I always say Americans can stand to learn a few lessons from their forefathers in Europe. I guess some Americans will find that offensive, well tough titty. The collection of countries that makes up Europe boasts countries that are older than America, it's not a bad idea to listen to your elders once in a wile, you may learn something.
"Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative." -David Cameron
@graemeEf1 Civil partnerships are legal and afford same-sex couples identical rights and responsibilities to civil marriage, its only a small step forward for the UK to change the unions title and this doesn't seem to far away
Politician over here may be less crazy when it comes to religion but they're still politicians. I don't think it matter what or who they talk about whilst they fuck you over
Maher is actually wrong. First of all it's Britain or UK not England. Secondly the Queen is the head of state and the head of the established church. There is specfically no separation of church and state in the UK. Thirdly there are several bishops who are members of the House of Lords by dint of their office. The UK population might be largely secular but the government is not. The PM even appoints senior bishops to the established church. UK conservatives are NOT sane!
@densaner77 I think he's referring more to the attitude we have here rather than the constitution. In saying our Conservatives are allowed to be sane he hit the nail on the head. Although, I believe the Bishops in the Lords have to go. Although I'm not a Conservative, I'm grateful we have Cameron and not Rick Santorum or any of the other basket cases that stand on that Fox debate stage! I'm proud as a Brit to say all of our politicians (other than the BNP) are progressive on social issues
@reeceyj95. Conservatives are not progressive on social issues. The last tory leader to be a poltical progressive was Ted Heath. If the tories could they would abolish the NHS and privatise a lot more things. You should be grateful that Cameron didn't win an overall majority not the fact he is PM. I hate the GOP loonies as well but there is more support for their policies in America than for the current government in Britain.
@densaner77 You make a good point, I suppose the ultra liberal Clegg balances things out. But I think Cameron as PM is the best we can get from that party. I'd hate to think what Theresa May would say about things like same-sex marriage. Personally, I would have liked to have seen a LibDem government, now I really don't know. As a 16 y.o mixed race Briton with a belief that everyone should be equal, keeping the BNP away is my primary concern,
@reeceyj95. You make a good point as well. However people should remember that Liberalism in the UK is more on the right than the left of the political spectrum. The Liberals have been in government three times in the last century with the Tories. Clegg's first job in politics was working for Leon Brittan (a tory). Clegg is not on the left he is on the right of the Lib Dems and of british politics. That is why he gets along with Cameron so well.
The Queen's roles in practise are purely ceremonial in both church and state. The bishops in the House of Lords do not vote on matters and are purely advisory/ceremonial; have you seen the Church of England? It's hardly the Catholic church. The UK is a secular country, both government and populace.
@ImperialGeorge. The people of the UK are secular. The state is not. The Bishops do vote on matters. They are members of the House of Lords and have a vote and use it. The Church of England might not be catholic but it is a religious organisation, isn't it? The Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by the PM, isn't he? The Queen is head of the church and defender of the faith. Look at any british coin and you will see F D that is what it means.
This is probably the first time i hear this Maher guy saying something clever. Republicans are an embarrassment to European conservatives, and Democrats are too right-wing compared to the European center-left parties. that's how retarded the american political spectrum is
@vash8millenium you should watch more of his video's then, maher is one of the most intellegent americans that america has, his views on how america should be run are totally on point, you cant run a country on faith and religion, not possible hense why britain is better run than america
@ganados0 Haha, if they did that, I'd leave. I hear the tories getting a lot of stick, and they're not my favourite party in the world either, but every time I hear anyone (myself included) complaining about them, I just think to myself "well at least they're secular and not obsessed with gays and abortion."
The UK is virtually non religious, only a religious person would disagree. If someone trying to get elected here spoke about god more than once, they would lose... We don't wanna hear about "god" - we want to hear about reality. How can "Faith" get mixed in with reality...
He must be a little dissapointed now that Cameron and Baroness Warsi are making a concerted effort to bring Christianity into the forefront of British life.
@Hecatean Also a little narked about this "England" and "English" thing as opposed to "Britain" and "British" ermm Bill what about the Scottish and Welsh?
@NickKingThe1st Nevertheless it's a mistake to miss out the Scotttish and the Welsh particularly as the former PM was Scottish. If you're talking about something exclusive to England and/or the English fair enough if, like the general election on the other hand, you're talking about something that involved the whole island then "Britain" and "British" are the better terms. I know it's a nitpick but it does drive Scottish and us Welsh people crazy.
@Hecatean Not at all because he was talking about the elections if you were to use a religion or in fact if you were to say "god is on our side" or something like that during an election you would put a lot of people of in England
@NickKingThe1st Fair enough, still Cameron and Sayeeda "defeated in my constituency but have a government job anyway" Warsi's push for Christianity is a bit of a turn around from Cameron distancing himself from god.
@Hecatean Yeah that's true, but what I mean is from the get go before he was in power, If he were to use religion as some sort of booster the public would be put off him but now that he is in power he is now doing these things, when the next election comes I highly doubt he will win
@NickKingThe1st As a Labour man I certainly hope you're right however his opponent, (Ed Miliband leader of the Labour party) far from being the attack dog a successful opposition leader needs to be often comes across as too.... ermm.... well too nice basically, which often gets mistaken for weakness. Still we've got three years for Cameron to shoot himself in the foot and Miliband to up his ball busting skills.
Hello Mr UK Atheist :-) Re: "her in the UK religion has no say in the matters": maybe it just slipped your mind, for instance, that the Queen is head of the established Church of England, and that it has unelected bishops sitting in Parliament, and that faith based schools receive state funding et al :-)
@elrjames777 I never said they were not involved or the queen is not head of the church of England. Firstly the queen doesn't do anything . Secondly I said if they mention religion to try and win votes or get ahead they would be laughed at. They know the general public couldn't care less about religion i politics. So they do not mention it, if anything it makes them look worse. Everything you mentioned does not matter here. The 3 G's, God gays and guns are NEVER mentioned here.
@theUKatheist Lier: you said: and I quote: "here in the UK religion has no say in the matters": if you meant to say something different, don't blame me for not using the English language correctly :-)
@elrjames777 do you think you made a point there or something?
you come across very rude, and unpleasant. No, I'm not lying at all. In politics here religion is not used in any matter to win over the public. So yes religion has no say, like I said. If you found that hard to follow please don't blame my English, if you misunderstood blame yourself or ask me without being a complete ass hole. Now shall we stop presuming we know everything? Also , do you even live in England?
In fact don't answer I've heard enough to conclude that you will be extremely unpleasant to speak to, so I'm choosing not to do so. If you wish to claim an empty unjustified victory please feel free. I only debate and have conversations with individuals who are civil , calling me a liar , bring arrogant and acting smug before I've defended my position is not something I agree with. So have a good day and maybe be more civil in future or no one will care to speak to you.
@theUKatheist ops: OK: I just read your second post now, as I mentioned I can be a lazy person :-) If only we could always extend to our opponents the courteous civility that you would seem to wish, rather than the pejorative qualities you ascribe. Sadly however, it often appears that in the atheist movement's 'crusade' against religious people, your professed standards are frequently abandoned :-)
@elrjames777 if its religion and atheism you are more interested in (I'm assuming this because you mentioned it out of no where) then I'm happy to discuss it. But only in a civil manner.
@theUKatheist Well: hardly "out of no where": your user name is UK Atheist after all :-) I should happily agree your terms for discussion :-) Lucky for us that religious zealotry is still a handicap to success at the UK ballot box; long may it remain so :-) That is not to say I agree with you that "religion has no say in the [political] matters" or that it is a "poison" "virus" or "disease": the only redeeming feature of your epithets are the metaphorical cures :-)
@theUKatheist He didn't call you a "liar", he called you a "Lier" which is a municipality (self-governed town) located in the Belgian province of Antwerp.
Don't ask me why he called it you, as I'm not a man of faith and do not pretend to know all the answers.
