Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:41 am**

Dachshund, I am a patriotic British person. I have patriotic feelings towards the USA too, and I deplore the invitation to Mr Trump to dine with the Queen . The people in both nations are predominantly good people , and both national cultures are fortunate enough to remember good moral traditions based upon the great world religions. Americans and British are aligned in our patriotism and I still hope that the good will overcome the bad in both nations.

Apropos your remarks about the Koran, you are confused about the psychology of religious fundamentalism . You probably don't understand that liberal religious education is important . It's not my place to educate you on this complex matter and indeed your prejudices may be insurmountable perhaps especially if you are an old man.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:43 am**

Dachshund wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:53 am
It is very likely that a General Election will be held in the UK this year.The big UK bookmakers currently have the odds of a General Election being called in 2019 set at 11/10 (!). If you are not a gambler, what this means is that if you want to bet that a UK General Election will be held this year, in order to win £10, you would have to wager £11 with a bookmaker. In other words, the bookmakers think is is highly likely there will be General Election held this year.

For the record, I would like to predict that Boris Johnson will lead the Tories into the next election, and that they will win.

Arrising_UK wants the British Labour Party to win the next UK General Election, that would mean veteren socialist Jeremy Corby would become the Prime Minister. Apparantly, Arrising_UK would welcome this result. As for me, I think it would be a disaster. One reasonis that Corbyn is a British traitor.

Having said this, I will now provide some evidence, and I would be particularly interested to hear what Arrising_UK has to say on the matter. Actually, I be very pleased if he could just answer one simple question: "Is Jeremy Corbyn a British traitor or is he not?"

Here are a list of facts we know about Corbyn...

* He invited two IRA members to parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing.

* He attended a Bloody Sunday Commemoration with bomber Brendan Mc Kenna.

* He attended a meeting with Provisional IRA member Raymond Mc Cartney.

* He hosted IRA linked Mitchell Mc Laughlin in parliament.

* He spoke alongside IRA terrorist Martina Anderson.

* He attended a Sinn Fein dinner with IRA bomber Gerry Kelly.

* He chaired an Irish republican event with IRA bomber Brendan Mc Farlane.

* He attended a Bobby Sands commemoration honouring IRA terrorists.

* He stood in a minute's silence for IRA terrorists shot by the SAS.

* He refused to condemn the IRA in a Sky News interview.

* He refused to condemn the IRA on Question Time.

* He refused to condemn IRA violence in a BBC radio interview.

* He signed an EDM after IRA Poppy massacre blaming Britain for the deaths.

* He was arrested while protesting in support of Brighton bombers co - defendants.

* He lobbied parliament to improve visiting conditions for IRA killers.

* He attended an Irish republican event calling for armed conflict against Britain.

* He hired suspected IRA man Ronan Bennett as a parliamentary assistant.

* He hired another aide closely linked to several IRA terrorists.

* He was heavily involved with the IRA sympatising newspaper London Labour Briefing.

* He put up bail money for IRA terror suspect Roisin Mc Alisky.

* He didn't support an IRA ceasefire.

* He said HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH were "friends."

* He called for HAMAS to be removed from the terror banned list.

* He called HAMAS "serious and hard - working".

* He attended a wreath - laying at the grave of Munich massacre terrorist.

* He attended a conference with HAMAS and PFLP.

* He was photographed smiling with a HEZBOLLAH flag.

* He attended a rally with HEZBOLLAH and Al - Muhajisoun.

* He repeatedly shared platforms with a PFLP plane hijacker.

* He hired an aide who praised HAMAS' "spirit of resistance.

* He accepted £ 20,000 from the state TV channel of terror - sponsoring Iranian regime.

* He opposed banning Britons from travelling to Syria to fight for ISIS.

* He defended the rights of fighters returning from Syria.

* He said ISIS supporters should not be prosecuted.

* He compared fighters returing from Syria to Nelson Mandela.

* He said the death of Osama Bin Laden was a "tragedy".

* He wouldn't sanction a drone strike to kill ISIS leader.

* He voted to allow ISIS fighters to return from Syria.

* He opposed shoot to kill.

* He attended an event organised by terrorist sympathising IHRC.

* He signed a letter defending Lockerbie bombing suspects.

* He wrote a letter in support of a conman accused of fundraising for ISIS.

* He spoke of "friendship" with Mo Kozbar, who called for the destruction of Israel.

* He attended an event with Abdullah Djahallah, who called for holy war against the UK.

