David Cameron had sex with a dead pigs head

Political Debate
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 23062
Joined: 6 years ago

4 years ago

redzebs wrote:Its the audacity to tell people the way they should live and also claim to be just like them that makes me chuckle, the nationalist socialist party had a similar agenda in Germany, and if you think I'm being dramatic, go and look at some of skids old posts calling for the death of anyone who is centre right. His glee over Thatcher is another cracker, that cheered him up more than Bin Laden getting plugged.
Wait, do you think the National Socialists are left wing? Because right, neither of us have time to go there
User avatar
swampash
Legend
Posts: 4309
Joined: 5 years ago

4 years ago

Sid wrote: You are a Tory though, I can see it in your thinking. I think this is why you profess to be intelligent, but shirk from committing too many opinions in case of being revealed.

But anyway, me and Stegs are having a proper good chat about the Civil War. You should join in rather than us doing this boring shite.

Also inverted snobbery aka reverse classism is not a thing. It's to do with power. Systematic oppression cannot come from the bottom up, it has to come from the top down, from the privileged to the unprivileged.
Trust me Sid, inverse snobbery is very real and much in evidence in your posts. Off you go then...
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits...
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 23062
Joined: 6 years ago

4 years ago

No it's not

Institutional oppression cannot come from the oppressed
User avatar
swampash
Legend
Posts: 4309
Joined: 5 years ago

4 years ago

Sid wrote:No it's not

Institutional oppression cannot come from the oppressed
Ah, so your argument is that you are oppressed, so cannot therefore be an inverse snob?
=)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =))
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits...
User avatar
swampash
Legend
Posts: 4309
Joined: 5 years ago

4 years ago

Do you actually believe any of the shite you peddle, or is it a trolling game?
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits...
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 23062
Joined: 6 years ago

4 years ago

swampash wrote:Where's Alfwe'veallgotricketscostheymadeuseatthisshite? Must be time for him to wade in with a tory boy jibe, surely?
Maybe he's consulting his script writer about the new routine...
Basically right what's going on here is that a group of middle aged blokes, somewhat depressed, perhaps having led disappointing lives, are posturing over the internet towards each other for shits, giggles and to get angry about something

Can we not talk about the Civil War? Because it's more interesting and Stegs knows his shit
User avatar
Lazarus
Legend
Posts: 15433
Joined: 6 years ago

4 years ago

You have yet to make a point in this debate Swamps, waffle, bluster and bullshit so far. What's the problem with smokers and the fat exactly? What would you do with them?
Last edited by Lazarus on Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect! Respect! Respect Maan! Respect! Respect!........." [-X
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 23062
Joined: 6 years ago

4 years ago

Sid wrote:
Steggo wrote:Sid,you are correct when you say that the power struggle of the English Civil Wars was about one privileged class replacing another. The reasons for the wars and its aftermath are many and complicated. However it is worth noting that Cromwell was offered the throne and took weeks 'agonising' over whether to take it. This offer was outlined in parliaments 'Humble Petition' of 1657 (worth looking at).

Also worth having a read is the 'Putney Debates' of 1647 where the Levellers and various other radicals put forward their idea of a constitution.Cromwell refused to discuss the future of the king. On 11 November 1647 Charles 1 escaped,thus bringing the 'Putney Debates' to a convenient end. One for the conspiracy theorists. It is now thought Cromwell was in some way involved in the escape as it gave him an excuse to close down the debates which were getting uncomfortable for him and also he could recall the army. Interestingly on that same day the General Council wrote a new manifesto in which one of the clauses was that members of the army would sign a declaration of loyalty to Fairfax and the General Council. This,in effect, meant that the so called 'agitators' (Levellers etc) could be charged with mutiny if they persisted with their arguments.

Cromwell and his cronies were totally against 'manhood suffrage' (one man,one vote) as this would lead to anarchy!!! To really see what Cromwell etc was about have a read of 'Heads of Proposals',1647.

And for all you republicans out there-beware. The 1848 'Treason Felony Act' is still on the statute books and you can still get life for talking about republicanism!

And Swamp,Scottish rugby union was founded and built on public and independent schools.
That's fucking ace, Stegs, nice one. Are you a history teacher?