@TheKidDoc81 Yeah: nice one :-) you have exposed both our ineptitudes :-) I cannot be certain if your second sentence communicates a sense of humour but, if it does, then I am all for it :-)
@theUKatheist Yes: sorry: I was being deliberately provocative and obtuse. I do follow, and agree with, the very clear point you are making so well now and, actually, I was, of course, able to "read between the lines" in the first instance :-) I just wondered perhaps if, even so, you might very kindly be prepared to consider any small adjustment to your preamble that you may feel would be helpful in making your point entirely obvious in the first instance to lazy folks like me :-)
@Scarramanga That is not the whole story. The monarch has the right to be consulted on any matter. For instance, a 'battered wives' home was ordered to close and its director wrote to HMQ asking for help. The reply made it clear this was not a situation in which HMQ could personally intervene, but it went on to say that she had been assured residents would not be evicted. Can we rule out the possibility that official policy was changed because of HMQ's interest in the matter :-)
@Scarramanga "And the Queen has no power in politics, royalty completely separated from government, she is a tourist attraction and nothing more!"
Out of the three houses in parliament the house of the monarch might not have a lot of power but it is much more than a tourist attraction. And it's not separated from government, because it's the head of the government.
@MrOfferp Firstly: I am not your "mate". Secondly: the Monarch's powers are merely limited by constitutional rules, which is not the same thing as "has no power". Thirdly: bishops who sit in Parliament not "only have the ability to consult" ,they have the right to be consulted :-)
@elrjames777 Lol, no the royal family have no power anymore, call it what you want. We will only accept the decisions made by the electorate. It is not just bishops but all religons that are involved in parliament, because they play a huge role in our Civil Society. I am not religous but we need these groups more than ever because they play a vital role in politics fighting for social justice and tackling inequalities. They will return to basic relief aswell, mate :)
@MrOfferp I am not your "mate" so please do not insist on rudeness merely because I disagreed with you :-( Having said that, your underlying view about religious involvement in Parliament is not unreasonable: it does play a role in civil society and is capable of impeding social injustice and inequality. Lastly, the Monarch has the right to rule: people of Britain are not citizens, but subjects of the Monarch and most public servants make an affirmation of their loyalty to the Crown.
@elrjames777 Lol calm down it is just a slip of the tounge, how I communicate, don't get too offended by it, what is wrong with being friendly :). I don't think you disagreed, just have the facts wrong and your not very well educated to be critical, that is all. We don't have a written constitution, so you are muddling the facts and making wild assumptions. I make no pledge to the crown and they have no rule "power". It is ok we can't all be right :) mate, lol
@MrOfferp No slip of the tongue: your just being cheeky and the mental disposition behind your use of "mate" is all to evident :-( The powers of a UK monarch are easily verified: just type 'powers of the British monarchy' into your web browser: NONE of the available sources will agree with your silly presumption that "the queen has no power" facts whether you have an emotional inclination to agree with them or not.
@elrjames777 Mental disposition, i'm not mentally ill for saying mate, lol but thanks for the comment, very nice of you. You need to think for yourself and read between the lines, stop believing everything you are told or read. That what makes us different, that is why I have social intelligence and you think the monarch still rules Britain, because you know no better.
@MrOfferp Mental disposition is attitude not illness: I am not your "mate": you were just being cheeky. Your arrogated notion of "social intelligence" is rather smug, but from wherever you imagine you may have acquired it, the fact of your erroneous statement "the queen has no power" is unaltered. Anyone (including you if you can but be bothered) can easily check that for themselves by entering "powers of the British Monarch" into their web browser.
@elrjames777 We are not talking about some obscure technicallity based on traditions and customs but a dfirect implemenatation of legislation, so I don't see the royal family passing law, do you? you really are stupid, if your not getting my point. You can throw out your arsenal of words it won't change anything. I say mate to anyone it's just how I speak, so don't pressume you know people, that is narrow-minded and rude!!
@MrOfferp I know you were rude to me first: I am not your "mate": period :-) Finally: "we are talking about" your erroneous statement: "the queen has no power": the queen has the powers of a constitutional monarch as set out in all the reference links: period :-)
@elrjames777 Please your sensitivity is humurous mate, and your argument is limited with no information or clear argument. I will repeat my psosition clearly :) Mate :) with have no constitution I will repeat. Can you produce one for me? don't say wikipedia, lol :)
@MrOfferp "just how [you] speak" using "mate", the vulgar vernacular ejaculation of mental disposition (attitude of mind) you acquired from the "social intelligence" of your background, is the only barrier to humour here. Any sensitivity is to your willful ignorance of the UK constitution's intricacy, not appreciating its unwritten nature being an example of your paucity of "intelligence"(awareness of the facts) on the topic; your statement "the queen has no power is erroneous: period.
@elrjames777 Your lack of social context is clearly displaying your lack of life experience and different displays of language. Saying that it is rude clearly shows your lack of respect for others and lack of tolerance. I do not appreciate the British crown and your ability to conserve it is disparaging and dissolusioned. The unwritten rule is what it represents, a myth that keeps people like your self believeing it's truth.
@MrOfferp I'm intolerant of supercilious attitudes: we aren't on friendly terms so I'm not your "mate" either in that sense or its offensively banal alternative; we clearly move in different social circles. You "didn't think I disagreed" with your implicit assumption (the British crown was an anachronism which you did not appreciate), and you were correct. Whether or not I like "what it represents" is neither here nor there; your statement "the Queen has no power" is fallacious: period
@MrOfferp I don't quite understand the contents of the words "Mental disposition" for which you use the term. I think you just use these words beacuse they sound pretty, but the contents in which you use them do not make much sense. There is a difference from being smug, and knwoing one's strengths and weaknesses, maybe you shouldn't be so suttle in your offences.
@elrjames777 The Queen and Lords are really just ritual. The Queen has no actual legislative power, or power of the government at all, and the Lords can only delay a bill, they cannot stop it all together.
@KungfuCow5 Please just type: powers of the British monarch: into your web browser: then: please open up another tab and type: the royal prerogative: end of the story :-)
@elrjames777 In theory the Queen has her prerogatory powers but if she ever actually vetoed a bill passed by the democratically-elected Parliament, say, there would be a constitutional crisis and the last Monarch to do so was Queen Ann and she lost her head.
@KungfuCow5 The only error in your last post was that Queen Anne "lost her head": she actually died of natural causes :-) It can also be argued that she "withheld Royal Assent" in rather a good cause since the proposed legislation of 1708 would essentially have enshrined into law a right to bear arms. The prerogative has not been exercised for three hundred years and common law makes it doubtful that any future monarch would feel him or her self at liberty to do so :-)
@cbsman95 Disraeli was born Jewish but converted to Anglicanism when he became a teenager, I must say it took you a long time after us here in Australia to allow women the vote
@KungfuCow5 s28 was a good thing, it stopped lies being taught in schools. It was falsely painted by the Left as banning all discussion of homosexuality when it did no such thing. It prevented people teaching that gay attachments are equal or superior to man-woman relationships and the nuclear family that flows from them. Which is good from the POV of defending our culture
@ReciprocalZeugma Well, no form of relationship is superior to another but homosexual and hetrosexual relationships are on an equal footing, it is ridiculous to suggest that they are not.
@ReciprocalZeugma Well yes the Bible states its prohibited, the Bible also says that I can burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads, that my local shopkeeper, who insists on working on the sabbath, should be put to death, that touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean and that it is a crime to plant to different crops side by side.
@KungfuCow5 Enough quoting old testament. Romans 1 is new testament! Natural law was intended for everyone in all times, my conscience tells me that, as do many people of all faiths with a sensitive conscience. Modern ideas of spurious "equalities" between things that will NEVER be equal in the true sense undermine this law written onto our hearts by God though.
@ReciprocalZeugma There was a time when the same would have been said about slavery. NOTHING is meant to apply forever, even the US constitution was designed to be crafted over time.
@KungfuCow5 What about "don't murder people in cold blood"? Will that be outdated one day? I don't believe in relative morality changing with time. I believe in absolute fixed morality rooted in truth. Either slavery was always sinful or it never was AND NEVER WILL BE. To me, those are the only two options. BTW, I believe the former. But people who kept a slave now (eg human traffickers) are more culpable for the sin than people back then because they don't have their culture confusing them.
@KungfuCow5 I am with Scalia and Thomas on that. Originalist all the way. Activism by judges (eg roe-wade) is a perversion of the democratic process. The "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" are illusory, because there is only one standard of true decency, which is what God put forward. All others are false human speculation.
