London Mayoral Elections
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
legaleagle  07 Apr 16 8.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
. Edited by legaleagle (07 Apr 2016 8.40am)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 JHB London 07 Apr 16 8.45am |
  |
|---|---|
|
I would agree with Matt that keeping company with Islamic extremists is a bad thing. Matt, what do you think about our current Tory government and PM cuddling up to an extremist Wahhabist Islamic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Apr 16 9.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Come back with a cogent argument. The weakest of weak arguments. Look at this 'Legal' - do you agree with his politics? Bet you don't. Especially the bit that 'homosexuality is unnatural'. Edited by matt_himself (06 Apr 2016 9.49pm) Man who believes in god, claims human behaviour is unnatural. That's a pretty interesting tightrope to walk. I'd like to see him rationally defend that statement. These people are f**ktards. F**k him, and Khan, preferably with a giant throbbing cock.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 18 Apr 16 10.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Will Matt now call on people not to vote for Zac since it seems that in fact Zac (and other Tories) has no problem appearing alongside the Imam in question.. For those all too quick to swallow the Tories' Lynton Crosbeyesque campaigning bilge,the following may be salutory reading:
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 18 Apr 16 12.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I don't know why you're bothering. All I took from that Guardian article is that Labour are losing massive chunks of the Asian vote, which is surprising.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 18 Apr 16 12.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Yes, it is a balanced piece rather than just pro or anti one party, particularly the part about the dubious nature of Goldsmith's seedy campaign tactics (step forward Lynton Crosby)as well as Labour's deficiencies.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 18 Apr 16 1.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
Yes, it is a balanced piece rather than just pro or anti one party, particularly the part about the dubious nature of Goldsmith's seedy campaign tactics (step forward Lynton Crosby)as well as Labour's deficiencies. In a race that he's miles behind in, the tactics don't seem to be that dubious. Or is he not allowed to target the Asian vote? Didn't Crosby help the conservatives win a landslide election? Doesn't seem a strange tactic to use him again. What's so seedy? Apart from everything to do with politics in the first place?
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 18 Apr 16 3.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Fair enough.If you can't see what's so quintessentially seedy and dubious about the way Crosby is running Goldsmith's campaign by playing the "extremist" card and stirring up fires and prejudice within the south asian communities (even allowing for most politics being somewhat dubious and seedy),then I don't think I'm going to be able to persuade you.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 18 Apr 16 3.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
Fair enough.If you can't see what's so quintessentially seedy and dubious about the way Crosby is running Goldsmith's campaign by playing the "extremist" card and stirring up fires and prejudice within the south asian communities (even allowing for most politics being somewhat dubious and seedy),then I don't think I'm going to be able to persuade you. Put on here what's so bad then rather than a link to one article, that wasn't balanced and was bereft of any subtance (a chance photograph v several and a seemingly solid link to Khan) and another that clearly didn't make the same point to me that it did to you.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 18 Apr 16 7.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
Will Matt now call on people not to vote for Zac since it seems that in fact Zac (and other Tories) has no problem appearing alongside the Imam in question.. For those all too quick to swallow the Tories' Lynton Crosbeyesque campaigning bilge,the following may be salutory reading: I am voting for Peter Whittle, like any rational person would.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 18 Apr 16 7.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JHB
I would agree with Matt that keeping company with Islamic extremists is a bad thing. Matt, what do you think about our current Tory government and PM cuddling up to an extremist Wahhabist Islamic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia? But, I guess, you are one of the 'not in my name' rent a mob, who complain about business links with Saudi Arabia (and use emotive language to try and spell out your case), yet seem strangely against wiping out ISIS?
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 18 Apr 16 7.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
I am voting for Peter Whittle, like any rational person would. Fair enough,other than the "any rational" bit.My error.I had wrongly assumed from your anti Khan posts you supported Goldsmith.I should have remembered your penchant for UKIP. If any one still doubts the bilge that epitomises Goldsmith's Lynton Crosby-run campaign,see the views of Tory activist,Shazia Awan
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.