I only know a rough history of the civil war with the odd detail here & there because I taught myself when looking through England's radical history. I read the Putney Debates but that was ages ago when I was at uni but I might go over them today seeing as I've fuck all to do at the minute. Also I learned a bit from local history as my hometown of Hull played an important role in the Civil War (the Siege of Hull) as we refused the king entry to the city, which caused a bit of a kerfuffle. You can't not get excited at the image of Thomas Rainsborough sailing down the humber on a warship intended for royalists proclaiming "peace and anarchy".

Was just reading about the 1848 Treason Felony Act that you mentioned. It's the kind of thing people will say is harmless and outdated now. But there's a reason it's still in existence as it basically protects the Queen against any attempt at being overthrown. And you just know they'll pull that act out of their arse to shut down a bunch of peaceful anti monarchy protesters. However it's interesting how even back then they couldn't get juries to convict people of it. Also this is interesting:

In 2001, The Guardian newspaper mounted an unsuccessful legal challenge to the Act in the High Court, alleging that the act "...makes it a criminal offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy in print, even by peaceful means..."[3] They sought a declaration that the Human Rights Act 1998 had altered its meaning so that only violent conduct was criminal. The court held that this was a hypothetical question that did not deserve an answer, since The Guardian was not being prosecuted. The case eventually went to the House of Lords on appeal in 2003. In a unanimous judgement the House agreed that the litigation was unnecessary, but most of the judges nevertheless agreed with (and none disagreed with) Lord Steyn's view that "the part of section 3 of the 1848 Act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that section 3 could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal."

So it's a relic of a bygone age, but it still survived scrutiny under the human rights act... I wonder if the Queen got involved. Also it's interesting that the Guardian clearly feel the act is still powerful enough for them to get the willies printing anti monarchy stuff.
Bumping this for Stegs
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 23062
Joined: 6 years ago

4 years ago

swampash wrote:
Sid wrote:No it's not

Institutional oppression cannot come from the oppressed
Ah, so your argument is that you are oppressed, so cannot therefore be an inverse snob?
=)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =))
Google systematic oppression and read shit regarding gender, sexuality, race, class and religion and you'll learn a lot

It's fucking great, it's what kids are learning nowadays, it's the discourse, the world we operate in
Steggo
Legend
Posts: 1732
Joined: 5 years ago

4 years ago

Sid wrote:I only know a rough history of the civil war with the odd detail here & there because I taught myself when looking through England's radical history. I read the Putney Debates but that was ages ago when I was at uni but I might go over them today seeing as I've fuck all to do at the minute. Also I learned a bit from local history as my hometown of Hull played an important role in the Civil War (the Siege of Hull) as we refused the king entry to the city, which caused a bit of a kerfuffle. You can't not get excited at the image of Thomas Rainsborough sailing down the humber on a warship intended for royalists proclaiming "peace and anarchy".

Was just reading about the 1848 Treason Felony Act that you mentioned. It's the kind of thing people will say is harmless and outdated now. But there's a reason it's still in existence as it basically protects the Queen against any attempt at being overthrown. And you just know they'll pull that act out of their arse to shut down a bunch of peaceful anti monarchy protesters. However it's interesting how even back then they couldn't get juries to convict people of it.
Sid,that's the great thing about English history-you can find it everywhere and can be very,very localised. You would think that places like Hull,Hartlepool,even Newcastle have no history but the North is steeped in it.As regards to Rainsborough you might be interested in this-http://www.mikeprior.net/pdf/rainsborough.pdf. English radical history is fascinating although my own area of expertise is Late English Anglo-Saxon. As i used to live quite near the site of the Battle of Naseby (and Bosworth Field) I became enthralled by the English Civil Wars and up to the age of about 11 quite fancied myself as a romantic 'Cavalier' riding around Leicestershire in a floppy feathered hat (plus other clothes) and rescuing people from the nasty 'Roundheads'. However I then came into contact with a history teacher who was slightly left of centre and my perceptions were changed forever!John Lilburne then became my hero.

Very interesting about the 'Treason Felony Act'. I didn't know about the Guardian challenge. As far as I'm concerned if an Act has no relevance to modern thinking it should be repealed. There can only be one reason they are not and that is there may be a future need for them.You only have to look at the ancient law Thatcher used to restrict the movement of flying pickets during the miners strike to realise that if an Act is on the Statutes Book it can be used no matter how long it has been on there.
Post Reply