Woman sentenced to 20+ years for supposedly performing abortion

[I am lizard]

Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.

[Lt. Fred]

Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.

Yes. This is a big problem with UP (and another commenter on this site). Most people come to their political opinions through reason; they try to work out what they want by applying reason. People obviously have priors, but honest people will allow them to be challenged - or, at the very least will use reason to figure out the best way to enact their objectives.

UP's approach is sub-rational. He adds the views of the right with his imagined version of the left and divides them by two. The world isn't flat; it's a half-sphere. Complete shit unfortunately, but a very easy view to hold.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Postmodernists are typically leftists.

This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.

Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.

Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.

I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

Not even they.

Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing. 

There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?

Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe.  And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?

Same with sex negativity.

I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.

If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell.  You can't have it both ways.

And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.

As is everyone on the right.

Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers.  No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.

My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.

Wrong on both counts.  There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.

Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

The left has plenty of idiots to go around.

I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html

And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,

That's really debatable.

Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.

What exactly do you mean by "the environment"?  I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.

Ask a Nova Scotian:

http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy

Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.

I agree, we should beware the middle ground fallacy.  But I believe equality is generally a moderate thing.

Furthermore, I don't think both left-wing and right-wing extremists are necessarily equally bad, at least in practice.  There are many, many times and places where one is worse than the other.  I'm just saying that it's negligent to guard one side but not the other.

Yes. This is a big problem with UP (and another commenter on this site). Most people come to their political opinions through reason; they try to work out what they want by applying reason. People obviously have priors, but honest people will allow them to be challenged - or, at the very least will use reason to figure out the best way to enact their objectives.

UP's approach is sub-rational. He adds the views of the right with his imagined version of the left and divides them by two. The world isn't flat; it's a half-sphere. Complete shit unfortunately, but a very easy view to hold.

You're not doing anything to combat my views.  Maybe when you town down your irrational anti-rightism, I'll think you're being intellectually honest.

[ironbite]

THERE IT IS!  THERE IT IS AGAIN!  HOLY FUCKING GOD THERE IT IS AGAIN!

[I am lizard]

*response to my quote*

Thank you for clarifying.

[Lt. Fred]

Postmodernists are typically leftists.

This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.

Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.

Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.

I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

Not even they.

Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing. 

There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?

Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe.  And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?

Oh absolutely. He's a very clear case of 'anti-semitism'; he's a major critic of child murder, indiscriminate artillery bombardment and even theft, making him a very dangerous 'anti-semite'. Not sure what he thinks about the Jews though.

Same with sex negativity.

I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.

If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell.  You can't have it both ways.

I'm not saying that Andrea Dworkin was a sensible person. But I don't think you can accuse all critics of prostitution of being Andrea Dworkin.

And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.

As is everyone on the right.

Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers.  No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.

Okay, 90%. 80%. Something like that. As a pollster, you're lucky to find a Republican who thinks gay people are human, let alone transsexuals. This is fairly rare on the left, maybe one in ten or so.

My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.

Wrong on both counts.  There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.

Both sides don't do it. Fact. Now, it's much more convenient to believe otherwise, but it's also lying.

Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

The left has plenty of idiots to go around.

I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html

And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,

That's really debatable.

Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.

What exactly do you mean by "the environment"?  I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.

Ask a Nova Scotian:

http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy

The Liberals are, of course, the centre party. The NDP (who you're quoting) are a left party. Quite an interesting position to take from a person who labels himself a moderate.

Ooops.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Postmodernists are typically leftists.

This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.

Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.

Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.

I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

Not even they.

Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing. 

There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?

Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe.  And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?

Oh absolutely. He's a very clear case of 'anti-semitism'; he's a major critic of child murder, indiscriminate artillery bombardment and even theft, making him a very dangerous 'anti-semite'. Not sure what he thinks about the Jews though.

Oh, he does more than just criticize.  He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!".  Yes.  He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!

And he was caught on video:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw</a>

Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe.  If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.

Same with sex negativity.

I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.

If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell.  You can't have it both ways.

I'm not saying that Andrea Dworkin was a sensible person. But I don't think you can accuse all critics of prostitution of being Andrea Dworkin.

Of course not.  But if left-wing critics of prostitution can be considered legitimate, why isn't the same true when it comes to the right wing?

And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.

As is everyone on the right.

Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers.  No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.

