What is true is extremely important.

But it isn't for everybody.

Those who don't actually investigate for themselves but take the words of people with political learnings and animosities will fall for misdirection. Those people essentially fear monger and call others extremists when most of the people holding the views they demonise are hardly any different to the grassroots beliefs of conservatives thirty-forty years ago.

These activists are content to look to any opportunity to disfigure, and mislead people with exaggerated conjectures that don't actually hold any substance. They make suggestions they can't prove and point at individuals and claim they represent the whole. They aren't prepared to investigate themselves to actually understand whether their words have truth to them but they are prepared to label.

Yet when Corbyn was running the Labour party there was no demonisation of everyone who voted Labour. The guy who literally took the IRA into parliament wasn't attacked called an extremist by them. Most of their political kin would have voted for him.

However, the media took the same tack they do, I disagreed with that approach to Corbyn just as I disagree with the exaggeration and lies here.

They look to frighten people away from groups that, if they actually held power, would actually change this country in ways that most conservatives would prefer. In my view that is a heavy clue to the real intent.

Instead they want you to accept the same policies that have led you to exactly what we have now. Because the sicknesses of social liberalism are also theirs. You will notice that they complain about topics but whenever any policies are suggested that would change them they are instantly out on the attack.

I find the Heritage party to be well meaning in intent. I'm not someone who attacks their own side when I probably agree with ninety percent of its message.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 May 2022 12.08pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

. Have a pizza, that's see you right.

There is a philosophical truth to this.

However, I was talking in the generally accepted meaning of the term.

Double quotes are American usage, single quotes are the English form.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

If you look at all my posts, you will see that I attack left, right and centre if I think they are in the wrong.
Supporters of Russia's aggresssion are in the wrong and what they are doing is undermining attempts to resist Russia.
I think I can recognise fascism when it is staring me in the face.

Edited by georgenorman (30 May 2022 1.01pm)

Well, I remember you being quite conservative when you started posting but recently you only appear to have it in for conservatives. Forgive me if this impression is wrong.

Anyway do you really think posts on Hol are undermining attempts to resist Russia?

Surely you don't seriously think that the views posted here just haven't been thought within media or levels of government but instead somehow require posts on football forums....come on George, I can understand you disagreeing but this isn't that big a deal.

Surely you aren't saying that views countering the current narrative shouldn't be aired? That would be very similar to Wisbech's view of how people should just fall in line with the establishment and I'm sure that isn't your intent.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

HOL posts in isolation are of course not able to undermine attempts to resist Russia, but they are a part of a wider pro-Russia apologist attitude that seeks to excuse them and somehow blame the Ukrainians and NATO and the West in general. People of both the Left and the Right are engaged in this and are as bad as each other.
Of course people can air their misguided views as much as they want, as can I criticise them for it.