Labour also oppose FPTP at Westmisnter and in local government. The Tories are no better than them, but they are no worse. I live next to a seat that in 2005 and 2010 was 60% and 49% Labour to 21% and 28% Tory. That is just as bad.
Also, Thatcher voted to Legalize Abortion, Divorce and Homosexuality, just because some old "One nation" backbench wet amended Section 28 doesn't take away from the Achievement of leading Conservatives to enhance civil liberties such as the right to go to work even when Moscow is paying Trade Union leaders to encourage your brutal physical assault.
@cbsman95 Abortion is murder and homosexuality is wrong, I would rather UK conservatives be like US conservatives, and I'm English. We need proper conservatism in the UK
@ReciprocalZeugma No, it isn't, and as for your second point, no it isn't. You are wrong. You are an idiot and a homophobe. Probably a bit racist as well I would imagine.. People like you make me sick, the mindset you subscribe to is abhorrent and backwards. I'm surprised you can use a keyboard without cursing at it and accusing it of witchcraft. Britain has no need of your barbaric “Conservatism”.
To coin a phrase, if you like America so much, why don’t you go and fucking live there?
@garlicluva Yes it is good for defending our culture, if you don't like traditional Western culture that's different. But the FACT is that it is based on Christian values and the "progress" mafia want to destroy that completely. I am perfectly civilised not "barbaric". I find it funny when people use the word "homophobe" inappropriately- not a hard word to learn the meaning of- then accuse me of ignorance.
There are some things I prefer about Europe and some about America, like most I stay put
@cbsman95 Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act was never amended; it was itself an amendment which added section 2a to the 1986 LGA. Not that you would know, but it was Baroness Knight (then Dame Jill Knight) who sponsored clause 27 of the bill which became section 28 of the Act. Jill was a radical tory, not a "one nation" conservative, and a front rank right wing spokesperson, not a "wet" :-)
@garlicluva that is false, I have many Conservative ,free market LibDem , and UKIP members and voters in my social circle and not once have I ever heard any of them have a go at LGBT or non-white people for who they are. Plus, I'm half- Indian, and they are still great friends with me. Its economic policy that defines them, not authoritarian attitudes.
@cbsman95 Whilst it is a positive that you haven’t personally experienced the true face of common place conservative racism, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s widespread. In any case, Conservative MP's are despicable human beings who subscribe to a twisted and grotesque philosophy and who act without morals.They are, and will always remain vermin. I accept however that not all people who vote Tory are as objectionable, but rather that they are misguided.
the civility in the UK is not to do with religion, its to do with the lack of money in politics more specifically in the UK political parties are banned from buying TV ads, instead they get 1 ad free every 6 months .
also the UK does not have evangical zionists nuts
dont blame all religion because of some extremists
The only way I'll allow someone to call the politicians here in the UK ''sane" is when they're from America and comparing them to American Politicians. The Conservatives are some of the most out of touch, smug elitist morons you could find. And "the party that lost" was the Lib Dems. A party that always loses and only worked with the Cons not because of being grown up about the whole thing, but because David Cameron took Nick Clegg (their leaders) spine and became his puppet master. Rant over.
@SMuJ17 All of that is true, but still we're better off than american politics, even if our current government elected itself. Oh and Cameron didnt take Cleggs spine silly, Clegg didnt have one to begin with.
@SMuJ17 hmm here we have someone who supports Labour I imagine, agreed the conservatives (who arent in the main even conservative) and the lib dems are idiots, but not close to the joke that is the labour party, the only party on the left (ish) that helped a banking system become unregulated, gain loads of money for the bankers themselves then cause the largest financial meltdown of my lifetime
@ThePaddypower15 Even so, let's not close the joke there. We have the BNP, a party hell bent on starting a religious war before the end of the world comes on the 21/12 from, in their eyes, the giant shia law takeover which will illegalise existence therefore it's for the best we stop it now. But hey, lets focus on labour, the party rum by a creature comfort. The only that could therefore bring a bit of humour to all of our lives...
@adolfarrakahane You really are a fucking idiot. Read some books, then stab yourself in the face until all the stupid comes out. Then read some more books. Oh, and stop watching fox news. It's mental.
The UK right (the Conservatives, UKIP and libertarian LibDems) are arguably more economically right wing than the Republicans, each Republican government has increased national debt, while the "Tories" have always brought it down massively. On social policy they are indeed far more secular and libertarian, homophobes and racists are a tiny minority and traditionalism tends where it exists tends to be evidence+reason based rather than faith based. Gary Johnson would be considered a perfect Tory.
@cbsman95 "homophobes and racists are a tiny minority" - Oh no my friend, that’s just not true. Many Tories despise homosexuals & harbor racist views, it's just they cannot be as public about it as they would like to be. In Britain our society has become generally more open minded and less bigoted, so it would be politically damaging for them to do so. But they still vote against anything remotely progressive when it comes to matters involving race relations and sexuality.
@garlicluva We have racial equality in the UK and have had for decades. The problem with blacks is not whites oppressing them any more, it is that too many of them come from homes where ambition and education are despised and their popular culture teaches them to approve of what is immoral. David Starkey is right. "Progressivism" is dead wrong.
@garlicluva I was actually responding to a comment on blacks. Of course they're not all the same, I was generalising, rather than being racist. And not all UK conservatives are the same (even Party members). The top brass take the European approach, the ones with actual power, but grassroots members and backbench MPs often have a more American-style conservatism which supports guns, less tolerance of gays and more talk of God,
@ReciprocalZeugma You’re ignorance is staggering! You said “I was generalising, rather than being racist”. Wow! Do you realize that to generalise about a race is in fact seen as racist? Especially if your generalisation is negative, which yours was. So, you have already demonstrated earlier on that you are a homophobe. Now you have demonstrated you are a racist, which isn't a huge surprise to me.
Perhaps you could go for a bigotry hattrick and say something misogynistic?
@garlicluva To generalise about a race is not racist if what you are saying is true for the majority of people under discussion. Many people in the UK- particularly on the Left- believe that white racism undermines blacks' chances of getting out of poverty and support more multi-culti or more welfarism. I said that the problem is with MANY (not all) blacks' attitudes to education and work (i.e. not something to be seen bothering with). I don't hate them or find them inferior to any other race...
@garlicluva I was only talking about the blacks who *do* remain in poverty, crime and anti-social behaviour. I did not mean anything against those who do good with their lives and I have no more brief for the white, Asian, etc. members of an amoral underclass who think the State should subsidise their irresponsible lifestyles, or the middle-class people OF ANY RACE who pretend to be compassionate, by supporting such policies.
@garlicluva Explain why Sikhs and many Hindus came in as penniless refugees and within decades became mainly professional/middle class, same with Jews. No racism- just different cultural expectations. None of these groups asked for "affirmative" action, which is pure racism 100%, or benefited from political correctness.
It's basically the same in all western Europe. Conservatives here don't need to say they are believers to be elected, they don't need to be married to be elected, and they're sure not to be elected if they're creationists, because the people don't want a stupid leader.
I'm not liberal or leftist, but damn American conservatives tend to be fucking crazy. To me, your democrats are actually the equivalent of our conservatives.
@trouzerpants That would be right. If this was America. The UK isn't. We do not take overt pride in our religions, yes we have some extremes (EDL, BNP) but the majority of British folk would not have many quams in the next leader of Labour, Lib Dems or the Torys was Muslim. As long as they were not overtly pushing a religious agenda. The same goes for the Majority "white" protestant.
They wont get much votes if they push an open "shove it down your throat" campaign. It makes no difference.
This isn't really very accurate. The Conservative party has been heavily infiltrated by extremist christians like Nadine Dorries and her ilk.
They also have more then their fair share of climate change deniers, they just haven't gone public with it because they're too busy carving up the remaining public services and selling them off for pennies to Tory carpet-baggers like Richard Branson for pennies on the pound.
You spoke to soon Bill, David Cameron know whats a Christian England. And Nick Clegg (The lib dem party leader) only works with the David Cameron in order to gain something which was supposedly regarded as a potentially successful campaign. He was a prick.
@trouzerpants And why not? The UK in general is not as fanatical about their leaders religion and neither are our leaders fanatical. And, you may be thinking the UK votes for a leader. We don't, we vote for a party. If that party has a Muslim leader it makes no difference, only to the fanatical bigots who want it 100%. Even though they would then turn their hate on another Denomination of Christianity. Which would also lead to "We will never have a Catholic leader" or whatever is the minority.
