Anne Marie Waters - Is "For Britain" !!

First topic message reminder :

To Anne Marie Waters the term "Moderate" seems to be just an 8 letter word.........The Woman who has called Islam "Evil" and has said she would not stop Tommy Robinson the former Head of the English Defence league joining her party is now odds on favorite for the UKIP leader slot......

Plenty of Ukip members cried foul at her standing and Nigel Farage has said he will leave the party if she is elected and start a new one..

As with Corbyn as soon as she declared in June (Despite loud protests)... Thousands of friends joined the UKIP party and like Corbyn she has steadily gone from outsider to odds on favorite...

She is articulate, idealistic and definitely not boring......The negative list is much longer.......

Certainly the kind of character Austeric times throws up into the Political sphere..

8/11 Waters
3/1   Whittle..........These odds were the other way around a couple of weeks ago.............I imagine the oddsmakers have got good information for the turnaround and if they are right........

Get used to hearing her name......

LionsV2 wrote:I can't stand the women but you can't just make up things she hasn't actually said.

Not when there's so much to criticise in what she actually said.

Scottrf wrote:'A lot of people' she could easily be talking about only those who are on terrorism watch lists.

You are right she could very well be and that is why I said she knows how to play the law and freedom of speech.

If you look at her speech it is clear she doesn't want muslims in the UK. She has called for a ban on people from Islamic countries entering the uk, called for mosques to be closed and then called for mass deportations. I think it is very clear from her statement along with all the other speeches she has given where she has argued that there is a muslim r*** culture and loads of other statements that she doesn't like muslims and doesn't want to be around them. So when someone who has written articles and given speeches for years attacking muslims and arguing that they are evil etc suggests there should be mass deportations of muslims I think it is pretty obvious she is not just talking about those on the terror lists.

You have the right to critique religions but she has gone further than that and she is attacking individuals who choose to follow that religion. She wants to demonise muslims and stop them entering the uk and deport the ones already here.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:'A lot of people' she could easily be talking about only those who are on terrorism watch lists.

You are right she could very well be and that is why I said she knows how to play the law and freedom of speech.

If you look at her speech it is clear she doesn't want muslims in the UK. She has called for a ban on people from Islamic countries entering the uk, called for mosques to be closed and then called for mass deportations. I think it is very clear from her statement along with all the other speeches she has given where she has argued that there is a muslim r*** culture and loads of other statements that she doesn't like muslims and doesn't want to be around them.  So when someone who has written articles and given speeches for years attacking muslims and arguing that they are evil etc suggests there should be mass deportations of muslims I think it is pretty obvious she is not just talking about those on the terror lists.

You have the right to critique religions but she has gone further than that and she is attacking individuals who choose to follow that religion. She wants to demonise muslims and stop them entering the uk and deport the ones already here.

But is that a bad thing?

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:'A lot of people' she could easily be talking about only those who are on terrorism watch lists.

You are right she could very well be and that is why I said she knows how to play the law and freedom of speech.

If you look at her speech it is clear she doesn't want muslims in the UK. She has called for a ban on people from Islamic countries entering the uk, called for mosques to be closed and then called for mass deportations. I think it is very clear from her statement along with all the other speeches she has given where she has argued that there is a muslim r*** culture and loads of other statements that she doesn't like muslims and doesn't want to be around them.  So when someone who has written articles and given speeches for years attacking muslims and arguing that they are evil etc suggests there should be mass deportations of muslims I think it is pretty obvious she is not just talking about those on the terror lists.

You have the right to critique religions but she has gone further than that and she is attacking individuals who choose to follow that religion. She wants to demonise muslims and stop them entering the uk and deport the ones already here.

But is that a bad thing?

Discriminating against someone because of their religion is bad, yes.

Muscular-mouse wrote:Discriminating against someone because of their religion is bad, yes.

I'm not so sure. It's a choice. We are happy to judge people for other choices, only religion is put on a pedestal.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:Discriminating against someone because of their religion is bad, yes.

I'm not so sure. It's a choice. We are happy to judge people for other choices, only religion is put on a pedestal.

They're all idiots to be honest.

LionsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:Discriminating against someone because of their religion is bad, yes.

I'm not so sure. It's a choice. We are happy to judge people for other choices, only religion is put on a pedestal.

They're all idiots to be honest.

Believing in a mystical 'man' in the sky takes some imagination.

LionsV2 wrote:Believing in a mystical 'man' in the sky takes some imagination.

You are full of surprises......

You keep telling us that you have faith in over 65s to choose the Government in Elections....