* He called drone strikes against ISIS terrorist "obscene".

* He boasted about "opposing anti-terror legislation.

* He said laws banning jihadis from returning to Britain are "strange".

* He accepted a £ 5,000 donation from terror supporter Ted Honderich.

* He accepted a £ 2,000 trip to Gaza from banned Islamist organisation INTERPAL.

* He called Ibrahim Hewitt, extremist and chair of INTERPAL, a "very good friend".

* He accepted two more trips from pro - HAMAS group PRG.

* He was the speaker at a conference hosted by pro - HAMAS group MEMO.

* He met HAMAS leader Ismail Haniyeh several times.

* He hosted a meeting with Mousa Abu Maria of banned group Islamic Jihad.

* He is patron of Palestine Solidarity Campaign - whose marches are attended by HEZBOLLAH.

* He compared Israel to ISIS, HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH and al - Qaeda.

* He said we should not make "value judgements" about Britons who fight for ISIS.

* He received endorsement from HAMAS.

* He attended an event with Islamic extremist Suliman Gani.

* He chaired Stop the War, who praised "internationalism and solidarity" of ISIS.

* He praised Raed Said, who was jailed for inciting violence in Israel.

* He signed a letter defending jihadist advocacy group CAGE.

He met Dyab Jahjah, who praised the killing of British soldiers.

*He shared a platform with a representative of extemist cleric Muqtada al - Sadr.

He compared ISIS to the US military in an interview on Russia Today.

* He opposed proscription of Hizb ut - Tahir.

* He attended a conference which called on Iraqis to kill British soldiers.

* He attended an Al-Quds Day demonstration in support of the destruction of Israel.

* He supported the HAMAS and ISIS-linked Viva Palestine group.

* He attended a protest with Islamic extemist Mozzam Begg.

* He made the "case for iran" at an event hosted by a Khomeinist group.

* He was photographed smiling with Azzam Tamimi, who backed suicide bombings.

* He was photographed with Abdel Atwan, who sympathised with attacks on US troops.

* He said HAMAS should "have tea with the Queen".

* He attended a "Meet the Resistance" event with HEZBOLLAH MP Hussein El Haj.

* He attended an event with Haifa Zangana, who praised a Palestinian " mujahideen".

* He defended infamous anti - Semitic HAMAS supported Stephen Sizer.

* He attended an event with pro - HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH group Naturei Karta.

* He backed holocaust denying anti - Zionist extremist Paul Eisen.

* He was photographed with Abdul Raoof Al Shayeb, later jailed for terror offences.

* He mocked "anti=terror hysteria" while opposing security services.

* He was named on a speakers' list for a conference with HAMAS sympathiser Ismail Patel.

* He criticised the drone attack that killed Jihadi John.

* He said the 7/7 bombers had been denied "hope and opportunity".

* He said 9/11 was manipulated to make it look like Bin Laden was responsible.

* He failed to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks.

* He called Colombian terror group M-19 "comrades".

* He blamed the beheading of Ala Henning on Britain.

* He gave a speech in support of the Gaddafi regime.

* He signed an EDM spinning for Slobodan Milosevic.

* He blamed the Tunisia attack on "austerity".

* He voted against banning support for the IRA.

* He voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act" three times during the Troubles.

* He voted against emergency counter-terror laws after 9/11.

* He voted against stricter punishment for being a member of a terror group.

* He voted against criminalising the encouragement of terrorism.

* He voted against banning Al - Qaeda.

* He voted against outlawing the glorification of terror.

* He voted against control orders.

* He voted against increased funding for the security services to combat terror.

* He is active in the Labour Action for Peace (LAP) movement which the STASI recorded as a movement in line with the beliefs of socialist states behind the Iron Curtain.

So, what's your verdict Arrising_UK ? Traitor ? Naive Moron? Fit character to be British PM ?

Kindest Regards

Dachshund

Somebody please verify this for me: does the voting on some, or on all questions in the British Parliament (House of Commons) go by a show of hands, or are they secret ballots?

I'll try to research it now, but I'm not sure if I'll be successful in finding answers to my questions.
---------------------------------
"In parliamentary procedure, a division of the assembly, division of the house, or simply division is a method of taking a vote that physically counts members voting.

Historically, and often still today, members are literally divided into physically separate groups. etc. " Wikipaedia.

Yeah. So people know which representative voted on what side of the issue.

