ConservativeHome must be anti-British

TonyH Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:15:36 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

I’m sorry to say I almost had my breakfast ruined as I perused the popular blogs this morning. Tim Montgomerie, the Daddy of ConservativeHome, has perpetuated the extremely annoying stupidity that conflates opposition to George W Bush with anti-Americanism.




His chaotic, moronic and self serving article is on Comment is Free but don’t read it with a mouthful of cornflakes.

He started off with a little hedging:

Whoever is elected as US president on Tuesday November 4 2008, most of the world – rightly or wrongly – will be glad to see George Bush's presidency come close to its end.
I’m gonna go with ‘rightly’ on this one Tim – for the Worst US President ever.

After attempting to blame Clinton for 9/11 because it was “planned during his administration” and absolving Bush even though he was offering a “humbler” foreign policy at the time, Tim finally had me waving my spoon in a paroxysm of outrage:  

Bush is hated by many around the world for intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh Tim, are you EVER right?

Tim, the reason we hate Bush, and I personally hate him with the burning power of a nova, is because the greatest office in one of the world’s greatest countries has been traduced by the most incompetent, arrogant, useless, lying, murderous, fear mongering, war mongering, homophobic, racist and exploitative administration ever. It’s not even conservative – he’s delivered the biggest trade deficits in the history of the US and expanded Government – created a useless layer of Homeland Security above the CIA and FBI.

I’m not articulate enough to describe how fond I am of America and Americans, but it makes it all the more difficult to do given that anyone who wants to criticise the Worst President ever has to deal with the gutter accusation that he or she is anti-American for doing so.

But, back to the point, if criticism of a government or leader can be conflated with being “anti” that country – hasn’t Tim created a hotbed of anti-Britishness with ConservativeHome?


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
ConservativeHome must be anti-British | 21 comments (21 topical)

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#1)

by Floating voter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:25:36 PM GMT

"Tim, the reason we hate Bush, and I personally hate him with the burning power of a nova, is because the greatest office in one of the world’s greatest countries has been traduced by the most incompetent, arrogant, useless, lying, murderous, fear mongering, war mongering, homophobic, racist and exploitative administration ever. It’s not even conservative – he’s delivered the biggest trade deficits in the history of the US and expanded Government – created a useless layer of Homeland Security above the CIA and FBI."

 

So what? I'm not a US citizen. For all I care they can vote a chimp into the whitehouse. All my problems are with OUR government system. I know you'll point out that the US has a global effect but even so there is nothing I can do to change the US govt. I don't have a vote other there, so there is little point in whinging about it or hating anyone.

Having come across even MORE anti-liberty legislation proprosed by this govt,  it seems that there is more than enough to do here.

 


Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#2)

by Argive on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM GMT

Ha.  If anti bush means anti American, then most Americans are anti American these days.

To the previous poster, you Europeans are set to have a significant impact on the election.  When Barack has his European tour, the press is going to be nothing but 24/7 coverage of the throngs showing up to see him.  Especially if this culminates in a speech at the Brandenburg gate, the press is going to swoooon at the Kennedy/Reagan parallels. 

 

And I think it'll be a positive impact too.  I think that, despite the caricature, most Americans want to be liked by Europe.


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#15)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM GMT

So it’s no cheese eating or surrendering for us monkeys then.


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#3)

by TonyH on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM GMT

By that logic there's no point in criticising Zimbabwe either…or China.

I didn’t say “I hate him with a view to…” I said I hate him.

This Country was yolked to the Iraq war. It’s Parliament and the two main Parties approved the invasion plan had little influence on its mismanagement.

The “credit crunch” is a direct result of US sub-prime lending and the laughable controls in checking the value of bundled debt portfolios which is the biggest reason house prices are in free fall in this country.

It isn’t just an arbitrary “global effect”, it’s a direct effect also – and it IS worth talking about.


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#4)

by Floating voter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:55:07 PM GMT

" By that logic there's no point in criticising Zimbabwe either…or China."

I said there was no point in hating him. I said nothing about criticising him. However you are right in one respect - there's no point in hating Mugabe or China's govt. Criticism is warranted in both cases however.

 

"I didn’t say “I hate him with a view to…” I said I hate him."

Such an attitude lessens you, not him. There's too much hate going as it is.
 

