Are conservative parties hateful?

[Broader Confederate States]

I wish I lived in your reality. Unfortunately in the real world the Democrats had no issue with one of their representatives saying that gun owners should be killed with nuclear bombs.

Wait what?

eric swalwell, like... 2016 i think it was? maybe 17.

[Major-Tom]

I'm not saying the Tories don't deserve a ton of flak, they did and still do, I'm simply saying that I'm glad Corbyn is out so the radical, buffoonish MPs don't hijack an otherwise sensible party.

Corbyn was highly popular, and if the UK had a PR system back in 2017, he would have been able to run the country either as a minority government with support from other parties, or form a coalition.
He won a larger shares of the seat than Blair did in 2005.
And his policies are still popular.

I could go on, but that's why we have the UK politics thread.

I liked him back then, so I get it. But yes, I agree.

[Celritannia]

Hahahahaha.
Oh, he is hateful.

To the poor, certainly.

You really have to remember the bar I've set here, having had a first-hand look at US politics for far too long has really lowered my standards. I'm used to the far-right antics across the Pond, it makes your politics seem far more manageable, even if Boris is just an absolute buffoon.

He called Muslim women who wear the burqa "letter box ladies", black people "piccaninnies with watermelon mouths", gay men "tanked-topped bum-boys".
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T

[Page]

You currently live in a society where cops could break down your door and traumatize your family and put them in a cage for having a plant that the state doesn't like in your house but you are only horrified when the same thing happens over a bump stock?

So do you have an actual argument beyond whataboutism?

Also, I think you could use a refresher course in the difference between liberals and leftists. Leftists are all for the people being armed.

So which dominant left wing parties in western countries are advocating for more protection of the rights of gun owners?

There aren't many dominant left-wing parties in the West.

[Crockerland]

Also, in what world are leftists against gun rights. If you even read a single page of Marx, you would know he was more pro-gun than most republicans or even libertarians. The democrats are somewhat-progressive capitalists and fall under the category of neoliberalism, which is on the economic right.

Because Leftist thought as a whole has not changed or evolved whatsoever since 1883 when Marx died.

[Saiwania]

That sounds hateful.

I don't see why it would be if its what is practical. It is how it works in China, and countries have to prevent overpopulation or conversely, declining population (without resorting to immigration) if there are signs of it being unsustainable for that nation's national interests and stability. Also, the finances for the national budget has to be in the black. Its unfeasible to be too generous in terms of the government providing entitlements.

[Crockerland]

So do you have an actual argument beyond whataboutism?


So which dominant left wing parties in western countries are advocating for more protection of the rights of gun owners?

There aren't many dominant left-wing parties in the West.

Okay, which left-wing parties anywhere are advocating for more protection of the rights of gun owners?

[Odreria]

Or maybe give the parents a job and a generous subsidy for raising a child. Also what Nanatsu said yeah, your opinion is not worth consideration.

If I had a child, my feelings wouldn't matter

The more things change the more they stay the same I guess

[Sanghyeok]

Also, in what world are leftists against gun rights. If you even read a single page of Marx, you would know he was more pro-gun than most republicans or even libertarians. The democrats are somewhat-progressive capitalists and fall under the category of neoliberalism, which is on the economic right.

Because Leftist thought as a whole has not changed or evolved whatsoever since 1883 when Marx died.

Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Rosenberg, Che, etc: Am I a joke to you?

[Major-Tom]

To the poor, certainly.

You really have to remember the bar I've set here, having had a first-hand look at US politics for far too long has really lowered my standards. I'm used to the far-right antics across the Pond, it makes your politics seem far more manageable, even if Boris is just an absolute buffoon.

He called Muslim women who wear the burqa "letter box ladies", black people "piccaninnies with watermelon mouths", gay men "tanked-topped bum-boys".
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T

What I'm really trying to say is that my standards are low, I know he sucks, I know he's a twat, and I do know what he has said. Probably a hateful person, yes, I kind of misspoke in an effort to convey the point that "he is more incompetent than anything else."

[Sanghyeok]

That sounds hateful.

I don't see why it would be if its what is practical. It is how it works in China, and countries have to prevent overpopulation or conversely, declining population (without resorting to immigration) if there are signs of it being unsustainable for that nation's national interests and stability. Also, the finances for the national budget has to be in the black. Its unfeasible to be too generous in terms of the government providing entitlements.

Focusing on a balanced budget instead of helping starving people doesn't seem like a good policy.

[Kiu Ghesik]

To the poor, certainly.

You really have to remember the bar I've set here, having had a first-hand look at US politics for far too long has really lowered my standards. I'm used to the far-right antics across the Pond, it makes your politics seem far more manageable, even if Boris is just an absolute buffoon.

He called Muslim women who wear the burqa "letter box ladies", black people "piccaninnies with watermelon mouths", gay men "tanked-topped bum-boys".
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T

He's like a moderately more eloquent and humorous Trump while somehow managing to be twice as offensive and outrageous. It's beautiful.

[Empirical Switzerland]

Because Leftist thought as a whole has not changed or evolved whatsoever since 1883 when Marx died.

Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Rosenberg, Che, etc: Am I a joke to you?

To a lot of people, yes.

[Muralos]

@what Crockerland brought up earlier: that's a valid cause for concern and I think it's something people should think about. In response... I just hope that the Democratic Party will address the concerns you brought up. I don't think the answer is to be pushed to the right, as the Republican Party has some deal-breaking flaws IMO.