I am not a friend of Dachshund, at all, but I wouldn't want this guy, the head of Labour Party, to lead my nation, either, when he is so terror-friendly.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:55 pm**

Way to go in ignoring my points.

Dachshund wrote:Why don't you take a long holiday in Tehran, Baghdad, Johannesburg, Syria ? ...

You know Syria is a country don't you? I think you meant Damascus. I'd happily go to South Africa for a holiday but I'd obviously not go to the other capitals as at present they have been well and truly fucked-up by our actions so I doubt I'd be very welcome there.

You can mix with the charming locals, i.e; the people that the Labour Party would open the UK's borders to - just like Tony Blair did back in the days of "Cool Britannia". (And Gee Whizz wasn't Blair a smashing success, funny how he only included one (1) page in his memoirs re New Labour's immigration policies? (Can't figure that one out for the life of me ??)

Presumably for the complete fuck-up in estimating the amount of white Christian Eastern Europeans who would like to come and work and pay taxes here. Still, no worries as it looks like the Tories want to stop that so we can go back to their policy of bringing in those from further climes.

When you arrive for your vacation,white boy, be careful, wont you, because there's a very good chance you'll: get the shit beaten out of you or be carted off and tortured in some filthy prison cell. Then again some black with an IQ of 70, or some moronic Mujihadeen might just wack you for fun, because you're a pale-faced Pom (good target practice!)

'Some black with an IQ of 70' how quaint of you. I think they might whack me due to our governments wrecking their countries for oil, so I obviously won't be taking a holiday there.

So Bubba, don't just talk the socialist, Corbynite, multicultural, anti-racist, "kumbaya" talk; go walk the fucking walk, dude. Go try your luck on holiday in some Black/Arab shit-hole and if you're still alive/ physically able to write after 3 weeks, send us all a post to say how you got on.

What are you burbling on about? I was just discussing how the chances of the Labour Party getting elected seem to have increased due to the unpatriotic behaviour of the Tory party in calling a referendum for party politics thereby riding roughshod over our history of democratic representative goverment. An act that also seems to be failing in its of keeping its party together.

Bye-the-bye, the 'multicultural' bullshit was a Yank import which I've always opposed as one, it is a contradiction of terms and two, it stopped us addressing the issue of what being English was back in the 70's and 80's.

Later Tosspot.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:43 pm**

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:43 am [
I am not a friend of Dachshund, at all, but I wouldn't want this guy, the head of Labour Party, to lead my nation, either, when he is so terror-friendly.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Corbyn is anti-war, which of course is going to upset all the warmongering fucktards out there.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:09 pm**

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:43 pm
-1- wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:43 am [
I am not a friend of Dachshund, at all, but I wouldn't want this guy, the head of Labour Party, to lead my nation, either, when he is so terror-friendly.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Corbyn is anti-war, which of course is going to upset all the warmongering fucktards out there.

I read the items on the list he did, attended, listened to, and voted for. This is clear. He is a terror-friendly person.

Of course he is against war. Against the war on terror. I only go by what I see. No delusions, no fantasy, no fiction. The list speaks for itself.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:46 pm**

Take some deep breaths as you seem to be having trouble with the very simple quote system here.

Dachshund wrote:It is very likely that a General Election will be held in the UK this year.The big UK bookmakers currently have the odds of a General Election being called in 2019 set at 11/10 (!). If you are not a gambler, what this means is that if you want to bet that a UK General Election will be held this year, in order to win £10, you would have to wager £11 with a bookmaker. In other words, the bookmakers think is is highly likely there will be General Election held this year.

For the record, I would like to predict that Boris Johnson will lead the Tories into the next election, and that they will win. ...

Well your bookies also have the Conservatives and Labour parties as 11/10 to win so its an even call as to who will win according to them. Me, I think it'll be another hung parliament.

As to whether Boris will become Tory party leader, that'll depend upon the factional in-fighting of the Tory MP's and you can never guess how that'll turn-out.

Arrising_UK wants the British Labour Party to win the next UK General Election, that would mean veteren socialist Jeremy Corby would become the Prime Minister. Apparantly, Arrising_UK would welcome this result. As for me, I think it would be a disaster. ...

You do like making a lot of assumptions about me don't you. Since you are a Yank I'll forgive you for not understanding what a Prime Minister is but I truly can't forgive how Yank presidential politics has affected our political system.