Okay, 90%. 80%. Something like that. As a pollster, you're lucky to find a Republican who thinks gay people are human, let alone transsexuals. This is fairly rare on the left, maybe one in ten or so..

Do you have sources?  I could claim that 90% of French teenagers listen exclusively to EDM, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing without citations to back it up.

My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.

Wrong on both counts.  There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.

Both sides don't do it. Fact. Now, it's much more convenient to believe otherwise, but it's also lying.

Shiny mirror.

Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

The left has plenty of idiots to go around.

I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html

And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,

That's really debatable.

Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.

What exactly do you mean by "the environment"?  I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.

Ask a Nova Scotian:

http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy

The Liberals are, of course, the centre party. The NDP (who you're quoting) are a left party. Quite an interesting position to take from a person who labels himself a moderate.

Ooops.

Nope.  The liberals are a center-left party.  You can't claim No True Scotsman just because of a prefix.

[davedan]

Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.

Yes. This is a big problem with UP (and another commenter on this site). Most people come to their political opinions through reason; they try to work out what they want by applying reason. People obviously have priors, but honest people will allow them to be challenged - or, at the very least will use reason to figure out the best way to enact their objectives.

UP's approach is sub-rational. He adds the views of the right with his imagined version of the left and divides them by two. The world isn't flat; it's a half-sphere. Complete shit unfortunately, but a very easy view to hold.

Really? I think you will find that Politics is like religion. That is most people will belong to the group they were born into and will stay in that group for all their lives.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.

Yes. This is a big problem with UP (and another commenter on this site). Most people come to their political opinions through reason; they try to work out what they want by applying reason. People obviously have priors, but honest people will allow them to be challenged - or, at the very least will use reason to figure out the best way to enact their objectives.

UP's approach is sub-rational. He adds the views of the right with his imagined version of the left and divides them by two. The world isn't flat; it's a half-sphere. Complete shit unfortunately, but a very easy view to hold.

Really? I think you will find that Politics is like religion. That is most people will belong to the group they were born into and will stay in that group for all their lives.

I'd say that's actually quite accurate for a lot of people.  Of course, there are exceptions to any rule, for good:



Or for ill:

[dpareja]

Nope.  The liberals are a center-left party.  You can't claim No True Scotsman just because of a prefix.

Canadian Liberal parties range from "campaign on a centre-left platform, implement centre-right policies in government" (federal Liberals) to "we're actually just the federal Conservatives" (BC Liberals).

It's been that way since Laurier.

[Lt. Fred]

Postmodernists are typically leftists.

This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.

Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.

Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.

I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

Not even they.

Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing. 

There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?

Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe.  And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?

Oh absolutely. He's a very clear case of 'anti-semitism'; he's a major critic of child murder, indiscriminate artillery bombardment and even theft, making him a very dangerous 'anti-semite'. Not sure what he thinks about the Jews though.

Oh, he does more than just criticize.  He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!". 

Yep, criticising.

Same with sex negativity.

I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.

If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell.  You can't have it both ways.

I'm not saying that Andrea Dworkin was a sensible person. But I don't think you can accuse all critics of prostitution of being Andrea Dworkin.

Of course not.  But if left-wing critics of prostitution can be considered legitimate, why isn't the same true when it comes to the right wing?

Sure, so long as they're reason-based.

And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.

As is everyone on the right.

Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers.  No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.

Okay, 90%. 80%. Something like that. As a pollster, you're lucky to find a Republican who thinks gay people are human, let alone transsexuals. This is fairly rare on the left, maybe one in ten or so..

Do you have sources?  I could claim that 90% of French teenagers listen exclusively to EDM, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing without citations to back it up.

You really think transphobia is JUST AS COMMON among the homophobic bigots of the right as the left, who've spent the last thirty years fighting for the rights of said?

My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.

Wrong on both counts.  There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.

Both sides don't do it. Fact. Now, it's much more convenient to believe otherwise, but it's also lying.

Shiny mirror.

Three options here
1) Make a rational case
2) Admit being wrong
3) Shut the fuck up

Any response but 1), 2) or 3) will be taken to be 2).

Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

The left has plenty of idiots to go around.

I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html

And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,

That's really debatable.

Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.

What exactly do you mean by "the environment"?  I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.

Ask a Nova Scotian:

http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy

The Liberals are, of course, the centre party. The NDP (who you're quoting) are a left party. Quite an interesting position to take from a person who labels himself a moderate.

