Rees-Mogg

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:49 am

third try

Now just read what I've put Rowls, I've put it into column order as you must have an issue with the mere horizontal reading that the vast majority of us can handle quite adequately

IMAGINE
THE
REACTION
IF
SADIQ KHAN
HELD
THESE
VIEWS

That is the point I've made, and the one you are not answering because you know that if you do, you'll have to admit that the reaction would be, shall we say, somewhat different?

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:51 am

Hahaha, Rowls is having an absolute nightmare this morning

The Enclosure · Post by **The Enclosure** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:51 am

I respect his right to have religious beliefs but he is elected to parliament to represent his constituents many of whom do not share his religion...keep religion out of politics.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:54 am

I think the left want to see Rees-Mogg in charge of the Tory party.
For the same reasons lots of Tories joined the Labour party to put Corbyn in charge.
He's a bit bonkers and unelectable

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:56 am

Thats the thing Damo, he isn't bonkers.

He's clinical, very bright and clearly a man with very strongly held views.

He's only a Panzerarmee away from invading Poland though!

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:00 am

In certain circumstances women might die if they don't have an abortion, yet people such as Rees Mogg believe that the woman must risk death in those situations.

How can that be morally right?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:01 am

Quick!

Let me edit my post....

Anyone else care to get into a big fuff pretending they know exactly what Sadiq Khan thinks about abortion. I've only said if he follows the teaching he should believe a certain thing. Perhaps you want to take a BBC source as a definitive guide to Islam like Ighten?

The fact is, all I've done is point out three politicians who hold very similar views (they're all -to my knowledge- very much against abortion in their privately held personal beliefs for religious reasons) but are of varying degrees in how pragmatically they accommodate their personal views with their political careers.

I've not even said which approach I favour.

And yet there's multiple posters getting huffy about it.

Isn't anyone going to jump to the defence of Tony Blair, who I also named?

Is it only Sadiq khan that people are interested in "defending"?

Anyone for Blair?

No?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:04 am

Fourth try

F**K it, just read the other three attempts.

Can you honestly not see the point I'm making?

Its Ringo levels of belmtardary that you are showing here

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:04 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:third try

Now just read what I've put Rowls, I've put it into column order as you must have an issue with the mere horizontal reading that the vast majority of us can handle quite adequately

IMAGINE
THE
REACTION
IF
SADIQ KHAN
were
to
publicly
say
he
HELD
THESE
VIEWS

That is the point I've made, and the one you are not answering because you know that if you do, you'll have to admit that the reaction would be, shall we say, somewhat different?

I don't "have to admit" anything because I simply am not interested in doing so or am bothered about it.

You YOU "have to admit" is that you've decided to only defend one of the politicians I named. I named Blair AND Khan yet you're only interested in "defending" Khan.

Why is that?

Go on you have to tell us. You HAVE TO.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:05 am

I'm not sure Tony Blair's views are particularly relevant seeing as this is 2017.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:05 am

Walton wrote:Hahaha, Rowls is having an absolute nightmare this morning

Utter nightmare Walton.

It's like my teeth are falling out and I've forgotten to get dressed.

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:06 am

Rileybobs wrote:I'm not sure Tony Blair's views are particularly relevant seeing as this is 2017.

Can you tell Tony, he still seems to think they are.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:07 am

Rowls wrote:Utter nightmare Walton.

It's like my teeth are falling out and I've forgotten to get dressed.

You shouldn't be on the absinthe at this time in a morning, even if it is the local tipple

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:09 am

Walton wrote:You shouldn't be on the absinthe at this time in a morning, even if it is the local tipple

Oh dear.

What a nightmare you're having.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:10 am

You'd be bothered about it if Khan held the same views as Rees Mogg though.

Thats the point that I'm trying to get into that rather closed mind that you have.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:11 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You'd be bothered about it if Khan held the same views as Rees Mogg though.
Thats the point that I'm trying to get into that rather closed mind that you have.

Thank you.

That's enough for me now.

We've got to the nub of it though didn't we? You're ascribing me with views you think I have or hope I have.

And you have the sheer cheek to imply you've got an open mind on the matter!

I'm out now.

Thanks.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:14 am

Rileybobs wrote:I'm not sure Tony Blair's views are particularly relevant seeing as this is 2017.

It was a comparison of politicians who all hold private, religious beliefs or follow religious scriptures which are firmly anti-abortion.

Anne Widdecombe was named too and she's as irrelevant as Tony Blair if not more so.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:14 am

Nice exit.

You've left behind both your dignity and any credibility you had left.

Have a nice day!

