By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - UK threatens to cut aid over gay rights

sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:

I'd say let them do whatever they want with their money. It is insane how arrogant western countries are, thinking they can manipulate people into changing their laws, just because they think theirs are so superior. Also, let the african children starve to death and their family dies out with diseases, dick taking men will have their ''equal rights'' no matter what cost. If i ran one of those countries, I wouldn't neither expect nor accept their money, and sure as hell wouldn't be changing my laws without the voice of people

In other words you'd be a terrible leader (the rest of the comment indicates the same thing).


Nah, I just wouldn't spread my ass for any manipulating arrogant westerner with money which became quite the trend in my country's politics lately. I wouldn't change any laws while ignoring voice of people, especially for as something ridiculous as ''gay rights'' (marriage, adoption and shit) when there are other much more important rights people should take care about and consider, rather than having half naked men dancing with other almost naked men on their ''pride'' parade, in front of children and other people



Around the Network
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:

I'd say let them do whatever they want with their money. It is insane how arrogant western countries are, thinking they can manipulate people into changing their laws, just because they think theirs are so superior. Also, let the african children starve to death and their family dies out with diseases, dick taking men will have their ''equal rights'' no matter what cost. If i ran one of those countries, I wouldn't neither expect nor accept their money, and sure as hell wouldn't be changing my laws without the voice of people

In other words you'd be a terrible leader (the rest of the comment indicates the same thing).


Nah, I just wouldn't spread my ass for any manipulating arrogant westerner with money which became quite the trend in my country's politics lately. I wouldn't change any laws while ignoring voice of people, especially for as something ridiculous as ''gay rights'' (marriage, adoption and shit) when there are other much more important rights people should take care about and consider, rather than having half naked men dancing with other almost naked men on their ''pride'' parade, in front of children and other people

So, in other words, you'd be a terrible leader. Well, not like the people in your country wouldn't deserve you.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake said:
NKAJ said:
SamuelRSmith said:
ProdigyBam said:
He should care about persecuted christians first since most of the british people are christian and the culture is based on christian-judeo teachings, while at most 5-10% are homosexual, just saying..


His choice of protecting gay rights is clearly a movement to help him win public opinion. Protecting persecuted Christains would not do this, and would probably cause a massive media shit-storm.


Create a shit-storm where? Reading the daily mail it's pretty obvious that if anything, people were annoyed that funding would be based on gay rights rather than persecution of Christians. All I've read or heard for the last few months is people getting fed up because, in their view, minorities such as gays/muslims are given priority over the majority population.

It's kinda silly to think that, considering that the majority of the population has a privileged status by default.

Depends where, I'm talking about the U.K. where a lot of attention has been paid to minorities being put above the majority. There have been example about people having to hide their crucifixes so as not to offend others for example. Whether or not these examples were exaggerated by the media, a lot of people percieve the white,christian majority to be treated worse than minorities.



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:

I'd say let them do whatever they want with their money. It is insane how arrogant western countries are, thinking they can manipulate people into changing their laws, just because they think theirs are so superior. Also, let the african children starve to death and their family dies out with diseases, dick taking men will have their ''equal rights'' no matter what cost. If i ran one of those countries, I wouldn't neither expect nor accept their money, and sure as hell wouldn't be changing my laws without the voice of people

In other words you'd be a terrible leader (the rest of the comment indicates the same thing).


Nah, I just wouldn't spread my ass for any manipulating arrogant westerner with money which became quite the trend in my country's politics lately. I wouldn't change any laws while ignoring voice of people, especially for as something ridiculous as ''gay rights'' (marriage, adoption and shit) when there are other much more important rights people should take care about and consider, rather than having half naked men dancing with other almost naked men on their ''pride'' parade, in front of children and other people

So, in other words, you'd be a terrible leader. Well, not like the people in your country wouldn't deserve you.


By your definition, everyone that doesn't share your views is terrible, so that really doesn't matter much. Also, the people in my country are world champions when it come to choosing bad leaders XD . The only time we don't have a terrible leader,is when we didn't get to choose any lol :p



Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:

I'd say let them do whatever they want with their money. It is insane how arrogant western countries are, thinking they can manipulate people into changing their laws, just because they think theirs are so superior. Also, let the african children starve to death and their family dies out with diseases, dick taking men will have their ''equal rights'' no matter what cost. If i ran one of those countries, I wouldn't neither expect nor accept their money, and sure as hell wouldn't be changing my laws without the voice of people

In other words you'd be a terrible leader (the rest of the comment indicates the same thing).


