On 2020-09-12 8:11 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
I can honestly say I've never given any of those much thought.
*With proper checks and balances in position* do private services
have any advantages. Something tells me that's not what you're
driving at.
You not having giving something much thought comes as no surprise.
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Give a concrete example of this.
In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
CBA arguing with lefties.
Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.
In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Give a concrete example of this.
In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
CBA arguing with lefties.
Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.
If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.
Perhaps you believe men can menstruate and that there are more that
two sexes and genders. Go on, please tell me you do so I can laugh at
you.
In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Give a concrete example of this.
In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
CBA arguing with lefties.
Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.
If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.
In article <Ub6dnWiM-s4mtcHCnZ2dnUU7-eVh4p2d@giganews.com>,
geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
You haven't got a clue what a marxist is ! Or what a socialist is.
I'm guessing you and your mates have inside knowledge .
Unfortunately ignorance reigns supreme in the USA.
Good job I've never been there then.
That is because you are totally away with the fairies on this one.
Sorry it is as always, leftie idiots that are away with the fairies.
Basic principal - why start your own company or work hard or develop something if the the rewards for doing so are then evenly distributed.
Capitalism = unequal distribution of wealth.
Socialism = equal distribution of misery.
Bob.
Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
the USA watches.
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected CNN
and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not news feeds.
Bob.
In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Give a concrete example of this.
In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
CBA arguing with lefties.
Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.
If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.
Perhaps you believe men can menstruate and that there are more that
two sexes and genders. Go on, please tell me you do so I can laugh at
you.
Bob.
Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
FALSE NEWS !
Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
FALSE NEWS !
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/20 1:10 PM, Mark wrote:
Personally, I would suggest retracting your comments and apologising, or >>> I think people are entitled to draw the obvious inference.
It's entirely up to you, however.
At least yourCOve got that part right!
I think I have a lot more than that right.
Feel free to address my arguments above if you believe I'm wrong.
Remember: address the argument not the individual.
Yes, we'll go as a mob and threaten people in restaurants and make
them give the black fist salute with intimidation. Being annoyed at
the police would obviously cause that.
Then we'll go and burn down a city, our city, such a sensible
approach.
Have you not seen these violent horrible people looting shops,
punching white people in the face as they just pass in the street?
I will never support BLM and I question the sanity/motives of anyone
who does.
Bob.
On 2020-09-12 9:07 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Give a concrete example of this.
In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
CBA arguing with lefties.
Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.
If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.
Perhaps you believe men can menstruate and that there are more that
two sexes and genders. Go on, please tell me you do so I can laugh at
you.
What I believe is that people should be free to call themselves
whatever they want...
...and that there are quite a few variations on the two standard
genders...
...on a purely biological basis.
What you clearly believe is that anything that causes you to have a
moment where you feel discomfited by what someone else is doing
must be stopped.
On 13/09/2020 4:07 am, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Give a concrete example of this.
In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
CBA arguing with lefties.
Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.
If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.
It's not that which makes you right wing, it's as much the sites
that you read and quote.
You're obviously reading and watching to get information on this
subject yet from the leftist propaganda that you spout I can see
you didn't bother to watch '13th' which I suggested to you.
You tell us, coming from a country famous for a high proportion of
the upper crust being into all sorts of weird shit, while being in
denial, hiding it all in the closet, and perpetuating a myth of
nothing but tea and scones with the click of willow on leather is
the distant background.
On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
the USA watches.
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected CNN
and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not news feeds.
Bob.
Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
FALSE NEWS !
In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
the USA watches.
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected CNN
and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not news feeds.
Bob.
Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan
preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
FALSE NEWS !
Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?
So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.
I understand now.
Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.
As far as I'm concerned people can identify as whatever they like -
with two provisos, you don't reduce someone else's rights eg. no men
in women's changing rooms and secondly don't involve me.
In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
CBA arguing with lefties.
Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.
If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.
In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
the USA watches.
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected CNN
and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not news feeds.
Bob.
Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly partisan
preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda, it must be
FALSE NEWS !
Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?
So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.
I understand now.
Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.
In article <58af453f60bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
As far as I'm concerned people can identify as whatever they like -
with two provisos, you don't reduce someone else's rights eg. no men
in women's changing rooms and secondly don't involve me.
I suppose I should qualify that, I feel for people who really do feel
they were born in the wrong body and have a sex change. Life can be
hard enough without having that extra difficulty. Those people have
my sympathy and I wish them well with their decision.
I can think of two people I've met in my life who have done this,
both nice people.