"This Country was yolked to the Iraq war. It’s Parliament and the two main Parties approved the invasion plan had little influence on its mismanagement."

So blame Blair - not Bush. Blair could have said no. The truth is that our politicians couldn't wait to flex their muscles. 

 

"The “credit crunch” is a direct result of US sub-prime lending and the laughable controls in checking the value of bundled debt portfolios which is the biggest reason house prices are in free fall in this country."

The "credit crunch" has a US origin, but it's effect here are due to OUR banks hovering up dodogy financial instruments to make a quick buck. Our banks imported this problem and they deserve a few high profile sackings as a reward for theie complete lack of fiscal responsibility - maybe even a trial or two. 

 

We did most of this to ourselves. 


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#5)

by TonyH on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:17:15 PM GMT

"I said there was no point in hating him. I said nothing about criticising him."

No - can I refer you to what you actually wrote (it's a few centimetres above this post and wasn't that long ago):

"I don't have a vote other there, so there is little point in whinging about it or hating anyone."

I think you'll also find that most people in China and Zimbabwe don't have a vote either and in an age of global information it is very much worth "whinging" about.

You're not quite there on the credit crunch and Northern Rock: read this for a pretty good explanation (if you want)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,507055,00.html

You are quite right that my hating Bush lessens me not him but the point I was trying to emphasise that I hate him but am not an anti-American. Not at all.


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#6)

by Floating voter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:59:59 PM GMT

"No - can I refer you to what you actually wrote (it's a few centimetres above this post and wasn't that long ago):"

I see where you're coming from and I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. I see whinging as wholly negative, but criticism to be either positive or negative so to me they are not the same. I should have phrased it better, so I'll concede the point ;-)

 

"...most people in China and Zimbabwe don't have a vote..."

They got a vote in Zimbabwe, but Mugabe ignored it. He should have been arrested when he came to Europe and tried in The Hague for crimes against humanity. 

 

Interesting article on Spiegel, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Northern Rock's business model made them susceptible to the credit crunch because it did not follow the "classic model" for mortgage lending. NR primarily depended on securitisation and market funding to a much, much higher degree than other mortgage lenders so it was vulnerable to any wobbles in market confidence. That is why other UK banks didn't come crashing down.

NR engineered its own downfall with a business model that was bassically as dodgy as a pyramid scheme and it was only a matter of time until something wrecked it. The utter failure here was that the regulator knew about this and let it continue.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-502590/Bank-England-governor-warned-Northern-Rock-collaps e-years-ago.html

The BBC's Robert Peston had NR earmarked for a fall as far back as 2003. 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#7)

by TonyH on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:23:55 PM GMT

Here here on Mugabe.

It doesn't tell the whole story on NR - yes, but does describe why credit is now so hard to come by (as well as why it's been so cheap up until now).  

I'm saying that the subprime problem goes back years too when they started bundling these portfolios a little after 1999.

I agree that the failure was letting it continue but I'm talking about the US regulator and how, at the end of his presidency, Clinton allowed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (which was preventing a massive Citigroup merger) but included a proviso in the new Bill insisting it would help banks lend to "those with little access to credit".

A year and a half later, when Bush was advised that massive loan portfolios were being sold off by banks to investors with an "acceptable 5% wastage rate", but that nobody was checking the validity of that rate i.e. that it could be far higher, he did nothing.

That's, chiefly, the source of the "credit crunch" which is not exactly the same as the difficult economic circumstances - [and if I were trying to be funny I might add] which are chiefly due to oil shortages from dangerous regions we keep getting into wars in.


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#8)

by Floating voter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:17:04 PM GMT

"are chiefly due to oil shortages from dangerous regions we keep getting into wars in."

100% agreement on THAT one!!! 

We have had the ability to massively reduce our dependency on oil for years and all the parties have failed to do it.

1) Reduce usage and wastage. The incandescent bulb should have been outlawed 10 years ago.

2) Stop wasteful exterior lighting up of buildings at night. If they must be lit up, turn them off at midnight. Turn off streetlights at 1am

3) Severn, Humber, Mersey, Forth, Clyde tidal barrages. I know the birds will have to move in the Severn, but its the birds or the planet.

4) More nuclear power. Weapons grade material is 99% pure, reactor material is 3% pure so convert the weapons into reactor material.

