If you are on the left, you much appear to be anti racist. Therefore all Muslims are good. But the terrorists are bad. Therefore they are not Muslims.....
The simple fact is that the Paris terrorists were Muslims. They thought they were Muslims, and probably all their families and friends (who are probably all Muslims) thought they were Muslims as well.
That isn't a left-wing position. A left-wing position (shared by plenty who are not left-wing) is that people should be judged as individuals, not harassed because of their religion, race, gender, etc.
It's therefore fine from a left-wing viewpoint to condemn terrorists for being terrorists, and if they're Muslims that isn't any kind of excuse. If they object to Western policies on this or that, there are plenty of decent ways to do it, and killing people isn't one of them, as the Muslim Council of Britain has said in trenchant terms.
What we'd disagree with is the reverse false association: because the terrorists are Muslims, we must close all mosques, ban halal food, and require Muslims to recant or be deported (all things suggested on PB in the last couple of days). It's quite obviously unfair, and incidentally counter-productive, since we'd be saying to millions of British citizens, "We're fighting a war on terror and we've decided you're part of the enemy", which really isn't a useful way to isolate terrorists. We should be absolutely fine with law-abiding people with religious views that we don't share.
Excellent post. About four posters (of which I am one) would agree with you
Which four, Roger? How do you have so much knowledge about the views of the majority of posters on this site? Specifically how do you know what I think?
'Nick, I am surprised on your stance regarding Halal food. Given that you make your living promoting animal welfare I should have thought you would be against the slaughter method with might have been seen as humane 1400 years ago but is not now regarded as best practice.'
Just the usual hypocrisy, if it was born again Christians insisting on this cruel slaughter of animals ,our Nick would be leading the charge to have it banned.
"Which four, Roger? How do you have so much knowledge about the views of the majority of posters on this site? Specifically how do you know what I think? "
I don't. It was hyperbole which I would have thought obvious. What I do know is that from reading yesterdays posts it is a minority view.
If an attack on Halal is intended as a part scorched earth policy it wouldn't work because the devout could live comfortably without meat. Making male circumcision illegal would lead to an exodus
Many politicians call terrorists cowards. I have always found that strange.
"a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things"
I would use other desciptions as whatever they are coward does not seem correct.
The argument is they are attacking people who can't fight back rather than equal adversaries
Drone operators are cowards? I wouldn't have gone that far myself..
Wilful misinterpretation
Drone operators target people who have chosen to fight.
People watching football matches are non-combatants.
You certainly seem to have departed wilfully from your original definition of cowardice (though tbf it's wasn't quite as rubbish as routinely describing suicide bombers as cowards).
There is a stream of pragmatism running through American history and indeed through the American character ; they do have their religious zealots but those folks are always outnumbered by the practical folks who want to see results ...Republican voters may flirt with evangelican types like Carson and Cruz and may use blowhards like Trump to vent and let off steam but when it actually comes to picking a leader they quickly sober up because THEY WANT TO WIN ....there is a slow steady build up of support for Marco Rubio among the Republican voters as it slowly dawns upon them that Rubio is just the type of candidate who can crush Hillary ...they are not going to miss this opportunity to seize the White House after eight long years of Obama ...Americans are a practical can-do people !
If you are on the left, you much appear to be anti racist. Therefore all Muslims are good. But the terrorists are bad. Therefore they are not Muslims.....
The simple fact is that the Paris terrorists were Muslims. They thought they were Muslims, and probably all their families and friends (who are probably all Muslims) thought they were Muslims as well.
That isn't a left-wing position. A left-wing position (shared by plenty who are not left-wing) is that people should be judged as individuals, not harassed because of their religion, race, gender, etc.
It's therefore fine from a left-wing viewpoint to condemn terrorists for being terrorists, and if they're Muslims that isn't any kind of excuse. If they object to Western policies on this or that, there are plenty of decent ways to do it, and killing people isn't one of them, as the Muslim Council of Britain has said in trenchant terms.
What we'd disagree with is the reverse false association: because the terrorists are Muslims, we must close all mosques, ban halal food, and require Muslims to recant or be deported (all things suggested on PB in the last couple of days). It's quite obviously unfair, and incidentally counter-productive, since we'd be saying to millions of British citizens, "We're fighting a war on terror and we've decided you're part of the enemy", which really isn't a useful way to isolate terrorists. We should be absolutely fine with law-abiding people with religious views that we don't share.
Excellent post. About four posters (of which I am one) would agree with you
"Halal slaughter involves slitting the throat of live animals to drain the blood causing the animal a lot of pain. "
As with koshering but those who perform it claim it's as painless as stunning. It should certainly be looked at
In modern surgery the patient is rendered unconscious and feels nothing when the surgeon takes a scalpel to their body. Why do you think an animal would feel less than a human whose throat is opened whilst still conscious?
"Halal slaughter involves slitting the throat of live animals to drain the blood causing the animal a lot of pain. "
As with koshering but those who perform it claim it's as painless as stunning. It should certainly be looked at
Meat produced with stunning is non-Halal. I don't know about Kosher, but if it is produced in the same manner then it should also be banned.
I know whenever this discussion arises that Nick Palmer likes to remind people that when Labour were in government they did manage to get religious "cover" for pre-stunning from UK based religious leaders. At the time, halal slaughter in the UK was very much a niche thing.
However, since then, the supply and demand for halal meat has grown significantly and the demand for "authentically" produced halal even more so. So that now a large portion is produced without pre-stunning under the exception in animal welfare laws for religious practices.
"Which four, Roger? How do you have so much knowledge about the views of the majority of posters on this site? Specifically how do you know what I think? "
I don't. It was hyperbole which I would have thought obvious. What I do know is that from reading yesterdays posts it is a minority view.
Just in case our enemies needed another reason to despise us, today the inactivist group Somnolent Tilty-Headed Wankers for Peace launched an exciting new graphic: the same old clapped-out hippie peace symbol but incorporating the Eiffel Tower (right)! Isn't that a cool, stylish way of showing how saddy-saddy-sadcakes you are about all those corpses in the streets of Paris? It's already gone viral! And that's all that matters, isn't it?
Our enemies use social media to distribute snuff videos as a means of recruitment. We use it to confirm to them how passive and enervated we are: What was it the last time blood ran in the streets of Paris? Oh, yeah, a pencil - for all those dead cartoonists. But, given that blood in the streets of Paris looks like becoming a regular event, it helps to have something of general application. What about, ooh, a tricolor with a blue tear at the end? No, better yet: a peace symbol with a croissant in the middle. No, wait.
