Jump to content

horsefly

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    10,371

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Posts posted by horsefly

  3. Posted · Edited by horsefly

    1 hour ago, ricardo said:

    He is merely keying in to what most Americans think. Why should their tax dollars go to defending NATO countries that won't pay enough to defend themselves. Hence we now see countries scrambling to get their military spending up to scratch. It certainly seems to have frightened them into action.

    Nope! He actually ENCOURAGED Russia to attack NATO countries. That goes way beyond saying NATO countries need to pay their fair share. US politicians have long recognised that a secure Europe is essential to their own interest in preserving the authority of a democratic free world. Empowering a dictatorship that has 1000s of nuclear warheads trained on the USA would be a disaster for American security, and indeed for its economic wellbeing. There's a good reason why every dictator in the world wants captain Bone Spurs to win the presidency; they know full well it would amount to a license to persecute and invade at will. For Trump; Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping are not enemies, they are his role models.

    A Trump victory would see an explosion of conflicts around the world, and a very real risk of another world war breaking out. Whether we like it or not, America's traditional role as the policeman of the free world has prevented escalation of local conflicts into a world war. The surrender of that role in the guise of  "America First" is  both delusional and threat to to world safety.

  4. Posted

    It now couldn't be clearer: ANYONE supporting Trump to become president is a TRAITOR willing to imperil the security of the UK and our European allies: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-encourages-russia-to-attack-non-paying-nato-allies/ar-BB1i6j4D

    Donald Trump says he would "encourage" Russia to attack any Nato member that fails to pay its bills as part of the Western military alliance.

    He said he had once told a Nato leader he would not protect a nation behind on its payments if it came under Russian attack, and would urge the aggressors to "do whatever they hell they want".

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    Why are you all so obsessed with simplistic point scoring instead of unpicking what's going on? It's nonsensical for any local council to be responsible for funding a service for the whole UK. That's the issue here; as it pertains to all UK imports it's not a Brexit issue per se, only one that people are more aware of because some people are obsessed with Brexit.

    Another thing worth bearing in mind is that pre-Brexit, this meat would simply be coming in from Europe unchecked instead of being caught like this. So much for EU standards.

    Not a Brexit issue, hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha!!!!

  10. Posted

    1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

    I’m not going to defend Sunak as I think he’s rather useless, and it was politically naive of him to give Starmer the opportunity to turn the tables on possibly the only subject the Tories currently enjoy the upper hand.

    I simply get tired of all the faux outrage. Nobody was actually offended by anything Sunak said, and anybody with half a brain knows it was a dig at Starmer and had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Ghey

     

    34 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

    When have I ever said I dislike trans people? You know nothing of my dealings with or opinions of them, so stop insinuating that I’m some kind of bigot unless you have evidence to back up your accusation. Accusing people of bigotry is simply a lazy way of trying to shut down a conversation when you’re unable to respond to the points they’re putting across 

    Herman is spot on in his observations about you. The give away is your crass comment "I simply get tired of all the faux outrage." It simply doesn't occur to you that people could genuinely be disgusted by attacks on transgender people, asylum seekers, and other minority groups. Because you don't find such attacks disgusting, you think you can dismiss the objections of people who despise such bigotry as mere "faux outrage". Such an attitude is typical of the far-right who wish to avoid addressing the hatred engendered by the sort of divisive bigotry that the likes of Sunak intentionally employ.

    Very obviously, Sunak's jibe was aimed to undermine Starmer. However, equally as obvious, the jibe depended entirely on  transphobic assumptions to give it its content (The utterly puerile "Oh look everybody! Starmer thinks women can have a willy"). It gave the entirety of the Conservative benches a damned good laugh; but not the parents of Brianna Ghey, nor the small community of transgender people in the UK who are victims of violence and abuse on a daily basis. Sunak could have reeled off his prewritten jibe about Starmer's putative U-turns without employing any mention of transgender issues, it would have made no difference to his political point. That he didn't, even when he knew that the mother of a transgender murder victim was visiting parliament that day, says everything about his grotesque moral judgement, and his willingness to employ prejudice in his personal cause.

    The disgust is real, not faux. You might receive politer engagement if you simply accepted the fact that the people responding to you on this site hold their opinions sincerely. If you wish to continue to describe their deeply held values as "faux", then expect them to respond to you appropriately (as Herman has done).

    • Thanks 1

  11. Posted

    A dire warning from two of the best legal minds in the US that a Trump presidency could bring an end to democracy in America: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/how-to-steal-a-presidential-election-review-trump-and-the-peril-to-come/ar-BB1i49Ww?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=4032fcabd42c455c9a334b11df2a8ffc&ei=11

    Lessig is a chaired professor at Harvard Law School. He views a second Trump term as calamitous. “He is a pathological liar, with clear authoritarian instincts,” Lessig writes. “His re-election would be worse than any political event in the history of America  –  save the decision of South Carolina to launch the civil war.”

    Seligman is a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford, focused on disputed presidential elections. He too views Trump uncharitably.

    “Former president Trump and his allies attempted a legal coup in 2020 – a brazen attempt to manipulate the legal system to reverse the results of a free and fair election,” Seligman has said. “Despite all the attention on 6 January 2021 [the attack on Congress], our legal and political systems remain dangerously unprotected against a smarter and more sophisticated attempt in 2024.”

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

    Caroline Cossey was born an intersex male. The genetic condition she had was is exclusive to males. She is a trans woman, has lived her gender for more than two years, undergone medical treatment and reassignment surgery and absolutely should be recognised now as a woman.

    Indeed! Born with male genitalia and assigned a male gender. Changed her gender to fit with her lived experience, and opted to have surgery to reflect that. The choice was NOT determined by her biology but by her self-perception of what her gender truly is. The issues are extraordinarily complex, and not helped by those who think biology is the only issue that matters. What rights should be given to transgender people who retain their original biological genitalia needs very careful consideration. For example, I happen to be one of those who thinks if you have male genitalia then you shouldn't have access to women's changing rooms. But the issues deserve calm rational debate and the people concerned need showing respect. The numbers involved are miniscule, completely disproportionate to the level of hate that has been generated.

  13. Posted

    Just now, canarydan23 said:

    Don't conflate intersex with trans.

    You've missed the point. Caroline Cossey was born with a biology that did not determine her gender. The point is she is a woman. Would you treat as not a woman?

  15. Posted

    3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    Yadda yadda yadda. You're a pompous, demented ****. Very few people have any issue with a handful of oddballs living their lives differently. Where it becomes a problem is demented people like yourself who believe its okay to start brainwashing kids that this is something that might apply to them. Even teachers are starting to struggle with the stuff they're told to push on young kids. You're sick.

     

    I see you are getting back to the level of abuse when you sent me that stream of DMs repeatedly calling me a f***ing c**t and many other things. Well done you!

  16. Posted

    1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    "Populist tropes about biology"... bloody biology! 😂

    You're all mad. Lost in your own navel-gazing fantasy world where everyone can be a tree if they wish it hard enough.

    Your ignorance and bigotry is the only consistent thing in your posts. If you had an ounce of intelligence or curiosity you would seek to understand the massive amount of literature produced by scientists and social theorists that debates the distinction between biologically determined sex and socially constructed gender. But of course, you wouldn't dream of wasting your time questioning your well established set of prejudices. Hence your pathetic quip at the end. very sad.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    There is a very obvious reason why Sunak refuses to apologise for his hideous transphobia yesterday. If he did, that would be an admission that transphobia is wrong. But that would then make it impossible for him to continue to attack Starmer with his favourite transphobic line about women with willies. As the election looms it is very clear that divisive culture wars is pretty much all the Tories have left as a campaign strategy. Sunak will be desperate to repeat his transphobic tropes and jokes ad infinitum to engender hate against a extremely small group of abused people.

    I experienced a perfect example of this just a couple of days ago talking to someone in a hotel bar in Norwich. "Don't get me started" he said when I mentioned something about transgender people, and he launched into the usual tirade of populist tropes about biology etc. Keeping calm (Yes I can do it face to face), I asked him in what ways his life had been personally affected by the existence of this very small group of people. He admitted that it had affected him personally not one bit. Then I asked him whether his life had been affected by sky rocketing mortgage rates, massive utility bills, high inflation and interest rates, huge food price rises, 7.5m NHS waiting lists, crumbling schools, etc, etc, etc. I followed with the question "Why do you think the Tories want to get you furious about a tiny group of people that you have admitted yourself don't affect your life personally, when all these other things are making your life a misery?" TBF he got the point pretty quickly.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
    • Haha 1

  18. Posted

    This is probably the best explanation I've heard for why so-called presidential immunity does not protect presidents from criminal prosecution. It makes particularly good use of the example of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. In the case of the pardon and  Nixon's response to it, both men acknowledge that a president is NOT immune from prosecution for illegal acts.

     

  19. Posted

    15 minutes ago, sonyc said:

    Blimey. It's me that's not trustworthy eh? I was responding to horsefly's post of a supporter being interviewed (the X clip). You'd stated many times that you were not a supporter. You referenced me not the other way round.

    I do not want to have an argument by direct mail with anyone about it. On any subject. That is what this forum is for - it should not become a personal thing. 

    Given you've now decided to post this I will do something I've not done before and copy my DM reply to you. That way there is no obsfuscation or trickery of words. As you've laid out to everyone that I'm not to be trusted then people can decide for themselves.

    My reply to you is polite, considerate and even constructive (suggesting a reading source). Plus it even has a apology 

    That this is the way you conduct yourself I believe you are someone I ought to be concerned about. So here is my concern on public. I would be grateful if you discontinued your replies to me actually. I don't think it is constructive to follow folk round and keep posting. That's what happens on the football side.

    My own take is that a view on something is purely that. I couldn't even care if I happened to be wrong on something or right. It makes no difference. It is just a viewpoint. I don't wish to try and denigrate anyone online. But I don't think your post is so honest. You've made out I've been untrustworthy now on top of your insult previously which I tried to respond to. Like you, I will (occasionally in my case) bother to defend myself. I recall bullies from school. You have to stand up to them.