We can do all of this easily and we can do it now. 


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#9)

by FreedomAndTruth on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:55:15 PM GMT

Bush runs nothing; he is a globalist puppet, which is the reason his junta is devaluing the dollar, encouraging illegal immigrants to cause internal strife and bring down wages, selling the infrastructure (that Americans have already paid for) to Middle Eastern, Chinese and European corporations, carrying out false flag terror attacks to wage war and restrict basic freedoms.

It is treason beyond comprehension, which is probably why so many cannot believe it.

By much the same token, Labour and Tory are anti-British, being controlled by those who hate our freedom - no, not bin Laden, the so-called 'elite' - big banking families, industrialists and some 'royal' families.
 
All they give us is a false left-right paradigm to make us think we have a choice.

Look at how Labour has been ruining this country the same as Bush/Cheney have been doing to the US – almost identically.


Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#10)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:52:46 PM GMT

I'm less inclined to take you seriously, when you condemn homosexuality as an abomination, as cited in the book of Leviticus. And yet, when the same book allows for slavery and says we cannot eat shellfish, you ignore it as a book of the Old testament, and therefore of Judaism. You can't just pick and choose, and say one doctrine comes from the bible, but the doctrines on the next line don't apply to the world.


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#11)

by FreedomAndTruth on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:00:36 PM GMT

Jings, talk about changing the subject!

I see where you're coming from, BUT, homosexuality is not just considered sinful according to Leviticus.

Right from Genesis ch 2, God's plan is clear:

   18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

   19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

   20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

   21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

   22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

   23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

   24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
   25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

The Saviour reinforces this divine union of marriage in Matthew:

   1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

   2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

   3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

   4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

   5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

   6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

   7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

   8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Notice how a) “for this cause” the Almighty made man and woman - that they would marry and b) the Jews' rebellious nature meant they had to be given the law, whereas, in earlier times, people knew how to behave properly in such matters.

There are other examples outwith Leviticus. The word 'know' in the OT is sometimes used as a polite way of saying have intercourse with.

E.g., the men of Sodom asked Lot, "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

Of course, the city was destroyed shortly after for its sin.

The truth is that homosexual behaviour is contrary to the Created order; contrary to nature.

That's a fact. As for 'homosexual' animals, that is a nonsensical argument as no animal is truly and wholly homosexual (e.g. my bitch mounts my boy dog, but only when she wants to affirm that she is in charge: it's not a sexual thing).

And anyway, animals are not meant to be role models for human beings.

All this has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with truth and righteousness.


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#13)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:04:45 PM GMT

Again, what proof do you have that homosexuality is typified by infidelity and disease? Noone can provide evidence that gay people are more promiscious. Well, I suppose they are considered more promiscious by extremists like yourself because they have sex when they are not married. Wow, that is a quagmire. Maybe, and this is a whole new idea, we should allow gay people to marry.

In fact, nature seems to see it as normal. Are animals able to make subconscious decisions about their sexuality? Because there are animals in other species that have gay sex. It isn't gay adoption that makes dolphins have sex with same-gendered dolphins.

Science would probably indicate that in evolutionary terms (which I suppose you don't believe) that this would be applicable to humans. That it isn't a choice.

Again, the Bible says a lot of crazy shit. I'm glad you brought up the New Testament, because I find it more evil than the Old Testament. I would really like to hear the intellectual argument for God's existance. Please tell me it. I find the New Testament more evil, because the supposed God employs the most disgusting form of masochism in trying to get Abraham to murder his first born.

It also exposes a suspicion that religion is man made. None of the gospels can come up with a single concencus on the crucifixion (luckily we now have an Australian fascist ham actor telling us the real account).

Another argument for the man made concencus, is that Jesus and his desciples could not have been 'Christians'. This illiterate gaggle could not have identified as Christians as they had no idea that an ideology would be found on the basis of their master's pronouncements, and they were never to read books that are essential for Christians to believe in for them to affirm belief.

You are entitled to your own belief, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

You cannot prove that the majority of people share your beliefs or hatred of homosexuality. You can choose not to believe in evolution. But, emperical evidence disproves much of the holy scriptures. Why is it that all messiahs, in all religions, have been born a virgin's birth? Why is it that Mary has no recollection of the Archangel Gabriel telling her that her son, was the son of god? This further exacerbates the notion that religion was manmade.