It doesn't matter if bill Clinton had a 60% approval rating, that was back in 2000 and Gore still managed to lose ; what is important is Obama's approval rating now and in his final year
It would be unprecedented for Hillary to win with the incumbent at 45% or less
"In modern surgery the patient is rendered unconscious and feels nothing when the surgeon takes a scalpel to their body. Why do you think an animal would feel less than a human whose throat is opened whilst still conscious? "
The argument would be that an animal has no concept of death though they do feel pain. It's not my argument but it is claimed by Kosher butchers that their blades are so sharp and the blood pressure drops so fast that it is painless.
"Halal slaughter involves slitting the throat of live animals to drain the blood causing the animal a lot of pain. "
As with koshering but those who perform it claim it's as painless as stunning. It should certainly be looked at
Meat produced with stunning is non-Halal. I don't know about Kosher, but if it is produced in the same manner then it should also be banned.
I know whenever this discussion arises that Nick Palmer likes to remind people that when Labour were in government they did manage to get religious "cover" for pre-stunning from UK based religious leaders. At the time, halal slaughter in the UK was very much a niche thing.
However, since then, the supply and demand for halal meat has grown significantly and the demand for "authentically" produced halal even more so. So that now a large portion is produced without pre-stunning under the exception in animal welfare laws for religious practices.
Yes, I know. The government need to remove the religious slaughter exception in animal cruelty laws. It might upset Muslims and Jews, but it is absolutely unacceptable in civilised society.
The RSPCA has zero credibility after voting onto their executive people who equate keeping pets and farming with the Holocaust. And prosecuting little old ladies whilst saying they'll look after their pets then putting them down and keeping the legacy.
RSPCA donations dropped by £7 million, the charity was forced to make redundancies and, for the first time in its history, had to arrange an overdraft facility.
"In modern surgery the patient is rendered unconscious and feels nothing when the surgeon takes a scalpel to their body. Why do you think an animal would feel less than a human whose throat is opened whilst still conscious? "
The argument would be that an animal has no concept of death though they do feel pain. It's not my argument but it is claimed by Kosher butchers that their blades are so sharp and the blood pressure drops so fast that it is painless.
"Halal slaughter involves slitting the throat of live animals to drain the blood causing the animal a lot of pain. "
As with koshering but those who perform it claim it's as painless as stunning. It should certainly be looked at
Meat produced with stunning is non-Halal. I don't know about Kosher, but if it is produced in the same manner then it should also be banned.
I know whenever this discussion arises that Nick Palmer likes to remind people that when Labour were in government they did manage to get religious "cover" for pre-stunning from UK based religious leaders. At the time, halal slaughter in the UK was very much a niche thing.
However, since then, the supply and demand for halal meat has grown significantly and the demand for "authentically" produced halal even more so. So that now a large portion is produced without pre-stunning under the exception in animal welfare laws for religious practices.
Some of this would have been driven by public sector procurement. It it aint Halal it aint even on the list of biddable contractors.
There is a stream of pragmatism running through American history and indeed through the American character ; they do have their religious zealots but those folks are always outnumbered by the practical folks who want to see results ...Republican voters may flirt with evangelican types like Carson and Cruz and may use blowhards like Trump to vent and let off steam but when it actually comes to picking a leader they quickly sober up because THEY WANT TO WIN ....there is a slow steady build up of support for Marco Rubio among the Republican voters as it slowly dawns upon them that Rubio is just the type of candidate who can crush Hillary ...they are not going to miss this opportunity to seize the White House after eight long years of Obama ...Americans are a practical can-do people !
Not always, they certainly did not in 1964 when they picked the radical populist Barry Goldwater over establishment moderate Nelson Rockefeller. The steady build up for Rubio is going to need to speed up if he is to have any chance, he is presently third at best in the polls and Trump and Carson and Cruz have well over 50% of GOP voters combined. Republicans seem to be in an anti immigration, anti Washington mood, they are not in the mood to pick a Senator with a liberal record on immigration
"Halal slaughter involves slitting the throat of live animals to drain the blood causing the animal a lot of pain. "
As with koshering but those who perform it claim it's as painless as stunning. It should certainly be looked at
Meat produced with stunning is non-Halal. I don't know about Kosher, but if it is produced in the same manner then it should also be banned.
I know whenever this discussion arises that Nick Palmer likes to remind people that when Labour were in government they did manage to get religious "cover" for pre-stunning from UK based religious leaders. At the time, halal slaughter in the UK was very much a niche thing.
However, since then, the supply and demand for halal meat has grown significantly and the demand for "authentically" produced halal even more so. So that now a large portion is produced without pre-stunning under the exception in animal welfare laws for religious practices.
Yes, I know. The government need to remove the religious slaughter exception in animal cruelty laws. It might upset Muslims and Jews, but it is absolutely unacceptable in civilised society.
"In modern surgery the patient is rendered unconscious and feels nothing when the surgeon takes a scalpel to their body. Why do you think an animal would feel less than a human whose throat is opened whilst still conscious? "
The argument would be that an animal has no concept of death though they do feel pain. It's not my argument but it is claimed by Kosher butchers that their blades are so sharp and the blood pressure drops so fast that it is painless.
Yeah, right roger. So you would advocate surgery without anaesthetic would you, surgeon's scalpels are very very sharp and surely the patient would feel no pain. Maybe you would like to volunteer to test this theory of yours.
As for the idea that an animal had no concept of death, you might want to get out of your bubble a little bit, or even watch a few wildlife documentaries if that is too much for you. That antelope running from the lion is not doing so because they are playing tag.
Some fecking sky-pilot comes on to defend his barbaric medieval practices and you go for it. Anything to avoid having to criticise those whose cultural ways are alien to the majority in the West, eh Rog?
"The idiot who embraces with enthusiastic tones, all centuries but this and every country but his own" W.S. Gilbert.
It doesn't matter if bill Clinton had a 60% approval rating, that was back in 2000 and Gore still managed to lose ; what is important is Obama's approval rating now and in his final year
It would be unprecedented for Hillary to win with the incumbent at 45% or less
Gore separated himself from Bill Clinton and ran a more liberal campaign, Hillary will inevitably campaign with her husband and even Gore won the popular vote. Obama is presently polling at 47% ie above 45%
"Yet it is not, as many suppose, just a handful of imams who are to blame for this radicalism. There is a whole industry of activists – sometimes in the guise of advocacy groups and campaigners for human rights – who travel round mosques, universities, colleges and even community centres filling the heads of young Muslims with hateful ideology."
"In modern surgery the patient is rendered unconscious and feels nothing when the surgeon takes a scalpel to their body. Why do you think an animal would feel less than a human whose throat is opened whilst still conscious? "
The argument would be that an animal has no concept of death though they do feel pain. It's not my argument but it is claimed by Kosher butchers that their blades are so sharp and the blood pressure drops so fast that it is painless.
