UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Nothing as such - I don't even oppose it - but when I hear that it's "a British value" or a "fundamental value of Western civilisation" or whatever I know that I am either listening to a dancing bear or a crazy person. We had millennia of Western civilisation mostly without legalised and socially normalised homosexuality. Even if it's nice to have, it's no more than that. It's as foundational as gargoyles or soldiers wearing shakoes - just a minor quirk of a brief age.

More importantly here though, legalised sodomy really pokes Muslims in the eye. On the other hand, people doing this eye poking want millions of Muslims to live in our countries and vote in our elections. If we weren't ruled by dancing bears this wouldn't have happened.

It's just held up as an example of progressivism and liberalism that Britain/the West have gone for equality.

Fine - but progressivism (a 19th century word for "new shit") isn't our historic values. It's a gamble that our historic values were a bad idea and we'd be better off with different values.

Just out of curiosity, what governance system would you have for Britain?

A relatively broad based parliamentary aristocracy. I would see about 10% of the adult male population as voters. But I'd also see the government playing not much role in society.

[Hydesland]

A right wing war would be America First: turn Iraq into a colony ruled by a governor general, take the oil and use it to fund tax cuts in the states.

Almost everyone on the left thinks that's what Bush & co did, and you can mix in theories about Halliburton & PMC's in there with it.

Or just cut off the bits of Iraq that have no oil in them (which is most of it) and let them kill each other.

Unlike you, I don't define being right wing as being monstrously evil. I think the problem is, you want the right to be defined as being somewhere between Hitler and Mussolini - of course republicans and democrats will both look left wing by these standards, but most people don't look at the world through this window.

How many neocons have you spoken to who have said the way to make America loved is to invade and force them to accept free markets? Now, invade and force them to accept democracy?

I have definitely spoken to neocons who want to spread free market capitalism.

Iraq's constitution

What exactly is in the constitution that was so left wing? And was it really drafted by republican neocons?

I [...] rearrange the letters in your posts to read "HMS Queen Elizabeth is right and I am wrong".

Surprised you admit this tbh.

Rest assured I read your posts in full, I just snip the part I want to respond to so it's clearer which part I'm responding to

So what's he done on NATO? Said if you want your entangling arrangement I want my pound of flesh. Then he sent Mattis to Munich and Mattis said, yeah, listen to that guy because he's not kidding and nor am I. And Mattis was meant to be the pro-NATO voice.

That's one thing, but there have been other instances where he seems to just be in opposition to NATO entirely - but maybe I'm misremembering.

Absolutely. They're completely sincere and nothing has ever led me to suspect otherwise. The US made a huge loss on the Iraq War.

They didn't expect to make a huge loss however.

You are disputing that Bush is left wing. I am saying that when you look at Trump, real right winger, the differences between Bush and Obama are really just differences in tone of voice, not message at all. Which is the point.

See my point near the top of the post.

Bush said, and probably believed, that Mexicans are natural conservatives who vote Democrat because they're not home owners. They're kept off the housing ladder by White Racists, so we just pin down those White Racists for a bit and Mexicans will get on the housing ladder and vote Republican.

Sounds like electoral strategy to me, if he really did say that (source please).

[Eastfield Lodge]

It's just held up as an example of progressivism and liberalism that Britain/the West have gone for equality.

Fine - but progressivism (a 19th century word for "new shit") isn't our historic values. It's a gamble that our historic values were a bad idea and we'd be better off with different values.

Well, yeah, that is sort of the whole point about replacing things. You think the existing situation is shit and can be improved.

Just out of curiosity, what governance system would you have for Britain?

A relatively broad based parliamentary aristocracy. I would see about 10% of the adult male population as voters. But I'd also see the government playing not much role in society.

And who would make up the 10%? And why only men? As for role in society, where would you see it intervene (outside of economics, where the answer is obviously "not at all")?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Or just cut off the bits of Iraq that have no oil in them (which is most of it) and let them kill each other.

Unlike you, I don't define being right wing as being monstrously evil. I think the problem is, you want the right to be defined as being somewhere between Hitler and Mussolini - of course republicans and democrats will both look left wing by these standards, but most people don't look at the world through this window.

The point I'm making is somewhat meta but please try to grasp it. Make a reply without redaction: go on just try it. Or read my posts twice.