Homosexuality is more likely to be genetic. People in the higher realms of society have condemned it for centuries, but have been secretly engaging in it. They believe it will help them escape it. That's why religious figures have engaged in it. Priests do it to this day. It is not encouraging a culture where gay men and women can come out that encourages peversion, it is a culture where it is banned which encourages peversion. Do you think that if Christianity had been more welcoming of homosexuality, that there wouldn't have been the raping of young boys in the Catholic church? I do.

Indeed, and relating to the virgin birth matter, there seems to be a strange link with gay seperatism. Gay seperatists feel a superiority complex over straight couples, and often, a loathing of women. Religions do just that. The very fact that all the monotheisms have misogyny as a central plank, further solidifies the belief that religion is man made.

Many outwardly homophobic men, actually often have secret sexual feelings for homosexual men, even if they are straight, but they feel threatened by them. I can't tell you the number of religious extremists who I know at school, who I know are gay, despite their gay-bashing.

Anyway, on virgin births, what other reason could explain that common trait in all religions, except of the common trait of misogyny, of why these are the only births in history to have been born to those of virgins? Islam allows for young girls to be mutilated, it is not female circumcision, but it is mutilation. Judaism requires orthodox believers to thank god every day that they are not women. Indeed, everything about religions seems to indicate a hatred of female genitalia. I may support gay rights, but this is a view which I don't share.

To me, the psychology of humans seems to prove that religion is manmade.

Is the 'wrongs' of homosexuality a fact? To you, yes. But it is an opinion. Like I have said, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moniyhan, "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts."

You only think it is wrong, because the Bible says it is. And it is questionable whether this is a truth.

Why would a gay teenager 'choose' to be gay? So he can be beat up more?

People seem to be homophobic without the help of the Bible. Were all people having gay sex before the Bible declared it wrong? Were people commiting adultery and stealing before Moses issued the 10 commandments?


This to me, suggests that religion is man made.





[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#16)

by FreedomAndTruth on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:08:39 PM GMT

I didn't continue reading your comments after the "crazy sh*t" remark.

I reckon you should learn some respect.

You brought up the whole homosexual thread, not me. If you don't like the truth why do you keep goading me?

This might come as a shock to you, but your opinion does not automatically raise you onto a pedestal because you believe all the politically correct brainwashing that you have been subjected to over your lifetime.

Why are you so obsessed with me following your PC lies anyway?

The prophecies in Revelation are coming true right now. This is it! A one world government is being implemented. A one world religion - worship of the beast - is being set up via the likes of the World Council of Churches and Tony Blair's 'faith' efforts.

Perhaps the implantable microchips on their way are the mark of the Beast. I can't say yet for sure, but I sure as Hell won't be taking one.

First Labour are planning to chip prisoners and then of course it will be extended to the forces, police, etc. down to everyone else eventually.

It will be sold on 'saving lives' and eventually you will need one to claim benefits, go shopping - everything.

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

You and NorthernMonkey and everyone have a choice of facing the truth of what's really going on in this world, or continue sniggering like cowards.


 


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#17)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:38:01 PM GMT

Ok, I'm sorry for that remark. It was rude. I was very tired at the time.

Conspiracy theories have fatal flaws. Mainly in the philosophy itself. I believe one, which is about the Moscow apartment bombings.

Again, please can I have an intellectual case for the existance of God, because I haven't heard an argument yet to convince me, and I like to debate. I often change my opinions. I'm not as stubborn as you. 

It isn't because of PC lies. I know gay people. And they're great. They simply choose to have sex a different way.

I'm glad you brought up the New Testament, because I find it more evil than the Old Testament. I would really like to hear the intellectual argument for God's existance. Please tell me it. I find the New Testament more evil, because the supposed God employs the most disgusting form of masochism in trying to get Abraham to murder his first born.

It also exposes a suspicion that religion is man made. None of the gospels can come up with a single concencus on the crucifixion (luckily we now have an Australian fascist ham actor telling us the real account).

Another argument for the man made concencus, is that Jesus and his desciples could not have been 'Christians'. This illiterate gaggle could not have identified as Christians as they had no idea that an ideology would be found on the basis of their master's pronouncements, and they were never to read books that are essential for Christians to believe in for them to affirm belief.