Yeah, right roger. So you would advocate surgery without anaesthetic would you, surgeon's scalpels are very very sharp and surely the patient would feel no pain. Maybe you would like to volunteer to test this theory of yours.
As for the idea that an animal had no concept of death, you might want to get out of your bubble a little bit, or even watch a few wildlife documentaries if that is too much for you. That antelope running from the lion is not doing so because they are playing tag.
Some fecking sky-pilot comes on to defend his barbaric medieval practices and you go for it. Anything to avoid having to criticise those whose cultural ways are alien to the majority in the West, eh Rog?
"The idiot who embraces with enthusiastic tones, all centuries but this and every country but his own" W.S. Gilbert.
"In modern surgery the patient is rendered unconscious and feels nothing when the surgeon takes a scalpel to their body. Why do you think an animal would feel less than a human whose throat is opened whilst still conscious? "
The argument would be that an animal has no concept of death though they do feel pain. It's not my argument but it is claimed by Kosher butchers that their blades are so sharp and the blood pressure drops so fast that it is painless.
Yeah, right roger. So you would advocate surgery without anaesthetic would you, surgeon's scalpels are very very sharp and surely the patient would feel no pain. Maybe you would like to volunteer to test this theory of yours.
As for the idea that an animal had no concept of death, you might want to get out of your bubble a little bit, or even watch a few wildlife documentaries if that is too much for you. That antelope running from the lion is not doing so because they are playing tag.
Some fecking sky-pilot comes on to defend his barbaric medieval practices and you go for it. Anything to avoid having to criticise those whose cultural ways are alien to the majority in the West, eh Rog?
"The idiot who embraces with enthusiastic tones, all centuries but this and every country but his own" W.S. Gilbert.
Elephants are known to have mourning periods after their partners die. Animals may not have complex lifestyles like we do, but they definitely understand life and death.
"Yet it is not, as many suppose, just a handful of imams who are to blame for this radicalism. There is a whole industry of activists – sometimes in the guise of advocacy groups and campaigners for human rights – who travel round mosques, universities, colleges and even community centres filling the heads of young Muslims with hateful ideology."
There is a stream of pragmatism running through American history and indeed through the American character ; they do have their religious zealots but those folks are always outnumbered by the practical folks who want to see results ...Republican voters may flirt with evangelican types like Carson and Cruz and may use blowhards like Trump to vent and let off steam but when it actually comes to picking a leader they quickly sober up because THEY WANT TO WIN ....there is a slow steady build up of support for Marco Rubio among the Republican voters as it slowly dawns upon them that Rubio is just the type of candidate who can crush Hillary ...they are not going to miss this opportunity to seize the White House after eight long years of Obama ...Americans are a practical can-do people !
Not always, they certainly did not in 1964 when they picked the radical populist Barry Goldwater over establishment moderate Nelson Rockefeller. The steady build up for Rubio is going to need to speed up if he is to have any chance, he is presently third at best in the polls and Trump and Carson and Cruz have well over 50% of GOP voters combined. Republicans seem to be in an anti immigration, anti Washington mood, they are not in the mood to pick a Senator with a liberal record on immigration
The real tin-foil merchants will say the GOP establishment would prefer Carson or Trump who can be easily "guided" by professionals once they are in the White House, supposedly along the lines of Presidents Reagan and GW Bush.
I can't get too excited about banning halal and kosher slaughter. The animal ends up dead whichever way you do it. More important, surely, is its quality of life up to the time it is killed.
I am in favour of allowing people to hunt, even though many animals dispatched that way suffer horribly at the end.
I can't get too excited about banning halal and kosher slaughter. The animal ends up dead whichever way you do it. More important, surely, is its quality of life up to the time it is killed.
I am in favour of allowing people to hunt, even though many animals dispatched that way suffer horribly at the end.
We should label it and require schools to have the option for non-halal, non-kosher food. People have the right to know if their meat is slaughtered by barbaric religious methods.
There is a stream of pragmatism running through American history and indeed through the American character ; they do have their religious zealots but those folks are always outnumbered by the practical folks who want to see results ...Republican voters may flirt with evangelican types like Carson and Cruz and may use blowhards like Trump to vent and let off steam but when it actually comes to picking a leader they quickly sober up because THEY WANT TO WIN ....there is a slow steady build up of support for Marco Rubio among the Republican voters as it slowly dawns upon them that Rubio is just the type of candidate who can crush Hillary ...they are not going to miss this opportunity to seize the White House after eight long years of Obama ...Americans are a practical can-do people !
Not always, they certainly did not in 1964 when they picked the radical populist Barry Goldwater over establishment moderate Nelson Rockefeller. The steady build up for Rubio is going to need to speed up if he is to have any chance, he is presently third at best in the polls and Trump and Carson and Cruz have well over 50% of GOP voters combined. Republicans seem to be in an anti immigration, anti Washington mood, they are not in the mood to pick a Senator with a liberal record on immigration
The real tin-foil merchants will say the GOP establishment would prefer Carson or Trump who can be easily "guided" by professionals once they are in the White House, supposedly along the lines of Presidents Reagan and GW Bush.
Carson possibly but Trump certainly not, he is a billionaire with a net worth far higher than almost any GOP establishment figure, he will do his own thing, even Bush Snr was the establishment figure in 1980
If you are on the left, you much appear to be anti racist. Therefore all Muslims are good. But the terrorists are bad. Therefore they are not Muslims.....
The simple fact is that the Paris terrorists were Muslims. They thought they were Muslims, and probably all their families and friends (who are probably all Muslims) thought they were Muslims as well.
That isn't a left-wing position. A left-wing position (shared by plenty who are not left-wing) is that people should be judged as individuals, not harassed because of their religion, race, gender, etc.
It's therefore fine from a left-wing viewpoint to condemn terrorists for being terrorists, and if they're Muslims that isn't any kind of excuse. If they object to Western policies on this or that, there are plenty of decent ways to do it, and killing people isn't one of them, as the Muslim Council of Britain has said in trenchant terms.
What we'd disagree with is the reverse false association: because the terrorists are Muslims, we must close all mosques, ban halal food, and require Muslims to recant or be deported (all things suggested on PB in the last couple of days). It's quite obviously unfair, and incidentally counter-productive, since we'd be saying to millions of British citizens, "We're fighting a war on terror and we've decided you're part of the enemy", which really isn't a useful way to isolate terrorists. We should be absolutely fine with law-abiding people with religious views that we don't share.
Nick, I am surprised on your stance regarding Halal food. Given that you make your living promoting animal welfare I should have thought you would be against the slaughter method with might have been seen as humane 1400 years ago but is not now regarded as best practice.
