EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 74
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
On September 16 2015 22:21 Zaros wrote: Giving Cameron a weekly radio call in instead of PMQs will be a disaster for Labour, Cameron is better than most other top politicians with that format, its giving him a weekly boost instead of bashing. Corbyn is supposed to be a PM in waiting not a talk show host. this is true but he is still way better than milliband, who practically handed control of proceedings to Cameron. I think the basic format is slightly wrong, but it can be tweaked to labours advantage. The question is whether Corbyn can adapt to make things harder for the PM. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9768 Posts
lol | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2116 Posts
| ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On September 21 2015 09:07 Jockmcplop wrote: david cameron *allegedly* put his cock in a dead pig's mouth.www.express.co.uk lol This is getting a fair bit of coverage as you'd imagine. I'm imagining that at PMQs there's going to be at least one burning question about pig farming being asked from the Labour back benches. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
http://www.robfahey.co.uk/blog/the-pm-the-pig-and-musings-on-power/ "Lord Ashcroft [The man who leaked the story] feels snubbed and sidelined by Cameron, who seemingly declined to offer him the cabinet position to which he felt entitled; the billionaire’s revenge is to dig up this singularly humiliating moment from the prime minister’s past and ensure that it is splashed on the front page of the Daily Mail, the preferred scurrilous tabloid rag of the very heartland of Conservative voters. Lord Ashcroft, pollster and political guru in his own right, knows as well as anyone else what this will do. This is not a playful aside in a fun little unauthorised biography that he’s putting together as a hobby with his journalist pal, Oakeshott; this is a carefully targeted, focused attack designed to wreak career havoc upon, and cause huge personal embarrassment for, a man whom Ashcroft sees as disloyal, or as having stepped out of line. And here, I think, is something much bigger and more interesting than the scurrilous details of Cameron’s vivid indiscretion; here is a rare public example of how power is wielded by Britain’s elite, of how control is exerted over those they wish to manipulate, and of how those groomed for success from a young age can be destroyed should they be seen to diverge from the steps they’re told to dance." ... "The control exerted by elite networks is based on long-standing trust and loyalty, but also, in some cases at least, by a black and rotten heart of what is, in effect, life-long blackmail. Britain’s establishment, at least in part, can be visualised (for those of strong stomach) as a group of powerful men standing close together, each with the balls of the man next to him held in a powerful grip. Michael Ashcroft just squeezed, very publicly indeed" | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
I only have a problem with the stuff (if true...) is if he did that when he was prime minister or an mp/politician. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43534 Posts
| ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
| ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On September 22 2015 00:03 corumjhaelen wrote: You guys also have a problem of a different kind if the best of your youth (I have to wink here) still do that sort of utter stupidity. I think you mean "Udder stupidity". In all seriousness this is going to be very damaging to the PM, and not just because there's a rumour going around that he put his penis in a dead pig's mouth, but because it's a powerful person that's saying it. It makes me sad that this is the case... but a. Prime ministers questions became must watch for a second week in a row. b. None of this is going to stop me making even tangentially related farm yard animal jokes pretty much constantly (see above) | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
It's a bit strange how they're backing each other up on everything despite supporting different parties. With the conservative party suddenly starting to tear itself apart too, is there some kind of concerted effort towards breaking up Labour/Conservatives and creating a new middle-ground party? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14099 Posts
On September 21 2015 14:01 AssyrianKing wrote: After reading some posts, I don't understand why someone who is against gay marriage is automatically a homophobe... Well logically if you are against gay marriage then you are de facto for gay people not to have rights due to being gay. If you frame the argument that way you can either call them a bigot for hateing gay people enough to take away their right to marry or a homophobe for not wanting them to marry. Its surprisingly effective to just insult people who don't agree with you to get them to agree with you. No one wants to be called a bigot or homophobe so if they don't agree with you they'll just stay silent about it. Then you've won the argument and can campaign for the swing voters that don't care enough about the issue to get into an argument. The same logic works for a variety of different political positions. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43534 Posts
On September 22 2015 02:42 Sermokala wrote: Well logically if you are against gay marriage then you are de facto for gay people not to have rights due to being gay. Pretty much. You can't be against gays having the same rights as straight people due to their sexuality without having to face accusations of homophobia. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
In practice though most people opposing gay marriage seem to be motivated by homophobia, but I guess if you're consequent and the only requirement for marriage is "we like each other a lot" you really don't need a legal institution for that. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43534 Posts
On September 22 2015 07:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote: People define marriage by the biological ability to produce off-spring? Last time I looked, you don't have to be married to produce offspring. And you don't have to be able to produce offspring to get married. It's never been limited to reproductive pairings. Reproduction wasn't even a factor until people started trying to think of why gays shouldn't be allowed to have it. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2116 Posts
On September 22 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote: Pretty much. You can't be against gays having the same rights as straight people due to their sexuality without having to face accusations of homophobia. what if it's not homophobia, but a moral reason instead | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43534 Posts
On September 22 2015 08:34 Nyxisto wrote: Reproduction wasn't a factor? For 99% of history people have married for that precise reason. Therefore explaining the long tradition of old couples getting divorced once passing childbearing age. | ||
| ||
