Cameron The Liar - lets his mask slip again

[SWP's back]

They are all very, very nasty people who only care about their public school chums

You say it sarcastically but they prove it relentlessly.

I am really starting to like them.<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:02 pm --<br /><br />

What a ****. You can imagine how pissed off the dibble were.

Not sure I read anywhere that Cameron was responsible. Did you?

 

[SWP's back]

It beggers belief that some people can actually defend Cameron on. I've posted on the Independent website and some of the responses you get verge on to be just plain ridiculous.

When you have a couple of clergymen, vicars, men of the cloth coming over to remind you peacefully of your moral duty to the people that you are supposed to be serving. To then meet them mob handed with the old bill to shut them up is just plain wrong. Anybody with any self moral decency would have took it on the chin quietly and then tried to act and do something about it.

I'd tell them to fuck off as well. Why does believing in a non-existent deity and not actually fucking working in a real fucking job give anyone any more right than anyone else to lecture on moral issues?

 

[aguero93:20]

Welcome to the politically tolerant zone that is BlueMoon!

Yep, equal opportunities, all politicians, religions, ideologies and dogmas mocked and despised equally! ;)

That's comforting.
No harm in me mocking deluded lefty faith hating anarchists then?

Na, jus don ged upset wid a brudda if him come ged wid da fury wid ya ova dem politic, dem many pasty white rich boy roun ere gone ged ya back also brudda.
Ra.

 

[Gillespie]

It beggers belief that some people can actually defend Cameron on. I've posted on the Independent website and some of the responses you get verge on to be just plain ridiculous.

When you have a couple of clergymen, vicars, men of the cloth coming over to remind you peacefully of your moral duty to the people that you are supposed to be serving. To then meet them mob handed with the old bill to shut them up is just plain wrong. Anybody with any self moral decency would have took it on the chin quietly and then tried to act and do something about it.

I'd tell them to fuck off as well. Why does believing in a non-existent deity and not actually fucking working in a real fucking job give anyone any more right than anyone else to lecture on moral issues?

Despite the tasteless intolerance you have for those who have religious faith (btw around 60% of Britons when recently asked described themselves as Christian....add on Muslims and Jews, the figure would be higher) I rather like your idea of discriminating between those people who don't have a 'real fucking job' and those that do. How about depriving them of the vote? You know, no representation without taxation?

 

[SWP's back]

It beggers belief that some people can actually defend Cameron on. I've posted on the Independent website and some of the responses you get verge on to be just plain ridiculous.

When you have a couple of clergymen, vicars, men of the cloth coming over to remind you peacefully of your moral duty to the people that you are supposed to be serving. To then meet them mob handed with the old bill to shut them up is just plain wrong. Anybody with any self moral decency would have took it on the chin quietly and then tried to act and do something about it.

I'd tell them to fuck off as well. Why does believing in a non-existent deity and not actually fucking working in a real fucking job give anyone any more right than anyone else to lecture on moral issues?

Despite the tasteless intolerance you have for those who have religious faith (btw around 60% of Britons when recently asked described themselves as Christian....add on Muslims and Jews, the figure would be higher) I rather like your idea of discriminating between those people who don't have a 'real fucking job' and those that do. How about depriving them of the vote? You know, no representation without taxation?

It is not tasteless in the slightest. Whether people are of faith or not makes no odds to me but putting them on a pedestal as Mike D because they have faith is moronic. The fact they have faith is no more important than what their favourite pie is or which football team they purport to follow.

As to however many "describe" themselves as Christian, so fucking what. 50% of Yanks believe the creation myth as opposed to evolution. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy and the last bastion of those without a fucking clue.

A do think one should probably have "a real fucking job" before lecturing others and how to run a country mind.

 

[aguero93:20]

I'd tell them to fuck off as well. Why does believing in a non-existent deity and not actually fucking working in a real fucking job give anyone any more right than anyone else to lecture on moral issues?

Despite the tasteless intolerance you have for those who have religious faith (btw around 60% of Britons when recently asked described themselves as Christian....add on Muslims and Jews, the figure would be higher) I rather like your idea of discriminating between those people who don't have a 'real fucking job' and those that do. How about depriving them of the vote? You know, no representation without taxation?

