marienbad wrote: » And you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing .
Billy86 wrote: » I'll ask you the same question then that I keep asking Trujmp fans because so few are willing to in any way answer on it -
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Amazing how you unflinchingly see bigots as the victims.
frostyjacks wrote: » Do you know what a bigot is? Someone who is intolerant of another's beliefs. Carey's views on marriage are really not that controversial; in fact they are the norm in many countries and cultures around the world. The bigots are those who cannot tolerate that view and have his image torn down from a wall. I do worry about the moral fibre of our young people coming out of universities these days. Their response to a challenge or confrontation is to wish it away, silence it, pretend it doesn't exist. Why can't they behave like men instead of little pansies? If this LGBT group feel threatened by a poster of a former Archbishop, how pathetic is that? He's not exactly Hitler, is he?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Actually, Hilary Clinton won more votes than Trump. The Electoral College voted for Trump.
FA Hayek wrote: » This would make is clear I am not a Trump supporter, a member of the alt right or whatever you are having yourself. Yet, even coming down on the line and saying 'Look, lets see what the guys does first' you get labeled as the above.
frostyjacks wrote: » The bigots are those who cannot tolerate that view and have his image torn down from a wall.
I do worry about the moral fibre of our young people coming out of universities these days. Their response to a challenge or confrontation is to wish it away, silence it, pretend it doesn't exist.
frostyjacks wrote: » Do you know what a bigot is? Someone who is intolerant of another's beliefs. Carey's views on marriage are really not that controversial; in fact they are the norm in many countries and cultures around the world. The bigots are those who cannot tolerate that view and have his image torn down from a wall.
frostyjacks wrote: » I do worry about the moral fibre of our young people coming out of universities these days. Their response to a challenge or confrontation is to wish it away, silence it, pretend it doesn't exist. Why can't they behave like men instead of little pansies? If this LGBT group feel threatened by a poster of a former Archbishop, how pathetic is that? He's not exactly Hitler, is he?
frostyjacks wrote: » King's College London removes a photo of the former Archbishop of Canterbury from its 'wall of fame' amid student anger about his views on gay marriage - Daily Mail King's College removes photo of ex-archbishop opposed to gay marriage - The Guardian Former Archbishop of Canterbury's picture removed from King's College London amid concerns about his views on gay marriage - Telegraph 'Gay-stapo' campaigners force removal of Archbishop picture from King's College London campus - Evening StandardNobody covered this story with reference to Tutu, or Howard, or any of the other people on the wall. It was purely a hate campaign from the LGBT lobby against someone with traditional Christian views on marriage, under the guise of 'diversity'. They've turned that into a toxic word now.
The picture is one of a number on the wall, which also featured Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, to be removed to make way for a digital display board. ... 'In order to make space for the screens next to the prominent Strand campus entrance, a number of static portraits, including those of Lord Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, were removed. 'The individuals were notified in advance and expressed themselves fully supportive. Further digital screens will be rolled out when we move into Bush House in September 2017.'
A spokesman said a number of static portraits, including those of Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard had been removed to make space for new digital screens next to a university entrance. ... “In order to make space for the screens next to the prominent Strand campus entrance, a number of static portraits, including those of Lord Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, were removed. The individuals were notified in advance and expressed themselves fully supportive.”
A spokesman for King's confirmed that a number of static portraits, including ones of Lord Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, were removed following a review into the university's "window display policy". ... "In order to make space for the screens next to the prominent Strand campus entrance, a number of static portraits, including those of Lord Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, were removed."
oscarBravo wrote: » The college say that's not why it was taken down. If you're going to accuse them of lying, you really ought to produce evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure how you reconcile protesting against something with pretending it doesn't exist. Surely the very act of protesting bigotry acknowledges its existence? It's almost as if you're reflexively criticising something without thinking it through.
Billy86 wrote: » I'm having a hard time believing you've read those articles. From the first (Daily Mail) article you cited: From the second (Guardian) article you cited: From the third (Telegraph) article you cited: So no, that does absolutely nothing to answer why you're so offended on behalf of Carey but not Tutu & Howard.
frostyjacks wrote: » Why are you playing dumb? The story has nothing to do with the other pictures. The reason they were all taken down was because of the campaign by the LGBT lobby. They can't tolerate the traditional view on marriage.
On November 22, Gersh and I spoke on the phone. She relayed to me that if I did not sell my building, 200 protesters and national media would show up outside — which would drive down the property value — until I complied. Gersh’s other conditions included that I make a public denunciation of my son in a statement written by the Montana Human Rights Network and that I make a donation to this organization from the sale of the property. As Gersh announced on Facebook, she was “spear heading” the campaign.
frostyjacks wrote: » They should spend more time studying, less time hugging trees and burning flags. No wonder society is going down the toilet.
Billy86 wrote: » To try and defend the fact that you weren't (and still apparently aren't given your constant dodging of the question) offended on behalf of Howard or Tutu, only of Carey, you said...Nobody covered this story with reference to Tutu, or Howard ...and then went on to cite three articles that made reference to Tutu AND Howard. Seriously. That's what you did. I'm not making it up because I actually couldn't. I think it's safe to say at this point that you're not going to give a reason why you're apparently not offended about Tutu's picture being taken down and naturally given some of what you've posted in here not only today but in recent weeks, that's going to lead people to draw reasonable conclusions - none of which reflect well on you.
Amazingfun wrote: » The ongoing extortion/cowardly attack on Richard Spencer's mother is addressed by him here: Richard's mother wrote a post about it herself where she reveals the emails she received from the odious Tanya Gersh:https://medium.com/@recnepss/does-love-really-live-here-fff159563ba3#.hpvj4g9cn There has been pushback against Gersh and her fellow travellers, which is great to see. The media is desperately spinning it as "Nazis attack innocent Jews in Montana" , but thanks to Gersh's own words, the timeline and sequence of events clearly shows it was all instigated by them.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Why on earth should they? It's discriminatory.
AnGaelach wrote: » Having a picture up of a traditional family is discriminatory?
frostyjacks wrote: » This is how they operate. Bully, intimidate, threaten. They simply cannot tolerate another point of view. But they're not bigots...yeah, right.
Brian? wrote: » No. But believing that marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman is.
Brian? wrote: » Can you define the "they" who operate this way.
frostyjacks wrote: » You're going to have to spit it out old chap because I genuinely haven't got a clue what you're on about. The story had absolutely nothing to do with Tutu, Howard, Woolf or Richardson. Why do you keep prattling on about them? This was an attack on free expression. Don't try and dress it up any other way, it demeans you.
AnGaelach wrote: » The Regressive Left I'd assume, they've hardly gone without courting controversy before.
AnGaelach wrote: » Disagreeing with someone's views is grounds for removing pictures? That just sounds like people complaining for the sake of it.
oscarBravo wrote: » But your complaint was about the removal of Carey's picture, not about the fact that people expressed displeasure with his bigotry. So why are you bothered by the removal of Carey's picture and not Tutu's?