Because the VAST majority would have absolutely no confidence in a Muslim PM, that's why not.
Of course we vote for a party yet our vote is heavily influenced by who's running. The simple fact is that Britain is predominantly a white, protestant nation.
We have our minorities yet they should only be represented as a percentage of our current demographic.
There appears to be two differing theories: the "Out of Africa" (Homo sapiens) whilst the other suggests "modern humans" originated from Africa, Europe and Asia simultaneously.
My (quick!) research suggests the Welsh and Cornish as the original "Britons" but this is after the fact. My initial assertion was that modern multiculturalism was a post WWII phenomena, nothing more.
@trouzerpants Re: "minorities should only be represented as a percentage of our current demographic": did you mean the SAME percentage and, if so, isn't that simply political correctness :-)
for those who dont know the whole spelling war on this video it's because of this guy
"You call yourself "UKAtheist" yet you spelled civilisation with a Z... shame on you. For shame, for shame, for shame.
jacksawild"
which got 5 thumbs up, sorry to him and those who thumbed it up but "civilization" is spelt with a "Z" over here and its the primary spelling of that word according to the OED.
being a grammar/spelling Nazi only works if you are correct.
@trouzerpants Yes:"ize" word endings (suffix) are not just a US preference, but actually correspond to the original Greek "izo" verb root. The "ise" suffix derives from French usage (probably as a result of the Norman conquest), which maybe why this spelling of English is preferred within the EU. It seems, then, that although the "ize" suffix would be more "technically", that is to say etymologically, correct (and therefore my personal choice) "ise" endings are acceptable usage :-)
Theres a difference between the UK and England Bill. There are 3 countries in the UK, not one, otherwise it would be called the United States. Bill's a smart guy aswell.
@KungfuCow5 Haha, made an arse of that didn't I? I'm usually the one correcting people about how many countries there are in Britain, not the U.K, send the dunces hat this way lol :D
@KungfuCow5 Yes I know, no need to clear anything. As I said, I'm usually the one correcting people on it. My comment first time around was supposed to say 4. Hence the joke about the dunces hat.
@KungfuCow5 Errr, you have made a mistake there. Wales is a principality of England and as such in historical terms is part of England. The UK is the United Kingdoms of Scotland and England, Wales being part of England. So the correct title is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
@itsinmynamechap Not really :-) The political entity of the United Kingdom is defined by territorial delimitation and constituent nationality, not historical affiliation. England, Scotland and Wales (Great Britain) are united in one kingdom with Northern Ireland: that does not mean they are separate kingdoms united :-)
This has been flagged as spam show
Its not just England. There are 4 countries within the UK that vote.
LeahsWhereuWanaB 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its not just England. There are 4 countries within the UK that vote.
LeahsWhereuWanaB 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its not just England. There are 4 countries within the UK that vote.
LeahsWhereuWanaB 3 hours ago
Its not just England. There are 4 countries within the UK that vote.
LeahsWhereuWanaB 3 hours ago
I always say Americans can stand to learn a few lessons from their forefathers in Europe. I guess some Americans will find that offensive, well tough titty. The collection of countries that makes up Europe boasts countries that are older than America, it's not a bad idea to listen to your elders once in a wile, you may learn something.
donzaloog1400 4 hours ago
"Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative." -David Cameron
MrSnufkin86 1 day ago
Of course Gay Marriage is still not legal in the UK
graemeEf1 1 day ago
@graemeEf1 Civil partnerships are legal and afford same-sex couples identical rights and responsibilities to civil marriage, its only a small step forward for the UK to change the unions title and this doesn't seem to far away
MrSnufkin86 1 day ago
Burst of what... BURST OF WHAT...
MrShakespere 2 days ago
stop commenting saying 'over here' and 'us'! over where? who? be specific, im not psychic! i don't know where your from!
someonecalleddean 3 days ago
Politician over here may be less crazy when it comes to religion but they're still politicians. I don't think it matter what or who they talk about whilst they fuck you over
RPFS2008 5 days ago
Maher is actually wrong. First of all it's Britain or UK not England. Secondly the Queen is the head of state and the head of the established church. There is specfically no separation of church and state in the UK. Thirdly there are several bishops who are members of the House of Lords by dint of their office. The UK population might be largely secular but the government is not. The PM even appoints senior bishops to the established church. UK conservatives are NOT sane!
densaner77 5 days ago
@densaner77 I think he's referring more to the attitude we have here rather than the constitution. In saying our Conservatives are allowed to be sane he hit the nail on the head. Although, I believe the Bishops in the Lords have to go. Although I'm not a Conservative, I'm grateful we have Cameron and not Rick Santorum or any of the other basket cases that stand on that Fox debate stage! I'm proud as a Brit to say all of our politicians (other than the BNP) are progressive on social issues
reeceyj95 5 days ago
@reeceyj95. Conservatives are not progressive on social issues. The last tory leader to be a poltical progressive was Ted Heath. If the tories could they would abolish the NHS and privatise a lot more things. You should be grateful that Cameron didn't win an overall majority not the fact he is PM. I hate the GOP loonies as well but there is more support for their policies in America than for the current government in Britain.
densaner77 4 days ago
@densaner77 You make a good point, I suppose the ultra liberal Clegg balances things out. But I think Cameron as PM is the best we can get from that party. I'd hate to think what Theresa May would say about things like same-sex marriage. Personally, I would have liked to have seen a LibDem government, now I really don't know. As a 16 y.o mixed race Briton with a belief that everyone should be equal, keeping the BNP away is my primary concern,
reeceyj95 4 days ago
@reeceyj95. You make a good point as well. However people should remember that Liberalism in the UK is more on the right than the left of the political spectrum. The Liberals have been in government three times in the last century with the Tories. Clegg's first job in politics was working for Leon Brittan (a tory). Clegg is not on the left he is on the right of the Lib Dems and of british politics. That is why he gets along with Cameron so well.
densaner77 4 days ago
@densaner77
The Queen's roles in practise are purely ceremonial in both church and state. The bishops in the House of Lords do not vote on matters and are purely advisory/ceremonial; have you seen the Church of England? It's hardly the Catholic church. The UK is a secular country, both government and populace.
ImperialGeorge 4 days ago
@ImperialGeorge. The people of the UK are secular. The state is not. The Bishops do vote on matters. They are members of the House of Lords and have a vote and use it. The Church of England might not be catholic but it is a religious organisation, isn't it? The Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by the PM, isn't he? The Queen is head of the church and defender of the faith. Look at any british coin and you will see F D that is what it means.
densaner77 4 days ago
@KungfuCow5 she didn't take her seat.
cbsman95 6 days ago
I woudn't say religion has no say here, remember, some priests are allowed in the house of lords, unfortunatly,
Erech01 1 week ago
This is probably the first time i hear this Maher guy saying something clever. Republicans are an embarrassment to European conservatives, and Democrats are too right-wing compared to the European center-left parties. that's how retarded the american political spectrum is
vash8millenium 1 week ago 7
@vash8millenium you should watch more of his video's then, maher is one of the most intellegent americans that america has, his views on how america should be run are totally on point, you cant run a country on faith and religion, not possible hense why britain is better run than america
koplikop 17 hours ago
Last thing britain needs is the Tories playing the religitard card.
ganados0 1 week ago
@ganados0 Haha, if they did that, I'd leave. I hear the tories getting a lot of stick, and they're not my favourite party in the world either, but every time I hear anyone (myself included) complaining about them, I just think to myself "well at least they're secular and not obsessed with gays and abortion."
alexface211 1 week ago
The UK is virtually non religious, only a religious person would disagree. If someone trying to get elected here spoke about god more than once, they would lose... We don't wanna hear about "god" - we want to hear about reality. How can "Faith" get mixed in with reality...
NICH0LASM 1 week ago 11
He must be a little dissapointed now that Cameron and Baroness Warsi are making a concerted effort to bring Christianity into the forefront of British life.
Hecatean 1 week ago
@Hecatean Also a little narked about this "England" and "English" thing as opposed to "Britain" and "British" ermm Bill what about the Scottish and Welsh?