Yet surveys show that.....Over 65s are nearly twice as religious than 18-29s....and that people get more religious as they get older...

Ooooh if a survey says it Truss then I must change my opinion.

If only it was just one survey....

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Anne Marie Waters' new political party will be launched soon, so you won't have to wait too long to see the dismal failure that it will be!

UKIP has around 25,000-30,000 members, but only around half bothered to vote in this election.

You mean half couldn't be bothered keeping a radical like Waters out..

All you need to know right there..

Calm down a little muscular mouse............Haven't seen anywhere we she advocates violent protest and all religions should be open to scrutiny...

I find her distasteful but let us not get silly about it.

Of course scrutinise religion that's fine but what is not fine is her standing on a political platform that all muslims should be deported. That has nothing to do with scrutinising the religion and is instead attacking those people (by way of deportation) because they chose to believe that religion.

That's not her position.

Excuse me she never said specifically said ALL

Exactly.

Duty281 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Anne Marie Waters' new political party will be launched soon, so you won't have to wait too long to see the dismal failure that it will be!

UKIP has around 25,000-30,000 members, but only around half bothered to vote in this election.

You mean half couldn't be bothered keeping a radical like Waters out..

All you need to know right there..

Calm down a little muscular mouse............Haven't seen anywhere we she advocates violent protest and all religions should be open to scrutiny...

I find her distasteful but let us not get silly about it.

Of course scrutinise religion that's fine but what is not fine is her standing on a political platform that all muslims should be deported. That has nothing to do with scrutinising the religion and is instead attacking those people (by way of deportation) because they chose to believe that religion.

That's not her position.

Excuse me she never said specifically said ALL

Exactly.

So you are debating over the use of a word rather than her actual message?

The message she was giving and has given very frequently over the years is that muslims are not welcome, hence why she is an open racist, something you tried to deny.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:Discriminating against someone because of their religion is bad, yes.

I'm not so sure. It's a choice. We are happy to judge people for other choices, only religion is put on a pedestal.

Well it is the law of this land.

That's actually not a bad point really Scottrf but then you should really be judging people on their actions not there beliefs and the vast majority try and live a good life in accordance with whatever beliefs they hold, hell even atheists believe something even it's just nothing (and there tends be more of them around preaching louder than every else, esp online).

The argument that religion causes war is bunkem too, people cause wars and if it wasn't religion we'd be fighting over something else (probably the name of what to call our non-religion ;-).

The French religious wars of the 17th century tell you all you need to know about religion and wars.

Let us not be naive.

Derbymanc wrote:That's actually not a bad point really Scottrf but then you should really be judging people on their actions not there beliefs and the vast majority try and live a good life in accordance with whatever beliefs they hold, hell even atheists believe something even it's just nothing (and there tends be more of them around preaching louder than every else, esp online).

The argument that religion causes war is bunkem too, people cause wars and if it wasn't religion we'd be fighting over something else (probably the name of what to call our non-religion ;-).

I think you need to re-consider that part of your statement.

I disagree fella's, If it wasn't religion it would be something else, alas we're a war like species and we'd make any excuse.

Maybe my statement was a bit too sweeping but i think it's naive in the extreme to think that if we din't have religion we'd suddenly have a very peaceful world. (Doesn't communism ban religion and that hasn't worked out too well)

We're a tribal species so anything that accentuates that is likely to increase the likelihood of war, we look for something to kill in the name of that's true but there is more to it than that.

Derbymanc wrote:I disagree fella's, If it wasn't religion it would be something else, alas we're a war like species and we'd make any excuse.

Maybe my statement was a bit too sweeping but i think it's naive in the extreme to think that if we din't have religion we'd suddenly have a very peaceful world. (Doesn't communism ban religion and that hasn't worked out too well)

So you think for every religious war another war was about to break out at the same time were it not to happen? Come on that's ridiculous.

No not a side by side comparison Scott, i think if there was no religion we'd be fighting over something else

It's too simplistic to just say: Religion causes all wars and without it we'd be a more peaceful planet

Nobody ever said that though. Causes a lot of wars. And in some areas it makes peace impossible.

we have been fighting with each other long before religion came into existence.

Muscular-mouse wrote:we have been fighting with each other long before religion came into existence.

Any evidence for that statement...

wasn't the cold war over stuff that wasn't religion, although I know World War II is mostly known for the holocaust (and rightly so) wasn't that started because Germany got p!ssed at having sanctions etc.

then you've got gang wars across the world that are incited due to a lot of stupid crap.

