The Great Reset
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays Online  08 Jun 22 1.10pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
I think that's probably the loosest definition of 'wisdom' I have ever encountered. My preferred choice of wording would be 'collective will'. What are the racial demographics of Kent Nicholas?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 08 Jun 22 1.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
What are the racial demographics of Kent Nicholas? Ooooh I would say mainly, mainly white. I moved from Lewisham almost exactly three years ago and I think the London fleeing has brought about some degree of change but a mere drop in the ocean.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 08 Jun 22 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
What are the racial demographics of Kent Nicholas? I sensed there was perhaps some misinterpretation on the context of my previous comment, which was a reaction to a perceived notion we are rules by the 'collective wisdom' of the few, which I was suggesting is more a 'collective will'... of a few. Not the collective will of the nation. And certainly not wisdom from my standpoint.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 08 Jun 22 1.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
I sensed there was perhaps some misinterpretation on the context of my previous comment, which was a reaction to a perceived notion we are rules by the 'collective wisdom' of the few, which I was suggesting is more a 'collective will'... of a few. Not the collective will of the nation. And certainly not wisdom from my standpoint. Ok, so as to just understand you here, is your position that you support Britain being a racially global village with no majority genetic identity? Areas like Kent not being substantially different to any others? Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jun 2022 1.39pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 08 Jun 22 2.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Ok, so as to just understand you here, is your position that you support Britain being a racially global village with no majority genetic identity? Areas like Kent not being substantially different to any others? Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jun 2022 1.39pm) No, not at all. I believe a cultural homogony, belief system and value set are necessary for a nation to thrive and for individuals as well. I also believe very much of the grey in between the two ends of the spectrum, as I do many things. I do not nor will ever support the demonization, persecution etc of any set of peoples based on nothing more than ethnicity, background etc. I feel that this is necessary to mention these days. But that is separate to logical, rational or otherwise motivated 'beefs' with certain sets of people. All must be judged on their behaviours and what they themselves espouse. You should never have 'carte blanche' to live as you so wish whether that be claimed on grounds of race, religion, ideology or otherwise. A common sense approach should be taken to all matters. To the same extent I do not believe that the idea of some sort of world village, no matter what sort of egalitarian or utopian belief system supports it, is within any realms of reason and therefore possibility. It seems very much to be what some are proposing these days which is, for lack of articulation, pure f**king stupidity and ignorance of human beings in my book. I'm not saying all people are evil but as cynical as it may seem, I do believe enough are, across the spectrum. Men have been trying to kill each-other off since the dawn of time, I'd like to please be pointed as to where this has changed? In short: You want to hurl racist and xenophobic abuse at my 'BAME' or any other identity neighbours, yeah you and I will have a problem! You want me to accept the mass migration of every corner of the world onto my tiny island alongside a complete pass for these people to live as they so choose as 'it's what they believe'? No, I completely reject that.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 08 Jun 22 2.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
No, not at all. I believe a cultural homogony, belief system and value set are necessary for a nation to thrive and for individuals as well. I also believe very much of the grey in between the two ends of the spectrum, as I do many things. I do not nor will ever support the demonization, persecution etc of any set of peoples based on nothing more than ethnicity, background etc. I feel that this is necessary to mention these days. But that is separate to logical, rational or otherwise motivated 'beefs' with certain sets of people. All must be judged on their behaviours and what they themselves espouse. You should never have 'carte blanche' to live as you so wish whether that be claimed on grounds of race, religion, ideology or otherwise. A common sense approach should be taken to all matters. To the same extent I do not believe that the idea of some sort of world village, no matter what sort of egalitarian or utopian belief system supports it, is within any realms of reason and therefore possibility. It seems very much to be what some are proposing these days which is, for lack of articulation, pure f**king stupidity and ignorance of human beings in my book. I'm not saying all people are evil but as cynical as it may seem, I do believe enough are, across the spectrum. Men have been trying to kill each-other off since the dawn of time, I'd like to please be pointed as to where this has changed? In short: You want to hurl racist and xenophobic abuse at my 'BAME' or any other identity neighbours, yeah you and I will have a problem! You want me to accept the mass migration of every corner of the world onto my tiny island alongside a complete pass for these people to live as they so choose as 'it's what they believe'? No, I completely reject that. It's an interesting and very humanist post, I have to go out for a few hours but I'll answer it later.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
BlueJay  UK 08 Jun 22 3.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