Hecatean 1 week ago
@Hecatean It is because England is the main country in Britain
NickKingThe1st 1 week ago
@NickKingThe1st Nevertheless it's a mistake to miss out the Scotttish and the Welsh particularly as the former PM was Scottish. If you're talking about something exclusive to England and/or the English fair enough if, like the general election on the other hand, you're talking about something that involved the whole island then "Britain" and "British" are the better terms. I know it's a nitpick but it does drive Scottish and us Welsh people crazy.
Hecatean 1 week ago
@Hecatean Not at all because he was talking about the elections if you were to use a religion or in fact if you were to say "god is on our side" or something like that during an election you would put a lot of people of in England
NickKingThe1st 1 week ago
@NickKingThe1st Fair enough, still Cameron and Sayeeda "defeated in my constituency but have a government job anyway" Warsi's push for Christianity is a bit of a turn around from Cameron distancing himself from god.
Hecatean 1 week ago
@Hecatean Yeah that's true, but what I mean is from the get go before he was in power, If he were to use religion as some sort of booster the public would be put off him but now that he is in power he is now doing these things, when the next election comes I highly doubt he will win
NickKingThe1st 1 week ago
@NickKingThe1st As a Labour man I certainly hope you're right however his opponent, (Ed Miliband leader of the Labour party) far from being the attack dog a successful opposition leader needs to be often comes across as too.... ermm.... well too nice basically, which often gets mistaken for weakness. Still we've got three years for Cameron to shoot himself in the foot and Miliband to up his ball busting skills.
Hecatean 1 week ago
In the UK we accept multiculturalism and freedom to religous and securlist expression and therefore do not impose how people should view the world.
MrOfferp 1 week ago
The Irony of this video never ceases to amaze me.
This video could be just as valid if it said
'Bill Maher on USSR SOCIALISTS- why the USSR works NO SOCIALIST VIEWS IN POWER!'
MrGilles1990 1 week ago
Hello Mr UK Atheist :-) Re: "her in the UK religion has no say in the matters": maybe it just slipped your mind, for instance, that the Queen is head of the established Church of England, and that it has unelected bishops sitting in Parliament, and that faith based schools receive state funding et al :-)
elrjames777 2 weeks ago
@elrjames777 I never said they were not involved or the queen is not head of the church of England. Firstly the queen doesn't do anything . Secondly I said if they mention religion to try and win votes or get ahead they would be laughed at. They know the general public couldn't care less about religion i politics. So they do not mention it, if anything it makes them look worse. Everything you mentioned does not matter here. The 3 G's, God gays and guns are NEVER mentioned here.
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago 5
@theUKatheist Lier: you said: and I quote: "here in the UK religion has no say in the matters": if you meant to say something different, don't blame me for not using the English language correctly :-)
elrjames777 2 weeks ago
@elrjames777 do you think you made a point there or something?
you come across very rude, and unpleasant. No, I'm not lying at all. In politics here religion is not used in any matter to win over the public. So yes religion has no say, like I said. If you found that hard to follow please don't blame my English, if you misunderstood blame yourself or ask me without being a complete ass hole. Now shall we stop presuming we know everything? Also , do you even live in England?
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
In fact don't answer I've heard enough to conclude that you will be extremely unpleasant to speak to, so I'm choosing not to do so. If you wish to claim an empty unjustified victory please feel free. I only debate and have conversations with individuals who are civil , calling me a liar , bring arrogant and acting smug before I've defended my position is not something I agree with. So have a good day and maybe be more civil in future or no one will care to speak to you.
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
@theUKatheist ops: OK: I just read your second post now, as I mentioned I can be a lazy person :-) If only we could always extend to our opponents the courteous civility that you would seem to wish, rather than the pejorative qualities you ascribe. Sadly however, it often appears that in the atheist movement's 'crusade' against religious people, your professed standards are frequently abandoned :-)
elrjames777 2 weeks ago
@elrjames777 if its religion and atheism you are more interested in (I'm assuming this because you mentioned it out of no where) then I'm happy to discuss it. But only in a civil manner.
theUKatheist 2 weeks ago
@theUKatheist Well: hardly "out of no where": your user name is UK Atheist after all :-) I should happily agree your terms for discussion :-) Lucky for us that religious zealotry is still a handicap to success at the UK ballot box; long may it remain so :-) That is not to say I agree with you that "religion has no say in the [political] matters" or that it is a "poison" "virus" or "disease": the only redeeming feature of your epithets are the metaphorical cures :-)
elrjames777 2 weeks ago
@elrjames777 you're a cunt, i say this on behalf of the every intelligent person in the world
garfrain 1 week ago
@garfrain Yep: you certainly "be half" an intelligent person: no doubt of it :-)
elrjames777 1 week ago
@theUKatheist He didn't call you a "liar", he called you a "Lier" which is a municipality (self-governed town) located in the Belgian province of Antwerp.
Don't ask me why he called it you, as I'm not a man of faith and do not pretend to know all the answers.
TheKidDoc81 1 week ago
@TheKidDoc81 Yeah: nice one :-) you have exposed both our ineptitudes :-) I cannot be certain if your second sentence communicates a sense of humour but, if it does, then I am all for it :-)
elrjames777 1 week ago
@theUKatheist Yes: sorry: I was being deliberately provocative and obtuse. I do follow, and agree with, the very clear point you are making so well now and, actually, I was, of course, able to "read between the lines" in the first instance :-) I just wondered perhaps if, even so, you might very kindly be prepared to consider any small adjustment to your preamble that you may feel would be helpful in making your point entirely obvious in the first instance to lazy folks like me :-)
elrjames777 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elrjames777 "Lier" and "don't blame me for not using the English language correctly :-)"
Brilliant.
venael 1 week ago
@elrjames777 And the Queen has no power in politics, royalty completely separated from government, she is a tourist attraction and nothing more!
Scarramanga 2 weeks ago
@Scarramanga That is not the whole story. The monarch has the right to be consulted on any matter. For instance, a 'battered wives' home was ordered to close and its director wrote to HMQ asking for help. The reply made it clear this was not a situation in which HMQ could personally intervene, but it went on to say that she had been assured residents would not be evicted. Can we rule out the possibility that official policy was changed because of HMQ's interest in the matter :-)
elrjames777 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scarramanga "And the Queen has no power in politics, royalty completely separated from government, she is a tourist attraction and nothing more!"
Out of the three houses in parliament the house of the monarch might not have a lot of power but it is much more than a tourist attraction. And it's not separated from government, because it's the head of the government.
MrGilles1990 1 week ago
@elrjames777 The queen has no power here mate and those unelected bishops only have the ability consult.
MrOfferp 1 week ago
@MrOfferp Firstly: I am not your "mate". Secondly: the Monarch's powers are merely limited by constitutional rules, which is not the same thing as "has no power". Thirdly: bishops who sit in Parliament not "only have the ability to consult" ,they have the right to be consulted :-)
elrjames777 1 week ago
@elrjames777 Lol, no the royal family have no power anymore, call it what you want. We will only accept the decisions made by the electorate. It is not just bishops but all religons that are involved in parliament, because they play a huge role in our Civil Society. I am not religous but we need these groups more than ever because they play a vital role in politics fighting for social justice and tackling inequalities. They will return to basic relief aswell, mate :)
MrOfferp 1 week ago
@MrOfferp I am not your "mate" so please do not insist on rudeness merely because I disagreed with you :-( Having said that, your underlying view about religious involvement in Parliament is not unreasonable: it does play a role in civil society and is capable of impeding social injustice and inequality. Lastly, the Monarch has the right to rule: people of Britain are not citizens, but subjects of the Monarch and most public servants make an affirmation of their loyalty to the Crown.
elrjames777 1 week ago
@elrjames777 Lol calm down it is just a slip of the tounge, how I communicate, don't get too offended by it, what is wrong with being friendly :). I don't think you disagreed, just have the facts wrong and your not very well educated to be critical, that is all. We don't have a written constitution, so you are muddling the facts and making wild assumptions. I make no pledge to the crown and they have no rule "power". It is ok we can't all be right :) mate, lol
MrOfferp 1 week ago
@MrOfferp No slip of the tongue: your just being cheeky and the mental disposition behind your use of "mate" is all to evident :-( The powers of a UK monarch are easily verified: just type 'powers of the British monarchy' into your web browser: NONE of the available sources will agree with your silly presumption that "the queen has no power" facts whether you have an emotional inclination to agree with them or not.
elrjames777 1 week ago
@elrjames777 Mental disposition, i'm not mentally ill for saying mate, lol but thanks for the comment, very nice of you. You need to think for yourself and read between the lines, stop believing everything you are told or read. That what makes us different, that is why I have social intelligence and you think the monarch still rules Britain, because you know no better.
