I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics0 min ago
"britain First"
Answers
I know you can't judge people by appearances, but why is it that not one of the people supporting this party look and sound like people you would want to spend above thirty seconds with?
17:11 Mon 28th Sep 2015
BF is described as Far Right on Wiki, but I didn't need to read that to come to the conclusion. There are plenty of people on this topic that refuse to condemn BF but there is no doubt that BF are indeed Far Right.
I don't want to continue to repeat myself here, so I don't think I can add anything new to this debate !
I don't want to continue to repeat myself here, so I don't think I can add anything new to this debate !
Khandro
You continually use the term 'far right' on this and many other threads. Would you please say how you define that, what does it mean to you?
mikey4444
BF is described as Far Right on Wiki, but I didn't need to read that to come to the conclusion. There are plenty of people on this topic that refuse to condemn BF but there is no doubt that BF are indeed Far Right.
I don't want to continue to repeat myself here, so I don't think I can add anything new to this debate !
Unbelievable!
You continually use the term 'far right' on this and many other threads. Would you please say how you define that, what does it mean to you?
mikey4444
BF is described as Far Right on Wiki, but I didn't need to read that to come to the conclusion. There are plenty of people on this topic that refuse to condemn BF but there is no doubt that BF are indeed Far Right.
I don't want to continue to repeat myself here, so I don't think I can add anything new to this debate !
Unbelievable!
Mikey - If Paul Golding or Jayda Fransen appeared on Question Time, rest assured there would be no beating around the bush and direct answers would be certain! Trouble is Dimbleby does not seem to easily reign in some less fiery panellists as chairperson.
BF were really about supporting UKIP, they were very open about that during the General Election. Huge social media following,maybe but only 56 votes where Fransen stood in Rochester/Strood.
BF were really about supporting UKIP, they were very open about that during the General Election. Huge social media following,maybe but only 56 votes where Fransen stood in Rochester/Strood.
andy-hughes
/// My view is that anti-abortionists are very nasty people, and of course, I am entitled to hold that view. ///
Oh so it is all right for you to insult people who hold opposite views to you, but if anyone else dares to do the same against you, then?????
Well we all know what happens then don't we?
/// My view is that anti-abortionists are very nasty people, and of course, I am entitled to hold that view. ///
Oh so it is all right for you to insult people who hold opposite views to you, but if anyone else dares to do the same against you, then?????
Well we all know what happens then don't we?
AOG - //andy-hughes
/// My view is that anti-abortionists are very nasty people, and of course, I am entitled to hold that view. ///
Oh so it is all right for you to insult people who hold opposite views to you, but if anyone else dares to do the same against you, then?????
Well we all know what happens then don't we? //
If you check out the 'Abortion' thread running in tandem with this one, you will see that I have amended my position on this, and apologised for my extreme expression of my views.
So no, it is not alright, and I have withdrawn my remarks and apologised - hope you can pop over and have a look.
/// My view is that anti-abortionists are very nasty people, and of course, I am entitled to hold that view. ///
Oh so it is all right for you to insult people who hold opposite views to you, but if anyone else dares to do the same against you, then?????
Well we all know what happens then don't we? //
If you check out the 'Abortion' thread running in tandem with this one, you will see that I have amended my position on this, and apologised for my extreme expression of my views.
So no, it is not alright, and I have withdrawn my remarks and apologised - hope you can pop over and have a look.
If it takes the outward appearance of some individuals to frighten people away then that is their problem, but since we seem to be in short supply of well turned out individuals, who are prepared to speak out in defence of their country, their heritage, their citizens, then we must make the best of what we have got.
At least I prefer them to the great unwashed Far-Left, which strangely hardly ever get criticised, but are no better than the others.
Obviously this doesn't please the Anti-British Brigade, the Commies etc, but who cares?
Interesting to note that both andy-hughes and mikey4444 chose to ignore my 14:17 Tue 29th Sep 2015 post.
At least I prefer them to the great unwashed Far-Left, which strangely hardly ever get criticised, but are no better than the others.
Obviously this doesn't please the Anti-British Brigade, the Commies etc, but who cares?
Interesting to note that both andy-hughes and mikey4444 chose to ignore my 14:17 Tue 29th Sep 2015 post.
AOG - //If it takes the outward appearance of some individuals to frighten people away then that is their problem, but since we seem to be in short supply of well turned out individuals, who are prepared to speak out in defence of their country, their heritage, their citizens, then we must make the best of what we have got. //
It has nothing to do with their appearance.
It is entirely encapsulated in their aggressive body language, the hatred that spills out of their mouths, and their cold brain-dead eyes.