Corbyn can believe what he likes but since the Labour Party is a democratic institution he has to follow the policies voted upon by the Labour Party membership at conference if Labour got elected that is. He is also leader due to being elected by the membership, unlike the Tory's where it's the MP's who decide their leader and policies are then made-up by them not their membership but even in this case the Prime Minister has to follow or at least bring along the Tory cabinet(hence May's problems at present).

One reasonis that Corbyn is a British traitor. ...

And which right-wing rag or site did you get this lot from? You do understand that a British MP has the right to act according to their conscience don't you? That they are then accountable to their electorate and will be voted out if they disagree with what they are doing? Corbyn may be naïve but he is at least consistent in his beliefs and they are the same as Churchill's in that it is always better to Jaw Jaw not War War.

Having said this, I will now provide some evidence, and I would be particularly interested to hear what Arrising_UK has to say on the matter. Actually, I be very pleased if he could just answer one simple question: "Is Jeremy Corbyn a British traitor or is he not?"

Well the answer is simply, no.

Here are a list of facts we know about Corbyn... ...

And as we all know facts without context are generally propaganda.

* He invited two IRA members to parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing.

* He attended a Bloody Sunday Commemoration with bomber Brendan Mc Kenna.

* He attended a meeting with Provisional IRA member Raymond Mc Cartney.

. ...

LMFAO! At the Yank bringing all this up given that it was Americans that pretty much supported, feted and funded the IRA through all the years of terrorism.

Corbyn has always advocated negotiating with those who's actions we might abhor and ironically enough it was Regan and Clinton who pressured the British governments to open negotiations, something that Corbyn had long pushed for.

* He said HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH were "friends."

* He called for HAMAS to be removed from the terror banned list.

* He called HAMAS "serious and hard - working".

* He attended a wreath - laying at the grave of Munich massacre terrorist.

* He attended a conference with HAMAS and PFLP.

...

* He voted against banning support for the IRA.

* He voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act" three times during the Troubles.

* He voted against emergency counter-terror laws after 9/11.

* He voted against stricter punishment for being a member of a terror group.

* He voted against criminalising the encouragement of terrorism.

* He voted against banning Al - Qaeda.

* He voted against outlawing the glorification of terror.

* He voted against control orders.

* He voted against increased funding for the security services to combat terror.

* He is active in the Labour Action for Peace (LAP) movement which the STASI recorded as a movement in line with the beliefs of socialist states behind the Iron Curtain. ...

I really can't be bothered to go piecemeal through the above but a couple of points, it was the US who supported the Shah in Iran whose behaviour led to their revolution and the rise of Khomeini, it was the US who along with Russia encouraged Saddam to fight the Iran/Iraq war that allowed the Clerics to consolidate their hold, it was the US who armed and funded the Taliban and Mujahedeen, it was the US who supported the Saudi's whilst they pumped-out their Wahhabi/Salafi propaganda across the Islamic world, it was the US who trained and funded Bin Laden who then went on to found Al-Qaeda, it was the US and the UK who destroyed Iraq and allowed the rise of ISIS/ISIL and all the other Islamic fanatics that Saddam was keeping down - same as in Libya, it was the US who encouraged the destruction of Iraq and Syria with no plan of how to deal with the aftermath that was foretold to them by the anti-Saddamists who told them not to do it if they were just going to leave - you could have taken a clue from the history of the British Empire, i.e. you'll have to be there for several decades embedding the institutions that democracy is founded upon but no, put on your boots and spurs and yeehaw and then ride off into the sunset.
As to the stuff about terrorist laws, laws about speech and the rest. He errs on the side of Democracy in most of these issues, has a great distrust of giving the state carte blanche to kill and imprison people without due process. Now he definitely has a great distrust and dislike of the American hegemony given their behaviour in the past of siding with right-wing fascist dictators, and sides with Iran over Saudi Arabia but there's not much of gap between those two regimes so it's a toss-up there I'd say. As to all the 'he sat with, shared a platform, had a picture taken with' stuff, I could post up uncountable pictures of your presidents and elected officials having a high-old time with some of the most disreputable characters that have graced the geo-political stage in the past, in fact we have your current prez talking about how he fell in love with Kim Jong Un and retweeting posts from banned British fascist groups.

So, what's your verdict Arrising_UK ? Traitor ? Naive Moron? Fit character to be British PM ?