MrOfferp 1 week ago
@MrOfferp Mental disposition is attitude not illness: I am not your "mate": you were just being cheeky. Your arrogated notion of "social intelligence" is rather smug, but from wherever you imagine you may have acquired it, the fact of your erroneous statement "the queen has no power" is unaltered. Anyone (including you if you can but be bothered) can easily check that for themselves by entering "powers of the British Monarch" into their web browser.
elrjames777 1 week ago
@elrjames777 We are not talking about some obscure technicallity based on traditions and customs but a dfirect implemenatation of legislation, so I don't see the royal family passing law, do you? you really are stupid, if your not getting my point. You can throw out your arsenal of words it won't change anything. I say mate to anyone it's just how I speak, so don't pressume you know people, that is narrow-minded and rude!!
MrOfferp 1 week ago
@MrOfferp I know you were rude to me first: I am not your "mate": period :-) Finally: "we are talking about" your erroneous statement: "the queen has no power": the queen has the powers of a constitutional monarch as set out in all the reference links: period :-)
elrjames777 1 week ago
@elrjames777 Please your sensitivity is humurous mate, and your argument is limited with no information or clear argument. I will repeat my psosition clearly :) Mate :) with have no constitution I will repeat. Can you produce one for me? don't say wikipedia, lol :)
MrOfferp 1 week ago
@MrOfferp "just how [you] speak" using "mate", the vulgar vernacular ejaculation of mental disposition (attitude of mind) you acquired from the "social intelligence" of your background, is the only barrier to humour here. Any sensitivity is to your willful ignorance of the UK constitution's intricacy, not appreciating its unwritten nature being an example of your paucity of "intelligence"(awareness of the facts) on the topic; your statement "the queen has no power is erroneous: period.
elrjames777 6 days ago
@elrjames777 Your lack of social context is clearly displaying your lack of life experience and different displays of language. Saying that it is rude clearly shows your lack of respect for others and lack of tolerance. I do not appreciate the British crown and your ability to conserve it is disparaging and dissolusioned. The unwritten rule is what it represents, a myth that keeps people like your self believeing it's truth.
MrOfferp 6 days ago
@MrOfferp I'm intolerant of supercilious attitudes: we aren't on friendly terms so I'm not your "mate" either in that sense or its offensively banal alternative; we clearly move in different social circles. You "didn't think I disagreed" with your implicit assumption (the British crown was an anachronism which you did not appreciate), and you were correct. Whether or not I like "what it represents" is neither here nor there; your statement "the Queen has no power" is fallacious: period
elrjames777 6 days ago
@MrOfferp I don't quite understand the contents of the words "Mental disposition" for which you use the term. I think you just use these words beacuse they sound pretty, but the contents in which you use them do not make much sense. There is a difference from being smug, and knwoing one's strengths and weaknesses, maybe you shouldn't be so suttle in your offences.
MrOfferp 1 week ago
@elrjames777 The Queen and Lords are really just ritual. The Queen has no actual legislative power, or power of the government at all, and the Lords can only delay a bill, they cannot stop it all together.
KungfuCow5 1 week ago
@KungfuCow5 Please just type: powers of the British monarch: into your web browser: then: please open up another tab and type: the royal prerogative: end of the story :-)
elrjames777 1 week ago
@elrjames777 In theory the Queen has her prerogatory powers but if she ever actually vetoed a bill passed by the democratically-elected Parliament, say, there would be a constitutional crisis and the last Monarch to do so was Queen Ann and she lost her head.
KungfuCow5 6 days ago
@KungfuCow5 The only error in your last post was that Queen Anne "lost her head": she actually died of natural causes :-) It can also be argued that she "withheld Royal Assent" in rather a good cause since the proposed legislation of 1708 would essentially have enshrined into law a right to bear arms. The prerogative has not been exercised for three hundred years and common law makes it doubtful that any future monarch would feel him or her self at liberty to do so :-)
elrjames777 6 days ago
Tory Party-
Party that equalised the voting eligibility of men and women (1920)
First sitting female Member of Parliament (1919)
First and only Female Prime Minister (1979)
First and only Jewish PM (1874)
2nd party to have Indian MP (1895)
Have the majority of openly LGBT elected representatives in the UK.
Has a Female Muslim as chair of national executive committee.
27% of Membership identify as Atheist
UK Conservatives could not have managed this if they were like the Republicans.
cbsman95 2 weeks ago
@cbsman95 Disraeli was born Jewish but converted to Anglicanism when he became a teenager, I must say it took you a long time after us here in Australia to allow women the vote
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
@cbsman95 I agree with this because it's true. Now shut it down. Idiot.
hkrobin 2 weeks ago
@cbsman95 First Female member of Parliament was Countess Markievitz in 1918.
KungfuCow5 6 days ago
@cbsman95 The Tories are also the party of Section 28, Internment in Northern Ireland and Ann Widdecombe.
KungfuCow5 6 days ago
@KungfuCow5 s28 was a good thing, it stopped lies being taught in schools. It was falsely painted by the Left as banning all discussion of homosexuality when it did no such thing. It prevented people teaching that gay attachments are equal or superior to man-woman relationships and the nuclear family that flows from them. Which is good from the POV of defending our culture
ReciprocalZeugma 6 days ago
@ReciprocalZeugma Well, no form of relationship is superior to another but homosexual and hetrosexual relationships are on an equal footing, it is ridiculous to suggest that they are not.
KungfuCow5 6 days ago
@KungfuCow5 Incorrect, Natural Law states it is prohibited. Romans 1:26-29 etc
ReciprocalZeugma 6 days ago
@ReciprocalZeugma Well yes the Bible states its prohibited, the Bible also says that I can burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads, that my local shopkeeper, who insists on working on the sabbath, should be put to death, that touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean and that it is a crime to plant to different crops side by side.
KungfuCow5 6 days ago
@KungfuCow5 Enough quoting old testament. Romans 1 is new testament! Natural law was intended for everyone in all times, my conscience tells me that, as do many people of all faiths with a sensitive conscience. Modern ideas of spurious "equalities" between things that will NEVER be equal in the true sense undermine this law written onto our hearts by God though.
ReciprocalZeugma 6 days ago
@ReciprocalZeugma Old or New, the Bible was written 2000 years ago by fallible humans, we have evolved since then and politics should follow suit.
KungfuCow5 6 days ago
@KungfuCow5 Human nature is the same so some moral matters NEVER change with time/culture- they are too important and are meant to apply permanently
ReciprocalZeugma 6 days ago
@ReciprocalZeugma There was a time when the same would have been said about slavery. NOTHING is meant to apply forever, even the US constitution was designed to be crafted over time.
KungfuCow5 5 days ago
@KungfuCow5 What about "don't murder people in cold blood"? Will that be outdated one day? I don't believe in relative morality changing with time. I believe in absolute fixed morality rooted in truth. Either slavery was always sinful or it never was AND NEVER WILL BE. To me, those are the only two options. BTW, I believe the former. But people who kept a slave now (eg human traffickers) are more culpable for the sin than people back then because they don't have their culture confusing them.
ReciprocalZeugma 5 days ago
@KungfuCow5 I am with Scalia and Thomas on that. Originalist all the way. Activism by judges (eg roe-wade) is a perversion of the democratic process. The "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" are illusory, because there is only one standard of true decency, which is what God put forward. All others are false human speculation.
ReciprocalZeugma 5 days ago
@ReciprocalZeugma Scalia? Have you heard about DC vs Heller? He wrote the majority opinions on some of the most activist rulings.
