There seems to be little inertia. And where a strong un-ambivalent right should exist, there is the bloody BNP and the rather weak kneed Conservative Party.
Home | 
There seems to be little inertia. And where a strong un-ambivalent right should exist, there is the bloody BNP and the rather weak kneed Conservative Party.
You're not wrong there Bararallu
'Call me Dave' Cameron and his sidekick, Osbourn. Give me strength!!
The problem is that Blair set a sort of strange standard - well, a couple actually. The first was 'style' - now some seem to think politicians need to have oodles of charisma, like a rock star, really. Or, like Hitler. My father was working in Germany as Hitler's star was rising and said he was a highly charismatic man. Women got hysterical over him, chased his car....all that nonsense.
Blair also moved 'spin' to an entirely new level. So much so that when a politician speaks, no one knows if its fact or fiction.
The British public have now become so disengaged with the political system that it's actually dangerous. Voter apathy in France almost got Jean-Marie Le Pen a foot through the door.
Cameron is perhaps the most charismatic leader since Maggie. It is this that has turned the tide for the Conservatives. It can't be his policies because no one really knows what they are.
Maybe Cameron is just going to wait and see what the back lash will be and if the voice is stronger from the public in favour of Wilders, then who knows he may decide to use the Islaminization issues for political gain in the voting booth.
And most probably no one will know. I hope it wont be another 7/7 that will bring in fresh faces and ideas into the Parliament. Reactionary politics have a tinge of, well the guillotine.
Lets hope not but then the general public of the UK do not seem to have woken up to the threat that lays within our own borders, yes they are stirring but not fully awake.And most probably no one will know. I hope it wont be another 7/7 that will bring in fresh faces and ideas into the Parliament...
Tonight we lost another young soldier in Afghanistan, another young life lost fighting the very enemy that walks the streets of the UK shouting for sharia law to be intorduced into the UK.
Yes, Kozzol - but I don't much like those type of politics.
I believe politicians should listen to the people - but I don't think they should base their policies on whichever way the wind blows.
If Cameron got in on am 'Islamisation' ticket and it wasn't genuine, who's to say he wouldn't make an about-turn two years later if threatened a la Ahmed?
His test was now - when Ahmed was making the threat. It's too easy to speak up after the fact.
He's done something like this with his 'hug a hoodie' mantra. Daft apeth! To say nothing of his Huskie-ride trip. It's posturing, and I don't like it.
The only politician I actually had time for was Charles Kennedy. I can recall one older journalist saying that the loss of Charles Kennedy was a bigger blow to the UK than they realised. They hadn't had the opportunity to listen to him because the media wouldn't give him airtime.
I did notice coming up to the 2007 election, during a debate with Blair and Howard - that Blair was booed, Howard got no reaction - but they cheered Kennedy.
He got it spot on with Iraq inasmuch as he warned the UK that they simply didn't understand the ME mindset (he called it 'pride', to be diplomatic). This is one of my pet arguments, though. That you can't take western logic and apply it all around the world. Which essentially is what Kennedy was saying.
Or was it just that they couldnt catch him sober?The only politician I actually had time for was Charles Kennedy. I can recall one older journalist saying that the loss of Charles Kennedy was a bigger blow to the UK than they realised. They hadn't had the opportunity to listen to him because the media wouldn't give him airtime.
I agree with your last post you hit the nail on the head
Bless him! He did like his whiskey and his smokes, didn't he? Probably still does.
I've met Kennedy, Hughes, Huhne and Clegg.
In 2007 I went to a LibDem pre-election meeting where Hughes gave a speech. Actually, I was impressed. There were no cameras, no journalists - so no posturing.
Hughes told his people NOT to spin or sling mud in the election campaign. It was OK to point out the weaknesses in the opposition's policies or statements, but it was NOT right to distort truth, attack personalities or otherwise play mucky politics. Impressive after the Blair years.
Clegg has his heart in the right place - he appears to really care about people more than politics, but he comes over as someone who perhaps needs to pop into bed cuddling his teddy bear. Huhne should have been the LibDem's leader - he's a pretty strong person.
I think he would have been the leader, too. As they toured the country, people were seeing them slug it out and realising that Clegg was well-meaning, but needed more experience. The postal strike made the vital difference.
Isn't it funny how the facts of 7/7 have been all but forgotten in all this, as well as well the countless other attacks that have been thwarted at the final moment, like the attack on Glasgow airport. There have been so many.Originally Posted by bararallu
The liberal dream to integrate people who support such actions (whether actively or passively) and the pandering to Muslim sensibilities should have stopped after 7/7 but it just increased. It just shows you how effectively terrorism works.
Sometimes it makes me wonder if it will only take another bigger 7/7 style atrocity to make people realise this. Similar attacks are probably being plotted as we speak. But if (or when) one occurs again, many people will blame us for it anyway, saying we forced the Muslims into it.
-I can guarantee Wilders is as pro-Israel as it gets and is not anti-semitic at all, on the contrary. He talked with Vlaams Belang. So what? Jews in Israel in the 1930s talked with the nazi´s and the predecessor of Likud even wanted a deal concerning agricultural machines with the nazi´s.
-What I donot like about him is that he talks about Muslim being all the same (as in terrorists). There are good law abiding Muslims, making valuable contribution to society (even in Israel). He places those Muslims in the same category as the Islamic terrorists. And thats just ain´t right.
He plays the game very well. He keeps his cool and gained a lot of support due to his ban in the UK and his presecution in Holland. And, yes, the last (banning and persecution) also increased my sympathy for him.
Rob wrote
People can generalise even though they do not mean every single person or object they are discussing.-What I donot like about him is that he talks about Muslim being all the same (as in terrorists). There are good law abiding Muslims, making valuable contribution to society (even in Israel). He places those Muslims in the same category as the Islamic terrorists. And thats just ain´t right.
Here in the UK during the debate between Lord Pearce and Lord nasir Ahmed concerning Geert Wilders and his film 'Fitna', Lord Pearce argued that 'Wilders' was not branding all moslems as fanatics but showing the moderates that there are commands in the Quran which need to be addressed.
I have worked with Palestinians in Israel and not every palestinian is a potential terrorist, but until you know otherwise you should never let your defence down and the same applies to moslems.
I respectfully disagree with you here Rob. There is a bottom line when it comes to Muslim immigration and that is trouble. We can see it across the world as there is no way to tell what their true intentions are. I believe that if non-Islamic countries do not end Muslim immigration, eventually we will lose. As they will never stop pushing. They took over the ME and Turkey. Now portions of Europe. That is what they do.
Watch at the about the 1:00 mark as Wilders calls Gordon Brown the biggest coward in Europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbPgO.../atlas_shrugs/
Gordon's not best known for his courage, Steven.
Apparently, our Home Secretary is being called 'Jackboots Jacqui'. Love it!
I have no idea what Wilders' true motivations are, but he is right in saying that if he was allowed in to the UK five weeks ago for discussions about the same issue, what has now changed? The answer is reasonably clear to me - it's Achmed's threats.
He is also right in saying that the Government is not necessarily speaking on behalf of the majority. Given that the difference between five weeks ago and now is Achmed - one man - then that, too, is true.
As I said, I don't know Wilders real intentions. He may be the most racist bigot in the world, but he is gaining in popularity around the EU. It behoves us, then, to find out what his motives are and we cannot do that without discussion.
I truly believe that Wilders want to save Europe from an Islamic takeover. To do this, being nice is not the answer. That is just the way it is.
If the UK denied his entry because of Lord Ahmed, Lord Ahmed has just been empowered.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks