Looks like another illiberal act by this coalition government.

smudge wrote:You seem happy to freely dish out accusations of criminality to a certain group of people (those that are members of a political party that tends to oppose yours) and yet are quick to cry 'due process' when it comes to an individual that is within your political 'in group'.
It seems rather illiberal to tar every individual within the 'out group' with the same brush. It demonstrates a one eyed view if you don't apply your cry for 'due process' to individuals that are not in your 'in group' and may be members of an 'out group'.

It's not a complicated point.

No, it's just an idiotic point.

Give me ONE good reason why ORGANISATIONS and INDIVIDUALS should be treated the same.

chairman bill wrote:If Rennard can't be thrown out of the LibDems without formal proof of his guilt, then Blair shouldn't be tagged as a war criminal without the same. Your stance is a hypocritical one. Fact.

You just keep raising the same pathetic false equivalence again and again. Yawn.

And I always thought you were against the Iraq War too...

Strontium Dog wrote:You just keep raising the same pathetic false equivalence again and again. Yawn.

You just keep evading the simple equivalence again & again. Yawn.

And I always thought you were against the Iraq War too...

Being against the Iraq War, is not the same as being against the facts. I don't expect facts to concur with how I see things. I would very much like to see Bush & Blair arraigned before the ICC, and if the evidence points that way, as I think it might well do, convicted. I would also very much like a formal International Court ruling on the legality or otherwise of the second Iraq War. Until that time, Blair is not a war criminal, and the war was not illegal. Inconvenient facts, but facts nonetheless.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Give me ONE good reason why ORGANISATIONS and INDIVIDUALS should be treated the same.

Er, no. Thats not the issue.
The point is that you feel its fine to throw around accusations of criminality at your opponents but are quick to cry due process when accusations involve a member of your in group.

smudge wrote:The point is that you feel its fine to throw around accusations of criminality at your opponents but are quick to cry due process when accusations involve a member of your in group.

Which is hypocrisy, pure & simple. And very illiberal too. Fancy that.

Strontium Dog wrote:

smudge wrote:You seem happy to freely dish out accusations of criminality to a certain group of people (those that are members of a political party that tends to oppose yours) and yet are quick to cry 'due process' when it comes to an individual that is within your political 'in group'.
It seems rather illiberal to tar every individual within the 'out group' with the same brush. It demonstrates a one eyed view if you don't apply your cry for 'due process' to individuals that are not in your 'in group' and may be members of an 'out group'.

It's not a complicated point.

No, it's just an idiotic point.

Give me ONE good reason why ORGANISATIONS and INDIVIDUALS should be treated the same.

chairman bill wrote:If Rennard can't be thrown out of the LibDems without formal proof of his guilt, then Blair shouldn't be tagged as a war criminal without the same. Your stance is a hypocritical one. Fact.

You just keep raising the same pathetic false equivalence again and again. Yawn.

And I always thought you were against the Iraq War too...

Why are you trying to sidestep the fact that you referred tp Blair by name as a murderer and war criminal?

We know why

The shear hypocrisy of the Lib DEm'scriticising a war policy that the majority of the Condem government supported. Well who cares as long as it gets them a cabinet car

mrjonno wrote:The shear hypocrisy of the Lib DEm'scriticising a war policy that the majority of the Condem government supported. Well who cares as long as it gets them a cabinet car

I disagree. Not a single broke the line... they all voted against.

99% of blue tories voted for it vs something like 75% of labour, so today's torydem shambles is pro-war.

As we saw when both yellow and blue tories were united in trying to drag us into intervening in syria on the side of IS(IS) only a few months ago, but were fortunately defeated.

smudge wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Give me ONE good reason why ORGANISATIONS and INDIVIDUALS should be treated the same.

Er, no. Thats not the issue.
The point is that you feel its fine to throw around accusations of criminality at your opponents but are quick to cry due process when accusations involve a member of your in group.

Stop the misrepresentation. I accuse the Labour government of illegally invading Iraq, because it is a fact that Iraq was (a) invaded (b) illegally (c) at the behest of the Labour government. There is no conflict between this fact, and the fact that Chris Rennard has not been found guilty of anything.

What a fucking cheek to accuse ME of double standards when this entire thread is one politically-motivated liefest!

I must say, though, I was under the impression that most of the Labservative supporters here were anti the Iraq War. Presumably only when it's convenient.

chairman bill wrote:

smudge wrote:The point is that you feel its fine to throw around accusations of criminality at your opponents but are quick to cry due process when accusations involve a member of your in group.

Which is hypocrisy, pure & simple. And very illiberal too. Fancy that.

I think we're all fully aware by now that you have an odd definition of illiberal.

Let me give you some examples of illiberal behaviour:

- Illegally invading another country
- Locking people up for months without charge
- Expanding the power of the state at the expense of the individual
- Extraordinary rendition and torture
- Imprisoning children
- Mandatory ID cards

Now, let me give you an example of some things that are not illiberal

- The principle of innocent until proven guilty
- Freedom of speech and expression
- Proportional representation
- Equal marriage rights
- Lifting low paid workers out of income tax

Hopefully these examples will enable you to avoid the same errors in future.

