faetal on 13/5/2015 at 22:16
You could probably have an intelligent debate with Hitler too I'd imagine. Not that I'm comparing Thatcher to him, just illustrating that it doesn't make for a good leader per se.
Fafhrd on 13/5/2015 at 23:09
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
If they're anything like American "conservatives" they're full of shit and none of that is actually going to happen, with the exception of Gerrymandering districts.
You need to maybe not view foreign political parties and systems like they work just like ones in the US do.
Cameron has now come right out and said this:
Inline Image:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CE6-B4bUkAExMg2.jpgWhich should be terrifying to
any sane person.Tony_Tarantula on 14/5/2015 at 19:22
Strawman. Nobody's saying that they're the same, except insofar as they can reliably be counted on to prioritize the accumulation and protection of power over any ideology they claim to espouse.
Quote:
You could probably have an intelligent debate with Hitler too I'd imagine. Not that I'm comparing Thatcher to him, just illustrating that it doesn't make for a good leader per se.
Bullshit, yes you are. I seem to recall that a few years back you were bellyaching about how it was inflammatory to compare a certain left wing leader to Hitler.
The irony is that the EXACT same reasoning has been repeatedly used by leftist "social justice" causes such as feminists, LGBT activists, atheists. There's a couple prominent leftist activists who have publicly stated that it isn't enough that people tolerate their causes, but that anything other than active support should be cause repeat that they did to Mozilla's CEO.
Hence my opinion that they're all totalitarians on the inside.
faetal on 14/5/2015 at 20:36
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Bullshit, yes you are. I seem to recall that a few years back you were bellyaching about how it was inflammatory to compare a certain left wing leader to Hitler.
No I am not. Thatcher is nothing like Hitler. However, being able to have an intelligent debate with a leader doesn't mean they are good. How do I need to explain this to you?
Can you even be bothered to think past your knee-jerk responses?
faetal on 14/5/2015 at 20:38
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
The irony is that the EXACT same reasoning has been repeatedly used by leftist "social justice" causes such as feminists, LGBT activists, atheists. There's a couple prominent leftist activists who have publicly stated that it isn't enough that people tolerate their causes, but that anything other than active support should be cause repeat that they did to Mozilla's CEO.
I see the rule of Tony is alive and well. never more than 3 responses away from SJWs and feminism etc... You're a parody.
Tony_Tarantula on 15/5/2015 at 04:38
And you're typical Faetal. Slinging insults about how stupid and typical everyone who disagrees with you is, yet completely ignoring the truth of the original statement.
Cameron's argument is from a logical analysis completely identical to left-wing ideologies that justify banning "hate speech" against gays and racial minorities: both are predicated on the belief that the protection of a desired narrative is more important than the protection of free speech. Similarly Cameron argues that:
Quote:
“It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.”
Same concept. He believes that producing his desired narrative is more important to protecting free speech.
But since you agree with one cause, and dislike the other as a "conservative".....it's OK to squash free speech in one case but an abomination in the other. In your mind it's the merit of the cause, not the principle of free speech, that determines whether speech should be protected.
Which means that in that regard you are no different from Cameron.
Tony_Tarantula on 15/5/2015 at 04:47
Quote Posted by faetal
No I am not. Thatcher is nothing like Hitler. However, being able to have an intelligent debate with a leader doesn't mean they are good. How do I need to explain this to you?
Can you even be bothered to think past your knee-jerk responses?
I doubt that you would have made that comparison if you didn't intend to evoke the meme of comparing conservative leaders to Hitler. Same way Alex Jones types will compare an Obama statement to Hitler/Stalin and then immediately follow it with a disclaimer that they don't believe Obama's as bad as Hitler/Stalin.
heywood on 15/5/2015 at 16:48
Quote Posted by nickie
I expect that, like many people, I'm fairly ignorant as to the nuances of other countries' politics but as far as I can tell, Republicans would be most at home with UKIP or the BNP, and Democrats would be comfortable with Conservatives. My understanding might be highly flawed (it's just from what I read) but I always think of the US as being pretty right wing, in general.
Edit. Of course, I don't think the majority of US TTLG members are anything other than an aberration.
I don't think the Democratic party would ever push the kind of belt tightening policies the Conservatives have, or call out the idle and obese for a lack of personal responsibility like Cameron does.
The Democratic party is a bigger tent than the Labour party, but I don't think their centers of gravity are all that far apart. The Democratic party mainstream supports more progressive taxation, increased spending on services and infrastructure, expansion of welfare programs, single payer universal healthcare, more environmental and business regulation, unions, worker protection, etc. As far as I know, these policy priorities are generally similar to Labour.
But the Republican party is certainly to the right of the conservatives. Prior to 1994, I think the Republicans were more ideologically aligned with the Conservatives. But since then, it seems like the Republican party has purged most of its centrists either during the religious right movement or during the more recent tea party movement. It has certainly become a more dogmatic, less pragmatic party.
I don't know as much as I should about UKIP considering how much time I spent in the UK over the last 5 years, but my impression is that there are some parallels with the tea party. Particularly when it comes to immigration, globalization, trade, and general libertarian populism. However, I got the impression that it was made up of a lot of middle aged or older white men.
faetal on 16/5/2015 at 11:11
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
I doubt that you would have made that comparison if you didn't intend to evoke the meme of comparing conservative leaders to Hitler. Same way Alex Jones types will compare an Obama statement to Hitler/Stalin and then immediately follow it with a disclaimer that they don't believe Obama's as bad as Hitler/Stalin.
You can't be actually that dumb. I could replace Hitler with ANY leader who is capable of intelligent debate but who is an awful leader. I'm worried about keeping you here, since there's an MRA forum sorely missing you whining about the Mad Max trailer being feminist propaganda or something.
As for your comment above, it's a little too ridiculous to spend time on, so I'll either let you revise it or just move on.
scumble on 22/5/2015 at 18:11
I actually barely took notice of the election. I got some options in my postal vote and decided I'd be the least disgusted voting for the Green Party candidate. And then the electoral system being what it is, I get a conservative MP whether I like it or not.
I think if I start reading about politics again I'll just get angry.
My current belief is that spending too much time thinking about the words of politicians is probably not helpful. You look at what actually happens and realise that any promises are irrelevant. Once they're installed it's an exercise in rhetoric to make it look like they've got some integrity for the next few years.
I can't tell if I'm cynical or just don't want to waste the energy on getting upset about it anymore.