We have very strict rules in this country about the treatment of animals, they should in my view be enforced more rigorously than sometimes they are and, perhaps even tightened further both in terms of animal experiments and the importation of animal products from countries with lower standards). Why we should make exception for the sake of two religious minorities is quite beyond me,
Whether it is legal or illegal Halal slaughter would still be carried out in the UK.
A law against Halal slaughter would be as ignored as the law against FGM:
"Halal slaughter involves slitting the throat of live animals to drain the blood causing the animal a lot of pain. "
As with koshering but those who perform it claim it's as painless as stunning. It should certainly be looked at
Meat produced with stunning is non-Halal. I don't know about Kosher, but if it is produced in the same manner then it should also be banned.
I know whenever this discussion arises that Nick Palmer likes to remind people that when Labour were in government they did manage to get religious "cover" for pre-stunning from UK based religious leaders. At the time, halal slaughter in the UK was very much a niche thing.
However, since then, the supply and demand for halal meat has grown significantly and the demand for "authentically" produced halal even more so. So that now a large portion is produced without pre-stunning under the exception in animal welfare laws for religious practices.
Yes, I know. The government need to remove the religious slaughter exception in animal cruelty laws. It might upset Muslims and Jews, but it is absolutely unacceptable in civilised society.
It should happen but it will not happen. The Tories do not want to upset Jews and Labour do not want to upset Muslims.
I can't get too excited about banning halal and kosher slaughter. The animal ends up dead whichever way you do it. More important, surely, is its quality of life up to the time it is killed.
I am in favour of allowing people to hunt, even though many animals dispatched that way suffer horribly at the end.
We should label it and require schools to have the option for non-halal, non-kosher food. People have the right to know if their meat is slaughtered by barbaric religious methods.
It doesn't matter if bill Clinton had a 60% approval rating, that was back in 2000 and Gore still managed to lose ; what is important is Obama's approval rating now and in his final year
It would be unprecedented for Hillary to win with the incumbent at 45% or less
Gore separated himself from Bill Clinton and ran a more liberal campaign, Hillary will inevitably campaign with her husband and even Gore won the popular vote. Obama is presently polling at 47% ie above 45%
He NEEDS TO BE POLLING IN THE HIGH 50s......furthermore his polling is very likely to go down in his final year in office
If you are on the left, you much appear to be anti racist. Therefore all Muslims are good. But the terrorists are bad. Therefore they are not Muslims.....
The simple fact is that the Paris terrorists were Muslims. They thought they were Muslims, and probably all their families and friends (who are probably all Muslims) thought they were Muslims as well.
That isn't a left-wing position. A left-wing position (shared by plenty who are not left-wing) is that people should be judged as individuals, not harassed because of their religion, race, gender, etc.
It's therefore fine from a left-wing viewpoint to condemn terrorists for being terrorists, and if they're Muslims that isn't any kind of excuse. If they object to Western policies on this or that, there are plenty of decent ways to do it, and killing people isn't one of them, as the Muslim Council of Britain has said in trenchant terms.
What we'd disagree with is the reverse false association: because the terrorists are Muslims, we must close all mosques, ban halal food, and require Muslims to recant or be deported (all things suggested on PB in the last couple of days). It's quite obviously unfair, and incidentally counter-productive, since we'd be saying to millions of British citizens, "We're fighting a war on terror and we've decided you're part of the enemy", which really isn't a useful way to isolate terrorists. We should be absolutely fine with law-abiding people with religious views that we don't share.
Nick, I am surprised on your stance regarding Halal food. Given that you make your living promoting animal welfare I should have thought you would be against the slaughter method with might have been seen as humane 1400 years ago but is not now regarded as best practice.
We have very strict rules in this country about the treatment of animals, they should in my view be enforced more rigorously than sometimes they are and, perhaps even tightened further both in terms of animal experiments and the importation of animal products from countries with lower standards). Why we should make exception for the sake of two religious minorities is quite beyond me,
Whether it is legal or illegal Halal slaughter would still be carried out in the UK.
A law against Halal slaughter would be as ignored as the law against FGM:
Far more so. I am sure only some people from the Horn of Africa or Egypt / Sudan may practice FGM whereas Halal food is eaten in virtually every Muslim household. If Halal / Kosher abattoirs are banned, the meat will simply be imported.
Trump yesterday in a speech on Paris & gun control
Trump is correct that if many regular citizens had guns then the massacre might have stopped much sooner.
He is ignoring all the accidental, domestic, suicides and other killings that that would also mean.
I don't even know if that is a given. From the clips emerging, it seems these individuals were fairly well trained (and we saw them during Charlie Hebdo attack as well). We aren't talking about some wannabe gangster from da hood waving a gun.
Even the police couldn't "fight" them. It took much better trained specialist forces to get into the concert and force their hand.
Trump is such an awful candidate ; just a loud mouthed ignorant bore ...I don't understand how anyone that claims to understand politics could possibly think that he could win the nomination ; there are simply not enough gormless people around to vote for him
There is a stream of pragmatism running through American history and indeed through the American character ; they do have their religious zealots but those folks are always outnumbered by the practical folks who want to see results ...Republican voters may flirt with evangelican types like Carson and Cruz and may use blowhards like Trump to vent and let off steam but when it actually comes to picking a leader they quickly sober up because THEY WANT TO WIN ....there is a slow steady build up of support for Marco Rubio among the Republican voters as it slowly dawns upon them that Rubio is just the type of candidate who can crush Hillary ...they are not going to miss this opportunity to seize the White House after eight long years of Obama ...Americans are a practical can-do people !
Not always, they certainly did not in 1964 when they picked the radical populist Barry Goldwater over establishment moderate Nelson Rockefeller. The steady build up for Rubio is going to need to speed up if he is to have any chance, he is presently third at best in the polls and Trump and Carson and Cruz have well over 50% of GOP voters combined. Republicans seem to be in an anti immigration, anti Washington mood, they are not in the mood to pick a Senator with a liberal record on immigration
There are also Republicans who would not vote for a Hispanic however Americanised he is.
I notice my twitter feed is full of people mocking Kay Burley. Strangely they seem less willing to mock another group of idiots, who are far more dangerous than a middle aged single mother who has a bit of a habit of saying some slightly stupid, but harmless, things.
It doesn't matter if bill Clinton had a 60% approval rating, that was back in 2000 and Gore still managed to lose ; what is important is Obama's approval rating now and in his final year
It would be unprecedented for Hillary to win with the incumbent at 45% or less
Gore separated himself from Bill Clinton and ran a more liberal campaign, Hillary will inevitably campaign with her husband and even Gore won the popular vote. Obama is presently polling at 47% ie above 45%
He NEEDS TO BE POLLING IN THE HIGH 50s......furthermore his polling is very likely to go down in his final year in office
Not if the GOP candidate is poor and the economy is still growing and your logic applies more to a Biden nomination not a Clinton one
Far more so. I am sure only some people from the Horn of Africa or Egypt / Sudan may practice FGM whereas Halal food is eaten in virtually every Muslim household. If Halal / Kosher abattoirs are banned, the meat will simply be imported.