Strontium Dog wrote:

smudge wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Give me ONE good reason why ORGANISATIONS and INDIVIDUALS should be treated the same.

Er, no. Thats not the issue.
The point is that you feel its fine to throw around accusations of criminality at your opponents but are quick to cry due process when accusations involve a member of your in group.

Stop the misrepresentation.

The only one doing any is you. To the extent that engaging with you seriously becomes rather a waste of time.
Its often impossible to tell if you are actually serious, if you have misunderstood or are confused, if you are being intentionally provocative or are simply trolling.

Strontium Dog wrote:What a fucking cheek to accuse ME of double standards when this entire thread is one politically-motivated liefest!

It must be all these other people then! Is that because you are a "valiant defender of Liberty" by any chance?

Strontium Dog wrote:I must say, though, I was under the impression that most of the Labservative supporters here were anti the Iraq War. Presumably only when it's convenient.

Totally fucking irrelevant.
The issue is clear to anyone who has glanced at the exchange. Your endless attempts to muddy the water are transparent and comical.

Oh, I agree, the agenda is perfectly clear. Labservative supporters want me to shut up about the Labservatives' illegal invasion of Iraq, because it makes their party look like the illiberal morality void that every real liberal knows it is. So they invent a false equivalence between my criticism of their party's illegal activities, and my belief in due process for individuals accused of wrongdoing. Then they hurl abuse at me for not acknowledging their divine right to do and say whatever they please, which, let's face it, all criticism of the Lib Dems in coalition is about. "You're Lib Dems, you're not supposed to be in power! Power is for the ruling Labservative Party, and the Labservative Party alone. Everything is your fault, even though you have less than 10% of MPs in the Commons."

One day tyranny will be dead, and the liberals will have slain it. Until then, I guess you just gotta roll with the punches.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Hopefully these examples will enable you to avoid the same errors in future.

If you keep posting these amusing ditties we'll have to request a thread split to games and fun!
One could have hours of fun playing within those amusing lists...if only there were enough hours in the day!

Strontium Dog wrote:Oh, I agree, the agenda is perfectly clear. Labservative supporters want me to shut up about the Labservatives' illegal invasion of Iraq, because it makes their party look like the illiberal morality void that every real liberal knows it is. So they invent a false equivalence between my criticism of their party's illegal activities, and my belief in due process for individuals accused of wrongdoing. Then they hurl abuse at me for not acknowledging their divine right to do and say whatever they please, which, let's face it, all criticism of the Lib Dems in coalition is about. "You're Lib Dems, you're not supposed to be in power! Power is for the ruling Labservative Party, and the Labservative Party alone. Everything is your fault, even though you have less than 10% of MPs in the Commons."

One day tyranny will be dead, and the liberals will have slain it. Until then, I guess you just gotta roll with the punches.

Many of the people in this thread, myself included, aren't members of any political party, so most of that drivel fails immediately. The last flourish is simply quixotic nonsense.

Strontium Dog wrote:

One day tyranny will be dead, and the liberals will have slain it. Until then, I guess you just gotta roll with the punches.

Oh FFS! Nearly spat my tea all over my lap!

Classic, SD!

One day....tyranny will be dead....(walks into the sunset. Or lamppost.) .

What is this 'Labservative' idiocy? When did Labour go into coalition with the Nazty Party?

Here's the thing - I think the invasion of Iraq was illegal, but that's just my opinion, it hasn't been established as fact. When an international court rules, let me know. 'Til then, claiming it was illegal is no more factual than any charge against Rennard. Similarly, your claims against Blair are of a kind - accusations, nothing more.

Something else you need to get your head around - criticism of the LibDems, or the Tories, does not equal support for any other party. In addition, support for a party, doesn't necessarily equate to support for every policy they come up with, nor every act they take in government. This might prove difficult for someone given to knee-jerk support & apologism for a party, but trust me, some of us are capable of more nuanced politics.

The other thing worth noting, is that liberalism is not the sole preserve of parties with 'liberal' in their name. I know, difficult for some to comprehend, but trust me on this one. Further, parties with liberal in their name, are capable of illiberal acts & policies. Worth remembering that.

Tory economics explained in 6 seconds

Tory MP seeks re-election as member of UKIP.

guardian.com wrote:Tory MP Douglas Carswell defects to Ukip and forces byelection
Carswell says he is resigning from parliament and standing for Ukip at a byelection in his Essex seat of Clacton

A hand grenade has been thrown into David Cameron's general election campaign after the Eurosceptic Tory MP Douglas Carswell defected to Ukip, triggering an immediate byelection.

Carswell, a leading member of the generation of Tory Eurosceptics, said he had endured sleepless nights in the runup to his decision.

He has decided to resign immediately as MP for Clacton, in Essex, guaranteeing a difficult byelection for the Tories. As the sitting MP Carswell will have an immediate advantage.

Sitting alongside the Ukip leader Nigel Farage, Carswell said: "It's nice to be a member of a party where I agree with the leader." Farage joked: "It is early days."...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... byelection