In a modern, newly connected (in relative terms - cheap air travel and the like) world, noteworthy change is inevitable. Speed of change however is (or should be) defined by the people. There will be no policing anyones family tree or enforcing 23andme tests, so a one eyed abuse of genetic opinion or testing won't ever factor in. But at the same time, a nations people should certainly get a government that reflects view of immigration and the like. With that in mind there should be serious efforts to reduce immigration and to stop illegal immigration (which of course has not happened). We should have no open door obligation. By all means, all but stop immigration for a length of time - but nobody is ever going to be going town to town to ensure a 'majority' indigenous identity, and with many people you wouldn't know if they fit that criteria to begin with to look at them (so really it's often purely about racial judgements based on skin colour rather than anything else). Ultimately, certain realities of life are already baked in and if someone is born here regardless of their parentage and holds allegiance to this country then this is their country, their 'birthright'. There is no law, no sensible argument, and no fringe movement that will ever make them anything other than that and and here they shall remain. The nauseating evaluation of a new borns belonging based on race is insane. Arguments that are certainly more of a dead end emotion led wimper than a babies cry could ever be. Some need to learn to separate views on future immigration policy from a palpable, generalised aversion to other races. They are two very different things. Where they fail to recognise that, they hemorrhage support for their professed cause. Edited by BlueJay (08 Jun 2022 5.18pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 08 Jun 22 3.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
So you categorically know these MPs thoughts and beliefs. Of course I don't know all their thoughts. What I know is what I heard and saw, and that is what I am describing. They acted with integrity, putting their over-riding commitment to always act in what they believe is the best interests of the country above any thoughts of self-preservation. They knew the consequences, but their consciences did not allow them to be swayed. We need more people like that, and far less lobby sheep.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 08 Jun 22 3.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
Not mine mate and calling it democracy is just sophistry If the will of the people is not carried out then we are dictated to by someone else's "collective wisdom" The fact that the majority have always been against mass immigration is probably the greatest example of this. Like it or not, it is yours, just as it is everyone's in the UK. Your duty is to help choose the MP who you send to represent you. Once done, they take over. Don't like what they do? Change them after 5 years.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 08 Jun 22 3.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Your opinion. I suspect that most voters expect their MPs to carry out what they said in their manifestos and when they don't and they fail to call for a by election the voters punish them at the next opportunity. I presume you saw nothing wrong in Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems abandoning a key pledge to abolish tuition fees because in your words "What you might expect of an MP makes no difference to what their job actually is." Funny because the electorate disagreed with you Clegg and his gang were sacked at the earliest available opportunity. To repeat I am not against an MP changing their mind on a major policy or deciding to joining another party but if they expect the public to support them they need to do the decent thing and resign and fight a by election on that issue. By the way your view on MPs stems from Edmund Burke who said it after he was elected and then got sacked at the next GE. He's was just an opinion as well, Burke is often quoted by both sides however he also did some pretty representable things maybe in the future MPs will quote Boris, who knows. Edited by Badger11 (08 Jun 2022 9.30am) What people expect of their MP is reflected in how they vote. That's their right and many MPs, being fearful of that, take heed of it. However, their over-riding responsibility is to their conscience and the need to do what it tells them is best for their constituents and the country. There have been countless rebels over the years, refusing to vote for policies they disagreed with. Nick Clegg and the LibDems changed policy on tuition fees, so we could have a functioning government, not because they believed they were right. They were widely misunderstood over that, and paid the price demanded by a misguided (think the Daily Mail) electorate, just as the Brexit rebels did. No MP need resign just because he falls out with his party. We elect MPs, not parties or labels. I fully understand that's not how most think, but it is nevertheless correct. I know where the definition of a MP's role was first clarified but Churchill confirmed it years later and it is now the accepted principle by all, except the hard left.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 08 Jun 22 4.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
What people expect of their MP is reflected in how they vote. That's their right and many MPs, being fearful of that, take heed of it. However, their over-riding responsibility is to their conscience and the need to do what it tells them is best for their constituents and the country. No MP need resign just because he falls out with his party. We elect MPs, not parties or labels. I fully understand that's not how most think, but it is nevertheless correct. I know where the definition of a MP's role was first clarified but Churchill confirmed it years later and it is now the accepted principle by all, except the hard left. I thought that was the job of the Whips.......
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 08 Jun 22 5.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
What people expect of their MP is reflected in how they vote. That's their right and many MPs, being fearful of that, take heed of it. However, their over-riding responsibility is to their conscience and the need to do what it tells them is best for their constituents and the country. There have been countless rebels over the years, refusing to vote for policies they disagreed with. Nick Clegg and the LibDems changed policy on tuition fees, so we could have a functioning government, not because they believed they were right. They were widely misunderstood over that, and paid the price demanded by a misguided (think the Daily Mail) electorate, just as the Brexit rebels did. No MP need resign just because he falls out with his party. We elect MPs, not parties or labels. I fully understand that's not how most think, but it is nevertheless correct. I know where the definition of a MP's role was first clarified but Churchill confirmed it years later and it is now the accepted principle by all, except the hard left. Please show where in the constitution it outlines an MPs role and responsibility? It doesn't and should. So you have an opinion on how MPs should operate and so have I and until Parliament or the courts define it they are simply opinions. However I stand by mine when ever MPs betray the electorate they are sacked at the next opportunity so I suggest your opinion may not be in line with the rest of the voters.
One more point |
|
| 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.