Ooops.

Nope.  The liberals are a center-left party.  You can't claim No True Scotsman just because of a prefix.

Completely ridiculous and utterly dishonest false equivalence, as usual.

[Eiki-mun]

Oh, he does more than just criticize.  He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!".  Yes.  He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!

And he was caught on video:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw</a>

Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe.  If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.

I see absolutely no problems with any of the statements said in the video. Can you please tell me which of the statements you find objectionable, and why?

[Eiki-mun]

Oh, he does more than just criticize.  He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!".  Yes.  He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!

And he was caught on video:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw</a>

Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe.  If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.

I see absolutely no problems with any of the statements said in the video. Can you please tell me which of the statements you find objectionable, and why?

It's been well over 24 hours on this, and I'm a bit disappointed to see this question go unanswered. I honestly am confused as to why you'd find any of these statements objectionable, UP. They all seem quite reasonable to me.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Postmodernists are typically leftists.

This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.

Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.

Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.

I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

Not even they.

Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing. 

There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?

Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe.  And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?

Oh absolutely. He's a very clear case of 'anti-semitism'; he's a major critic of child murder, indiscriminate artillery bombardment and even theft, making him a very dangerous 'anti-semite'. Not sure what he thinks about the Jews though.

Oh, he does more than just criticize.  He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!". 

Yep, criticising.

Implying that Jews are child murderers is not simple "criticism".

Same with sex negativity.

I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.

If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell.  You can't have it both ways.

I'm not saying that Andrea Dworkin was a sensible person. But I don't think you can accuse all critics of prostitution of being Andrea Dworkin.

Of course not.  But if left-wing critics of prostitution can be considered legitimate, why isn't the same true when it comes to the right wing?

Sure, so long as they're reason-based.

Fair enough.

And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.

As is everyone on the right.

Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers.  No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.

Okay, 90%. 80%. Something like that. As a pollster, you're lucky to find a Republican who thinks gay people are human, let alone transsexuals. This is fairly rare on the left, maybe one in ten or so..

Do you have sources?  I could claim that 90% of French teenagers listen exclusively to EDM, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing without citations to back it up.

You really think transphobia is JUST AS COMMON among the homophobic bigots of the right as the left, who've spent the last thirty years fighting for the rights of said?

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to understand what you're saying.

My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.

Wrong on both counts.  There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.

Both sides don't do it. Fact. Now, it's much more convenient to believe otherwise, but it's also lying.

Shiny mirror.

Three options here
1) Make a rational case
2) Admit being wrong
3) Shut the fuck up

Any response but 1), 2) or 3) will be taken to be 2).

Shiny mirror.

Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.

The left has plenty of idiots to go around.

I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html

And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,

That's really debatable.

Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.

What exactly do you mean by "the environment"?  I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.

Ask a Nova Scotian:

http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy

The Liberals are, of course, the centre party. The NDP (who you're quoting) are a left party. Quite an interesting position to take from a person who labels himself a moderate.

Ooops.

Nope.  The liberals are a center-left party.  You can't claim No True Scotsman just because of a prefix.

Completely ridiculous and utterly dishonest false equivalence, as usual.

How, exactly?

Oh, he does more than just criticize.  He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!".  Yes.  He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!

And he was caught on video:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw</a>

Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe.  If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.

I see absolutely no problems with any of the statements said in the video. Can you please tell me which of the statements you find objectionable, and why?

It's been well over 24 hours on this, and I'm a bit disappointed to see this question go unanswered. I honestly am confused as to why you'd find any of these statements objectionable, UP. They all seem quite reasonable to me.

With that last bit, he crossed the line into anti-Semitic demagoguery.  Essentially, he's implying that the "Teh Evol Joos" are going to kill British children unless they're stopped.

[mellenORL]

Oh, he does more than just criticize.  He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!".  Yes.  He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!

And he was caught on video:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw</a>

Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe.  If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.

I see absolutely no problems with any of the statements said in the video. Can you please tell me which of the statements you find objectionable, and why?

It's been well over 24 hours on this, and I'm a bit disappointed to see this question go unanswered. I honestly am confused as to why you'd find any of these statements objectionable, UP. They all seem quite reasonable to me.

This. Might as well make a thread straw poll on this strawman objection to Sharar Ali.