BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 11:48 AM

Four...
Three...
Two...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:16 PM

Has BWM got his finger on the nuclear button :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:29 PM

He certainly has his finger on the pulse of the way this thread is going.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:31 PM

"You [ate] back to [you] [pedantic] typo mode - you know damn well he was not suggesting that homosexual men should be allowed to [sake] [satisfaction] from whoever [that] choose
Back to typos"

Priceless Jom, simply priceless.

Continue the countdown BWM your pals are getting slaughtered once again, and no doubt they are frantically PM-ing mods to kill the thread before they are embarrassed even further.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:52 PM

I could have put that point better, I admit. I don't think anyone here really thought I meant that gay men should be able to rampantly go around, tackle-out, having the non-consensual pick of the flock. I suppose that anyone desperate enough to jump on that inelegant sentence in order to make a Big Thing of it in that manner must be pretty bereft of ideas.

And if you want to quote me, do just that is my advice. We can all read and we don't need your "helpful" bolds, capitals and italics, none of which were in my sentence. You may insult me all you like, but you don't need to insult everyone else's intelligence as well. Or maybe you think you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:55 PM

You don't have to be the Brain of Britain to see the outcome of any thread this bunch of childish, OCD fuckwits infest.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:57 PM

Seems this argument is pretty well over when (this time deliberate) typos and non-responses aer te order of the day
You have your hypocritical behaviour before you
Hardly worth putting in your glorification of WW1
'Course we're getting slaughtered aka "I can't fight but I can still spit"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Tunesmith
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 01:12 PM

The sensible, sane course of action would be to bar any believers of religion from high - or any - political positions based on the fact that would be dangerously gullible and open to any wild, unverified beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 01:25 PM

Jim,
So youu can be a homoosexual but you burn in hell if you follow your natural instincts

No. They see sex outside marriage as sinful gay or straight, but do not condemn us all to hell for it. Who would be left?

Steve,
The truth is that the Church is viciously opposed to gay people exercising their human right to have sex with whoever they want

No. It is opposed to sex outside marriage gay or straight, and where does "vicious" come into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 01:27 PM

Sounds sensible to me Tunesmith,
It's started to happen in Ireland but it took a great sacrifice on the part of children and "fallen" women to arrive at that conclusion
Despite opposition, there ore now statues in memory of 'The Magdalene girls'
Thye have yet to get round to the victims of Clerical abuse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG - PM
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:06 AM
Or women of a certain age can retire as 65 but those born a day later they have to wait to 67? Laws introduce boundaries, and the exact point of that boundary is a balance of many competing interests;

Sorry, that's not one I'm aware of. A one day difference in date of birth means a two year difference in retirement/pension date?
Can you point to any guidance which substantiates that illogical situation?

Cheers
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:20 PM

"Who would be left?"
Those who confess their sins and become hypocrites like the rest of you
That's their get out of jail free card
I suppose it's a step up from their old method of torturing a confession out of sinners then burning them alive at the stake before they can recant
Sorry keith - the church's own statement bungs yoour piteous excuses right up your holy jaxi, I'm afraid.
And don't forget that this was all being put into practice by a church heiorarch of supposed celibate old men who forbade contraception and whose clerics were helping themselves to children when the fancy took than
What a bunch eh?
Do you care to explain the discrpency of defending unborn foetuses, refusing abortions to raped 11 year olds, allowing women to die in pain rather than carrying out life-saving operations, watching children pulled deead out of the sea and yet still opposing refugees, claiming "thou shalt not kill" meant something else and supporting the WW1 bloodbath
No?
Thought not, especially as you were in to all these right up to your Christian neck
The "viciousness" was the spiritual blackmail that went into all this hypocrisy
Sleep well, and don't forget to say your prayers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:54 PM

"SPB-Cooperator ever heard of people behaving responsibly? Have you got some marked objection to that? ANYONE who has bigger families than they can support quite frankly can be legitimately labelled as "freeloaders" as they have those families in the full expectation that the rest of us have to pay for them, and that any shortfall is "society's" fault.

Anyone making the conscious decision to have a family must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child support - you get child support/allowance for two children then all after that are your own responsibility. There again personal responsibility is something that "socialists" do not accept - they never have done. "

You are making assumptions that all pregnancies are planned, and the implication of your post that those below a certain income are only getting pregnant to sponge of the stet is reprehensible. Every circumstance is different, it could be through failed contraception, it could be because a partner has forced himself on his wife when he was drunk, it could be complacency that thinking being of a certain age reduces the likelihood of conception.