[Luminesa]

gotta love the tories

It appears to be true that in a broad sense, intermittent fasting or having fewer calories on a regular basis is correlated with more longevity.

Children however, are perhaps too young to where them lacking the nutrition they need is more negative than positive in terms of their physical development if they're still in the growing stage biologically. Wealthy countries usually have too many calorie rich foods available to begin with by default. I doubt any children are going to be harmed too much if their school doesn't provide for lunch. They surely have food at home or should.

Where do I start?

Intermittent fasting is not a guaranteed health benefit for all children. Diets are not a one-size-fit-all issue. Some children need certain diets, others can have the general diet recommended by their school district. However, there are certain staples children need. They need healthy meals that will fill them, with a variety of choices from the main food groups.

Children are ABSOLUTELY harmed by not having proper meals at school. Considering the massive number of children who qualify for free lunches, they oftentimes cannot get access to the food they need at home because of a variety of situations. Poverty, crime, access to grocery stores, access to good produce, etc. Not having adequate lunches provided hurts EVERYTHING. Academic performance, exercise, metabolism, socialization, physical health, mental health, emotional health, psychological health, even spiritual health.

Please take this from someone who actually has studied children’s nutrition in her career path.

[Sanghyeok]

He called Muslim women who wear the burqa "letter box ladies", black people "piccaninnies with watermelon mouths", gay men "tanked-topped bum-boys".
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T

He's like a moderately more eloquent and humorous Trump while somehow managing to be twice as offensive and outrageous. It's beautiful.

He went to Oxbridge though, so that's something.

[Albrenia]

He called Muslim women who wear the burqa "letter box ladies", black people "piccaninnies with watermelon mouths", gay men "tanked-topped bum-boys".
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T

What I'm really trying to say is that my standards are low, I know he sucks, I know he's a twat, and I do know what he has said. Probably a hateful person, yes, I kind of misspoke in an effort to convey the point that "he is more incompetent than anything else."

He's basically British Trump. Just without all the narcissism and with even worse hair, and a bit more intelligence.

[Sanghyeok]

Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Rosenberg, Che, etc: Am I a joke to you?

To a lot of people, yes.

Apparently not, since the US has tried to overthrow more socialist governments than phone chargers I've been through in the past few years.

[Odreria]

He called Muslim women who wear the burqa "letter box ladies", black people "piccaninnies with watermelon mouths", gay men "tanked-topped bum-boys".
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T

What I'm really trying to say is that my standards are low, I know he sucks, I know he's a twat, and I do know what he has said. Probably a hateful person, yes, I kind of misspoke in an effort to convey the point that "he is more incompetent than anything else."

There's a unique blend of savagery and incompetence that defines the tory party, and in fairness Boris has tuned down the savagery a bit.

[Celritannia]

He's like a moderately more eloquent and humorous Trump while somehow managing to be twice as offensive and outrageous. It's beautiful.

He went to Oxbridge though, so that's something.

His teachers thought he was a lazy and incompetent, so...

[Crockerland]

@what Crockerland brought up earlier: that's a valid cause for concern and I think it's something people should think about. In response... I just hope that the Democratic Party will address the concerns you brought up. I don't think the answer is to be pushed to the right, as the Republican Party has some deal-breaking flaws IMO.

That's a reasonable position. Both parties certainly have flaws.

[Sanghyeok]

What I'm really trying to say is that my standards are low, I know he sucks, I know he's a twat, and I do know what he has said. Probably a hateful person, yes, I kind of misspoke in an effort to convey the point that "he is more incompetent than anything else."

He's basically British Trump. Just without all the narcissism and with even worse hair, and a bit more intelligence.

Better hair, better accent, and less bigoted on the outside.

[Wizlandia]

To the poor, certainly.

You really have to remember the bar I've set here, having had a first-hand look at US politics for far too long has really lowered my standards. I'm used to the far-right antics across the Pond, it makes your politics seem far more manageable, even if Boris is just an absolute buffoon.

He called Muslim women who wear the burqa "letter box ladies", black people "piccaninnies with watermelon mouths", gay men "tanked-topped bum-boys".
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T

Iirc the context for the first was in an article he wrote defending muslim women's right to wear burqa's, the second was mocking Blair for his foreign policy. Too colourful and a poor choice of words, but I don't see it as hateful.

Don't remember the specific context around "tanked-topped bum boys" so I won't comment on it.

[Celritannia]

He called Muslim women who wear the burqa "letter box ladies", black people "piccaninnies with watermelon mouths", gay men "tanked-topped bum-boys".
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T

Iirc the context for the first was in an article he wrote defending muslim women's right to wear burqa's, the second was mocking Blair for his foreign policy. Too colourful and a poor choice of words, but I don't see it as hateful.

Don't remember the specific context around "tanked-topped bum boys" so I won't comment on it.

The fact he said it is hateful enough.

[Muralos]

I don't see why it would be if its what is practical. It is how it works in China, and countries have to prevent overpopulation or conversely, declining population (without resorting to immigration) if there are signs of it being unsustainable for that nation's national interests and stability. Also, the finances for the national budget has to be in the black. Its unfeasible to be too generous in terms of the government providing entitlements.

Focusing on a balanced budget instead of helping starving people doesn't seem like a good policy.

The fiscal conservatives in America would try to have both. LOL. But maybe the former is a burden on pursuing the latter?