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:21 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You'd be bothered about it if Khan held the same views as Rees Mogg though.
Thats the point that I'm trying to get into that rather closed mind that you have.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:22 am

Rowls wrote:He's incredibly posh (not sure how relevant this is to much) but I challenge you to find a single quote from that demonstrates anything close to "bigotry".

i don't need to, thanks, i've seen his voting record.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:24 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You'd be bothered about it if Khan held the same views as Rees Mogg though.
Thats the point that I'm trying to get into that rather closed mind that you have.

Nothing beats this for irony.

You ascribe me a view you think I should have and accuse me of having a closed mind at the same time.

Cheers Lancaster, it's been a hoot.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:25 am

BleedingClaret wrote:I'll come across as somewhat racist but that is my main issue with immigration, or certain immigrants, as the more religious the communities of people that come to this country are the less they are likely to be willing to abide by the laws and humanity standards of our country.
The law of their religion is king.

And so 400+ yrs pf persecution of Catholics (much of it enshrined in law) is now justifiably aimed at Muslim's, Hndu's, Buddists etc. For the record the Jews have the longest unbroken streak of persecution and there has been little of any standard of humanity in their treatment.

it is less than 40 yrs since Irish people in this country were treated with the same racism as asains are now

Ightenclaret · Post by **Ightenclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:29 am

Cheers Rowls
Don't forget to edit your post.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:33 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Fourth try
F**K it, just read the other three attempts.
Can you honestly not see the point I'm making?
Its Ringo levels of belmtardary that you are showing here

Oohhh I didn't see this post.

Quite a candid and confident post for somebody who was arguing from an entirely false position based upon an incorrect assumption of my beliefs made because of your own prejudices.

Next time we engage, I'll ask you what you *think* I believe from the start and I can put you right from the start so we can cut out all your crap.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:34 am

Nope, you are deflecting again.

You don't want to answer the point being made, because you know you would have to agree with me.

Why is that such a problem?

Its obvious to all that these views if held by Sadiq Khan would mean a completely different reaction.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:34 am

Ightenclaret wrote:Cheers Rowls
Don't forget to edit your post.

Which one?

What for?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:35 am

Deflecting again.

God, its sad what a parody of yourself you've become.

Ightenclaret · Post by **Ightenclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:35 am

Rowls wrote:Which one?

What for?

Your BBC link.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:36 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Nope, you are deflecting again.

You don't want to answer the point being made, because you know you would have to agree with me.

Why is that such a problem?

Its obvious to all that these views if held by Sadiq Khan would mean a completely different reaction.

Muslim views on abortion are the same as Catholic ones for the record

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:42 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Nope, you are deflecting again.
You don't want to answer the point being made, because you know you would have to agree with me.
Why is that such a problem?
Its obvious to all that these views if held by Sadiq Khan would mean a completely different reaction.

Agree with you on what??

Here's what's happened: You have ascribed me with a view I do not hold. You never even asked my point of view.

Here you are doing it:

Lancasterclaret wrote:You'd be bothered about it if Khan held the same views as Rees Mogg though.
Thats the point that I'm trying to get into that rather closed mind that you have.

For the record I'm not "bothered" by Rees-Mogg's views and I very much doubt I'd be "bothered" by Sadiq Khan's views and I happen to think that their private views would be very, very similar. Rees-Mogg has made his personal views public, I am not aware of Sadiq Khan doing the same, as is his prerogative.

There's nothing up with your argument - you follow a perfect logic. The "only" fault is that you based your entire argument on ascribing me with a view that I don't possess. Absolute classic. You didn't even bother to ask me.

You went straight in there assuming I'm "bothered" about Sadiq Khan but all fine and dandy with Rees-Mogg.

What do you think that shows about yourself?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:42 am

Not ever denied that, and it shows what a good job Rowls has done is deflecting that you feel the need to clarify that.

The point I made is that the views held by Rees-Mogg would result in a completely different reaction from the same papers and commentators that are praising Rees Mogg for his "honesty"

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:44 am

God you are annoying.

Go back to the first, second and third attempts.

Then we can argue about whether you have a closed mind or not.

One thing at a time eh?

You clearly are struggling with anything more complex at the moment.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:44 am

Spijed wrote:In certain circumstances women might die if they don't have an abortion, yet people such as Rees Mogg believe that the woman must risk death in those situations.

How can that be morally right?

It's very difficult to find a "morally right" solution to the position where you are asked to kill one person to save the life of another. Again, this is an easy question for people who don't believe an unborn foetus is a valuable human being; harder for those that do.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:45 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:The point I made is that the views held by Rees-Mogg would result in a completely different reaction from the same papers and commentators that are praising Rees Mogg for his "honesty"

Yeah they probably would because papers are partisan like that.

But that's not the problem is it?

The problem is loud and clear.

It is the fact you based your entire argument on a false assumption about me.