You are entitled to your own belief, but you're not entitled to your own facts. You cannot prove that the majority of people share your beliefs or hatred of homosexuality. You can not believe evolution.

But, emperical evidence disproves much of the holy scriptures. Why is it that all messiahs, in all religions, have been born a virgin's birth? Why is it that Mary has no recollection of the Archangel Gabriel telling her that her son, was the son of god? This further exacerbates the notion that religion was manmade.

Homosexuality is more likely to be genetic. People in the higher realms of society have condemned it for centuries, but have been secretly engaging in it. They believe it will help them escape it. That's why religious figures have engaged in it. Priests do it to this day. It is not encouraging a culture where gay men and women can come out that encourages peversion, it is a culture where it is banned which encourages peversion. Do you think that if Christianity had been more welcoming of homosexuality, that there wouldn't have been the raping of young boys in the Catholic church? I do. Indeed, and relating to the virgin birth matter, there seems to be a strange link with gay seperatism. Gay seperatists feel a superiority complex over straight couples, and often, a loathing of women.

Religions do just that. The very fact that all the monotheisms have misogyny as a central plank, further solidifies the belief that religion is man made. Many outwardly homophobic men, actually often have secret sexual feelings for homosexual men, even if they are straight, but they feel threatened by them. I can't tell you the number of religious extremists who I know at school, who I know are gay, despite their gay-bashing.

Anyway, on virgin births, what other reason could explain that common trait in all religions, except of the common trait of misogyny, of why these are the only births in history to have been born to those of virgins?

Islam allows for young girls to be mutilated, it is not female circumcision, but it is mutilation. Judaism requires orthodox believers to thank god every day that they are not women. Indeed, everything about religions seems to indicate a hatred of female genitalia. I may support gay rights, but this is a view which I don't share.

To me, the psychology of humans seems to prove that religion is manmade.

Is the 'wrongs' of homosexuality a fact? To you, yes. But it is an opinion. Like I have said, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moniyhan, "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts."

You only think it is wrong, because the Bible says it is. And it is questionable whether this is a truth.

Why would a gay teenager 'choose' to be gay? So he can be beat up more?

People seem to be homophobic without the help of the Bible. Were all people having gay sex before the Bible declared it wrong? Were people commiting adultery and stealing before Moses issued the 10 commandments?


This to me, suggests that religion is man made.

And as for asking, why am I trying to debate you, that weakens you out of the starting gate. Noone else bothers to debate you, because they see you as a crackpot. So do I. But I will debate anyone. And if you're not willing to step up to the plate, and debate someone, then don't cry when people ignore your statements. You can't complain when I debate you, and then complain when others don't debate you.


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#18)

by FreedomAndTruth on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:27:27 PM GMT

Maybe you should get more rest and not blog so much. That's not a criticism per se, but I'm learning that there's no point overheating, although I do get angry with some people (mentioning no names).

I'll take your final comment that I'm a crackpot (glad you decided not to be rude!)

Tom Harris MP didn't answer one of my points because he thought it was "silly".

I wrote about Operations Gladio and Ajax on this website  - comments ~ 9, 12, 17.

Do you think I'm crazy for believing what has been shown to be true - STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM?

I'm sure some people don't debate me because they know I am right and are scared. I know this for a fact from speaking to people. They say things like, 'I know the government does bad things, but there's nothing we can do so there's no point worrying about it.'

Well we all better start worrying, because no stone will be left unturned to enslave us into the new global system.

I wonder why you believe the Moscow apartment bombings was a government operation.

Abraham is OT, but anyway, it was done to test him as to his faithfulness. He was to be the father of the Almighty's people, so he had to be prepared to follow his God above all else.

OK, you know homosexuals and they're great. I'm sure they are talented and friendly and everything, but so are many people who behave wrongly. There are seemingly lovely people who commit adultery; it doesn't make it right, obviously.

The fact is and it is a fact, that brainwashing has turned objections of homosexual behaviour into some form of 'hatred,' which is an abomination in itself.

Words are being twisted out of all recognition. Gay used to mean something completely different. Hatred used to mean, well, hatred, not diagreement or disaproval.

An 'alternative' lifestyle used to be something like in 'The Good Life'. 