Rees Mogg is on one hand against those who for example have their 'complete family' - mnaybe teen children, maybe in their forties, and do not feel able to bring up another child - a hard decision to make - and on the other hand withdrawing support form society. So what would you have done to the children who are surplus to societies requirements then????

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:36 PM

From: SPB-Cooperator - PM
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:54 PM

"SPB-Cooperator ever heard of people behaving responsibly? Have you got some marked objection to that? ANYONE who has bigger families than they can support quite frankly can be legitimately labelled as "freeloaders" as they have those families in the full expectation that the rest of us have to pay for them, and that any shortfall is "society's" fault.
Anyone making the conscious decision to have a family must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child support - you get child support/allowance for two children then all after that are your own responsibility. There again personal responsibility is something that "socialists" do not accept - they never have done. "

You are making assumptions that all pregnancies are planned,

You're not reading what has been written (and you're responding to).
The first line in bold makes it clear that the discussion is not about those having 'unexpected' children. Although, once a woman has two children I would expect her to have worked out what the cause was!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:07 PM

My God, the sanctimonious are really crawling out of the woodwork in this thread. Christ knows what these smug bastards' own kids are like, poor little sods. We had our two when we were on our uppers, but we made it in the end, same child benefit as every millionaire got, struggling towards our aspirations and succeeding in the end. Why, who would have known. Maybe I should have shed the courage early on and tied a knot in it. I was born into poverty and lived in a slum for the first ten years of my life. Maybe I shouldn't even be here - should we have a poll? I can't believe that there are people around in the 21st century who still think that your right to have children is proportional to the success you achieve in this capitalistic world. I went to school with kids who would never have been born according to the Rule Of Teribus. Some of them are priests or professors or teachers or doctors and a good few are still mates of mine. Go bloody figure, Billyboy. I'd pick them over bigots like you any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:16 PM

Teribus is right Steve, you have lost the argument. Your last few post have contained nothing but bluster

I have high hopes for this forum, freedom of speech and reasoned discussion.....times are a changin', the light is beginning to penetrate the gloom.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:39 PM

Sorry, that's not one I'm aware of. A one day difference in date of birth means a two year difference in retirement/pension date?
Can you point to any guidance which substantiates that illogical situation

Not quite the straight cut off but daft enough.

Look it up yourself Nigel.

Ake, I have high hopes for this forum, freedom of speech and reasoned discussion.

You wouldn't know reasoned discussion if it bit you on the bum. The day you think this forum is working to your strange morality is the day that most normal people will leave.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 07:02 PM

Toddle off and have another ten pints of wee heavy, akenaton. You are an irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 07:09 PM

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:39 PM

Sorry, that's not one I'm aware of. A one day difference in date of birth means a two year difference in retirement/pension date?
Can you point to any guidance which substantiates that illogical situation

Not quite the straight cut off but daft enough.

Look it up yourself Nigel.

DtG

I read the link, and it agrees with my comments. Nowhere is there a one day cut-off that causes a two year delay in pension/retirement dates.
The closest is that a woman born in December '51 will have a pension date 2 years after a woman born in January '51. Hardly a 'cliff-edge' change is it? (effectively it is a one year delay, not two years)
And if retirement/pension dates have to be increased then it is bound to be the case that there will be a period when women work longer without reaching their pension dates as quickly as their elders. But from the link you gave this is being phased in in a reasonable way.

People are living longer, and will be retired for a greater portion of their lives. The pensions have to be paid for from somewhere.

With women (on average) having a longer life-span than men, I think it's not before time that pension ages are moving towards equality.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 07:20 PM

Yes, Nigel, I did slip up on that one. I hadn't looked it up and so just went from the fact that a person could retire under the old rules and a person born a day later would retire under the new rules. What I did not take into account was the sliding scale that applies at the beginning of the new rules that prevwnts such a cliff edgw. A mistake, freely admitted.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:10 AM

"must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child "
And that must be solely the decision of the parents, not a bunch of self-appointed fundamentalist mystics who insists on interfering in what happens in other people's bedrooms and WHOSE RELIGION IS ON THE SKIDS ANYWAY, which is what this discussion is about
Is one of these nut-jobs someone to be considered as Prime Minister of Britain?
If we want Britain to be led by a bunch of nutters as crazy as he is - maybe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:27 AM

"The day you think this forum is working to your strange morality is the day that most normal people will leave."

Most normal people have already left, Dave, as you well know. Some, like me, poke their heads in occasionally to see if anything has improved, but are always bitterly disappointed. Even Eliza (Senoufou), one of the nicest and most thoughtful members we've seen for a long time, has been driven off. Shameful.

