Rees-Mogg: increased usage of food banks 'uplifting'

[do_ron_ron]

That's odd, as most right wingers keep banging on about how we're full in this country and need to reduce the population, now you are advocating increasing the population by quarter of a million per year.

Apart from the usual right wing hobby horse of people having unplanned children and expecting the state to pick up the cost and demand a council house.

 

[robgmun]

Not really, when you have Chris and many others talking about a reduction in the population by at least a third, thats 20+ million people, how do you think that's going to happen?

It's easy to throw these things around in abstract terms, but the nitty gritty is people would have to die, you just seem to get all emotional when it's an unborn foetus *shrug*

My personal opinion is the woman has the ultimate right to do what she wants with her body and what's in it. We have a cut off point which is fair enough, balancing the time to make such a decision against the level of the foetus's development and ability to independently survive.

You're not talking to Chris, you're talking to me. And i'm not advocating any kind of reduction of population, especially through murder so i'll appreciate you not trying to indicating anything of the sort from me thank you very much

 

[Freakbro]

Apart from the usual right wing hobby horse of people having unplanned children and expecting the state to pick up the cost and demand a council house.

Yea, I was going to mention that as well!

You're not talking to Chris, you're talking to me. And i'm not advocating any kind of reduction of population, especially through murder so i'll appreciate you not trying to indicating anything of the sort from me thank you very much

My apologies for lumping you in with the other right wing nut cases we have on here in this instance, sorry

 

[Alex_6n2]

Always find it strange when a "compassionate socialist" threatens to hurt someone else because they hold a different point of view or opinion.

The OP links to sensationalist articles with out of context headlines in an endeavour to spark outrage. At least both sides of the political spectrum are doing it so we can all be angry together. Anyone need a hug?

 

[Silly Goose On The Loose]

Mogg has a right to his views and I have just as much of a right to say they belong in the 1850s.

 

[Kemik]

I don't really get the absolute hate some people have for him. I see it with family members. Just because someone is a Tory or has money they hate them and want them "dead". If their best friend went and become a Tory MP they would immediately switch their views of the person, just because they joined a political party.

I disagree with Rees-Mogg's views on abortion and same sex marriage. However, he is the only politician I am aware of that:

1. Tells you his honest views and reasons behind them (e.g. he thinks a fetus is a child and it would therefore be cruel to kill the fetus).
2. He takes the approach of "do what you like in your own home, it doesn't bother me".
3. He doesn't push his views on you and doesn't hide his background.

I'm so bored of politicians trying to be an every-man. May is a walking voice recorder. If she gets asked a question she wasn't expecting she just repeats the last sentence. The AI on my phone is more advanced than that. At least you know what you are getting with Rees-Mogg. If you disagree with his views, that's perfectly fine. I don't see why you would wish him dead for them.

I'd much rather have Mogg than not-quite-as-principled Corbyn. Everyone knows what Corbyn supports, but he's become a flaky follower when he become leader and won't admit to his true beliefs, which is crazy. At least give Mogg the respect for coming out and being frank with his opinions.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't really get the absolute hate some people have for him. I see it with family members. Just because someone is a Tory they hate them and want them "dead". If their best friend went and become a Tory MP they would immediately switch their views of the person, just because they joined a political party.

I disagree with Rees-Mogg's views on abortion and same sex marriage. However, he is the only politician I am aware of that:

1. .

why do you make it out becuase hes tory, when ou state you disliek him due to his views.
If you havent noticed nearly all replies in here are disgusted at his views, rather than him being a tory.

 

[Kemik]

why do you make it out becuase hes tory, when ou state you disliek him due to his views.
If you havent noticed nearly all replies in here are disgusted at his views, rather than him being a tory.

They hate him because they've read some headlines they don't like. If you listen to him in full, you would probably say "okay, I get where you're coming from... you think that marriage is a religious ceremony. Actually, I think that these days people get married and they aren't religious so same sex couples should be able to do". I don't suddenly say "WHAT? That's appalling! How dare you have such views. Go and jump from a bridge!!!". If he put it to a vote on Parliament, I would lobby my MP to vote against him.

It's called being a civilized adult rather than hating someone for views that aren't the same as your own. As long as he isn't stood in front of gay couples on their wedding day or blockading abortion clinics, he's perfectly allowed to have his own views.

 

[Glaucus]

They hate him because they've read some headlines they don't like. If you listen to him in full, you would probably say "okay, I get where you're coming from... you think that marriage is a religious ceremony. Actually, I think that these days people get married and they aren't religious so same sex couples should be able to do". I don't suddenly say "WHAT? That's appalling! How dare you have such views. Go and jump from a bridge!!!". If he put it to a vote on Parliament, I would lobby my MP to vote against him.

It's called being a civilized adult rather than hating someone for views that aren't the same as your own. As long as he isn't stood in front of gay couples on their wedding day or blockading abortion clinics, he's perfectly allowed to have his own views.

actually that's exactly what he is doing, with his votes in parliament. it is perfectly reasonable to be disgusted by his views. Not because they are different, but because they are fundamentally abhorrent, like i'm sure you would agree many views are. or should we say having views of genocide are fine as long he personally isn't doing it, but votes for it in parliament. (and yes i'm aware that's a massive over exaggeration, but it shows your logic)

 

[Kemik]

actually that's exactly what he is doing, with his votes in parliament. it is perfectly reasonable to be disgusted by his views. Not because they are different, but because they are fundamentally abhorrent, like i'm sure you would agree many views are. or should we say having views of genocide are fine as long he personally isn't doing it, but votes for it in parliament. (and yes i'm aware that's a massive over exaggeration, but it shows your logic)

He's voting against changes to give more rights. He's not putting forward legislation to ban abortions for rape victims. It's not his bill.

 

[Glaucus]

He's voting against changes to give more rights. He's not putting forward legislation to ban abortions for rape victims. It's not his bill.

it doesnt matter if his not his bill, he is still voting against things like gay marriage. That's you know how parliament works.
Someone with such unstable thoughts shouldn't be anywhere near parliament, but that's due to education and interest from the public, who are still voting for him.

 

[Kemik]

it doesnt matter if his not his bill, he is still voting against things like gay marriage. That's you know how parliament works.
Someone with such unstable thoughts shouldn't be anywhere near parliament, but that's due to education and interest from the public, who are still voting for him.

People obviously believe in what he does or he wouldn't be in Parliament. Should there be some kind of committee that says "your views disagree vastly with mine. You are therefore unstable and shouldn't be an MP even though you have been elected"?

 

[Glaucus]

People obviously believe in what he does or he wouldn't be in Parliament. Should there be some kind of committee that says "your views disagree vastly with mine. You are therefore unstable and shouldn't be an MP even though you have been elected"?

no, there should be far better education, especially on critical thinking. so this doesn't happen in the first place.

 

[Dolph]

it doesnt matter if his not his bill, he is still voting against things like gay marriage. That's you know how parliament works.
Someone with such unstable thoughts shouldn't be anywhere near parliament, but that's due to education and interest from the public, who are still voting for him.

The problem is we have insufficient protection for our rights, it shouldn't matter what views someone holds on these issues, it shouldn't be possible to hold a vote on a rights issue unless it's conflict resolution. The state should be required to implement equality under the law, and currently, they aren't.

 

[Glaucus]

The problem is we have insufficient protection for our rights, it shouldn't matter what views someone holds on these issues, it shouldn't be possible to hold a vote on a rights issue unless it's conflict resolution. The state should be required to implement equality under the law, and currently, they aren't.

Something we very much agree with, hence i'm a fan of a much broader and deeper constitution. However along with that the electorate should be better equipped to make better choices.

Also why i'm a fan of high tax free allowance then flat tax after that for all. Despite being in the group that would be hit the hardest by such a change.

 

[h4rm0ny]

in no way can you even consider him being right a few celss does not make a human, let alone using emotive language like a child which you continue to use despite it being utterly wrong, both in science, language and law it is not a child.

Does this look like "a few cells"?

Abortions are legal with no obstacles at up to 24-weeks (the picture above) and are actually viable outside the womb. It used to be 28 weeks but was lowered. The majority of abortions are carried out sooner, but many reach the final legal deadline.

Now if you're talking the morning after pill (effective within three days or five days depending), then yes, it's a bundle of cells. And there I disagree with JRM. But as he says, he has and likely never will have any ability to change the law on this so it's academic for any practical purpose other than making political capital.

My main objection to his critics is how so many of them hate him for reasons of his wealth or background rather than any personal characteristics. He's apparently very well regarded by his constituents.

That's odd, as most right wingers keep banging on about how we're full in this country and need to reduce the population, now you are advocating increasing the population by quarter of a million per year.

Reallly, those are our only options now, are they? We either agree with unqualified immigration or with killing babies? No middle ground? What a stupid, stupid thing to say.

 

[Glaucus]

Does this look like "a few cells"?



Abortions are legal with no obstacles at up to 24-weeks (the picture above) and are actually viable outside the womb. It used to be 28 weeks but was lowered. The majority of abortions are carried out sooner, but many reach the final legal deadline.

Now if you're talking the morning after pill (effective within three days or five days depending), then yes, it's a bundle of cells. And there I disagree with JRM. But as he says, he has and likely never will have any ability to change the law on this so it's academic for any practical purpose other than making political capital.

My main objection to his critics is how so many of them hate him for reasons of his wealth or background rather than any personal characteristics. He's apparently very well regarded by his constituents.

if you bothered to read then i've already said i think 24 weeks is a little late. However this is not an argument against abortion, its only an argument about when the deadline should be. Untill there is meaningful brain activity it is just a collection of cells and is not human. depsite what your gut feeling may tell you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html
we already have standards for brain death which is used, the same can be applied for foetuses.

As for his constituents, he's loved and hated. the younger crowd certainly think he is mental. While the retire with strong religious beliefs obviously love him.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I don't really get the absolute hate some people have for him.

Nor do I but I feel it is related to this:

To be absolutely clear on the meaning of the above: The majority of Labour and LibDem voters think that wealthy people should be penalised even if it does not help them. That kind of thinking is alien to me. But I think it fuels a lot of hatred of JRM who, to all evidence, appears to be one of our more honest politicians and highly loyal to his constituents.

 

[h4rm0ny]

if you bothered to read then i've already said i think 24 weeks is a little late.

My apologies. I did misread you. Sorry about that.

 

[chroniclard]

Its all well and good lauding his honesty but that is irrelevant to his (obligatory imo) shady views.