In article <rjjbnm$769$1@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-12 9:07 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mitn1e27h3i0001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjilp7$g8g$5@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-12 3:34 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected >>>>>>> CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Give a concrete example of this.
In that one line I now know you're a lefty.
CBA arguing with lefties.
Back to the safety of your right wing bubble.
If not subscribing to prevailing lunacy of identity politics
stupidity mean I'm right wing then so be it.
Perhaps you believe men can menstruate and that there are more that
two sexes and genders. Go on, please tell me you do so I can laugh at
you.
What I believe is that people should be free to call themselves
whatever they want...
Oh right, so you believe a man should be able to identify as a woman
and walk into a ladies changing rooms?
...and that there are quite a few variations on the two standard
genders...
...on a purely biological basis.
Ha-ha right.
What you clearly believe is that anything that causes you to have a
moment where you feel discomfited by what someone else is doing
must be stopped.
Sure of that are you? never mind.
As far as I'm concerned people can identify as whatever they like -
with two provisos, you don't reduce someone else's rights eg. no men
in women's changing rooms and secondly don't involve me.
When as we have, we get to the stage of advertising sanitary products
as for people who menstruate because some idiot says you can't says
for women then we have reached the point of utter madness.
Both pathetic and laughable.
On 12/09/2020 4:19 am, Bob Latham wrote:
Yes, we'll go as a mob and threaten people in restaurants and make
them give the black fist salute with intimidation. Being annoyed at
the police would obviously cause that.
Then we'll go and burn down a city, our city, such a sensible
approach.
Have you not seen these violent horrible people looting shops,
punching white people in the face as they just pass in the street?
I will never support BLM and I question the sanity/motives of anyone
who does.
Bob.
Have you seen the statistic that says over 93% of BLM street protests
have resulted in absolutely no violence (or looting etc) from any party involved ? How does that work ?
In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
the USA watches.
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Bob.
Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly
partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda,
it must be FALSE NEWS !
Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?
So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.
I understand now.
Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I would suggest retracting your comments and apologising, or >>> I think people are entitled to draw the obvious inference.
It's entirely up to you, however.
At least yourCOve got that part right!
I think I have a lot more than that right.
Feel free to address my arguments above if you believe I'm wrong.
Remember: address the argument not the individual.
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
the USA watches.
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Bob.
Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly
partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda,
it must be FALSE NEWS !
Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?
You do love your hyperbole but no that isn't quite the story.
He is a pathological liar (20,000+ fact checked falsehoods, misrepresentations and misleading statements since 2016 IIRC), a
narcissist, a misogynist, a racist, a bully, a sexual predator, an adulterer, corrupt, nepotistic, divisive, attacks allies and fawns over
other authoritarians including mass murderers, he has funded
continuance of the economic boom he inherited by borrowing trillions
and mostly benefiting the already incredibly wealthy. He has made
politics even more divisive and partisan and congress has been even
less productive than when Mitch McConnell initiated the persistent obstructionism under Obama. He has achieved little of his own doing and
a great deal of what he has claimed credit for he has done so
dishonestly. He even funded his own campaign by self dealing from the
funds of a charitable foundation in his name. He has torpedoed attempts
to make sure as many people as possible had healthcare cover and has
presided over one of the worlds worst responses to the pandemic, misinforming, confusing and again causing divisions. He is currently attempting to undermine the election by encouraging people to
unwittingly commit felonies by unnecessarily going to the polls to
vote after already voting in advance.
Now that doesn't not mean that ordinary people have not benefited to
some degree but they may find the price staggering when the reckoning
is done.
So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.
I understand now.
Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
the USA watches.
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Bob.
Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly
partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda,
it must be FALSE NEWS !
Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?
You do love your hyperbole but no that isn't quite the story.
He is a pathological liar (20,000+ fact checked falsehoods, misrepresentations and misleading statements since 2016 IIRC), a
narcissist, a misogynist, a racist, a bully, a sexual predator, an adulterer, corrupt, nepotistic, divisive, attacks allies and fawns over
other authoritarians including mass murderers, he has funded
continuance of the economic boom he inherited by borrowing trillions
and mostly benefiting the already incredibly wealthy. He has made
politics even more divisive and partisan and congress has been even
less productive than when Mitch McConnell initiated the persistent obstructionism under Obama. He has achieved little of his own doing and
a great deal of what he has claimed credit for he has done so
dishonestly. He even funded his own campaign by self dealing from the
funds of a charitable foundation in his name. He has torpedoed attempts
to make sure as many people as possible had healthcare cover and has
presided over one of the worlds worst responses to the pandemic, misinforming, confusing and again causing divisions. He is currently attempting to undermine the election by encouraging people to
unwittingly commit felonies by unnecessarily going to the polls to
vote after already voting in advance.
