrivals. But you can't win 'em all.

[Karl]

That's interesting, Karl. Safety behind a screen, ranting to strangers about strangers, presumably has a lot to do with it. Most people in my experience do not have such heated debates face to face. My better half and I have a couple of smashing friends, who are not remotely racist, xenophobic or homophobic, but the moment they start on politics, work-shy Brits on benefits and suchlike, I get the 'look' from hubby which says: "Don't bite. Let them have their say and change the subject." We've only got into a row with them on one occasion a few years back and we ended up leaving the pub because it got too shouty, too personal and very hurtful. Everyone thought we had fallen out for good, but the next week it was business as usual and the four of us are going into town tomorrow evening for a seafood dinner.

Love,

Caz
X

It is depressingly easy to hate someone you never have to deal with in person. Of course, this is a known phenomenon:

[Karl]

I do love a good murder mystery yes!

Cold cases in particular


Lol!


RD

There you go! You can found the party of

[Geddy2112]

I do love a good murder mystery yes!

Cold cases in particular

Oh good, I need some help on one... there was this bloke called Charles on his way to work on Aug morning...

[The Rookie Detective]

Well, what if you focused on the things you do like? Such as, I don't know... Do you like books?

I do love a good murder mystery yes!

Cold cases in particular


Lol!


RD

[caz]

I'm not sure they are glass-half-empty sort of people, necessarily - they merely have, shall we say, an ethnic hang-up. I know a guy who has the most disgusting xenophobic personality online, really hateful and vitriolic, but you would absolutely not know that to meet him in person. In person, he is charming, generous, helpful, has a sunny disposition and is just an all-round great guy. Of course, we know that our political ideologies are completely at odds with each other, so we simply never bring them up. But his in-person personality, and his social media personality, they really are like Jekyll and Hyde.

That's interesting, Karl. Safety behind a screen, ranting to strangers about strangers, presumably has a lot to do with it. Most people in my experience do not have such heated debates face to face. My better half and I have a couple of smashing friends, who are not remotely racist, xenophobic or homophobic, but the moment they start on politics, work-shy Brits on benefits and suchlike, I get the 'look' from hubby which says: "Don't bite. Let them have their say and change the subject." We've only got into a row with them on one occasion a few years back and we ended up leaving the pub because it got too shouty, too personal and very hurtful. Everyone thought we had fallen out for good, but the next week it was business as usual and the four of us are going into town tomorrow evening for a seafood dinner.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Did I mention how much I like your writing style Caz?!



The Baron

You did, Baron!

And thanks again. It's always nice to read the odd kind word.

Love,

Caz
X