You could put every one of them in a suit and spats, and the above would not change.
//Interesting to note that both andy-hughes and mikey4444 chose to ignore my 14:17 Tue 29th Sep 2015 post.//
I did not ignore your post - my response is the next one after yours on the thread.
It has nothing to do with their appearance.
It is entirely encapsulated in their aggressive body language, the hatred that spills out of their mouths, and their cold brain-dead eyes.
You could put every one of them in a suit and spats, and the above would not change.
//Interesting to note that both andy-hughes and mikey4444 chose to ignore my 14:17 Tue 29th Sep 2015 post.//
I did not ignore your post - my response is the next one after yours on the thread.
andy-hughes
I had need to go over to 'Religion & Spirituality' for this, a section where I have never been.
/// vestuste - I can see that I have inadvertently expressed a view which I do not actually hold.
I have said that I regard anti-abortionists as very nasty people.
I would wish to amend that view and say that I regard anti-abortionists as people who hold a very nasty view on the subject of abortion - a fine but important distinction. ///
So for some reason or other you have now shifted the goal posts a little, so in your eyes these non-nasty people are not nasty after all, it is only the views that they hold that are nasty?
Which means that non-nasty people can still hold nasty views?
/// I also believe that the view of people who hold a blanket 'anti-abortion' option are misguided. ///
Oh so to add more injury to them, in your opinion, they are misguided as well?
/// I hope that has cleared up any confusion - I did get a bit carried away with the 'nasty' adjective on the 'Britain First' thread, and brought it over here, where it really has no viable place. ///
In conclusion it would seem that it is perfectly all right to use the 'nasty' adjective in the news section, but it has no viable place over in 'Religion & Spirituality'
I had need to go over to 'Religion & Spirituality' for this, a section where I have never been.
/// vestuste - I can see that I have inadvertently expressed a view which I do not actually hold.
I have said that I regard anti-abortionists as very nasty people.
I would wish to amend that view and say that I regard anti-abortionists as people who hold a very nasty view on the subject of abortion - a fine but important distinction. ///
So for some reason or other you have now shifted the goal posts a little, so in your eyes these non-nasty people are not nasty after all, it is only the views that they hold that are nasty?
Which means that non-nasty people can still hold nasty views?
/// I also believe that the view of people who hold a blanket 'anti-abortion' option are misguided. ///
Oh so to add more injury to them, in your opinion, they are misguided as well?
/// I hope that has cleared up any confusion - I did get a bit carried away with the 'nasty' adjective on the 'Britain First' thread, and brought it over here, where it really has no viable place. ///
In conclusion it would seem that it is perfectly all right to use the 'nasty' adjective in the news section, but it has no viable place over in 'Religion & Spirituality'
AOG - I am not going to get into yet another exhausting exchange where every minute aspect of every post I write is analysed and questioned.
I have made my views clear to the people I was debating with, and they have obviously accepted the points I made.
I do not think anything will be gained by you and I thrashing it all out over again, so let's leave it there shall we.
I have made my views clear to the people I was debating with, and they have obviously accepted the points I made.
I do not think anything will be gained by you and I thrashing it all out over again, so let's leave it there shall we.
andy-hughes
It is this, what threw people.
/// I know you can't judge people by appearances, ///
But you then went on to put,
/// but why is it that not one of the people supporting this party look and sound like people you would want to spend above thirty seconds with? ///
The inclusion of the word 'LOOK' is appertaining to 'APPEARANCE', surely?
It is this, what threw people.
/// I know you can't judge people by appearances, ///
But you then went on to put,
/// but why is it that not one of the people supporting this party look and sound like people you would want to spend above thirty seconds with? ///
The inclusion of the word 'LOOK' is appertaining to 'APPEARANCE', surely?
andy-hughes
/// AOG - I am not going to get into yet another exhausting exchange where every minute aspect of every post I write is analysed and questioned. ///
Isn't that what debating is all about? Are we not to analyse and question what you write, you yourself do not refrain from doing the same against other ABers.
/// I have made my views clear to the people I was debating with, and they have obviously accepted the points I made. ///
On the contrary, far from accepting the points you have made, many have rejected them.
/// AOG - I am not going to get into yet another exhausting exchange where every minute aspect of every post I write is analysed and questioned. ///
Isn't that what debating is all about? Are we not to analyse and question what you write, you yourself do not refrain from doing the same against other ABers.
/// I have made my views clear to the people I was debating with, and they have obviously accepted the points I made. ///
On the contrary, far from accepting the points you have made, many have rejected them.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Food & Drink12 mins ago