     

    This is my verbatim response:

    "I've replied publicly IBT because I don't wish to start a private argument on something that isn't so relevant to me (the US elections) as to make me so angry. I have received DMs before from one of two people which, when I think about them feel quite quietly unsettling. I would rather just be open. I'm a quiet and extremely tolerant sort. I don't believe I've ever stated that a poster is x or y in insulting terms. I would have to think hard but I don't believe so. I often see many sides all at the same time. Unherd has an excellent article on Trump last week (an interview format).

    Apologies that I upset you (originally). I was responding to your post which I've reproduced so you could re-assess it"

     

     

    After I had made it very clear that I would no longer respond to his very obvious trolling posts in public he sent me a DM too. Unlike you I wasn't "generous" enough in spirit to respond to his DM. Personally, I have no problem with people who want to use robust language when discussing genuinely held beliefs. I do, however, have a problem with insincere people whose only purpose is to wind up others by spouting extremist bigotry. It seems that since I decided I would no longer respond to him he has decided to latch on to you as the person to make a variety of unfounded accusations against. Your very polite and considered response here is typical of the tone in which you contribute on this site (certainly not a style I can replicate), however, I have little doubt it won't be reciprocated. I can only recommend that you follow me in refusing to engage; it leads to a lot more peaceful life.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  20. Posted

    For anyone genuinely interested in US politics there is a brilliant series of lengthy interviews from PBS in their "Frontline Transparency Project". This one is with Rusty Bowers, a Republican (he voted for Trump) who served as speaker of the House in Arizona 2019-23. He details the attempts of Trump and his mob to pressure him illegally to overturn the election result. It serves as a good illustration of the difference between the traditional Republican GOP committed to the principles of democracy, and the MAGA mob prepared to lie, cheat, and threaten violence to get what they want.

     

  24. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

    Oh dear, no-one has said that every male in Afghanistan is a violent misogynist.  But there is more likelihood of a man from a country that is known for its dreadful and antiquated attitudes towards females (women forced to cover themselves from head to toe, no education for girls, women having to walk behind men, a woman being seen as a man’s property etc) being a violent misogynist than it is for a man raised in a liberal democracy.  This asylum scammer was indeed a violent misogynist.  He shouldn’t have been here, and because he was, a woman and two children have been scarred, physically and mentally, for life.

    Your comment that "there is more likelihood of a man from a country that is known for its dreadful and antiquated attitudes towards females (women forced to cover themselves from head to toe, no education for girls, women having to walk behind men, a woman being seen as a man’s property etc) being a violent misogynist than it is for a man raised in a liberal democracy."  is flawed in many ways when it comes to considering claims for asylum. Firstly, it completely ignores the history of Afghanistan which was very much a liberal culture during the '70s, and which was liberalised again during the recent period before the return of the Taliban (women were doctors, politicians, judges etc). Secondly, it is typically because they are escaping a repressive regime that people claim asylum in the first place. I.e. They are escaping a regime that would punish them for their liberal attitudes. Thirdly, there is a massive amount of violence perpetrated against women by men who have been raised in the UK's liberal culture. It is not because they are from the UK that is the cause of their violence, it is because they are misogynists who believe they are entitled to use violence in their treatment of women.

    As I said, it is for the immigration officials to determine in EACH case whether the individual concerned is a legitimate asylum seeker and not a threat to UK law and values. The fact that a claimant is Afghani does NOT determine the outcome of such a judgement. 

     

  25. Posted

    1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

    He came from Afghanistan, a country with a long tradition of misogyny borne of its rigid interpretation and implementation of religious dogma.  It stands to reason that men brought up in that culture are more likely to have those misogynistic attitudes and behaviours than those raised in a liberal western democracy.  Those from Afghanistan who were more benign in outlook and who assisted Western forces have, if they wish to escape that country, the option of applying through the established safe and legal route.  But this particular individual took an unorthodox path, no doubt paying people smugglers in the process, to enter the country through illegal means.  In the process of his multiple asylum applications he committed two offences that we know of, namely sexual assault and indecent exposure.  Despite his apparent conversion to Christianity he continued to adhere to his Islamic faith and went on to commit the vile acts that we’re all too aware of.  Of course, had this violent misogynistic asylum scammer not been here in the first place he wouldn’t have been in a position to carry out these attacks, let alone the previous sexual assault and exposure.  So deflect all you like and pretend that the migration to this country of tens if not hundreds of thousands of men from similar misogynistic cultures has no bearing on the safety of our society, but I choose to differ.

    Oh dear, I tried to make it as simple as possible for you but, as expected, it's still beyond your intellectual capacity to understand the difference between a cause and a correlation. It is the job of immigration officials to assess whether an asylum seeker is genuine or presents a threat to UK law and values. It is not the job of those officials to make false assumptions that everyone arriving from a particular country must be a violent misogynist. Particularly not when many of those arriving from a place like Afghanistan have claimed asylum because they fought alongside UK troops in order to establish democracy and equality in defiance of Islamic fundamentalism.

×
×
  • Create New...