Now that doesn't not mean that ordinary people have not benefited to
some degree but they may find the price staggering when the reckoning
is done.
So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.
I understand now.
Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
What will you do if he gets re-elected?
Bob.
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to corporations and the extremely rich?
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of america love him?
On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of america love him?
More hate him than love him.
And there are idiots in every population.
In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of america love him?
More hate him than love him.
We shall see, perhaps you're right.
And there are idiots in every population.
Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think that's
called arrogance and possibly a few other words.
Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.
On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of america love him?
More hate him than love him.
We shall see, perhaps you're right.
What was your source for your claim?
Provide it, and I'll provide mine
And there are idiots in every population.
Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think
that's called arrogance and possibly a few other words.
Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.
I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.
Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are
patently untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.
Those people ARE idiots.
Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the
US federal government responded to COVID-19...
...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.
Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that
Trump has done a better job of growing the economyyeven
discounting the current situation...
...is an idiot.
Deal with those facts like a big boy.
In article <rjr3ai$kir$1@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be >>>>>>>> remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of america love him?
More hate him than love him.
We shall see, perhaps you're right.
What was your source for your claim?
What claim? oh that a large portion of usa love him, have you seen
the rallies?
Provide it, and I'll provide mine
Oh it's very clear many people have a pathological hatred of the man.
And there are idiots in every population.
Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think
that's called arrogance and possibly a few other words.
Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.
I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.
Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are
patently untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.
Those people ARE idiots.
Ah, master of truth. I see.
Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the
US federal government responded to COVID-19...
...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.
I don't know anything about Biden talks as is he's only half here,
like he's lost it. Saw him explaining his transgressions with some
women, he was wasn't lucid. Sorry that's all I know about him.
Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that
Trump has done a better job of growing the economy-Leven
discounting the current situation...
...is an idiot.
I've got the message.
Deal with those facts like a big boy.
Yes, I've got your message loud and clear.
Imagine how impressed I am.
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of america love him?
Bob.
In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of america love him?
More hate him than love him.
We shall see, perhaps you're right.
And there are idiots in every population.
Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think that's
called arrogance and possibly a few other words.
Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.
Bob.
On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
-a-a-a Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
-a-a-a-a Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
-a-a-a-a-a Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of america love him?
More hate him than love him.
We shall see, perhaps you're right.
What was your source for your claim?
Provide it, and I'll provide mine
And there are idiots in every population.
Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think that's
called arrogance and possibly a few other words.
Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.
I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.
Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are patently
untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.
Those people ARE idiots.
Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the US federal government responded to COVID-19...
...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.
Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that Trump
has done a better job of growing the economyrCoeven discounting the
current situation...
...is an idiot.
Deal with those facts like a big boy.
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
What will you do if he gets re-elected?
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of America love him?
On 13/09/2020 19:17, Bigbird wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <_qadnXyDLude4sDCnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
-a-a-a geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
On 12/09/2020 10:34 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
Great for a laugh. Well actually would be a laugh if the
ramifications of its drivel being the main source of 'news' that
the USA watches.
Now talking of biased drivel, I used to watch the once respected
CNN and the BBC. Both are now clearly political activists not
news feeds.
Bob.
Sounds like Trump - if the truth doesn't fit in with my highly
partisan preconceptions, or is somewhat inconvenient to my agenda,
it must be FALSE NEWS !
Right so President Trump is evil, does nothing good for people and
the left has a monopoly on truth, that about it?
You do love your hyperbole but no that isn't quite the story.
He is a pathological liar (20,000+ fact checked falsehoods,
misrepresentations and misleading statements since 2016 IIRC), a
narcissist, a misogynist, a racist, a bully,-a a sexual predator, an
adulterer, corrupt, nepotistic, divisive, attacks allies and fawns over
other authoritarians including mass murderers, he has funded
continuance of the economic boom he inherited by borrowing trillions
and mostly benefiting the already incredibly wealthy. He has made
politics even more divisive and partisan and congress has been even
less productive than when Mitch McConnell initiated the persistent
obstructionism under Obama. He has achieved little of his own doing and
a great deal of what he has claimed credit for he has done so
dishonestly. He even funded his own campaign by self dealing from the
funds of a charitable foundation in his name. He has torpedoed attempts
to make sure as many people as possible had healthcare cover and has
presided over one of the worlds worst responses to the pandemic,
misinforming, confusing and again causing divisions. He is currently
attempting to undermine the election by encouraging people to
unwittingly commit-a felonies by unnecessarily going to the polls to
vote after already voting in advance.