Words are changing; morality is changing. If you have a system of moral relativism then you're going to get a lot of people confused about right and wrong.

If you 'dis' a confused youth with a knife, he might think you are fair game for carving up.

Morality isn't relative, which is one reason we have so many problems in the country today.

As for the disciples - they were Christians just by following Christ. By believing and repenting and changing their bad old ways. It's that simple really.

>>>You cannot prove that the majority of people share your beliefs or hatred of homosexuality. You can not believe evolution.<<<

I'm sure there must be figures out there, although with such powerful conditioning around, nothing would surprise me. Take a figure from 50 years ago, before the mass media got serious. I don't understand your point about evolution. If Darwinism was a fact then the alleged 'gay' gene would have been eradicated donkeys ago.

>>>People in the higher realms of society have condemned it for centuries, but have been secretly engaging in it<<<

And it carries on to this day with 'gay' porn stars coming and going from the Whitehouse.

I'm not a Catholic and I don't share their belief in unmarried clergy. It is more a case of letting priests marry than about accepting homosexual behaviour.

Christians don't need to mutilate anybody with circumcision.

>>>To me, the psychology of humans seems to prove that religion is manmade.<<<

I'm human and I say, nay insist, the opposite.

>>>Why would a gay teenager 'choose' to be gay? So he can be beat up more?<<<

Why would a teenager choose to waste his life on drink or drugs?

Teenagers today are more likely to believe the brainwashing and follow their immature urges, thinking it is natural. As I understand, most teenagers who have homosexual urges in puberty grow out of it.

The last thing they deserve is encouragement. I see THIS as the real child abuse.

>>>People seem to be homophobic without the help of the Bible. Were all people having gay sex before the Bible declared it wrong? Were people commiting adultery and stealing before Moses issued the 10 commandments?<<<

Normal people find homosexual behaviour disgusting. It is a natural revulsion to something wrong, like if you saw a man beating a child half to death - you just know it's wrong - you don't need scriptures to know - your gut instincts tell you - those same instincts that 'education' and the media have tried to make us question through various techniques, incl. guilt, like:

'Oh, you're against homosexuality. That means you support 'gay' bullying in schools.'

a) What a ridiculous and false conclusion and

b) I never remember there being any problem with 'homophobia' at school. Maybe because nobody made an issue of it.

Cain murdered Abel long before the Ten Commandments were in force. Sin has been in the world since the expulsion from Eden, well just before really, when the Almighty was disobeyed and the forbidden fruit partaken of.

I know I didn't answer all your questions as I don't know where you got them all from, but I hope this clears things up for you a bit.

Maybe I'm not such a crackpot.


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#19)

by jkitleft on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:54:13 PM GMT

You say that society is changing. And it has. I say: good.

This however contradicts (in true Biblical form) your other statement that 'normal people' find homosexuality disgusting. Define 'normal'. It is an ugly word. But if you presume normal to mean the majority, then you'll find the majority are against you on this point.

Does normal mean people of whom you know? Because the defenition of normal is subjective. Your defenition of wrong is subjective here. No one can debate whether murder or rape etc. is wrong. Secularists and religious adherents can agree. But what of homosexuality? Most people are indifferent about it. Attitudes change. In a more open society, we see the lives of gay people, which are like the lives of straight people. When they are hidden, whispers are told about them.


And as for the comment about the mass media, you clearly forget the fact that the media in the '80's spread a great deal of lies about homosexuals.



But on the point about religion being man made, the point about women is always notable. Why does the ten commandments throw in wife with property, whether material or animal/human of one's neighbour? Ironically, the concept of social Darwinism is intertwined with the notion that the absolutist dictates when one can relax, as the first few commandments have a quasi-monarchial feel about them, reminding us of dictatorship through omnipotence.


Notice how the commandments do not mention rape, or cruelty to children or genocide. In fact, genocide is commited in the next passage of the Bible.

It is the subjugation of women that has recently indicated to me that religion is indeed "man"-made. We have a fine cathedral in our capital dedicated to a saint who in the New Testament expresses contempt for women. The hatred of women, for menstruating is common in all religions. And yet the books make all to clear that this is sinful, but impossible for males to resist. Only Sigmund Freud's dissection of the animal inside of us, that drives human sexuality, and recognises its importance in terms of psychology and the human emotion, is a more accurate description of hetrosexual male's sexuality.

