• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2


Apparently foie gras and fur will still be allowed to be imported into the UK after some cabinet minister objected including (surprise, surprise) Jacob Rees-Mogg on the grounds that people should have a choice... I imagine many of those people are him and his friends.
 

Apparently foie gras and fur will still be allowed to be imported into the UK after some cabinet minister objected including (surprise, surprise) Jacob Rees-Mogg on the grounds that people should have a choice... I imagine many of those people are him and his friends.
They should have a choice. Big daddy state is not the arbitrator of ALL morality just yet
 
They should have a choice. Big daddy state is not the arbitrator of ALL morality just yet
I guess you think that people should be allowed to fight dogs, hunt foxes, abuse animals in general as they should have a choice and the state shouldn't arbitrate on morality. Hell, why have laws at all? All they do is infringe on people's freedoms.
 
I guess you think that people should be allowed to fight dogs, hunt foxes, abuse animals in general as they should have a choice and the state shouldn't arbitrate on morality. Hell, why have laws at all? All they do is infringe on people's freedoms.
Wholeheartedly agree tbh.

Total libertarianism is the way
 
Jacob Rees Mogg: Gay marriage and abortion should be banned outright

Also Jacob Rees Mogg: torturing animals is a matter of personal choice
I mean I was mainly winding people up but that's pretty plainly untrue - he's been very concistent when it comes to the role of gov.

He doesn't personally believe in gay marriage and abortion but doesn't believe its the role of the state, but that's normally buried or just not mentioned in articles about it.

The actual quote was something along the lines of "it is my belief that it is wrong but that doesn't matter because it should have no bearing on the law of the land and were I to become PM that wouldn't change" or something to that effect

You can think he's a ****, cause he is a bit of a **** but at least critique his actual position
 
Last edited:
I mean I was mainly winding people up but that's pretty plainly untrue - he's been very concistent when it comes to the role of gov.

He doesn't personally believe in gay marriage and abortion but doesn't believe its the role of the state, but that's normally buried or just not mentioned in articles about it.

You can think he's a ****, cause he is a bit of a **** but at least critique his actual position
Except his voting record of same-sex marriage is 9 votes against 0 for.
 
Except his voting record of same-sex marriage is 9 votes against 0 for.
In his mind, it doesn't matter because you have so little individual agency as an individual MP - different to how he would set Gov policy.

Regardless, he outright said he wouldn't ban gay marriage and abortion, as Olly said
 
In his mind, it doesn't matter because you have so little individual agency as an individual MP - different to how he would set Gov policy.

Regardless, he outright said he wouldn't ban gay marriage and abortion, as Olly said
Yeah 9 votes against despite what he says so as usual he's full of horseshit.
 
Yeah 9 votes against despite what he says so as usual he's full of horseshit.
You realise two things can be true at once right? He can both believe abortions etc is a sin, thus meaning that he alone can't advocate for it, but also doesn't think that its the role of the larger, broadly non religious state to legislate against it?
 
You realise two things can be true at once right? He can both believe abortions etc is a sin, thus meaning that he alone can't advocate for it, but also doesn't think that its the role of the larger, broadly non religious state to legislate against it?
But he has voted to legislated against it. He should be abstaining in those instances if his two beliefs systems don't coincide. But he has chosen his religious bullshit over his libertarian bullshit every time when push came to shove.
 
You realise two things can be true at once right? He can both believe abortions etc is a sin, thus meaning that he alone can't advocate for it, but also doesn't think that its the role of the larger, broadly non religious state to legislate against it?
If he thinks the state shouldn't legislate on a matter but he opposes it, he should abstain or vote in favour of the option where the state has a lesser role. By opposing making it legal, he is showing he does think the state should legislate it.

It's like saying you oppose what someone says but believing in their right to say it but then voting in favour of making it illegal. The voting would show they don't believe in their right to say it. Actions speak louder than words and his actions are of someone who wants it banned, not someone who personally opposes it but doesn't feel it is the right of the government to legislate on the matter.
 
Last edited:
But he has voted to legislated against it. He should be abstaining in those instances if his two beliefs systems don't coincide. But he has chosen his religious bullshit over his libertarian bullshit every time when push came to shove.
He just has such little belief in the agency of those outside the PM/gov policy that he thinks it "doesn't matter" (JRM quote about this personal belief) how he votes.

That's an entirely different issue (and one I have a problem with), but means that he can (in his mind) vote however and its not really having an impact
 
You realise two things can be true at once right? He can both believe abortions etc is a sin, thus meaning that he alone can't advocate for it, but also doesn't think that its the role of the larger, broadly non religious state to legislate against it?

Does he not believe lying and misleading Parliament to be a sin? Thou shalt not lie was one of the ten commandments was it not? If it is a question of whether or not committing a certain act is a sin then how can he endorse the biggest sinner of all to be the leader of the Conservative party and thus PM?
 
Does he not believe lying and misleading Parliament to be a sin? Thou shalt not lie was one of the ten commandments was it not? If it is a question of whether or not committing a certain act is a sin then how can he endorse the biggest sinner of all to be the leader of the Conservative party and thus PM?
Clearly doesn't think he's lying tho does he
 
Clearly doesn't think he's lying tho does he
Which means he must be a complete moron. Johnson has been proven to be a liar on many occasions. Nope more likely JRM is just a massive hypocrite. He banged on about Brexit but look how he invested, he invested on the assumption Brexit would be a failure all the while saying it would be a huge success. Again, actions speak louder than words and JRMs actions do not match his words.

On a completely different note, I hate to link to the DM but it seems to not be widely covered: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ns-friend-Jean-Luc-Brunel-prison-suicide.html

I'm not one for conspiracies but this whole thing stinks and now he has supposedly committed suicide too?
 
And another step today with timing, coincidentally or not, coinciding with the planned conclusion of Belarus / Russia military exercise tomorrow. Men up to the age of 55 refused option to leave the militia controlled part of Donbas due to alleged concerns of an impending Ukranian offensive.


In the next 72hrs I imagine Russia will either leave Belarus and go home or will attack.
 
Last edited:
And a glimmer of hope. China comes out saying the sovereignty of Ukraine should be respected (favours peace) but that the Minsk agreement should be implemented (favours Russia as Ukraine pretty much signed this at gunpoint).

Russia can absolutely act without Chinese blessing, they have zero ideological similarity after all, but China could easily have made a statement that didn't mention Ukrainian sovereignty and I think it is significant that they chose to do so. I'm probably back to 50/50 now.

 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top