Which is a better solution, at least then the imported meat will be more expensive and normal consumers who don't want to be party to animal cruelty will have a choice of buying normally slaughtered meat. Some supermarkets only sell Halal meat, if they were only able to sell imported Halal meat then it would raise their cost enough that they could't offer it storewide.
Trump is such an awful candidate ; just a loud mouthed ignorant bore ...I don't understand how anyone that claims to understand politics could possibly think that he could win the nomination ; there are simply not enough gormless people around to vote for him
There are millions of gormless people; they voted for Obama not once, but twice. How more gormless can you get?
Trump is such an awful candidate ; just a loud mouthed ignorant bore ...I don't understand how anyone that claims to understand politics could possibly think that he could win the nomination ; there are simply not enough gormless people around to vote for him
He was on 42% in a poll last week, plenty of white blue collar men and rednecks in the rustbelt and the South who will back him
There is a stream of pragmatism running through American history and indeed through the American character ; they do have their religious zealots but those folks are always outnumbered by the practical folks who want to see results ...Republican voters may flirt with evangelican types like Carson and Cruz and may use blowhards like Trump to vent and let off steam but when it actually comes to picking a leader they quickly sober up because THEY WANT TO WIN ....there is a slow steady build up of support for Marco Rubio among the Republican voters as it slowly dawns upon them that Rubio is just the type of candidate who can crush Hillary ...they are not going to miss this opportunity to seize the White House after eight long years of Obama ...Americans are a practical can-do people !
Not always, they certainly did not in 1964 when they picked the radical populist Barry Goldwater over establishment moderate Nelson Rockefeller. The steady build up for Rubio is going to need to speed up if he is to have any chance, he is presently third at best in the polls and Trump and Carson and Cruz have well over 50% of GOP voters combined. Republicans seem to be in an anti immigration, anti Washington mood, they are not in the mood to pick a Senator with a liberal record on immigration
There are also Republicans who would not vote for a Hispanic however Americanised he is.
Indeed and if they are going to vote for a Hispanic they would be more likely to vote for Cruz who is at least tough on immigration and border control, unlike Rubio
I notice my twitter feed is full of people mocking Kay Burley. Strangely they seem less willing to mock another group of idiots, who are far more dangerous than a middle aged single mother who has a bit of a habit of saying some slightly stupid, but harmless, things.
Many politicians call terrorists cowards. I have always found that strange.
"a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things"
I would use other desciptions as whatever they are coward does not seem correct.
The argument is they are attacking people who can't fight back rather than equal adversaries
Drone operators are cowards? I wouldn't have gone that far myself..
Wilful misinterpretation
Drone operators target people who have chosen to fight.
People watching football matches are non-combatants.
LOL, pity they mainly hit civilians then.
Both sides use drones.
Our ones fly; the ISIS ones wear suicide vests.
The difference is that we don't deliberately target civilians.
Do our warheads have sensors attached to them to avoid civilians ? Where did that horrible and inhuman expression "collateral damage" come from ?
When the drones hit a school or an hospital or the wrong car , what sort of moral disgust do you usually read here in PB ? Basically, the lack of words indicate a position that "their lives" are worth less than "ours".
I think so. When not quoting Wings of Scotland I enjoy reading his posts.
Dair's posts yesterday would not have passed the Sturgeon test. But Dair has admitted that he is a Tartan Tory.
Yes did not come across as a Sturgeon follower. Once they get independence , he will be able to follow his real beliefs, rather than the SNP leadership, so called left agenda.
Interesting logic on if you make something illegal, so people might break the law, so we shouldn't do it....If that was the general approach, we would never make any laws. I guess at least the prisons would be empty and we wouldn't need to fund a police force.
For the record I am with SO on this. I eat meat and I am well aware of the treatment that the animal may have gone through to get that to my plate and I don't particularly care if somebody reads some words that I don't believe in before they do the deed. However, people should be given the information and the choice, as they should for instance if something is GM.
Far more so. I am sure only some people from the Horn of Africa or Egypt / Sudan may practice FGM whereas Halal food is eaten in virtually every Muslim household. If Halal / Kosher abattoirs are banned, the meat will simply be imported.
Which is a better solution, at least then the imported meat will be more expensive and normal consumers who don't want to be party to animal cruelty will have a choice of buying normally slaughtered meat. Some supermarkets only sell Halal meat, if they were only able to sell imported Halal meat then it would raise their cost enough that they could't offer it storewide.
Muslims / Jews who feel strongly enough will buy anyway. I am not sure how many non Muslims / Jews buy Halal / Kosher. I suppose if it is in the freezer they don't care.
There is a huge Halal meat producing market [ as sophisticated as any non Halal produce ] in Germany. Presumably because of the Turkish immigrant population.
There is a stream of pragmatism running through American history and indeed through the American character ; they do have their religious zealots but those folks are always outnumbered by the practical folks who want to see results ...Republican voters may flirt with evangelican types like Carson and Cruz and may use blowhards like Trump to vent and let off steam but when it actually comes to picking a leader they quickly sober up because THEY WANT TO WIN ....there is a slow steady build up of support for Marco Rubio among the Republican voters as it slowly dawns upon them that Rubio is just the type of candidate who can crush Hillary ...they are not going to miss this opportunity to seize the White House after eight long years of Obama ...Americans are a practical can-do people !
Not always, they certainly did not in 1964 when they picked the radical populist Barry Goldwater over establishment moderate Nelson Rockefeller. The steady build up for Rubio is going to need to speed up if he is to have any chance, he is presently third at best in the polls and Trump and Carson and Cruz have well over 50% of GOP voters combined. Republicans seem to be in an anti immigration, anti Washington mood, they are not in the mood to pick a Senator with a liberal record on immigration
------------------
He's only ''third '' if you don't have enough sense to read between the lines ; in reality he's leading as Trump and Carson are both joke candidates ...there is still nearly 3 months before Iowa and Rubio has no desire to be the frontrunner at this early part of the race as the early front runner gets shot at repeatedly ...Rubio's team are happy for him to be overshadowed by a pair of clowns like Trump and Carson because it takes the heat off them ...this race is shaping up PERFECTLY for Rubio ...he'll win New Hampshire in Febuary and then take off like a forest fire ...by the time of the Republican Convention it will be clear to all asunder that he is going to be the next president
If you are on the left, you much appear to be anti racist. Therefore all Muslims are good. But the terrorists are bad. Therefore they are not Muslims.....
