« Backbench gain | Main | Golf with added monsoon. »

September 30, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kay Tie

"Pointless."

Not really, because the BBC doesn't bother listening to Rush and his horrible mates. Yet somehow the unpleasant Left gets a lot of air time.

DG

You could just as easily write a piece entitled "Rush Limbaugh and the unreasoning hatred of the right." Pointless.

Kay Tie

I just found that someone else wrote rather more eloquently than me on this topic:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100024522/michael-moore-and-the-unquestioning-self-righteousness-of-the-left/

Kay Tie

"Which side is the nicest then Kay Tie?"

The side that leaves people alone and doesn't seek to coerce them into doing or not doing something, and doesn't despise people for resisting said coercion.

Ad

Which side is the nicest then Kay Tie? Seems to me to be a fatuous question though. One could well turn it around and say 'face it, you lot are just not nice people' as you did earlier.

Kay Tie

"I don't consider those people to be 'nice'. "

Nor do I.

Ad

'What does "reactionary" mean?'

Its a common enough word:

'–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.'

It is typical of right wingers to takes a hard line on drugs offences, pro-death penalty, harsh on law and order, eager to start wars with Iran, Iraq etc.

I don't consider those people to be 'nice'.

Kay Tie

"Just look at all the right wing reactionary nutcases in American politics for example. "

What does "reactionary" mean? In any case, when a certain trait is endemic in a movement it is quite normal to judge that movement. When it's common for lefties to be insulting, threatening and obnoxious we can safely conclude lefties are not nice people. Just look at how Paul descended into the gutter when making baseless accusations of anti-semitism.

Ad

'Well that's a tautology'

So it was. The point is, you keeping banging on about how 'the left' are nasty i.e 'some SWP member said they would like to punch someone.' Its fatuous.

'Face it, you lot are just not nice people.'

Just look at all the right wing reactionary nutcases in American politics for example. As Huw said its descending into silliness to look for examples of individuals from the 'left' or the 'right' and pretend you are somehow proving who is the 'nicest'.

Kay Tie

"a world where only the wealthy and powerful rule"

Well that's a tautology: anyone ruling is powerful, so of course the powerful rule. It's far better that the power over us is restricted: that's libertarianism or minarchism.

Patrick

Had a look at the video Jonny.

It's a shame that Ed fails to connect boarded up high streets with massive rates to finance the Civil Service.

The Government thought that the high street could co-exist with new massive out of town complexes leading to more revenue for higher Civil Servant wages.

Walk around any British high street.
Well we can all see what thought did.

At the same time that businesses have been decimated nationally , top Civil Servants wages have been increased to obscene levels.

So at least there is a silver lining.

Everytime i pass a boarded up shop i am consoled in that a Civil Servant somewhere is on holiday.

Jonny Roberts

I'm sorry, I should have listened better in history, I don't know much about the Normans but i'm not sure most people do nor would they care to particularly. The real problems most of Britain is facing http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/sep/30/labour-conference-middle-england

Ad

You only have to look at the right wing establishment for all the important evils today. In a world where only the wealthy and powerful rule, perpetual wars and an oppressive ruling class are the result.

There is no real public discourse on important subjects. This country and others are a disgrace. Britain merely seves a huge establishment which is running amok.

Kay Tie

"point out something you don't like then claim that this invalidates an entire movement."

It does invalidate an entire movement when it is endemic. Socialism is a creed based on coercion, pure and simple. And when you see how socialists actually behave in private, you see the actual emotion: hate. Coupled with coercive powers, this is doomed to failure.

But you don't have to take this from me. Hayek was in the storm of this and gives it a fuller treatment than the few words I use. It's a well established argument and borne out by history: Labour in the 1970s was an abusive party that stood for vested interests and gave them power over us all. Red Ed's new party stands for the same.

Go and watch the 10:10 Campaign video and see the revolting nastiness of lefties like Richard Curtis:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056586/eco-fascism-jumps-the-shark-massive-epic-fail/

Your "nice, good intentions" are just a veneer. We see this from your nasty insults, we see it in the tribal infighting in Labour, we see it even in the admission from Hazel Blears that the party is malicious:

http://order-order.com/2010/10/01/brillo-makes-blears-eats-her-words/

We see even the threats of violence against people who dare to question your ideology. Face it, you lot are just not nice people. You are bitter, jealous and full of hatred for those who would let people make their own choices in life. Just look at how you react to Mrs. Thatcher: wishing her dead.