The fact that you see a real right wing policy as MONSTROUSLY EVIL is the point. For you a right wing policy is not really a possible position, even though it's just as permitted by reality as all the various left wing positions. It's off the table before we start. So when I tell you that every newspaper is left wing, every TV station is left wing, every president is left wing, do you not now understand what I mean? Sure, within your very narrow window of "right wing policies I accept as vaguely legitimate" the US has a left and a right and Bush is on the right. But Bush cannot trace his ideological lineage back to the "America First" isolationists let alone back to the British imperialists. All he can do is trace it back to some leftists - Wilson and FDR mainly - whom time has condemned, like Stalin, to the social trash heap of "too right wing for the New York Times".

I could answer the other points but I won't, because this is the one the discussion is about, and it's not like you've been disciplined responding to every word of what I write.

[Hydesland]

The point I'm making is somewhat meta but please try to grasp it. Make a reply without redaction: go on just try it. Or read my posts twice.

The fact that you see a real right wing policy as MONSTROUSLY EVIL is the point. For you a right wing policy is not really a possible position, even though it's just as permitted by reality as all the various left wing positions. It's off the table before we start. So when I tell you that every newspaper is left wing, every TV station is left wing, every president is left wing, do you not now understand what I mean? Sure, within your very narrow window of "right wing policies I accept as vaguely legitimate" the US has a left and a right and Bush is on the right. But Bush cannot trace his ideological lineage back to the "America First" isolationists let alone back to the British imperialists. All he can do is trace it back to some leftists - Wilson and FDR mainly - whom time has condemned, like Stalin, to the social trash heap of "too right wing for the New York Times".

I could answer the other points but I won't, because this is the one the discussion is about, and it's not like you've been disciplined responding to every word of what I write.

I understand that you seem to be defining only policies that have extreme, sociopathic nihilistic disregard of the lives of millions of people as "true" right wing policies, and by those fringe standards Bush is left wing. I disregard your claim that neoconservative republicans trace their lineage mainly to FDR and Wilson, I regard that as revisionist nonsense.

[Frank Zipper]

A couple of UKIP officials have quit because of Nuttall and Banks' "crass insensitivity" over Hillsborough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39025522

[Tananat]

A couple of UKIP officials have quit because of Nuttall and Banks' "crass insensitivity" over Hillsborough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39025522

It's tactless as all hell, but if Labour are in as much trouble as people think they might be in the North, stuff like this is what they should play up.

[Philjia]

A couple of UKIP officials have quit because of Nuttall and Banks' "crass insensitivity" over Hillsborough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39025522

Nuttall and Banks are too insensitive for UKIP members. Impressive.

[Ifreann]

A couple of UKIP officials have quit because of Nuttall and Banks' "crass insensitivity" over Hillsborough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39025522

Nuttall and Banks are too insensitive for UKIP members. Impressive.

Well they're being insufficiently respectful towards white football fans, UKIP's primary demographic.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

The point I'm making is somewhat meta but please try to grasp it. Make a reply without redaction: go on just try it. Or read my posts twice.

The fact that you see a real right wing policy as MONSTROUSLY EVIL is the point. For you a right wing policy is not really a possible position, even though it's just as permitted by reality as all the various left wing positions. It's off the table before we start. So when I tell you that every newspaper is left wing, every TV station is left wing, every president is left wing, do you not now understand what I mean? Sure, within your very narrow window of "right wing policies I accept as vaguely legitimate" the US has a left and a right and Bush is on the right. But Bush cannot trace his ideological lineage back to the "America First" isolationists let alone back to the British imperialists. All he can do is trace it back to some leftists - Wilson and FDR mainly - whom time has condemned, like Stalin, to the social trash heap of "too right wing for the New York Times".

I could answer the other points but I won't, because this is the one the discussion is about, and it's not like you've been disciplined responding to every word of what I write.

I understand that you seem to be defining only policies that have extreme, sociopathic nihilistic disregard of the lives of millions of people as "true" right wing policies, and by those fringe standards Bush is left wing. I disregard your claim that neoconservative republicans trace their lineage mainly to FDR and Wilson, I regard that as revisionist nonsense.

Oh please. "Let 'em kill each other" is our exact policy right now, established by no less than B. H. Obama. So you're not outraged by dead Iraqi babies, you're outraged by the US making a profit, which perfectly fine and indeed in a sane world we should hope pro-social activities result in profits as that way we get more of them.

As for neoconservatism - I already showed you it was founded by Trotskyites. In strict ideological descent it's not even American; it's Russian Jewish. But most people who voted for Bush did so for the same reason they voted for Wilson and FDR: they believed America was a progressive revolutionary state that must export its revolution to the world. You can see how they got along so well with the Americanised Trotskyites.