And indeed, find many non-religious homophobes, and when psychologically dissected, it can be revealed that many feel threatened by gay men. Why is it that homophobia seems to be more prevalant in men than women?





[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#20)

by TonyH on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:13:41 PM GMT

Let's be absolutely clear - you are a bit of a crackpot.

Your posts are entertaining but don't delude yourself into believing there's anything convincing about a guy who says being gay is bad behaviour.

By the by - consider your position in whatever religous  sect you belong to because I promise you that a majority of people who read your smug rants will be made less likely to consider "faith" in a positive way.  

Fact #1 Being gay is innate. People don't decide it in the same way they don't decide their gender, skin colour or nationality and to discriminate against any of the above, even with religously motivated stupidity, is immoral. 

Fact #2 From our point of view - you're statistically more likely to be gay yourself. One only needs to look  at the US Congress to see how the most mouthy, religous, right-wing homophobes are themselves most likely to get caught in a gents propositioning a policeman (not, of course, that that is representative behaviour of even a significant number of gay men). 

Fact #3 The "World Order" isn't even competent enough to organise itself into beating third world countries in wars - despite spending trillions of dollars of Western GDP on war machinery. How on earth do you think it competent enough to "enslave us"? The UN can't even manage to order the right amount of blue helmets and you think lizards in Bohemian Grove can agree to divvy up who gets your useless output?

A couple of your sentences addressed:

Morality isn't relative, which is one reason we have so many problems in the country today.


If it were absolute, we'd either all be the same person or have history's most effective dictatorship removing our God given personal choice! 

Normal people find homosexual behaviour disgusting. 

No, normal people actually find bigotry disgusting. I'd have thought a guy who calls himself "Freedom" would have some respect for the freedom of others from such pigheaded prejudice.

You also think "conditioning" is what leads to people "accepting" gays while you're using the same ranting terminology I heard in South Carolina eight years ago? If anyone has been "conditioned"...


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#21)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:18:27 AM GMT

And I think that anyone who supports a treasonous government is more than just a crackpot, they are themselves treasonous by association, but I'm sure you would disagree with the obvious again.

Fact #1 Being gay is innate.

Not a fact: Tatchell last month wrote he didn't know how much was nature vs nurture.

Fact #2 From our point of view - you're statistically more likely to be gay yourself.

Labour loves 'statistics'. You just made that one up, didn't you.

Believe it or not, some of us have the eternal welfare of souls on our minds, but you have been conditioned to see it as hatred.

And those neocon 'christians' do indeed have a disproportionate interest in rent boys, but they're not Christians.

Bush Jr and Sn are Skull and Bones and many of them go to Bohemian Grove to partake of Luciferian ceremonies and avail themselves of the homosexual prostitutes there if they are that way inclined.

Fact #3 The "World Order" isn't even competent enough to organise itself into beating third world countries in wars.

I was tempted to call you a fool, but you obviously have no idea that the intention was to be in Iraq for decades and to foment civil war.

Is that another conspiracy 'theory'?

Harry Cohen MP doesn't think so:

Look, it's about time you paid more attention to my posts and stopped seeing them as 'entertainment'.

>>>If it [morality] were absolute, we'd either all be the same person or have history's most effective dictatorship removing our God given personal choice!<<< 

What, like 40 years ago?

>>>No, normal people actually find bigotry disgusting. I'd have thought a guy who calls himself "Freedom" would have some respect for the freedom of others from such pigheaded prejudice.<<<

You are showing yourself to be the victim of mind control again. Prejudice is normal in people, in fact, vital.

People looking for a babysitter are rightly prejudiced, aren't they? I am not bigoted, but I am prejudiced against certain BEHAVIOUR, not people.

With freedom comes responsibilities - big ones - and promoting homosexuality to children breaks the rules of every human being with his or her head screwed on correctly, whether they are Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, atheists, pagans, agnostics or Jedi.

As for lizards, I leave that to David Icke and his followers.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#12)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:19:08 PM GMT

Yeh and the aliens from Mars are plotting to overthrow Earth next Wednesday...


[ Parent ]

Re: ConservativeHome must be anti-British (#14)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:05:11 PM GMT

Haha


[ Parent ]

ConservativeHome must be anti-British | 21 comments (21 topical)