Haha, and just because some geezer says it is must be true. The ide aof a lurch to the Right is in the realm of fantasy party political types who understand bugger all about political philosophy. Seriously Tom, what is inherently right wing about the topic of immigration and suggestions of restricting it? I mean, the Soviet Union restricted immigration, was it right wing?
I do find this whole “Tizzy” thing mildly amsuing though. After all, I’m not getting in a tizzy, I’m merely pointing out the intellectually bankrupt nature of your argument. The fact that you’ve reacted to me and linked to too newspaper article as if that provides evidence of your rightness suggests that far from it being me in tizzy it is in fac you.
I mean, lets not beat around the bush here Tom, you’re merely engaging in argument for political expediency when you say “lurch to the Right”, which of course I understand fully from that view. Buts let not fool ourselves and otehrs into thinking that such an argument actually stands up to scrutiny, because it doesn’t. In fact it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that it does.
3 comments ↓
Haha, and just because some geezer says it is must be true. The ide aof a lurch to the Right is in the realm of fantasy party political types who understand bugger all about political philosophy. Seriously Tom, what is inherently right wing about the topic of immigration and suggestions of restricting it? I mean, the Soviet Union restricted immigration, was it right wing?
I do find this whole “Tizzy” thing mildly amsuing though. After all, I’m not getting in a tizzy, I’m merely pointing out the intellectually bankrupt nature of your argument. The fact that you’ve reacted to me and linked to too newspaper article as if that provides evidence of your rightness suggests that far from it being me in tizzy it is in fac you.
I mean, lets not beat around the bush here Tom, you’re merely engaging in argument for political expediency when you say “lurch to the Right”, which of course I understand fully from that view. Buts let not fool ourselves and otehrs into thinking that such an argument actually stands up to scrutiny, because it doesn’t. In fact it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that it does.
“merely pointing out the intellectually bankrupt nature of your argument”. Thanking you for bringing that to my attention. x
You’re welcome sweetie
Leave a Comment