The 2017 General Election

[denphone]

Tory election research found Boris Johnson was 'deeply divisive'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...eeply-divisive

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

That was my complaint with him. He should have stood firm on his beliefs and faith as they are similar to mine. He may have raised the ire of some but being open about them is better. Being overt in your faith lets people know where you stand clearly and many who would not agree with the position would support the man. Hypocrisy is a bigger turn-off than disagreement.

He probably felt that saying homosexuality is wrong, if indeed this is his belief, would be inappropriate for a politician seeking to lead the country (or at least represent the views of millions of people)

[denphone]

Originally Posted by pip08456

As do I but society was different then, thankfully we have evolved except for Faron it seems.

Although I'm "straight" I have many friends in the LGBT community and have for several years. I have no problem with them they are still my friends.

In fact the most recent one I met (about 5 yrs ago) who I still have a drink and a natter with was surprised when I answered his "You do realise I'm Gay" statement with "Are you a good person or not if so I don't give a ****!"

We've been good friends ever since.

I take people as I find them, not by their sexual orientation, that's none of my business.

Spot on pip as even though l am straight we too have many friends who are in the LGBT community and l have a younger brother who is gay as thankfully society has evolved and moved on from what it used to be but there are still some out there as one will never get rid of the prejudice fully.

Originally Posted by denphone

... but there are still some out there as one will never get rid of the prejudice fully.

The point being, why should they ?

I dont care one way or the other, but what really annoys me with these groups is how two faced they are. They bang on about their "rights" and how intolerant some people are, while at the same time they are 100% intolerant themselves of anyone who doesnt agree with them.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Paul M

The point being, why should they ?

I dont care one way or the other, but what really annoys me with these groups is how two faced they are. They bang on about their "rights" and how intolerant some people are, while at the same time they are 100% intolerant themselves of anyone who doesnt agree with them.

l don't disagree that some of them are two faced and intolerant of others and that is a poor reflection on them.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul M

The point being, why should they ?

If they aim to lead a Government they should. If not, they can keep their prejudice to themselves

[gba93]

Originally Posted by ianch99

If they aim to lead a Government they should. If not, they can keep their prejudice to themselves

Prejudice works both ways - if you want others to keep their views (or prejudices if you prefer) to themselves then perhaps you should follow your own advice

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by gba93

Prejudice works both ways - if you want others to keep their views (or prejudices if you prefer) to themselves then perhaps you should follow your own advice

You are missing the point here. The proposition is that if a politician seeking to lead (or participate in at a senior level of) the Government of the UK believes that that homosexual sex is a sin* then this presents a problem. A problem in terms of his or her electability and his or her credibility regarding enacting laws relating to sexual conduct.

I don't care if people think homosexual sex is a sin, that is their problem. I do care if that person is leader of this country.

*sin: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

[Pierre]

Why socialism doesn't work. Taken from a post on Facebook, I thought it explained it brilliantly

THINK LOGICALLY ABOUT CORBYN'S SOCIALIST IDEALS ..

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Corbyn's vision of socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Corbyn's ideological plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for £ 's )something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that.

There are five morals to this story:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation

ATTRIBUTED TO Billy Guy

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

No surprise there given his hypocritical stance on several things.

Like what?

---------- Post added at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was at 20:02 ----------

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

That was my complaint with him. He should have stood firm on his beliefs and faith as they are similar to mine. He may have raised the ire of some but being open about them is better. Being overt in your faith lets people know where you stand clearly and many who would not agree with the position would support the man. Hypocrisy is a bigger turn-off than disagreement.

What has he been hypocritical about?

Originally Posted by ianch99

I don't care if people think homosexual sex is a sin, that is their problem. I do care if that person is leader of this country.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, either you care or you dont, you cannot do both.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

If they aim to lead a Government they should. If not, they can keep their prejudice to themselves

Why? It's quite possible to disagree with some thing but support a persons right to do it.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul M

You seem to be contradicting yourself, either you care or you dont, you cannot do both.

If you want to be pedantic:

I don't care if people (who do not want to govern the country) think homosexual sex is a sin, that is their problem. I do care if that person is leader of this country.

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Why? It's quite possible to disagree with some thing but support a persons right to do it.

It may be possible but it also may be inappropriate.

With respect to Farron, his track record on doing as you say is patchy at best ..

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

It may be possible but it also may be inappropriate.
..

I don't see why.

This is not about Farron, but about the point.

I think if you can put aside your personal objections and fight for the right of others that surely is a good thing.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't see why.

This is not about Farron, but about the point.

I think if you can put aside your personal objections and fight for the right of others that surely is a good thing.

You may be right but should you fight for the rights of others when you believe that they should not have those rights in the first place?

Back to Farron, he should have never put his party in this position in the first place .. he could have aired his views from the back benches where he could have been judged as an individual and not as the representative of the party.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Absolutely.

People seem to confuse 'legal' with 'compulsory'...

We have lots of friends, gay and straight (single and married) - they're our friends because we like them and get on with them; their sexual orientation is irrelevant.

Yeh. like me. I have white friends and black friends. them being white is irrelevant.