The simple fact is that the Paris terrorists were Muslims. They thought they were Muslims, and probably all their families and friends (who are probably all Muslims) thought they were Muslims as well.
That isn't a left-wing position. A left-wing position (shared by plenty who are not left-wing) is that people should be judged as individuals, not harassed because of their religion, race, gender, etc.
It's therefore fine from a left-wing viewpoint to condemn terrorists for being terrorists, and if they're Muslims that isn't any kind of excuse. If they object to Western policies on this or that, there are plenty of decent ways to do it, and killing people isn't one of them, as the Muslim Council of Britain has said in trenchant terms.
What we'd disagree with is the reverse false association: because the terrorists are Muslims, we must close all mosques, ban halal food, and require Muslims to recant or be deported (all things suggested on PB in the last couple of days). It's quite obviously unfair, and incidentally counter-productive, since we'd be saying to millions of British citizens, "We're fighting a war on terror and we've decided you're part of the enemy", which really isn't a useful way to isolate terrorists. We should be absolutely fine with law-abiding people with religious views that we don't share.
Excellent post. About four posters (of which I am one) would agree with you
Nick, I am surprised on your stance regarding Halal food. Given that you make your living promoting animal welfare I should have thought you would be against the slaughter method with might have been seen as humane 1400 years ago but is not now regarded as best practice.
We have very strict rules in this country about the treatment of animals, they should in my view be enforced more rigorously than sometimes they are and, perhaps even tightened further both in terms of animal experiments and the importation of animal products from countries with lower standards). Why we should make exception for the sake of two religious minorities is quite beyond me,
No, I agree with you - as Francis says, we managed to get non-stunning halal slaughter almost stopped (all but one slaughterhouse in the UK) on the quiet, but I also suspect that's gone into reverse.
What I'd like to see is a ban on non-stunned slaughter as part of a wider package improving the standards in slaughterhouses - for example stunning before the animal enters the killing zone at all, and CCTV to ensure that the rules are followed. We are kidding ourselves if we think that slaughterhouses are OK places except for the last moments. As part of a package of animal welfare methods, it would be great, and experience abroad shows the Muslim and Jewsih communities accept it. What I'm against is banning it as part of a package of anti-Muslim measures, without any attempt to address other aspects of the process.
And that will be too much for some. It will be too much for many of those who have expressed in millions of personal ways their own horror at the events of Friday night.
Which is fine. Until the next time. When we will again fashion our hashtags, and illuminate our buildings.
An perhaps next time it will be the Union flag that defiantly cuts through the night. And the rallying cry “Je suis Londres” that unites the world in solidarity.
There is a stream of pragmatism running through American history and indeed through the American character ; they do have their religious zealots but those folks are always outnumbered by the practical folks who want to see results ...Republican voters may flirt with evangelican types like Carson and Cruz and may use blowhards like Trump to vent and let off steam but when it actually comes to picking a leader they quickly sober up because THEY WANT TO WIN ....there is a slow steady build up of support for Marco Rubio among the Republican voters as it slowly dawns upon them that Rubio is just the type of candidate who can crush Hillary ...they are not going to miss this opportunity to seize the White House after eight long years of Obama ...Americans are a practical can-do people !
Not always, they certainly did not in 1964 when they picked the radical populist Barry Goldwater over establishment moderate Nelson Rockefeller. The steady build up for Rubio is going to need to speed up if he is to have any chance, he is presently third at best in the polls and Trump and Carson and Cruz have well over 50% of GOP voters combined. Republicans seem to be in an anti immigration, anti Washington mood, they are not in the mood to pick a Senator with a liberal record on immigration
------------------
He's only ''third '' if you don't have enough sense to read between the lines ; in reality he's leading as Trump and Carson are both joke candidates ...there is still nearly 3 months before Iowa and Rubio has no desire to be the frontrunner at this early part of the race as the early front runner gets shot at repeatedly ...Rubio's team are happy for him to be overshadowed by a pair of clowns like Trump and Carson because it takes the heat off them ...this race is shaping up PERFECTLY for Rubio ...he'll win New Hampshire in Febuary and then take off like a forest fire ...by the time of the Republican Convention it will be clear to all asunder that he is going to be the next president
People said Goldwater and Corbyn were joke candidates, they still ended up winning. Of the last few nominees, Romney, Bush W and Dole were all frontrunner so of course he would want to have that position. This is certainly not shaping up so well for him, even Obama was a strong second by this stage, by the time of the Republican convention he will likely be an also-ran who has long ago dropped out of the race
More than 300,000 Britons have signed a government petition calling for an immediate halt to all immigration into the UK until the so-called Islamic State is defeated.
The latest German poll, taken yesterday, showing no very striking movements.Merkel's CDU gains 1 from the AfD compared with the last Emnid poll, but drops 2 from the previous poll showing a CDU bounce. The AfD definitely took 3-4% off the CDU a while back, but since then nothing much has been happening.
Trump is such an awful candidate ; just a loud mouthed ignorant bore ...I don't understand how anyone that claims to understand politics could possibly think that he could win the nomination ; there are simply not enough gormless people around to vote for him
He was on 42% in a poll last week, plenty of white blue collar men and rednecks in the rustbelt and the South who will back him
You sound like you have a view of American politics gained entirely through reading the Guardian and listening to the BBC ; furthermore you obviously have learned nothing from the polling debacle in the last GE ......polling is not an exact science and at times must be read between the lines ...there is no wisdom and very little practical common sense running through your comments ...I bet you were one of those fools confidently predicting a ''Hung Parliament '' in the last election up until the very moment the Tories won a majority
It was my wise intuitive grasp of human nature that allowed me to confidently predict a Tory Majority for 4 months before the actual election and wager a significant amount of lucre on it So you just carry on with your clueless predictions and sometime after March it should dawn upon you that Rubio's going to win
Trump is such an awful candidate ; just a loud mouthed ignorant bore ...I don't understand how anyone that claims to understand politics could possibly think that he could win the nomination ; there are simply not enough gormless people around to vote for him
There are millions of gormless people; they voted for Obama not once, but twice. How more gormless can you get?
Obama is a career politician ; Trump is a celebrity business tycoon with ZERO political experience or training
Trump is such an awful candidate ; just a loud mouthed ignorant bore ...I don't understand how anyone that claims to understand politics could possibly think that he could win the nomination ; there are simply not enough gormless people around to vote for him
There are millions of gormless people; they voted for Obama not once, but twice. How more gormless can you get?
