kirkstaller wrote:Quack therapy or not (I have made my feelings on the matter clear), is this issue really about the quality of the therapy itself? For example, do you think Boris would have pulled homeopathy adverts, or silenced Chinese therapies claiming to get rid of warts?
The answer is obvious.
It certainly is to me. Do I have a problem with Boris pulling an advert that is based on an unscientific notion that something can be cured? No, I do not. Would I have a problem in him banning ads for homeopathy or any other quack remedy? No, I would not. Any ad that is based in mere conjecture but claims otherwise deserves to be banned.
kirkstaller wrote:This was a clear political statement, made days before the London Mayoral Election. The advert had been passed by the relevant advertising standards authority, but Boris sought to use his discretionary veto to pull the ads and gain support amongst the left whose votes he needed to return him to political office.
Are you seriously saying that lefties voted for Boris because of this ban? Or that it was intended for lefties to do so because of the ban? If so, you are deluded.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Joined: Nov 29 2008 Posts: 1318 Location: Kirkstall, Leeds
El Barbudo wrote:Are you seriously saying that lefties voted for Boris because of this ban? Or that it was intended for lefties to do so because of the ban? If so, you are deluded.
I think that there are people out there who voted for Boris who wouldn’t have if he hadn’t intervened in such a dramatic fashion. Not necessarily your typical socialists, mind, I'm referring to more well-heeled Londoners with a liberal agenda.
It’s important to look more closely at Boris’ voter base. For a Tory, he seems to enjoy an unusual level of support across all social classes. This is mostly to do with his character and personality, but also his persistent attempts to disassociate himself with the parliamentary Conservative Party, which is considered toxic by most people in more socially-deprived areas of London. What you must understand is that, for Boris, it’s all about him; win at all costs. He does this by appealing to as larger voter base as possible. Sadly, in my view, the gay bandwagon is very popular with the masses at the moment, and when Boris spotted the opportunity to champion their cause and prevent the desecration of iconic London buses, right before polling day, it was just too good to miss.
So yes, the decision to attack the Christian campaign was pretty much motivated by Boris’ desire to appease the liberal left.
kirkstaller wrote: ... So yes, the decision to attack the Christian campaign was pretty much motivated by Boris’ desire to appease the liberal left.
You know, I could have understood it if you'd said that Boris had it pullled (fnaar, fnaar) to avoid losing the pink vote that might be otherwise lost by letting it go ahead. But no, you love that feeling of persecution by the liberal left.
I love the way you label it as a "Christian" campaign even though the group concerned is a tiny minority of Christians.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Joined: Nov 29 2008 Posts: 1318 Location: Kirkstall, Leeds
El Barbudo wrote:You know, I could have understood it if you'd said that Boris had it pullled (fnaar, fnaar) to avoid losing the pink vote that might be otherwise lost by letting it go ahead. But no, you love that feeling of persecution by the liberal left.
The pink vote is miniscule and is not really worth curtailing any principles over. However Boris, being the clever clogs he is, recognised the fellowship which has been engendered between the progressive Guardianistas and the Soho cruisers, and decided that this was pretty much an open goal.
Quote:I love the way you label it as a "Christian" campaign even though the group concerned is a tiny minority of Christians.
The Core Issues Trust is a small organisation but that doesn’t make their actions any less Christian, nor does it preclude wider support from the Christian community.
El Barbudo wrote:You know, I could have understood it if you'd said that Boris had it pullled (fnaar, fnaar) to avoid losing the pink vote that might be otherwise lost by letting it go ahead. But no, you love that feeling of persecution by the liberal left.
We're eroding the moral fabric of society by giving rights to these vociferous minorities, don't ya know?
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Rock God X wrote:You really are a disgusting individual.
He's a coward as well.
This is a 'man' who now decides he will not debate with me, because I am fulfilling my predestined situation.
It's always the case with bigots: they are unable to (logically) justify their bigotry, so they refuse to debate. See Dally's posts on 'vociferous minorities' in this very thread as an excellent example of this.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