Here it is again:

Lancasterclaret wrote:You'd be bothered about it if Khan held the same views as Rees Mogg though.
Thats the point that I'm trying to get into that rather closed mind that you have.

Braindead · Post by **Braindead** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:47 am

Another thread descends into a pisslng contest.

How delightful.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:48 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Then we can argue about whether you have a closed mind or not.

Feel free to start a new thread on whether I have a closed mind or not.

You might want to consider the fact that you've falsely assumed I hold beliefs I don't (and based a couple of pages arguing with me based on the false assumption) first though.

Consider whether it might come across as a bit ironic or even lacking in self-awareness if you do start such a thread.

But feel free to start the "Does Rowls have a closed mind?" thread. I'll join in if I feel like it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:51 am

I know Braindead I can only apologise.

He's admitted the point I was making is perfectly valid, after numerous and pointless attempts to deflect it.

Rest of it is as you say, just a ******* contest.

Apologies again.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:51 am

Braindead wrote:Another thread descends into a pisslng contest.
How delightful.

I know.

I'm sorry. I genuinely am.

But who on here would ever put up with constantly being told "you're a racist" or "you're a homophobe" or "you're a sexist"?

The false assumption that Lancaster made about me has very clear connotations - that I'd behave one way towards Rees-Mogg but an entirely different way to Khan.

It's false, it's wrong and it's entirely a fabrication inside his own head.

And I'll flag up for as long as I can because I'm not prepared to have baseless, false, damaging and untrue smears and accusations thrown at me just because of the prejudices of another poster on here.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:53 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I know Braindead I can only apologise.
He's admitted the point I was making is perfectly valid, after numerous and pointless attempts to deflect it.
Rest of it is as you say, just a ******* contest.
Apologies again.

Hang on.

You're willing to apologise straight away for that yet you're yet to make an apology for this:

Lancasterclaret wrote:You'd be bothered about it if Khan held the same views as Rees Mogg though.
Thats the point that I'm trying to get into that rather closed mind that you have.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:53 am

You utter berk.

If you actually answered the question in the first place

and the second place

and the third place

then you wouldn't have got so offended.

Snowflake

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:57 am

Imagine for a second Lancaster how you'd feel if I accused you of being a paedophile. Y'know, not in a light-hearted stupid jokey kinda way but SERIOUSLY accused you of molesting young children.

Then consider that you've essentially accused me of being a racist in public:

Lancasterclaret wrote:You'd be bothered about it if Khan held the same views as Rees Mogg though.
Thats the point that I'm trying to get into that rather closed mind that you have.

And then, as our American friends might put it-

Go figure.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:59 am

I drew the conclusion that I made based on your refusal to answer a perfectly straight forward point I was making.

Not once,

Not twice

Not even three times

I decided that as it was really obvious, then the only other reason was that you couldn't accept it is that you have a closed mind about the influence and the rank hypocrisy that the right wing media in this country have.

You've agreed with that (eventually)

The post I made isn't correct, because I don't know you and I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt about how you'd react.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:01 pm

No, I haven't btw

Sadiq Khan is a Labour politician, and I'm pretty sure you'd treat it differently because of his political views.

Why would you think differently?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:06 pm

People can decide for themselves who's in the right and who's in the wrong here Lancs.

But apparently you think it's fine to base arguments entirely on prejudices that exist purely inside your head.

And once you've established the prejudice firmly in your head, you're quite entitled to ask silly asides based entirely on your own prejudices.

And when you reveal your prejudices and get told they are false - well, it's best just to carry on regardless maintaining the prejudice in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. After all, if you don't need any evidence to draw your "conclusions" then your own personal prejudices are as good a thing to base an argument on as anything else.

You certainly need not apologize for your personal prejudices. I'm sure you can justify all of this to yourself.

Good day to you Lancaster.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:07 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:No, I haven't btw
Sadiq Khan is a Labour politician, and I'm pretty sure you'd treat it differently because of his political views.
Why would you think differently?

LOL

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:11 pm

LOL yourself

Have a nice day in France, while you still can.

jlup1980 · Post by **jlup1980** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:13 pm

He's a big posh sod with plums in his mouth, and the plums have mutated and got beaks.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:23 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:he's a backward, posh bigot who is well out of touch with reality.

rees-mogg, that is, not blackrod.

You could have been describing corbyn there .....

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:29 pm

claretandy wrote:You could have been describing corbyn there .....

Someone further up the thread described Corbyn as being 40 years out of date. Well if that's the case, Jacob Rees-Mogg is about 140 years out of date.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:33 pm

Rowls wrote:People can decide for themselves who's in the right and who's in the wrong here Lancs.

Clearly Lancs and im sure anyone with half a brain understood the point he was making at the first attempt but well done in catching up eventually