So my verdict is that you are a foreign right-wing shill. As to Corbyn, no he is not a 'traitor', he is an MP doing what his conscience tells him to do and bye-and-large that is to talk and try to find negotiating positions amongst opposing groups. Do I think him naïve in some of his beliefs? Sure, but at least he's pretty much honest about them. Do I think his economic polices will work? Unsure but we've had forty years of following the right-wing American monetarists and what have we got? The rich have got very much richer and the poor very much poorer, social mobility at almost a standstill and for the first time since the post-war consensus a generation who is going to be worse off than the one before. The growth of the lumpen-proletariat and an increase in the undeserving rich(no not what you think but their over-entitled kids - you know like those ones you've just discovered are in your top colleges due to bribery). Is he fit to be PM? Well not sure what that means really but does he fundamentally support the rights and processes of Parliamentary Democracy, definitely, unlike the Tories(and Blair for that matter) who have been running roughshod over it lately, does he oppose the trend towards acting as though we have a President, for sure as he advocates for a representative parliamentary democracy, so all in all he be as 'fit' as any other that we've had and some who we may have who are proven liars, Boris comes to mind here and it doesn't matter that much as as I've already said, unlike the Tories, he has to follow the democratically voted policies of his party membership.
p.s.
All the stuff you have raised pretty much doesn't raise an eye-brow with the youth as it is ancient history to them, what does get them interested is a politician for the first time in their lives telling them things are unfair, that zero-hours contracts are not fair, that lack of housing is a political choice made to support house-builders and landlords, that governments can invest in our futures, that the environment matters, that they can do something about it by joining a political party, etc, etc. Will the idea of building a mass-movement work? No idea but it's fun to watch the right wail whilst their membership evaporates in comparison.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:57 pm**

-1- wrote:I read the items on the list he did, attended, listened to, and voted for. This is clear. He is a terror-friendly person.

Of course he is against war. Against the war on terror. I only go by what I see. No delusions, no fantasy, no fiction. The list speaks for itself.

The 'war on terror' is as stupid a phrase as 'the war on drugs' and like that one doomed to failure.

That list like all such things pays no attention to the context, its for the twatterati or propagandist. Corbyn voted against many things that were obviously about giving the state more power without accountability, in every instance he gave pretty good reasons about why they would be a bad idea and in many of them he has been proved right, as give an authority extended powers over here and they will generally use them in areas not intended by the bill, law of unintended consequences an' all. There has been a big problem with Parliament over the past few decades and that is that in an attempt to make it more 'friendly' actual debate has been reduced and laws are being passed with not enough scrutiny, thank god for the House of Lords doing its job many a time.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:42 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:57 pm
-1- wrote:I read the items on the list he did, attended, listened to, and voted for. This is clear. He is a terror-friendly person.

Of course he is against war. Against the war on terror. I only go by what I see. No delusions, no fantasy, no fiction. The list speaks for itself.
The 'war on terror' is as stupid a phrase as 'the war on drugs' and like that one doomed to failure.

That list like all such things pays no attention to the context, its for the twatterati or propagandist. Corbyn voted against many things that were obviously about giving the state more power without accountability, in every instance he gave pretty good reasons about why they would be a bad idea and in many of them he has been proved right, as give an authority extended powers over here and they will generally use them in areas not intended by the bill, law of unintended consequences an' all. There has been a big problem with Parliament over the past few decades and that is that in an attempt to make it more 'friendly' actual debate has been reduced and laws are being passed with not enough scrutiny, thank god for the House of Lords doing its job many a time.

Given that I am an outsider, I am the first to admit that Britons should not listen to me when it comes to advice on Brit politics.

However, as a private opiniateur, I hold that this Labour guy is terror-friendly.

It is neither here nor there what I think. My thoughts on the topic are completely inconsequential. My readers here must know that.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:49 pm**

-1- wrote:... but I wouldn't want this guy, the head of Labour Party, to lead my nation, either, when he is so terror-friendly.

He doesn't lead the nation, he's not a President but a Prime Minister. To our great shame we are also forgetting this over here and our elections are becoming a farce of personality over policies.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:51 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: p.s.
All the stuff you have raised pretty much doesn't raise an eye-brow with the youth as it is ancient history to them, what does get them interested is a politician for the first time in their lives telling them things are unfair, that zero-hours contracts are not fair, that lack of housing is a political choice made to support house-builders and landlords, that governments can invest in our futures, that the environment matters, that they can do something about it by joining a political party, etc, etc. Will the idea of building a mass-movement work? No idea but it's fun to watch the right wail whilst their membership evaporates in comparison.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:57 pm give an authority extended powers over here and they will generally use them in areas not intended by the bill, law of unintended consequences an' all. There has been a big problem with Parliament over the past few decades and that is that in an attempt to make it more 'friendly' actual debate has been reduced and laws are being passed with not enough scrutiny, thank god for the House of Lords doing its job many a time.