[Elmstead]

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1381214-in ... d-into-eu/

[Hydesland]

Oh please. "Let 'em kill each other" is our exact policy right now, established by no less than B. H. Obama. So you're not outraged by dead Iraqi babies, you're outraged by the US making a profit, which perfectly fine and indeed in a sane world we should hope pro-social activities result in profits as that way we get more of them.

I thought you were saying no party was offering "true" right wing foreign policy any more, now you're saying it's what Obama did? Make your mind up please.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Oh please. "Let 'em kill each other" is our exact policy right now, established by no less than B. H. Obama. So you're not outraged by dead Iraqi babies, you're outraged by the US making a profit, which perfectly fine and indeed in a sane world we should hope pro-social activities result in profits as that way we get more of them.

I thought you were saying no party was offering "true" right wing foreign policy any more, now you're saying it's what Obama did? Make your mind up please.

Obama's policy is to let them all kill each other, not let the unimportant ones kill each other while taking the oil. Obama's policy isn't pro-American, it's just a repudiation of his predecessor's policy. Still, no one cares how many Iraqi babies it murdered - or at the very least no one blames their death on Obama.

[Eastfield Lodge]

I thought you were saying no party was offering "true" right wing foreign policy any more, now you're saying it's what Obama did? Make your mind up please.

Obama's policy is to let them all kill each other, not let the unimportant ones kill each other while taking the oil. Obama's policy is pro-American, it's just a repudiation of his predecessor's policy. Still, no one cares how many Iraqi babies it murdered - or at the very least no one blames their death on Obama.

No-one influential does, yeah. There are plenty in the Muslim community who believe that America is the root cause of all the Islamist insurgency in the world.

[The Huskar Social Union]

You heard about Sinn Fein though? Sinn Fein Gerry Adams Sinn Fein Radical Agenda Adams?

And the Belfast Telegraph writes that SF could be in for a hard fight with PBP for West Belfast seats, i personally hope the PBP gets a second seat here, but im still torn on thinking if they will or not.

[Ifreann]

You heard about Sinn Fein though? Sinn Fein Gerry Adams Sinn Fein Radical Agenda Adams?

Shin feign? Who are they?

[The Huskar Social Union]

You heard about Sinn Fein though? Sinn Fein Gerry Adams Sinn Fein Radical Agenda Adams?

Shin feign? Who are they?

They are the the arch enemy of mankind dont you know, they will literally end the world in five seconds if they become the largest party in NI.

This is literally what it will be like:

[Ifreann]

Shin feign? Who are they?

They are the the arch enemy of mankind dont you know, they will literally end the world in five seconds if they become the largest party in NI.

This is literally what it will be like:

Gerry Adams jumping over a railing in America as something explodes in the background.

May God have mercy on us all.

[The Huskar Social Union]

They are the the arch enemy of mankind dont you know, they will literally end the world in five seconds if they become the largest party in NI.

This is literally what it will be like:

Gerry Adams jumping over a railing in America as something explodes in the background.

May God have mercy on us all.

Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein literally killed God too.

Arlene told me so.

[Alvecia]

Gerry Adams jumping over a railing in America as something explodes in the background.

May God have mercy on us all.

Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein literally killed God too.

Arlene told me so.

"God is dead" - Arlene Nietzsche

[The ISCA]

Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein literally killed God too.

Arlene told me so.

"God is dead" - Arlene Nietzsche

[Souseiseki]

http://mashable.com/2017/02/19/snoopers ... dI0STZ2mqD

The warrants are made by secret courts in the utmost secrecy and making the content public is a criminal offence.

"Were an Apple v FBI scenario to occur in the UK, Apple would not be able to disclose even the fact that it had been served with a notice, let alone challenge it in court," says Silkie Carlo of Liberty.


holy shit it's so bad

[Ifreann]

http://mashable.com/2017/02/19/snoopers-charter/#4QdI0STZ2mqD

The warrants are made by secret courts in the utmost secrecy and making the content public is a criminal offence.

"Were an Apple v FBI scenario to occur in the UK, Apple would not be able to disclose even the fact that it had been served with a notice, let alone challenge it in court," says Silkie Carlo of Liberty.


holy shit it's so bad

But the government needs to be able to spy on everyone at all times. Because terrorism.

[Lovesickcatboy]

Given that Parliament is omnipotent in all things save (conveniently) its own omnipotence, I'm not especially surprised.

[Souseiseki]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... u-citizens

LES ENNEMIS DU PEUPLE