If anyone doubts the veracity of this, consider the dearth of threads in recent times which has driven the mods to replace the '1-day' default of the thread-list to '3-days' in order to disguise the fact that the forum is on its arse, put there by the constant bickering and childish behaviour of a small number of shit-for-brains Keyboard Warriors, none of whom would have the balls to face up and slug it out in a pub car-park.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:32 AM

Jim,
Sorry keith - the church's own statement bungs yoour piteous excuses right up your holy jaxi, I'm afraid.

Here is the Church's own statement,
" being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

They have no ruling on gay sex. Their rules on sex apply to everyone.
You have failed to make a case that they are hostile to gay people.
They are clear that they are not.

Your statements about the Church were false and wrong.

They do not allow same sex marriage, but nor does any other religion in the world, or most countries in the world and until about ten years ago any country in the world.

You and Steve are just bigoted and prejudiced against Christianity and have utterly failed to make a case.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:37 AM

Akeneaton since you are an expert on the muslim faith, please bacjk up your statement with statements from all the varying sects in the m,uslim religion , do they all agree on this one? bring on rees mogg he is the best leader capable of losing an election, the tories would do much better with sir alec douglas home even though he is dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:49 AM

I don't think for a moment that an old fashioned "class warrior" like Jim, gives a fig about homosexuality or even abortion, he simply sees "The Church" any church as a conservative monolith and an impediment to his agenda, which I am sure he realises will be in no way liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:51 AM

could the Tories want to deliberately lose the election?to leave a decision "Brexit",[ which appears to be an political gamble whose possible consequences do not appear to have been   thought through,and which the uk political establishment and civil service seem to be unprepared for,   left to some other party to sort out, an abdication of responsibilties.
before any decision was made the civil service and the political establishment should have been prepared for the consequences of a leave vote. the conservative leadership at the time were irresponsible because they took a political gamble whilst being unprepared for the political consequences, it would not surprise me at all if they elected rees mogg and lost and deliberately abdicated responsibilty, so that another party had to deal with their gamble and lack of foresight.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:53 AM

Rees Mogg versus gobby corbyn:


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/835146/Jeremy-Corbyn-mocked-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Moggmentum-Venezuela-socialism-video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hkOlW6_uTM

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:57 AM

By the way Nigel
"not secure a living off child support "
This has always been a slanderous Tory myth aimed directly at the poorer people of Britain - a smear on the British people by the privileged and comfortable - our "betters"
Family allowance is pitifully small in Britain - no family could possibly get a "secure a living" from it
"A family with two children can claim nearly £1,800 a year in Child Benefit. In the 2017-18 tax year, you can claim: £20.70 per week for your first child. £13.70 a week for any further children."
The purpose of family support is to keep a poor family's head above water, not to "secure a living" - it is to stay alive

This from the Financial Times, April 4th 2017
The UK government will this week stop giving extra benefits to families when they have a third child, to encourage people to "consider whether they can afford to support additional children".
Until now, tax credits — which provide extra money for unemployed and low-income families — have increased by up to £2,780 a year for each extra child. From April 6, families will not receive extra income for third children born on or after this date. The restrictions will be extended to all new claimants from November 2018 onwards, regardless of when their children were born.
The policy is ultimately expected to save taxpayers about £3bn a year but it will take time for the savings to build up. Families will continue to receive child benefit, worth £700 a year for each second and subsequent child, provided neither parent earns more than £50,000 a year.
The new policy, announced by George Osborne in the July 2015 budget, is a change of direction for the UK.
Under successive Labour governments, between 1997 and 2010, support for families with children through the tax and benefit system increased significantly in a concerted effort to reduce child poverty. Support for larger families grew more quickly than support for families with only one or two children.
The tax credit cuts for larger families contribute to the Conservative government's manifesto promise to reduce welfare spending by £12bn by the end of the parliament. A secondary motivation is "explicitly . . . to affect the decisions low-income families make about how many children to have", said Andrew Hood of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank.
Mr Osborne said the changes would make the tax credit system "fairer and more affordable" by ensuring that people receiving tax credits "face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work".
But Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said the changes were "pernicious".
"Our analysis shows another 200,000 children will be in poverty once universal credit [which is replacing tax credits and three other means tested benefits] is fully rolled out, directly because of this cut," she said. "Surely children should not have their life chances damaged because of the number of siblings they have."
A third of children already in poverty live in families with three or more children.