HuwOS

"Even though it's a non sequitur, I do have to point out that the Saxon peasants had plenty of rights before the Normans came"

Yes KayTie, they did, then the Normans took them away, then quite a long time later they gave some back.

And none of it is non sequitur Kaytie, your classic ploy is to point out something you don't like then claim that this invalidates an entire movement. Usually you do this with things that are not in the slightest bit problematical but even if you were actually truthful and accurate (a rare event I am certain but it must happen sometimes surely)
you could still not justifiably jump from the one to the other.

If you haven't seen a brain engaged KayTie, it is perhaps because your senses are so often offline.
Engage KayTie, engage, the world is very different from the nightmarish visions in your head and unlike Mr Foot in Usk, the voices you hear in the darkness are only in your head.

Kay Tie

"Can we attack womens liberation from suffragettes to equal rights on the basis that not all women are pleasant and not all behave in the best ways possible."

Tsk. You want us to account for individual actions now? I thought you were into collective punishment, Huw? You are so keen on it elsewhere (smashing "the bankers" without apparent understanding of what even a banker is). Why, I'd have thought you would agree perfectly with the idea that one is defined by one's group, and one's group is defined by any notable action of that group.

"who the hell did those barons think they were"

Err, you do know what "non sequitur" means, don't you?

"Why Oh Why did the Normans eventually grant rights to those awful saxon peasants who still cause trouble to this very day"

Even though it's a non sequitur, I do have to point out that the Saxon peasants had plenty of rights before the Normans came, and that our Enlightenment views on individual liberty are the cultural inheritance of those rights.

"Hey it's fun to disengage the brain"

What do you mean DISengage? I haven't seen you engage it much in the first place. If you can't see that "good intentions" isn't endemic within the philosophy of the left then you have no reasoning ability whatsoever.

HuwOS

Can everyone join in this nonsense.

Can we attack womens liberation from suffragettes to equal rights on the basis that not all women are pleasant and not all behave in the best ways possible.
Let's call it evil and wish it had been left undone and long for the return to how things should be.

As for Magna Carta, who the hell did those barons think they were, and I can assure you they were far from perfect too.
Murderous scumbags the lot of them.
And
Why Oh Why did the Normans eventually grant rights to those awful saxon peasants who still cause trouble to this very day, I suppose KayTie will say there were good intentions but many of their actions were brutish, should we excuse those?

Hey it's fun to disengage the brain, no wonder it's so popular with KayTie and her lot.

Kay Tie

David, you mean to say that socialists are not nice people after all? But they have such good intentions. Surely this excuses all brutish acts?

David Walters

When Foot eventually reached the "Socialist Valleys" he would no doubt have brimmed with pride to see his "socialist" bretheren employers in local governement bring the same fear to bear on the populace there with the vindictive malice with with they treated other political views.

Kay Tie

Here's one person who was afraid to show people where he lived, and suffered threats of violence based in his political views:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100056428/lefties-go-mental-while-watching-my-school-documentary/

Hard lefties are such lovely people, aren't they?

Kay Tie

"as I do not believe it would benefit those forced to stand behind walls or in shadows for fear of what their lords and masters would do."

And who today is afraid to show their face?

Patrick

"I believe people like you in the Labour party need to concentrate on trying to retrieve the Labour party you joined from the Borglike right wing meld it became under Blair et al."

I agree in principle Huw. The problem with that is you end up with an unelectable party.

Paul knows this so well that despite years of anti-war blogs he then backs the pro war Tony Blair mark 2 David Milliband in the leadership election.

There is no point in three right -wing parties arguing in HOC when they will all ultimately deliver the same.

The parties might as well amalgamate and give the country what it collectively wants
, right wing policies for a right wing nation.


HuwOS

Thank you for the reminder why the Labour party was necessary Paul.

It is a pity that I would have no faith that the modern version would be worth voting for, as I do not believe it would benefit those forced to stand behind walls or in shadows for fear of what their lords and masters would do.
The last 13 years suggest it would be more beneficial to the other side.

I think you are being overly optimistic about the chances in the next general election.
I believe people like you in the Labour party need to concentrate on trying to retrieve the Labour party you joined from the Borglike right wing meld it became under Blair et al.

The comments to this entry are closed.