Now that doesn't not mean that ordinary people have not benefited to
some degree but they may find the price staggering when the reckoning
is done.
So now we know don't we. The reason you lot love BLM and climate
change etc. is because you think you can use it to force countries to
go socialist when the bastards are too stupid to ever vote for it.
I understand now.
Futile arguing, you're all too far gone for rationality.
Usually it annoys me when someone replies to a poster from my bozo bin, but I'm glad to have seen
the above.
I agree with all of your comments about the worst president ever.
+1
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
On 2020-09-15 12:27 p.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjr3ai$kir$1@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be >>>>>>>> remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under >>>>>> the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to >>>>>> corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of america love him?
More hate him than love him.
We shall see, perhaps you're right.
What was your source for your claim?
What claim? oh that a large portion of usa love him, have you seen
the rallies?
Wow.
You're not just poorly informed: you're just not very bright.
It doesn't take a large portion of the population for someone's
rallies to be well attended.
Provide it, and I'll provide mine
Oh it's very clear many people have a pathological hatred of the
man.
Or a justified hatred, because he is a documented liar...
And there are idiots in every population.
Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think
that's called arrogance and possibly a few other words.
Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.
I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.
Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are
patently untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.
Those people ARE idiots.
Ah, master of truth. I see.
Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the
US federal government responded to COVID-19...
...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.
I don't know anything about Biden talks as is he's only half here,
like he's lost it. Saw him explaining his transgressions with some
women, he was wasn't lucid. Sorry that's all I know about him.
I notice you can't address yourself to the point.
But Biden is quite obviously far more intelligent than Trump. He
has a stutter that he some times struggles with.
And Trump has had far, FAR more accusations and more serious
accusations leveled against him.
Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that
Trump has done a better job of growing the economy#even
discounting the current situation...
...is an idiot.
I've got the message.
Deal with those facts like a big boy.
Yes, I've got your message loud and clear.
Imagine how impressed I am.
You're just utterly unable to rebut my message.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of America love him?
That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: oIf you tell a lie big enough and
keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
If you have not read oIt Canat Happen Hereo by Sinclair Lewis you
might find it instructive.
In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of America love him?
That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: rCYIf you tell a lie big enough and
keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
the most awful behaviour from their side.
If you have not read rCYIt CanrCyt Happen HererCo by Sinclair Lewis you
might find it instructive.
I recommend The Madness of crowds.
Bob.
In article <rjr5hg$45u$1@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 12:27 p.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjr3ai$kir$1@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjr0fk$v6d$3@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 11:12 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be >>>>>>>>>> remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under >>>>>>>> the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and >>>>>>>> made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to >>>>>>>> corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a >>>>>>> large portion of america love him?
More hate him than love him.
We shall see, perhaps you're right.
What was your source for your claim?
What claim? oh that a large portion of usa love him, have you seen
the rallies?
Wow.
You're not just poorly informed: you're just not very bright.
Is that the level, just insults and hate, ok.
It doesn't take a large portion of the population for someone's
rallies to be well attended.
Not seen anything like that for Biden.
Provide it, and I'll provide mine
Oh it's very clear many people have a pathological hatred of the
man.
Or a justified hatred, because he is a documented liar...
Really, I don't hate anyone. I have self control.
And there are idiots in every population.
Ah now that. If you disagree with me you're an idiot. I think
that's called arrogance and possibly a few other words.
Clearly discussion is impossible/pointless.
I notice you've carefully snipped a couple of concrete points.
Sorry, but there are many people who believe things that are
patently untrue about Trump and/or Biden and/or Obama.
Those people ARE idiots.
Ah, master of truth. I see.
Anyone who believes that Biden is somehow to blame for the way the
US federal government responded to COVID-19...
...is an idiot. Sorry, but that's just a fact.
I don't know anything about Biden talks as is he's only half here,
like he's lost it. Saw him explaining his transgressions with some
women, he was wasn't lucid. Sorry that's all I know about him.
I notice you can't address yourself to the point.
What point?
But Biden is quite obviously far more intelligent than Trump. He
has a stutter that he some times struggles with.
Really.
And Trump has had far, FAR more accusations and more serious
accusations leveled against him.
Accusations, dear me.
Anyone who believes that unemployment went up under Obama, or that
Trump has done a better job of growing the economy#even
discounting the current situation...
...is an idiot.
I've got the message.
Deal with those facts like a big boy.
Yes, I've got your message loud and clear.
Imagine how impressed I am.
You're just utterly unable to rebut my message.