KungfuCow5 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Labour also oppose FPTP at Westmisnter and in local government. The Tories are no better than them, but they are no worse. I live next to a seat that in 2005 and 2010 was 60% and 49% Labour to 21% and 28% Tory. That is just as bad.
cbsman95 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
cbsman95 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
cbsman95 2 weeks ago
"working with" i.e. the same fucking party
benehan 2 weeks ago
Also, Thatcher voted to Legalize Abortion, Divorce and Homosexuality, just because some old "One nation" backbench wet amended Section 28 doesn't take away from the Achievement of leading Conservatives to enhance civil liberties such as the right to go to work even when Moscow is paying Trade Union leaders to encourage your brutal physical assault.
cbsman95 2 weeks ago
@cbsman95 Abortion is murder and homosexuality is wrong, I would rather UK conservatives be like US conservatives, and I'm English. We need proper conservatism in the UK
ReciprocalZeugma 2 weeks ago
@ReciprocalZeugma It's not gonna happen, love.
Paul2377 2 weeks ago
@ReciprocalZeugma No, it isn't, and as for your second point, no it isn't. You are wrong. You are an idiot and a homophobe. Probably a bit racist as well I would imagine.. People like you make me sick, the mindset you subscribe to is abhorrent and backwards. I'm surprised you can use a keyboard without cursing at it and accusing it of witchcraft. Britain has no need of your barbaric “Conservatism”.
To coin a phrase, if you like America so much, why don’t you go and fucking live there?
garlicluva 6 days ago
@garlicluva Yes it is good for defending our culture, if you don't like traditional Western culture that's different. But the FACT is that it is based on Christian values and the "progress" mafia want to destroy that completely. I am perfectly civilised not "barbaric". I find it funny when people use the word "homophobe" inappropriately- not a hard word to learn the meaning of- then accuse me of ignorance.
There are some things I prefer about Europe and some about America, like most I stay put
ReciprocalZeugma 6 days ago
@cbsman95 Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act was never amended; it was itself an amendment which added section 2a to the 1986 LGA. Not that you would know, but it was Baroness Knight (then Dame Jill Knight) who sponsored clause 27 of the bill which became section 28 of the Act. Jill was a radical tory, not a "one nation" conservative, and a front rank right wing spokesperson, not a "wet" :-)
elrjames777 2 weeks ago
@garlicluva that is false, I have many Conservative ,free market LibDem , and UKIP members and voters in my social circle and not once have I ever heard any of them have a go at LGBT or non-white people for who they are. Plus, I'm half- Indian, and they are still great friends with me. Its economic policy that defines them, not authoritarian attitudes.
cbsman95 2 weeks ago
@cbsman95 Depends where you live, where i live sadly many right wing voters are very racist and homophobic, but then again i live in North Yorkshire.
MitchofSmeg 2 weeks ago
@cbsman95 Whilst it is a positive that you haven’t personally experienced the true face of common place conservative racism, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s widespread. In any case, Conservative MP's are despicable human beings who subscribe to a twisted and grotesque philosophy and who act without morals.They are, and will always remain vermin. I accept however that not all people who vote Tory are as objectionable, but rather that they are misguided.
As you are sir. Good day.
garlicluva 6 days ago
Comment removed
SMuJ17 3 weeks ago
and the party who lost, labour, do not work with the tories constructively
ThePaddypower15 3 weeks ago
trust me the uk aint that intelligent, i shud no im from england, but yes religion does cause problems in the us system
ThePaddypower15 3 weeks ago
@ThePaddypower15
There are some very intelligent people in the UK it's just that you're bringing the average down.
asubjectiveopinion 3 weeks ago
@asubjectiveopinion Ha brilliant :)
ThePaddypower15 3 weeks ago
England england
It's called the UK.
Goddamn Americans.
Girbub 3 weeks ago
@Girbub
And, while we're at it, there's no such thing as a "British accent".
asubjectiveopinion 3 weeks ago
the civility in the UK is not to do with religion, its to do with the lack of money in politics more specifically in the UK political parties are banned from buying TV ads, instead they get 1 ad free every 6 months .
also the UK does not have evangical zionists nuts
dont blame all religion because of some extremists
naym2011 3 weeks ago
The only way I'll allow someone to call the politicians here in the UK ''sane" is when they're from America and comparing them to American Politicians. The Conservatives are some of the most out of touch, smug elitist morons you could find. And "the party that lost" was the Lib Dems. A party that always loses and only worked with the Cons not because of being grown up about the whole thing, but because David Cameron took Nick Clegg (their leaders) spine and became his puppet master. Rant over.
SMuJ17 3 weeks ago
@SMuJ17 All of that is true, but still we're better off than american politics, even if our current government elected itself. Oh and Cameron didnt take Cleggs spine silly, Clegg didnt have one to begin with.
Spiderpope 3 weeks ago
@Spiderpope Fine points, fine points indeed sir
SMuJ17 3 weeks ago
@Spiderpope
He started out as Leon Brittan's aide and speech writer, he's been a Tory all along.
asubjectiveopinion 3 weeks ago
@SMuJ17 hmm here we have someone who supports Labour I imagine, agreed the conservatives (who arent in the main even conservative) and the lib dems are idiots, but not close to the joke that is the labour party, the only party on the left (ish) that helped a banking system become unregulated, gain loads of money for the bankers themselves then cause the largest financial meltdown of my lifetime
ThePaddypower15 3 weeks ago
@ThePaddypower15 Gimme chance, I only had 500 characters...
SMuJ17 3 weeks ago
@ThePaddypower15 Even so, let's not close the joke there. We have the BNP, a party hell bent on starting a religious war before the end of the world comes on the 21/12 from, in their eyes, the giant shia law takeover which will illegalise existence therefore it's for the best we stop it now. But hey, lets focus on labour, the party rum by a creature comfort. The only that could therefore bring a bit of humour to all of our lives...
SMuJ17 3 weeks ago
our politics suck. but compred to USA......dayuuum.
hope you americans voting ron paul. fo your sake
teedonster2 3 weeks ago
"Refreshing burst of..." what?!
gartnavel89 3 weeks ago
@adolfarrakahane You really are a fucking idiot. Read some books, then stab yourself in the face until all the stupid comes out. Then read some more books. Oh, and stop watching fox news. It's mental.
garlicluva 3 weeks ago
@garlicluva marxism:giving the goose that laid the golden egg an aborion
adolfarrakahane 3 weeks ago
The UK right (the Conservatives, UKIP and libertarian LibDems) are arguably more economically right wing than the Republicans, each Republican government has increased national debt, while the "Tories" have always brought it down massively. On social policy they are indeed far more secular and libertarian, homophobes and racists are a tiny minority and traditionalism tends where it exists tends to be evidence+reason based rather than faith based. Gary Johnson would be considered a perfect Tory.
cbsman95 3 weeks ago
@cbsman95 "homophobes and racists are a tiny minority" - Oh no my friend, that’s just not true. Many Tories despise homosexuals & harbor racist views, it's just they cannot be as public about it as they would like to be. In Britain our society has become generally more open minded and less bigoted, so it would be politically damaging for them to do so. But they still vote against anything remotely progressive when it comes to matters involving race relations and sexuality.
garlicluva 2 weeks ago
@garlicluva We have racial equality in the UK and have had for decades. The problem with blacks is not whites oppressing them any more, it is that too many of them come from homes where ambition and education are despised and their popular culture teaches them to approve of what is immoral. David Starkey is right. "Progressivism" is dead wrong.
ReciprocalZeugma 2 weeks ago
@ReciprocalZeugma
A) No idea what you are talking about, this is nothing to do with the conversation I was having.
B) Anyone who starts a sentence with "The problem with blacks " is obviously a racist and unworthy of debate.
So, you know, fuck you.
garlicluva 1 week ago
@garlicluva I was actually responding to a comment on blacks. Of course they're not all the same, I was generalising, rather than being racist. And not all UK conservatives are the same (even Party members). The top brass take the European approach, the ones with actual power, but grassroots members and backbench MPs often have a more American-style conservatism which supports guns, less tolerance of gays and more talk of God,
ReciprocalZeugma 6 days ago
@ReciprocalZeugma You’re ignorance is staggering! You said “I was generalising, rather than being racist”. Wow! Do you realize that to generalise about a race is in fact seen as racist? Especially if your generalisation is negative, which yours was. So, you have already demonstrated earlier on that you are a homophobe. Now you have demonstrated you are a racist, which isn't a huge surprise to me.