It is not tasteless in the slightest. Whether people are of faith or not makes no odds to me but putting them on a pedestal as Mike D because they have faith is moronic. The fact they have faith is no more important than what their favourite pie is or which football team they purport to follow.

As to however many "describe" themselves as Christian, so fucking what. 50% of Yanks believe the creation myth as opposed to evolution. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy and the last bastion of those without a fucking clue.

A do think one should probably have "a real fucking job" before lecturing others and how to run a country mind.

That's interesting, I hold a similar point of view on people who don't vote.
Did this survey have the following options:
-Couldn't care less
-Think they're all cockwombles (or similar)
?
I was stopped in Galway by someone doing a similar survey recently and my options were Roman Catholic and other religion. I told him I was a pagan with a particular passion for Pan the goat god. Don't think he got the joke, but he left me alone, which was the planned outcome.

 

[Gillespie]

I'd tell them to fuck off as well. Why does believing in a non-existent deity and not actually fucking working in a real fucking job give anyone any more right than anyone else to lecture on moral issues?

Despite the tasteless intolerance you have for those who have religious faith (btw around 60% of Britons when recently asked described themselves as Christian....add on Muslims and Jews, the figure would be higher) I rather like your idea of discriminating between those people who don't have a 'real fucking job' and those that do. How about depriving them of the vote? You know, no representation without taxation?

It is not tasteless in the slightest. Whether people are of faith or not makes no odds to me but putting them on a pedestal as Mike D because they have faith is moronic. The fact they have faith is no more important than what their favourite pie is or which football team they purport to follow.

As to however many "describe" themselves as Christian, so fucking what. 50% of Yanks believe the creation myth as opposed to evolution. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy and the last bastion of those without a fucking clue.

A do think one should probably have "a real fucking job" before lecturing others and how to run a country mind.

I found it tasteless.

As to your knowledge of rhetoric and logical fallacies, bravo. Nothing like some rhetorical devices in the morning to get the blood stirred. You've clearly been brushing up on your Aristotle. However, my point in quoting the statistic of those professing to have faith was not as you suggest to prove the existence of God because a majority believed such, but merely given the mass of that opinion to ask you might show a bit more tolerance towards them.

I'm certain they at least would show some Christian tolerance to you and your uncompromising atheism.<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:01 am --<br /><br />

Despite the tasteless intolerance you have for those who have religious faith (btw around 60% of Britons when recently asked described themselves as Christian....add on Muslims and Jews, the figure would be higher) I rather like your idea of discriminating between those people who don't have a 'real fucking job' and those that do. How about depriving them of the vote? You know, no representation without taxation?

It is not tasteless in the slightest. Whether people are of faith or not makes no odds to me but putting them on a pedestal as Mike D because they have faith is moronic. The fact they have faith is no more important than what their favourite pie is or which football team they purport to follow.

As to however many "describe" themselves as Christian, so fucking what. 50% of Yanks believe the creation myth as opposed to evolution. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy and the last bastion of those without a fucking clue.

A do think one should probably have "a real fucking job" before lecturing others and how to run a country mind.

That's interesting, I hold a similar point of view on people who don't vote.
Did this survey have the following options:
-Couldn't care less
-Think they're all cockwombles (or similar)
?
I was stopped in Galway by someone doing a similar survey recently and my options were Roman Catholic and other religion. I told him I was a pagan with a particular passion for Pan the goat god. Don't think he got the joke, but he left me alone, which was the planned outcome.

Well, good for you.

 

[117 M34]

I've read it twice and can't find the part where he lied

 

[aguero93:20]

I've read it twice and can't find the part where he lied

" on the same day David Cameron was writing in the Church Times talking about what a good Anglican he is"

?

"David Cameron said in the Church Times that Britain should be “evangelical” about its Christianity and in a separate claim made earlier this month that the Conservative party’s “Big Society” initiative was continuing Jesus’ work."

?
Edit: Not saying he's lying, just that his actions and the actions of those representing him belie those words.

 

[mcmanus]

I've read it twice and can't find the part where he lied

When Cameron opens his gob you know the **** is lying.