Your squalid party really is the pits
On the one hand, you have a bunch who are forcing cuts on family sizes by withdrawing support - in esssence a cull.
On the other, you are considering electing a leader who believes that women who might fall pregnant by accident or through rape should be forced to go through her pregnancy and bear her child
This feller applies this to cases where it is known in advance that some children will be born with physical defects or that forcing a woman through an unplanned pregnancy could effect either her mental or physical health - or both, which could add enormously to the cost of rearing such a child
What kind of people are you?
Perhaps your government has in mind what happened in Spain after the Civil War there when the victorious party set up a clandestine industry to steal children from Republicans and give them to the more deserving Franco supporters!
It is estimated that up to 300,00 newborn children were stolen from their families and sold to wealthy ones - they were known as "Los niños robados del franquismo" [The kidnapped children of Francoism]
Now that would be a lucrative industry to help Britain stand on its own two feet in the Brave New World of Brexitism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:01 AM

Sorry Sandman, I am not an expert on anything except perhaps traditional Scottish slate roofing, but I have read the Prophets teaching on homosexuality and abortion in various publications.
If I am in error, please inform.

Regarding Mr Rees Mogg, I'm afraid the "liberal" media would crucify him....if you'll pardon the expression, but it does not ensue that he would make a "bad" Prime Minister, I think its about time the "liberal" tide was turned, we are entering a difficult phase politically and economically, it will be all for one no place for people who think a comfortable life is a "right" regardless of contribution.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:07 AM

"Some, like me, poke their heads in occasionally to see if anything has improved,"
I have a great respect for you normally Baccy, but it is diminishing rapidly
How dare you judge who is "normal" and who isn't on this forum?
If you wish take part in these discussions, you are free to do so, if not, you are equally free to stay away
In interfering with these discussions, you are little better than Keith in his constant attempts to censor these arguments to suit himself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:20 AM

Keith
"You and Steve are just bigoted and prejudiced against Christianity and have utterly failed to make a case."

"Now Rome complains that the Anglican Communion is affirming gays through blessed unions and full admission to the priesthood. The complaint is no surprise. In 2008, Benedict labeled homosexuality as a "destruction of God's work" on a par with the ruination of the tropical rain forests. Gays, he said, threaten "the order of creation." This is less blatant than, say, the "God hates fags" sign carried by Protestant fundamentalists at Matthew Shepard's funeral in 1998, but the drift is toward the same hateful conclusion."
CHRISTIAN ANTI_GAY CAMPAIGN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:24 AM

Jim, Catholic teaching is
" being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Your claimed promise of hell for homosexuals was false.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:49 AM

One...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:51 AM

Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:57 AM

Your claim that homosexuals are treated no differently than hetrosexuals isw a blatant lie
You have the "destruction of the rain forests" words of the man himself "god's Representative on earth"
Your own particularly superstitious sect is no different that any other 'divinely inspired' bunch of nutters - including the ones you personally target
That 'god' they are on their way out
EXCOMMUNICATION = HELL-FIRE
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:02 AM

Back on topic!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2V7r2wUspI

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:06 AM

Here we see a typical Carroll response in a thread where he sees that he and his pals are failing:

In his post Jim Carroll - 09 Sep 17 - 12:57 PM he goes trolling with an attempted diversion - "Hardly worth putting in your glorification of WW1" - dredging up threads from years ago, most of whom Carroll & Co managed to get either deleted or closed down. No connection whatsoever to the topic under discussion.

He tries again later on in the thread with his return to abuse by members of the Roman Catholic Clergy in Ireland - a thread that he and his pals got closed down. No connection whatsoever to the topic under discussion.

SPB-Cooperator - 09 Sep 17 - 03:54 PM

"the implication of your post that those below a certain income are only getting pregnant to sponge of the stet is reprehensible."

Really SPB-Cooperator? Reported in May this year - Super-sized families on state handouts cost British taxpayers £21.2million each year in child benefits. Breakdown is as follows:

- Families of 8 children - 2095 families claim £12.7 million in child benefit.

- Families of 9 children - 800 families claim £5.4 million in child benefit.

- Families of 10 children - 270 families claim £2.1 million in child benefit.

- Families of 11 children - 85 families claim £697,000 in child benefit.

- Families of 12 children - 30 families claim £267,384 in child benefit

- Families of 13+ children - 10 families claim £96,252 in child benefit.

At no point at all in my original post did I mention income, as Shaw pointed out child benefit gets paid to all - what I did refer to was the ability to provide for the children any couples chose to have.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:09 AM

" being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Your claimed promise of hell for homosexuals was false.



So, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful. Fine, but engaging in sex outside marriage is sinful. Yet the church does not allow homosexual marriage so by that very act it denies any homosexual the right to have sex without committing sin. The promise of hell may not be for being homosexual but by denying homosexuals the right to marriage the church is committing them to hell for having sinful sex.