Perhaps you could go for a bigotry hattrick and say something misogynistic?
garlicluva 6 days ago
@garlicluva To generalise about a race is not racist if what you are saying is true for the majority of people under discussion. Many people in the UK- particularly on the Left- believe that white racism undermines blacks' chances of getting out of poverty and support more multi-culti or more welfarism. I said that the problem is with MANY (not all) blacks' attitudes to education and work (i.e. not something to be seen bothering with). I don't hate them or find them inferior to any other race...
ReciprocalZeugma 6 days ago
@garlicluva I was only talking about the blacks who *do* remain in poverty, crime and anti-social behaviour. I did not mean anything against those who do good with their lives and I have no more brief for the white, Asian, etc. members of an amoral underclass who think the State should subsidise their irresponsible lifestyles, or the middle-class people OF ANY RACE who pretend to be compassionate, by supporting such policies.
ReciprocalZeugma 6 days ago
@garlicluva Explain why Sikhs and many Hindus came in as penniless refugees and within decades became mainly professional/middle class, same with Jews. No racism- just different cultural expectations. None of these groups asked for "affirmative" action, which is pure racism 100%, or benefited from political correctness.
ReciprocalZeugma 2 weeks ago
It's basically the same in all western Europe. Conservatives here don't need to say they are believers to be elected, they don't need to be married to be elected, and they're sure not to be elected if they're creationists, because the people don't want a stupid leader.
I'm not liberal or leftist, but damn American conservatives tend to be fucking crazy. To me, your democrats are actually the equivalent of our conservatives.
Wotanraven 3 weeks ago
No religious views in power? That's it. I'm moving to England. :)
ThePhantom135 4 weeks ago
@ThePhantom135 We even have Charles Darwin on our money!
BasilFawlty4444 4 weeks ago
@trouzerpants That would be right. If this was America. The UK isn't. We do not take overt pride in our religions, yes we have some extremes (EDL, BNP) but the majority of British folk would not have many quams in the next leader of Labour, Lib Dems or the Torys was Muslim. As long as they were not overtly pushing a religious agenda. The same goes for the Majority "white" protestant.
They wont get much votes if they push an open "shove it down your throat" campaign. It makes no difference.
Nelatherion 4 weeks ago
@Nelatherion
I disagree. I believe the majority would have deep reservations voting in a Muslim PM, especially with the London bombings so fresh in all our minds.
trouzerpants 4 weeks ago
This isn't really very accurate. The Conservative party has been heavily infiltrated by extremist christians like Nadine Dorries and her ilk.
They also have more then their fair share of climate change deniers, they just haven't gone public with it because they're too busy carving up the remaining public services and selling them off for pennies to Tory carpet-baggers like Richard Branson for pennies on the pound.
asubjectiveopinion 1 month ago
You spoke to soon Bill, David Cameron know whats a Christian England. And Nick Clegg (The lib dem party leader) only works with the David Cameron in order to gain something which was supposedly regarded as a potentially successful campaign. He was a prick.
1608Nikolai 1 month ago
@trouzerpants And why not? The UK in general is not as fanatical about their leaders religion and neither are our leaders fanatical. And, you may be thinking the UK votes for a leader. We don't, we vote for a party. If that party has a Muslim leader it makes no difference, only to the fanatical bigots who want it 100%. Even though they would then turn their hate on another Denomination of Christianity. Which would also lead to "We will never have a Catholic leader" or whatever is the minority.
Nelatherion 1 month ago
@Nelatherion
"Why not?!"
Because the VAST majority would have absolutely no confidence in a Muslim PM, that's why not.
Of course we vote for a party yet our vote is heavily influenced by who's running. The simple fact is that Britain is predominantly a white, protestant nation.
We have our minorities yet they should only be represented as a percentage of our current demographic.
trouzerpants 1 month ago
@trouzerpants
If you PM me I'll find you an affordable lab to run your DNA and you can find out just how wrong you are.
asubjectiveopinion 1 month ago
@asubjectiveopinion
Sarcasm is the lowest form of "wit", mate..
trouzerpants 1 month ago
@trouzerpants
There is absolutely no sarcasm intended, I'm being sincere.
The viewpoint you advance is scientifically incorrect and I offered you the chance to assess some empirical evidence that challenges it.
That is, simply, the scientific method in action, my opinions have no influence on the structure of your Mitochondria.
asubjectiveopinion 1 month ago
@asubjectiveopinion
There appears to be two differing theories: the "Out of Africa" (Homo sapiens) whilst the other suggests "modern humans" originated from Africa, Europe and Asia simultaneously.
My (quick!) research suggests the Welsh and Cornish as the original "Britons" but this is after the fact. My initial assertion was that modern multiculturalism was a post WWII phenomena, nothing more.
trouzerpants 4 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Re: "minorities should only be represented as a percentage of our current demographic": did you mean the SAME percentage and, if so, isn't that simply political correctness :-)
elrjames777 1 week ago
Comment removed
leeb19yido 1 month ago
UK, not England, you idiot. And Labour lost the election.
KungfuCow5 1 month ago
for those who dont know the whole spelling war on this video it's because of this guy
"You call yourself "UKAtheist" yet you spelled civilisation with a Z... shame on you. For shame, for shame, for shame.
jacksawild"
which got 5 thumbs up, sorry to him and those who thumbed it up but "civilization" is spelt with a "Z" over here and its the primary spelling of that word according to the OED.
being a grammar/spelling Nazi only works if you are correct.
so shame on you, for shame, for shame.
theUKatheist 1 month ago 20
@theUKatheist
You're right, but you've missed his point (whether intentionally or not).
In the UK we primarily use "civilisation".
He's clearly saying it in jest.
HoneyIEducatedTheWeb 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theUKatheist Sentences start with a capital.
SMuJ17 3 weeks ago
@Amid87 civilization.
theUKatheist 1 month ago
@theUKatheist
Don't mean to be a pedant but it's my belief that civilisation can be spelt with an "s" or a "z." Both are technically correct.
trouzerpants 1 month ago
@trouzerpants Yes:"ize" word endings (suffix) are not just a US preference, but actually correspond to the original Greek "izo" verb root. The "ise" suffix derives from French usage (probably as a result of the Norman conquest), which maybe why this spelling of English is preferred within the EU. It seems, then, that although the "ize" suffix would be more "technically", that is to say etymologically, correct (and therefore my personal choice) "ise" endings are acceptable usage :-)
elrjames777 1 week ago
Every supposed holy book should be filed under fiction.
Until proved otherwise.
wmg111 1 month ago
@wmg111 in my country they're filed either under Reference or Theology.
irishgodfatherchris 1 month ago
Theres a difference between the UK and England Bill. There are 3 countries in the UK, not one, otherwise it would be called the United States. Bill's a smart guy aswell.
1984LizardKing 1 month ago
@1984LizardKing 4 actually.
KungfuCow5 1 month ago
@KungfuCow5 Haha, made an arse of that didn't I? I'm usually the one correcting people about how many countries there are in Britain, not the U.K, send the dunces hat this way lol :D
1984LizardKing 1 month ago
@1984LizardKing There are 3 countries in Britain. 4 in the UK. Just so we're clear.
KungfuCow5 1 month ago 13
@KungfuCow5 Yes I know, no need to clear anything. As I said, I'm usually the one correcting people on it. My comment first time around was supposed to say 4. Hence the joke about the dunces hat.
1984LizardKing 1 month ago
@KungfuCow5 what's the fourth? careful now hehe
lawndog6794 2 weeks ago
@lawndog6794 England, Scotland and Wales make up Britain. Britain and Nothern Ireland make up the UK.
KungfuCow5 2 weeks ago
@KungfuCow5 Errr, you have made a mistake there. Wales is a principality of England and as such in historical terms is part of England. The UK is the United Kingdoms of Scotland and England, Wales being part of England. So the correct title is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
itsinmynamechap 2 weeks ago
@itsinmynamechap Not really :-) The political entity of the United Kingdom is defined by territorial delimitation and constituent nationality, not historical affiliation. England, Scotland and Wales (Great Britain) are united in one kingdom with Northern Ireland: that does not mean they are separate kingdoms united :-)
elrjames777 2 weeks ago
@KungfuCow5 So what I mean is it the UK and Northern Ireland. The UK being happening to match in a general sense Great Britain.
itsinmynamechap 2 weeks ago
@KungfuCow5 And I'm damn proud of them all!
IRememberTheOldDays 2 weeks ago