There's a lot that can be tied to Religion of course (other wise we woudln't even have this discussion) but to try and say it's basically the be all and end all is wrong (imo) makes for good discussion though if people aren't getting personal

Derbymanc wrote:

There's a lot that can be tied to Religion of course (other wise we woudln't even have this discussion) but to try and say it's basically the be all and end all is wrong (imo)

You wrote......"The argument that religion causes war is bunkum"..

Now you're trying to move the goalposts....

Who's trying, I have moved them :-)
to be fair (although i'm pretty sure you knew this you troublemaker you), i worded it terribly it would have been better to be said

'the argument that only religion causes war is bunkum'

is that better, or do you want a snickers

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:we have been fighting with each other long before religion came into existence.

Any evidence for that statement...

You have to ask?

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:we have been fighting with each other long before religion came into existence.

Any evidence for that statement...

You have to ask?

This is pretty much your contribution to any debate..

Think I will move on..

The first civilisation had religion.

You can't have wars without civilisation. That's just a fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:we have been fighting with each other long before religion came into existence.

Any evidence for that statement...

You have to ask?

This is pretty much your contribution to any debate..

Think I will move on..

Oh, for Heaven's sake! I'm on your side!!! Do I have to spell it out?? It's that obvious there's no evidence, there's no real need to put yourself out to ask. I'm off to drink a bottle of whisky...

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:we have been fighting with each other long before religion came into existence.

Any evidence for that statement...

You have to ask?

This is pretty much your contribution to any debate..

Think I will move on..

Oh, for Heaven's sake! I'm on your side!!! Do I have to spell it out?? It's that obvious there's no evidence, there's no real need to put yourself out to ask. I'm off to drink a bottle of whisky...

You seem a bit p**sed already....

I think it's been established that we've been fighting forever all the way down through our ancestors etc and have used countless reasons to go to war with other tribes/countires etc etc etc. Does anyone actually know any good books on the subject matter as i reckon it'd make good reading

Derbymanc wrote:have used countless reasons to go to war with other tribes/countires etc etc etc. Does anyone actually know any good books on the subject matter

'A Journey' by Tony Blair

How are UKIP moving forwards under their new leader? What is the direction they are taking to win back the public?

Muscular-mouse wrote:How are UKIP moving forwards under their new leader? What is the direction they are taking to win back the public?

They’re not. There isn’t one. Just like every political party in the UK!

Bolton will kill badgers with his bare hands, though!

Our friend Anne Marie has decided that UKIP can have its new leader...

She has started with the help of Tommy Robinson a new party..

FOR BRITAIN

Nice logo....See how it goes...

Like I mentioned in the OP she isn't going away anytime soon..

A dismal party that will go nowhere.

Anne Marie Waters has zero political nous, a Labour history, and consorts with pathetic twerps like Jack Buckby.

Another one defeated in the UKIP leadership race, John-Rees Evans, has also set up a new party (Affinity). JRE is far from dismal, indeed he is a most interesting and somewhat eccentric character, and his party (which advocates direct democracy) would have some potential, if it hadn't set itself bizarre and unattainable objectives.

Duty281 wrote:A dismal party that will go nowhere.

Anne Marie Waters has zero political nous, a Labour history, and consorts with pathetic twerps like Jack Buckby.

Another one defeated in the UKIP leadership race, John-Rees Evans, has also set up a new party (Affinity). JRE is far from dismal, indeed he is a most interesting and somewhat eccentric character, and his party (which advocates direct democracy) would have some potential, if it hadn't set itself bizarre and unattainable objectives.

to be fair to her having a labour history is not that bad just like the current ukip leader has a lib dem history. most people who support her I'm guessing will probably have voted labour in the past.

I think the problem with BNP type parties is they only prosper when the public thinks they haven't got a choice..

When Blair came to power they got 35,000 votes..........When all the parties progressively moved to the center and the left realised that Blair wasn't their saviour...they looked to protest.....which perversely gave a right wing party a mainly left clientele..

1997...........35,000
2005...........192,000
2010...........563,000

Same with UKIP......................picked up left and right wing extremists when it was Cameron v Miliband (inherited a lot of the BNP vote)

Corbyn has changed this..............Basically because he is so divisive and no one wants to risk any alternatives....in case he wins or loses.

People like Waters will have to wait for the race to the center to begin again which will no doubt happen once Corbyn retires or loses...............Or even wins but can't install his manifesto because Brexit has devastated the Country..

She won't be 'For Britain' because the Electoral Commission has rejected it as a party name.

Also, nobody cares.