Nah, I just wouldn't spread my ass for any manipulating arrogant westerner with money which became quite the trend in my country's politics lately. I wouldn't change any laws while ignoring voice of people, especially for as something ridiculous as ''gay rights'' (marriage, adoption and shit) when there are other much more important rights people should take care about and consider, rather than having half naked men dancing with other almost naked men on their ''pride'' parade, in front of children and other people

So, in other words, you'd be a terrible leader. Well, not like the people in your country wouldn't deserve you.


By your definition, everyone that doesn't share your views is terrible, so that really doesn't matter much. Also, the people in my country are world champions when it come to choosing bad leaders XD . The only time we don't have a terrible leader,is when we didn't get to choose any lol :p

Well, at least you guys didn't democratically elect Hitler.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
NKAJ said:
SamuelRSmith said:
ProdigyBam said:
He should care about persecuted christians first since most of the british people are christian and the culture is based on christian-judeo teachings, while at most 5-10% are homosexual, just saying..


His choice of protecting gay rights is clearly a movement to help him win public opinion. Protecting persecuted Christains would not do this, and would probably cause a massive media shit-storm.


Create a shit-storm where? Reading the daily mail it's pretty obvious that if anything, people were annoyed that funding would be based on gay rights rather than persecution of Christians. All I've read or heard for the last few months is people getting fed up because, in their view, minorities such as gays/muslims are given priority over the majority population.


The Daily Mail moan all the time, that's what they do as a paper. No, any kind of support for Christains will cause all sorts of anger amongst the left wing institutions - The Guardian will kick off first, and the Independant will probably have a lot to say about it. The BBC would pick up the story from these outlets, and it'll be a big deal. Anything that sees the Government supporting any kind religious activity will piss off the left.



i doubt many will agree with me but the time for aid to asia is over isn't it,they should be giving it to us in 10 years time,i thought that india had a 600 million strong middle class,shanghai is the capital of the world,aliens will meet chinese people in space not the white westerner,

the rich arabs should sort out the poor muslim africans/asians more

corrupt african leaders have as much to do with the poor african as the nasty white man,i'm afraid the truth hurts

corporate profits rule everything in the end

on india i read that it will overtake china in population and economy one day,just wow,it's funny because india is like victorian england i think now but on a huge scale,i wonder how long it will be before she decides to lift its poor out of the slums and i wonder what gandhi would think

i saw a piece on our posh news that we export alot of tandoor ovens back to india,lulz,

between the USA and India,little england should be alright in the future



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

zuvuyeay said:
i doubt many will agree with me but the time for aid to asia is over isn't it,they should be giving it to us in 10 years time,i thought that india had a 600 million strong middle class,shanghai is the capital of the world,aliens will meet chinese people in space not the white westerner,

the rich arabs should sort out the poor muslim africans/asians more

corrupt african leaders have as much to do with the poor african as the nasty white man,i'm afraid the truth hurts

corporate profits rule everything in the end

on india i read that it will overtake china in population and economy one day,just wow,it's funny because india is like victorian england i think now but on a huge scale,i wonder how long it will be before she decides to lift its poor out of the slums and i wonder what gandhi would think

i saw a piece on our posh news that we export alot of tandoor ovens back to india,lulz,

between the USA and India,little england should be alright in the future

Both India and China's economic models are severely flawed... the West (USA) will still be the first country to make deep space... make contact with aliens? By that point I don't think race will even be an issue.

What do corporate profits have to do with Africa? The very problem with Africa is that the continent is too unsafe to invest in, Africa's problem isn't corporate greed, it's the lack of it.



SamuelRSmith said:
NKAJ said:
SamuelRSmith said:
ProdigyBam said:
He should care about persecuted christians first since most of the british people are christian and the culture is based on christian-judeo teachings, while at most 5-10% are homosexual, just saying..


His choice of protecting gay rights is clearly a movement to help him win public opinion. Protecting persecuted Christains would not do this, and would probably cause a massive media shit-storm.


Create a shit-storm where? Reading the daily mail it's pretty obvious that if anything, people were annoyed that funding would be based on gay rights rather than persecution of Christians. All I've read or heard for the last few months is people getting fed up because, in their view, minorities such as gays/muslims are given priority over the majority population.


The Daily Mail moan all the time, that's what they do as a paper. No, any kind of support for Christains will cause all sorts of anger amongst the left wing institutions - The Guardian will kick off first, and the Independant will probably have a lot to say about it. The BBC would pick up the story from these outlets, and it'll be a big deal. Anything that sees the Government supporting any kind religious activity will piss off the left.

Isnt that fascist? And why do christians in your country put up with that?



Sounds reasonable. Britain is giving money away. If they don't like what the recipients are doing, they'll stop giving them money. Nice and logical.