News0 min ago
How Can The Truth Be Offensive?
"Nigel Farage has argued on Sky News that a "growing number" of young Muslims in the UK do not subscribe to British values." - bang on, it seems the truth offends the trobiscite supporters if Islam.
Answers
gromit: "It isn't the truth.
Opposing Israel's massacre of 35,000 muslims in Gaza is not anti-British. Many British lives were lost in Palestine by terrorists establishing the State of Israel.
Idly watching the carnage and saying nothing is not British, and not morally right." - this isn't about the Hamas terrorists it's about muslims here not embracing the British way of life and trying to turn it into some sort of caliphate.
I think he implies it is a sufficiently large portion of Muslims to conclude it is a national problem. Especially when not every supporter of something actively protests for it. Hamas/Israeli conflict to one side, as it is a red herring in this thread, there is still a perception issue about followers of Islam that is mainly down to a visible lack of integration and insistent demands by some that the worst parts of their culture take root here. It's a problem that particular religious group needs to address. Or at least those insistent on holding anti-British culture views ought to find a place where they would be happier, rather than try to force change here.
Yes, TTTs video is much more compelling that Hymie's. Hymie doesn't have a mind of his own and relies on You Tube to form his opinion.
Hopkins makes a compelling point about the Brexit vote, in that the Femi of the world consider their vote more important than older people because they have to live with the consequences. That's not how democracy works. The left may not like it, but all votes are equal.
BTW, I voted remain, the difference is I respect democracy. The whiners do not.
TTT - // Femi V Katie! //
As any regular on this site knows, I rate Katie Hopkins' opinions on anything as slightly less valid and useful than a four-year-old's opinion on the dark side of the moon.
But I was seriously impressed with her ability to conduct an interview with a naive and seriously under-prepared mouthpiece for a bogus organisation.
Democracy means that any vote is taken, and binding, on the day it is taken.
The notion that a younger demographic will hold sway in a pre-determined timescale is arrant nonsense, because it does not allow for the simple fact that in 'x' number of years, everyone gets another vote which is also valis at the time, not just people under twenty-five who voted to remain this time.
And Katie Hopkins, to my considerable admiration, skewered the facile nonsese of this fool's argument with cold logic, incisive questions, cool logic, and the ability to tug hard on the line when the fish is gasping.
If she carries on doing things like this, my opnion of her is open to reversal - because I am never unwilling to admit if i am in error, and on the basis of this, I may be.
But I doubt it - because next time I see her, she will probably revert to type which is stating the obvious as though she is the first and only person to have thought of it.
But this time - hat off to Ms Hopkins.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.