So... would you say your skepticism on the power given to Brit politicians extends or not extends to all politicians? What are your criteria to separate which politician to trust with the powers vested in them (such as voting them in for an election win) and which not? In particular, do you have any assurance that any politician will or will not fulfil the promises, such as they are, they make during campaigning?

My point being, of course, that the Labour guy ought to be distrusted just as much as everyone else, or else, you must trust everyone else as much as the Labour guy, but if you want to cherry pick whom to trust ab ovo and whom not to, then you have to present pretty strong reasons to back that action up.

Unless of course you vote randomly, or emotionally.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:54 pm**

-1- wrote:... However, as a private opiniateur, I hold that this Labour guy is terror-friendly.

What does 'terror-friendly' even mean? Do you realise the amount of terror the US and UK have unleashed upon millions of innocent people in the past few deacades?

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:57 pm**

-1- wrote:... but I wouldn't want this guy, the head of Labour Party, to lead my nation, either, when he is so terror-friendly.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:49 pm He doesn't lead the nation, he's not a President but a Prime Minister. To our great shame we are also forgetting this over here and our elections are becoming a farce of personality over policies.

I don't know the British system. In Canada, where I live and vote, the Prime Minister wields all political power. Practically.

In the US the Leader of the Nation and the Leader of the Free World has very limited power, over his domain, compared to the Prime Minister's power over Canada. The POTUS can only veto Bills (or whatever they call them there.) He only has power, and absolute power, during national emergencies, such as being at war.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:03 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:54 pm
-1- wrote:... However, as a private opiniateur, I hold that this Labour guy is terror-friendly.
What does 'terror-friendly' even mean? Do you realise the amount of terror the US and UK have unleashed upon millions of innocent people in the past few deacades?

Terror-Friendly (adj.): 1. Person who is friends of the terrors. 2a. Person or corporation that does not denounce terror outright. 2b. Person or corporation that supports terror in financial or in military ways. 2c. Person or corporation that gives moral support to terrorists, terrorist dogma, terrorist action, or terrorist organizations. 3. Person or corporation that helps terrorists in legal ways or on moral grounds or extending political favours, even just by not denouncing them, or calling terrorists and terrorist organizations "our friend" or "our friends".

Given this definition, the Labour guy is terror-friendly.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:06 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:54 pm What does 'terror-friendly' even mean? Do you realise the amount of terror the US and UK have unleashed upon millions of innocent people in the past few deacades?

I condemn the Invasion of Iraq, and the constant shit the Western Powers have been piling on the Arab world. Just as much as you do.

You should elect a Prime Minister who promises in his campaign that he or she will prosecute all war criminals in front of an international panel of judges, including George W. Bush (that's the younger one, right?) and some other dudies. Bush being one of the accused, not one of the judges.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:01 pm**

-1- wrote:I don't know the British system. In Canada, where I live and vote, the Prime Minister wields all political power. Practically.

In the US the Leader of the Nation and the Leader of the Free World has very limited power, over his domain, compared to the Prime Minister's power over Canada. The POTUS can only veto Bills (or whatever they call them there.) He only has power, and absolute power, during national emergencies, such as being at war.

He's not the 'Leader of the Free World'

But since we have essentially the same system I agree that compared to a President a Prime Minister does wield more political power but the power to veto bills is not one of them and that is a pretty strong power, the President is also leader of the Armed Forces which is not the case with the PM, so(but I'm not sure) a President could declare a national emergency and the military would be honour-bound to obey him which is also another extremely strong and in my opinion dangerous power. But my point is that the PM is not a President and parties should be voted in on policy not personality which is what is happening more and more nowadays, hence the puppies insistence that we should look at Corbyn as a President but it doesn't matter what Corbyn's beliefs are as he has to carry out the policies voted for by the Labour party membership not what he would like them to be. The problem we have been having over here is that over the past few decades the Executive have been taking more and more power to themselves over Parliament and the PM's have been ignoring their cabinets, something that Corbyn opposes, he would wish to make Parliament sovereign again.

Philosophy Now Forum

Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Re:

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: