You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic
April 23 2024 9.54pm

Nigel Farage (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 42 of 43 < 38 39 40 41 42 43 >

Topic Locked

View Jimenez's Profile Jimenez Flag SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 02 Jan 18 12.56pm Send a Private Message to Jimenez Add Jimenez as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Or Churchill

'Oh Dear'

 


Pro USA & Israel

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 02 Jan 18 1.01pm

Originally posted by Jimenez

'Oh Dear'

Did you support UKIP. We've seen what their sort are like in that article. They all murder people. You terrible man.


(Isn't it funny how when you use someone elses kind of 'argument' back at them they take umbrage, if only they could see how ridiculous it is to use it and stop.)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 02 Jan 18 1.08pm

In fact, one could blame the death of an innocent woman on the Cult of Farage (he has a lot of followers) after all the murderer stood for parliament to be a representative of Farage.
Poor chap was probably warped by Farages ideologies.
When are other racists going to speak out about the Cult of Farage?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 02 Jan 18 1.17pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Or Churchill

No.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 02 Jan 18 1.26pm

Yes. A brilliant leader in wartime to whom who we owe an enormous debt of gratitude, he brought us Victory against Nazis and fascists (wonder what he'd make of Farage) but was also a c***.

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Jan 18 1.28pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

When I say allowed to exist....I mean allowed to express a view...as in the discussion we were having.

As for 'Were' a threat? It's understood that when we talk about far left and far right we are covering a huge amount of ground. The groups therein have differing implications for democracy.

But essentially I agree that opinions that don't call for physical violence and knowingly libel others aren't the business of the state.

Though

I think there is a grey area around calling for violence and promoting causes and ideologies that feed into violence. We see a problem with this in the US where rhetoric that doesn't explicitly call for violence does feed into prejudice and hate crimes. Whilst calling someone an abomnation to god, for example, isn't explictly stating violence should be pursued, it would be a stretch to say it isn't inciting violence (esp from Religious groups, given that such an affront to god is something to be 'destroyed').

Of course, it would need to be proven in a court of law that there was a direct threat, and that use of such language correlated with attacks, to a reasonable level, or malicious intent and a connection between the speaker and the perpetrator.

It cannot just be explict threats of violence, veiled threats need to be considered to. We should be free to speak, but not free from the consequences of those statements.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 02 Jan 18 1.33pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Yes. A brilliant leader in wartime to whom who we owe an enormous debt of gratitude, he brought us Victory against Nazis and fascists (wonder what he'd make of Farage) but was also a c***.

[Link]

I know what he would make of you.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 02 Jan 18 1.43pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Not believing in democracy is not a crime. I do not believe that people should be able to encourage breaking the law but banning people for political beliefs outside of that is not desirable.

It is a difficult one. The National Party in SA was a political one but was fed by its own overt absolute and true racist policies. Practically everything they did screamed 'crime' from elsewhere yet was legal on their own turf.

Should extreme far-left and far-right groups who would happily engage in pogroms and/or deny basic human rights to others be given dignity with the label of
being political?

Or maybe they should be called out for what they really are, not so different to Salafist/Wahhabi killers, and denied the necessary figurative oxygen to exist which would include their freedom of public expression and speech/propaganda.

It would be interesting to hear someone argue for the lifting of the ban on the Nazi Party in Germany, for example, as on the surface the banning seems entirely rational but for those who don't agree with such stifling it would be good to know their view on this.

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 02 Jan 18 1.55pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Kermit8

It is a difficult one. The National Party in SA was a political one but was fed by its own overt absolute and true racist policies. Practically everything they did screamed 'crime' from elsewhere yet was legal on their own turf.

Should extreme far-left and far-right groups who would happily engage in pogroms and/or deny basic human rights to others be given dignity with the label of
being political?

Or maybe they should be called out for what they really are, not so different to Salafist/Wahhabi killers, and denied the necessary figurative oxygen to exist which would include their freedom of public expression and speech/propaganda.

It would be interesting to hear someone argue for the lifting of the ban on the Nazi Party in Germany, for example, as on the surface the banning seems entirely rational but for those who don't agree with such stifling it would be good to know their view on this.

The problem is that any interpretation of what should be allowed is subject to bias and potential abuse. Also, historically, morality has been flexible depending on circumstances.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 02 Jan 18 1.59pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I know what he would make of you.

Go on...

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View elgrande's Profile elgrande Flag bedford 02 Jan 18 2.04pm Send a Private Message to elgrande Add elgrande as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

Or Churchill

Are you really comparing Churchill and Blair......ha ha ha.

 


always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 02 Jan 18 2.07pm

Originally posted by elgrande

Are you really comparing Churchill and Blair......ha ha ha.

No.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 42 of 43 < 38 39 40 41 42 43 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic