tonyh29 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Just now, StefanAVFC said: That's called an example Tony. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Lib Dems are ahead of the curve purely because they had a bisexual leader once and it's fairly disingenuous to claim that anyone is. anyone apart from the very person you quoted you mean , the clue is kinda in the part where he specifically said they’ve usually been way ahead of the curve when it comes to LGBT rights. The leader of their predecessor party, Jeremy Thorpe, had relationships with both men and women. did you read it or just quote it ? probably want to edit your disingenuous comment out 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: That's called an example Tony. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Lib Dems are ahead of the curve purely because they had a bisexual leader once and it's fairly disingenuous to claim that anyone is. But they do have a leader who refuses to say bum sex isn't a sin. If Herr Farage was on that particular hook he'd be slaughtered wall to wall across the media, but I suspect that as Timmy is the Remainers champion he's getting off very lightly. FWIW I think he is and should be perfectly free to hold that view, but as it contradicts the new religion of equality, anti-racism and embracing homosexuality it seems a little suspicious that such allowances are being made... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) Does that statement say that's the sole reason that the Lib Dems are ahead of the curve? Or is it an example of a reason why? That's how this kind of thing works. Make statement Give example backing said statement up. Again, disingenuous. Edited April 20, 2017 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 28 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: so the proof that the Lib Dems were ahead of the curve is that they had a leader who liked men and women It does suggest a certain tolerance for alternative sexual preferences, no? I confess I don't understand the eye roll really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 20, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Awol said: But they do have a leader who refuses to say bum sex isn't a sin. If Herr Farage was on that particular hook he'd be slaughtered wall to wall across the media, but I suspect that as Timmy is the Remainers champion he's getting off very lightly. FWIW I think he is and should be perfectly free to hold that view, but as it contradicts the new religion of equality, anti-racism and embracing homosexuality it seems a little suspicious that such allowances are being made... Que? That's a troubling wording there. Suggests you have a problem with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Just now, Awol said: But they do have a leader who refuses to say bum sex isn't a sin. If Herr Farage was on that particular hook he'd be slaughtered wall to wall across the media, but I suspect that as Timmy is the Remainers champion he's getting off very lightly. FWIW I think he is and should be perfectly free to hold that view, but as it contradicts the new religion of equality, anti-racism and embracing homosexuality it seems a little suspicious that such allowances are being made... Yet his voting record for everything to do with LGBT is squeaky clean. He abstained on the 3rd reading of a gay marriage vote (can't remember which without checking) but it was due to him disagreeing with an amendment that was petty naff on trans people. He clearly doesn't let it affect his politics, so who cares? i don't profess to understanding people's thought processes around religion, but good on a major leader who doesn't use their, fairly strong, faith in order to justify their politics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, Chindie said: Que? That's a troubling wording there. Suggests you have a problem with it? Do not be troubled, I have no problem with it at all. What is mildly amusing is seeing people bend over backwards to accommodate Faron's Stone Age beliefs that fly in the face of the new orthodoxy, simply because he loves the EU. just seems very hypocritical, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) "Stone age beliefs" that have in no way or form shaped his politics. In much the same way, who gives a shit what 2 blokes get up to in their private lives, who gives a shit what another bloke, privately, might think about what said blokes do in their personal lives? He isn't saying nobody can do it, he's pro-gay rights in his positions politically. As soon as his private beliefs change his politics then I'll be standing there with you shouting him down. Until then, it's a manufactured outrage. Edited April 20, 2017 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 20, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, Awol said: Do not be troubled, I have no problem with it at all. What is mildly amusing is seeing people bend over backwards to accommodate Faron's Stone Age beliefs that fly in the face of the new orthodoxy, simply because he loves the EU. just seems very hypocritical, that's all. Fair enough. For what it's worth, I think Farron is a clearing in the woods for the precisely the reasons discussed, so no hypocrisy here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Just now, HanoiVillan said: It does suggest a certain tolerance for alternative sexual preferences, no? I confess I don't understand the eye roll really. How many Lib Dems were aware of Thorpe's Homosexuality at the time , how open was he about it ? why did he pay off Scott when blackmailed .. I'm aware it was a time when homosexuality was not something to be open about , so of course Thorpe hid it ... hence the eyes rolly thing when a Journalists uses it as an example of why the lib dems were ahead of the curve ... from my limited knowledge on such matters that acclaim should go to Labours Colquhoun ..but I think she was actually outed (and deselected as result ) so maybe not 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 I don't know. it just seems like a fairly illiberal view to chastise somebody for their privately held views when it quite clearly doesn't affect their political beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 15 hours ago, a m ole said: If she's not willing to debate, why is the election even happening? Because she knows the tories will come back with a bigger majority than she has now so she'll have more wiggle room to get Brexit terms through parliment. Politics in the UK and Ireland have converged a bit over the last few years, you don't really have any other choice than just not to vote. At least this election will be the end of Comrade Corbyn and UKIP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 20, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20, 2017 Personally I'd struggle to trust any god botherer regardless of who it is they are bothering or what views they hold. Something isn''t quite right with them for the simple fact they have "faith". (imo of course) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 I'm cautious of putting too much stock in the current polling after the last election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I don't know. it just seems like a fairly illiberal view to chastise somebody for their privately held views when it quite clearly doesn't affect their political beliefs. Exactly right. I don't have time to find examples right now but there've certainly been cases of people (mainly Christians) being hounded by the media and activists for the thought crime of holding an unorthodox view, even when there is no evidence it affects their job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, PieFacE said: Personally I'd struggle to trust any god botherer regardless of who it is they are bothering or what views they hold. Something isn''t quite right with them for the simple fact they have "faith". (imo of course) Oh I fully agree. I just think it's a bit of a fake-outrage when there's no evidence that what Tim might think privately affects his ability to lead a socially liberal party. Edited April 20, 2017 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, PieFacE said: Personally I'd struggle to trust any god botherer regardless of who it is they are bothering or what views they hold. Something isn''t quite right with them for the simple fact they have "faith". (imo of course) I dunno , religion is not for me , but it does bring comfort to others and if it helps them , then fair enough ... although in the 21st century I'd question their sanity where I struggle with politicians and religion is when you get cynical Easter Egg type crap like we had from May the other week ... it was about as convincing as her raising the armband thing for the England v Scotland match the other month .. shameless and embarrassing ... Edited April 20, 2017 by tonyh29 checked my Calendar and revised the century :) 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 20, 2017 Moderator Share Posted April 20, 2017 46 minutes ago, Chindie said: Que? That's a troubling wording there. Suggests you have a problem with it? there's a fine line between "intolerance of intolerance" (good) and "intolerence of any view that doesn't conform to a particular set of 'right-on' values" (bad) I suspect that AWOL's post hints at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 So is the only party leader that's not a word removed Leanne Wood? Or is it just no-one really knows anything about her. (or cares) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: 20th century It all makes sense now. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts