The absurdity
of suggesting that Iain Duncan Smith's Christian
motivations were any
kind of secret and
of criticising the use
of moral categories to justify his policy approaches - only lefties are allowed to have morals, after all; to be
Right Wing is, by definition, to be evil, seeking to impose final solutions on the poor, force them to eat rotting horse - flesh, and cleansing them from beyond the sight of nice middle class folk; any right - winger employing a moral term such as «wrong» or «sin» must have some sinister ulterior motivation - has been covered already by the Editor and by Cra
Right Wing is, by definition, to be evil, seeking to impose final solutions on the poor, force them to eat rotting horse - flesh, and cleansing them from beyond the sight
of nice middle class folk; any
right - winger employing a moral term such as «wrong» or «sin» must have some sinister ulterior motivation - has been covered already by the Editor and by Cra
right - winger employing a moral term such as «wrong» or «sin» must have some sinister ulterior
motivation - has been covered already by the Editor and by Cranmer.
Does that give you a
right to practice the worst form
of cruelty on an animal, anesthetized or not, which is the cutting off and removal
of their balls and the cutting off and removal
of ovaries, the complete destruction
of their joy and energy and
motivation, just because you think
of yourself as some
kind of «do - gooder» for society's idiots and their unwanted pets on the streets?