Obama is a career politician ; Trump is a celebrity business tycoon with ZERO political experience or training
I think we'd all agree it's Chump rather than Trump.
We may just find out though about the baseline of human competence. Any of us, projected into the role of US president, would make a decent fist of it. Trump may just prove that proposition wrong.
If you are on the left, you much appear to be anti racist. Therefore all Muslims are good. But the terrorists are bad. Therefore they are not Muslims.....
The simple fact is that the Paris terrorists were Muslims. They thought they were Muslims, and probably all their families and friends (who are probably all Muslims) thought they were Muslims as well.
That isn't a left-wing position. A left-wing position (shared by plenty who are not left-wing) is that people should be judged as individuals, not harassed because of their religion, race, gender, etc.
It's therefore fine from a left-wing viewpoint to condemn terrorists for being terrorists, and if they're Muslims that isn't any kind of excuse. If they object to Western policies on this or that, there are plenty of decent ways to do it, and killing people isn't one of them, as the Muslim Council of Britain has said in trenchant terms.
What we'd disagree with is the reverse false association: because the terrorists are Muslims, we must close all mosques, ban halal food, and require Muslims to recant or be deported (all things suggested on PB in the last couple of days). It's quite obviously unfair, and incidentally counter-productive, since we'd be saying to millions of British citizens, "We're fighting a war on terror and we've decided you're part of the enemy", which really isn't a useful way to isolate terrorists. We should be absolutely fine with law-abiding people with religious views that we don't share.
Excellent post. About four posters (of which I am one) would agree with you
Oh utter Bollox.
Halal food has nothing to do with terrorists it's the right for us to make an informed choice. Something taken away from us that have lived here for generations, it's a typical left wing slant to gather it all up together as Surbiton has so clearly demonstrated throughout this thread. I mentioned the school children forced to eat Halal on the thread last night. What choice do they have. None.
Most of us do not think like you say and I find it utterly odious that you and the left wing always try and portray the masses in that way in the same way that you have just accused others of false association for Muslims. It's that one sided argument that creates further division in our society.
Typical though and not unexpected. It's why you are no longer an MP and the left wing and Labour is becoming utterly irrelevant to mainstream sensible thinking people.
Trump is such an awful candidate ; just a loud mouthed ignorant bore ...I don't understand how anyone that claims to understand politics could possibly think that he could win the nomination ; there are simply not enough gormless people around to vote for him
He was on 42% in a poll last week, plenty of white blue collar men and rednecks in the rustbelt and the South who will back him
You sound like you have a view of American politics gained entirely through reading the Guardian and listening to the BBC ; furthermore you obviously have learned nothing from the polling debacle in the last GE ......polling is not an exact science and at times must be read between the lines ...there is no wisdom and very little practical common sense running through your comments ...I bet you were one of those fools confidently predicting a ''Hung Parliament '' in the last election up until the very moment the Tories won a majority
It was my wise intuitive grasp of human nature that allowed me to confidently predict a Tory Majority for 4 months before the actual election and wager a significant amount of lucre on it So you just carry on with your clueless predictions and sometime after March it should dawn upon you that Rubio's going to win
Actually precisely the opposite, no Guardian reader would go within a million miles of Trump. The last general election polling was a little off (though in Canada recently it was correct, an election I predicted correctly even when many doubted Trudeau) however the polls got Corbyn's election victory spot on and my point is that Rubio will not be nominee and thus not even get to a general election. I also always said the Tories would get most seats even if I was not sure they would get a majority
I think it will be Trump v Clinton, if you wish to insist Rubio will be nominee good luck, we shall see
Otherwise, perhaps consider the idea that Kuffar pronouncing on true islam dim, misleading, and irrelevant.
Or perhaps you should try Gulen, who has a massive movement of millions behind him?
Recalling that Islam attaches the utmost regard to the sanctity of human life and citing the verse of the Quran that states “killing an innocent person unjustly is like killing all of mankind,” Gülen remarked that the protection of human life is one of the fundamental values in Islam. “A true Muslim can never be a terrorist and a terrorist can never be a true Muslim,” he said, reiterating the famous remarks he made right after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, by the al-Qaeda terrorist group. According to the Islamic scholar, it is impossible for a Muslim who has fully learned and understood Islam to become a terrorist, and a real Muslim would never intentionally commit an act of terrorism and a terrorist cannot be considered a real Muslim.
I still haven't got a handle on Gulen. He's either the biggest charlatan in existence or a potential moderate way forward for Islam.
The problem is that an "innocent person" is an innocent Muslim. Kafir do not count as human. They can be killed, raped, brutalised with utter umpunity for there is no punishment under Sharia for anything done to a Kafir.
Against kuffars make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into the (hearts of) the Enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside, whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid to you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. (Qur'an: 8:60)
"Which four, Roger? How do you have so much knowledge about the views of the majority of posters on this site? Specifically how do you know what I think? "
I don't. It was hyperbole which I would have thought obvious. What I do know is that from reading yesterdays posts it is a minority view.
Otherwise, perhaps consider the idea that Kuffar pronouncing on true islam dim, misleading, and irrelevant.
Or perhaps you should try Gulen, who has a massive movement of millions behind him?
Recalling that Islam attaches the utmost regard to the sanctity of human life and citing the verse of the Quran that states “killing an innocent person unjustly is like killing all of mankind,” Gülen remarked that the protection of human life is one of the fundamental values in Islam. “A true Muslim can never be a terrorist and a terrorist can never be a true Muslim,” he said, reiterating the famous remarks he made right after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, by the al-Qaeda terrorist group. According to the Islamic scholar, it is impossible for a Muslim who has fully learned and understood Islam to become a terrorist, and a real Muslim would never intentionally commit an act of terrorism and a terrorist cannot be considered a real Muslim.
I still haven't got a handle on Gulen. He's either the biggest charlatan in existence or a potential moderate way forward for Islam.
The problem is that an "innocent person" is an innocent Muslim. Kafir do not count as human. They can be killed, raped, brutalised with utter umpunity for there is no punishment under Sharia for anything done to a Kafir.
Against kuffars make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into the (hearts of) the Enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside, whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid to you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. (Qur'an: 8:60)
Islam is a great evil. It shares this with most religions.
Religions generally are untrue, and want their followers to do bad things.
If you believe in any religion you are a complete idiot. If you believe in Islam then you're beyond misguided.
Comments
"How can you support halal food when you're against animal cruelty? "
You make a fair point. I don't know whether it's cruel but if it's animal welfare versus religious tradition then animal welfare should come first.
'Nick, I am surprised on your stance regarding Halal food. Given that you make your living promoting animal welfare I should have thought you would be against the slaughter method with might have been seen as humane 1400 years ago but is not now regarded as best practice.'