Doesn't really make a lot of sense does it. Little wonder that the church is rapidly losing members.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:23 AM

Normality: There is a lovely little section in "Chocky" by John Wyndham where a dinner party takes place. During it the sister of the main couple is saying their son is a bit, well, odd. They responded by saying how the sister's child is thoroughly normal in every way. Naturally, she then denies it and comes out with little tales of how he has not been so normal. As the man of the lead couple says afterwards 'basic human psychology'.

It is best not to get worked by 'normality' - it is slippery little fellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:27 AM

I've tried telling Keith that, Dave, but he doesn't get it. Here's another way of putting it to him in order to convince him that the Church does distinguish between straight and gay sex: if you are straight, you can have sex if you get married. If you're gay, you can never have sex under any circumstances, and we're certainly not going to let you get married. I think I've just spotted a tiny distinction there...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:34 AM

Oh I think he does get it, Steve. Keith is not thick. I am not so sure about the other half of the sorbiquet he had.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 07:20 AM

This thread was about the personal views of one individual who was in line to become leader of a political party and whether or not his religious views made unfit for public office.
It led on to whether the personal views of people of other more radical religions would be subject to the same scrutiny, for example devout Muslims.

It has turned out that many here hate the man because of his views, although they are perfectly legal, because he is rich, because he is a Christian and because he presents himself as a social conservative.

Are these people really liberal? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 07:21 AM

"Here we see a typical Carroll response in a thread where he sees that he and his pals are failing:
"
You disprove nothing that is being said - you don't even try to
You only "fail" when your arguments are defeated - you are not even attempting to do so
Your figures (un-linked as usual) when broken down into families show that those claiming benefit still have to live on a pittance
Cut the bullshit and tell us how that is "ecuring a living off child support" which is what Nigel suggested
Try to do it without your usual hectoring and bullying, if you can manage it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 07:35 AM

Family allowance is pitifully small in Britain - no family could possibly get a "secure a living" from it
"A family with two children can claim nearly £1,800 a year in Child Benefit. In the 2017-18 tax year, you can claim: £20.70 per week for your first child. £13.70 a week for any further children."
The purpose of family support is to keep a poor family's head above water, not to "secure a living" - it is to stay alive
These are what you and your ilk describe as "handouts" but are actually paid for as in insurance against hardship and unemployment by the taxpayer
Only Tory fundamentslists describe them as "handouts"
My putting the hypocrisy of those who support the idea of 'faving the unborn foetus' while at the same time being prepared to send an entire generation of young man to their deaths seems to have hit home, which is good to know
If you refuse to recognie the hypocrisy of this and the connection between the two, thare are plenty her intelligent enough not to
I have never "closed a thread" that is the role of you and your little army of trolls - often deliberately when you find yourself in a corner
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:03 AM

I cannot stress stronhly enough that the income supplements received by families in need are ENTITLEMENTS, NOT "HANDOUTS" as and contemptuously and contemptibly described by Teribus and his Tory friends.
Descibing them the way they choose to do underline their hatred for the poor of Britain - apparently their 'patriotism' dose not extend as far as the majority of British people, just the elite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:19 AM

Dave and Steve,
So, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful. Fine, but engaging in sex outside marriage is sinful.

Correct. No special rules for gay Catholics. The same rules for gay and straight.

They do not allow same sex marriage, but nor does any other religion in the world, nor most countries in the world and no single country in the world until about ten years ago, and still a large minority against even in those few countries that do now allow it.

You have no case that the Catholic Church persecutes gay people as claimed. They do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:20 AM

"Class warrior" to the bitter end!

Jim, you haven't noticed that the "working class" are no more.
We are all in this together now and have to make it work or we all suffer. Bitterness about past battles is useless, move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:52 AM

"We are all in this together now and have to make it work or we all suffer."

No we're not, you and your tory right-wing homophobic, xenophobic buddies are making everyone suffer. Some of us are trying to lessen the suffering because we care about our fellow human beings.

We fought a war and defeated people like you, Farage and Trump. We suffered on the battlefields to stop the likes of you and build a better, more tolerant world. Don't include us in your sordid, pathetic little authoritarian vision of this craphouse country.

Some of us actually do care for other people, hard though that is for the likes of you to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:59 AM

"We fought a war" ....... "We suffered on the battlefields"...

Who constitute this "WE" Stu? It most certainly WAS NOT YOU.

It would appear that YOU only recognise the right of free speech when it suits YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 09:06 AM

"Who constitute this "WE" Stu? It most certainly WAS NOT YOU."

My family. We. Us.