Just the usual hypocrisy, if it was born again Christians insisting on this cruel slaughter of animals ,our Nick would be leading the charge to have it banned.
"Which four, Roger? How do you have so much knowledge about the views of the majority of posters on this site? Specifically how do you know what I think? "
I don't. It was hyperbole which I would have thought obvious. What I do know is that from reading yesterdays posts it is a minority view.
"Halal slaughter involves slitting the throat of live animals to drain the blood causing the animal a lot of pain. "
As with koshering but those who perform it claim it's as painless as stunning. It should certainly be looked at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11996879/Islams-civil-war-between-medievalists-and-modernisers.html
However, since then, the supply and demand for halal meat has grown significantly and the demand for "authentically" produced halal even more so. So that now a large portion is produced without pre-stunning under the exception in animal welfare laws for religious practices.
It was hard to tell yesterday.
It would be unprecedented for Hillary to win with the incumbent at 45% or less
"In modern surgery the patient is rendered unconscious and feels nothing when the surgeon takes a scalpel to their body. Why do you think an animal would feel less than a human whose throat is opened whilst still conscious? "
The argument would be that an animal has no concept of death though they do feel pain. It's not my argument but it is claimed by Kosher butchers that their blades are so sharp and the blood pressure drops so fast that it is painless.
RSPCA donations dropped by £7 million, the charity was forced to make redundancies and, for the first time in its history, had to arrange an overdraft facility.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141855/RSPCA-faces-grilling-MPs-animal-rights-fanatics-compare-farming-holocaust-want-people-test-getting-pet-hijack-key-posts.html#ixzz3rZBiCrfU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"Is Dair SNP ?
It was hard to tell yesterday"
I think so. When not quoting Wings of Scotland I enjoy reading his posts.
Religious groups with food related bans have no excuse here.
As for the idea that an animal had no concept of death, you might want to get out of your bubble a little bit, or even watch a few wildlife documentaries if that is too much for you. That antelope running from the lion is not doing so because they are playing tag.
Some fecking sky-pilot comes on to defend his barbaric medieval practices and you go for it. Anything to avoid having to criticise those whose cultural ways are alien to the majority in the West, eh Rog?
"The idiot who embraces with enthusiastic tones, all centuries but this and every country but his own" W.S. Gilbert.
And on the public purse as well.
Trump yesterday in a speech on Paris & gun control
I am in favour of allowing people to hunt, even though many animals dispatched that way suffer horribly at the end.
A law against Halal slaughter would be as ignored as the law against FGM:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/almost-500-cases-of-female-genital-mutilation-identified-in-just-one-month-in-english-hospitals-10001191.html
He is ignoring all the accidental, domestic, suicides and other killings that that would also mean.
Even the police couldn't "fight" them. It took much better trained specialist forces to get into the concert and force their hand.
As someone once said!
That she's a Leftist Hate Figure speaks volumes - they condemn her without reading a word.
When the drones hit a school or an hospital or the wrong car , what sort of moral disgust do you usually read here in PB ? Basically, the lack of words indicate a position that "their lives" are worth less than "ours".
Once they get independence , he will be able to follow his real beliefs, rather than the SNP leadership, so called left agenda.
For the record I am with SO on this. I eat meat and I am well aware of the treatment that the animal may have gone through to get that to my plate and I don't particularly care if somebody reads some words that I don't believe in before they do the deed. However, people should be given the information and the choice, as they should for instance if something is GM.
There is a huge Halal meat producing market [ as sophisticated as any non Halal produce ] in Germany. Presumably because of the Turkish immigrant population.
He's only ''third '' if you don't have enough sense to read between the lines ; in reality he's leading as Trump and Carson are both joke candidates ...there is still nearly 3 months before Iowa and Rubio has no desire to be the frontrunner at this early part of the race as the early front runner gets shot at repeatedly ...Rubio's team are happy for him to be overshadowed by a pair of clowns like Trump and Carson because it takes the heat off them ...this race is shaping up PERFECTLY for Rubio ...he'll win New Hampshire in Febuary and then take off like a forest fire ...by the time of the Republican Convention it will be clear to all asunder that he is going to be the next president
New Thread New Thread
What I'd like to see is a ban on non-stunned slaughter as part of a wider package improving the standards in slaughterhouses - for example stunning before the animal enters the killing zone at all, and CCTV to ensure that the rules are followed. We are kidding ourselves if we think that slaughterhouses are OK places except for the last moments. As part of a package of animal welfare methods, it would be great, and experience abroad shows the Muslim and Jewsih communities accept it. What I'm against is banning it as part of a package of anti-Muslim measures, without any attempt to address other aspects of the process.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
It was my wise intuitive grasp of human nature that allowed me to confidently predict a Tory Majority for 4 months before the actual election and wager a significant amount of lucre on it
So you just carry on with your clueless predictions and sometime after March it should dawn upon you that Rubio's going to win
We may just find out though about the baseline of human competence. Any of us, projected into the role of US president, would make a decent fist of it. Trump may just prove that proposition wrong.
Halal food has nothing to do with terrorists it's the right for us to make an informed choice. Something taken away from us that have lived here for generations, it's a typical left wing slant to gather it all up together as Surbiton has so clearly demonstrated throughout this thread. I mentioned the school children forced to eat Halal on the thread last night. What choice do they have. None.
Most of us do not think like you say and I find it utterly odious that you and the left wing always try and portray the masses in that way in the same way that you have just accused others of false association for Muslims. It's that one sided argument that creates further division in our society.
Typical though and not unexpected. It's why you are no longer an MP and the left wing and Labour is becoming utterly irrelevant to mainstream sensible thinking people.
The last general election polling was a little off (though in Canada recently it was correct, an election I predicted correctly even when many doubted Trudeau) however the polls got Corbyn's election victory spot on and my point is that Rubio will not be nominee and thus not even get to a general election. I also always said the Tories would get most seats even if I was not sure they would get a majority
I think it will be Trump v Clinton, if you wish to insist Rubio will be nominee good luck, we shall see
I still haven't got a handle on Gulen. He's either the biggest charlatan in existence or a potential moderate way forward for Islam.
The problem is that an "innocent person" is an innocent Muslim. Kafir do not count as human. They can be killed, raped, brutalised with utter umpunity for there is no punishment under Sharia for anything done to a Kafir.
Against kuffars make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into the (hearts of) the Enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside, whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid to you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. (Qur'an: 8:60)
Against kuffars make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into the (hearts of) the Enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside, whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid to you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. (Qur'an: 8:60)
Islam is a great evil. It shares this with most religions.
Religions generally are untrue, and want their followers to do bad things.
If you believe in any religion you are a complete idiot. If you believe in Islam then you're beyond misguided.