You're confusing me with someone who gives a shit. No point arguing
with lefties or people that think it's fine to go burning, looting
and murdering.
In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of America love him?
That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: -oIf you tell a lie big enough and
keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
the most awful behaviour from their side.
If you have not read -oIt Can-at Happen Here-o by Sinclair Lewis you
might find it instructive.
I recommend The Madness of Crowds.
In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of America love him?
That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: rCYIf you tell a lie big enough and
keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.
On 17/09/2020 3:46 am, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
-a-a-a Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
-a-a-a Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for >>>>>> people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of America love him?
That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: rCYIf you tell a lie big enough and
keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.
Unlike you ...
geoff
What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
The other side
are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
the most awful behaviour from their side.
Unlike you ...
Bob Latham wrote:
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.
Do they?
I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.
In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.
Do they?
I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.
Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with the
mob.
In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.
Do they?
I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.
Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with the
mob.
Bob.
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.
Do they?
I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.
Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with the
mob.
That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.
Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
about?
I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
distracted from the anti-racist message.
The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests without mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the millions who peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".
So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?
In article <xn0mj0gbsa65wm001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied
to and have it completely wrong, even when they find
themselves supporting the most awful behaviour from their
side.
Do they?
I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and
arson but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.
Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with
the mob.
That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.
Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
about?
I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
distracted from the anti-racist message.
The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests
without mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the
millions who peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".
So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?
Do you have evidence that they don't?
I guarantee support is not from the right.
What information do you have to support this bizarre point of view ?
shall we
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mj0gbsa65wm001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied
to and have it completely wrong, even when they find
themselves supporting the most awful behaviour from their
side.
Do they?
I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and
arson but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.
Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with
the mob.
That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.
Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
about?
I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
distracted from the anti-racist message.
The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests
without mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the
millions who peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".
So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?
Do you have evidence that they don't?
I guarantee support is not from the right.
So for the second consecutive post you show an inability to support
your claims.
Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
inventions or your bigoted mind.
Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
inventions or your bigoted mind.
Haha.
Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.
In article <xn0mj0jh0efqaq000@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mj0gbsa65wm001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied
to and have it completely wrong, even when they find
themselves supporting the most awful behaviour from their
side.
Do they?
I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and
arson but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.
Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with
the mob.
That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.
Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
about?
I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
distracted from the anti-racist message.
The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests
without mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the
millions who peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".
So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?
Do you have evidence that they don't?
I guarantee support is not from the right.
So for the second consecutive post you show an inability to support
your claims.
Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
inventions or your bigoted mind.
Haha.
Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.
What is easy to observe about lefties is they are the big pushers
for:..
BLM - marxism - race war - destruction of west/capitalism.
ACC - no CO2 - economic collapse - destruction of west/capitalism.
Covid lockdowns - economic collapse - destruction of west/capitalism.
Support from the right for all 3 is vastly less.
Can't think why.
Bob Latham wrote:
Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
inventions or your bigoted mind.
Haha.
So that's a no and yes respectively then.
Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.
That you have to label everyone who thinks you are a lying dirtbag as a political opponent belies your inability to recognise that it is not
simply your extreme political views but your lack of decency that is so repugnant.
ps I am not a "lefty" just a long way left of repugnant.
In article <xn0mj0p6cm46tj000@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
inventions or your bigoted mind.
Haha.
So that's a no and yes respectively then.
Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.
That you have to label everyone who thinks you are a lying dirtbag as a
political opponent belies your inability to recognise that it is not
simply your extreme political views but your lack of decency that is so
repugnant.
ps I am not a "lefty" just a long way left of repugnant.
Pleased to hear it.
This lovely girl...
https://twitter.com/samanthamarika1/status/1306342131229810688?s=21
has it spot on. I know exactly how she feels.
In article <xn0mj0gbsa65wm001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
In article <xn0mizygb1gft7a004@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to
and have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves
supporting the most awful behaviour from their side.
Do they?
I see you claim tens of millions of people support rioting and arson
but there is no evidence of that. You are dishonest Bob.
Funny, I don't recall the left in this country screaming their
condemnation of the behaviour. All I've noticed is sympathy with the
mob.
That's some conspicuous backpedaling there, Bob.
Not "screaming their condemnation" = support.
Which particular rioting and arson in this country are you talking
about?
I think most of those without a nefarious agenda have not been
distracted from the anti-racist message.
The far right have an incentive to belabour a discussion of the
criminal minority. They, like you, cannot mention the protests without
mischaracterising them all as riots and looting or the millions who
peacefully protested as anything other than "the mob".
So for the second time of asking do you have any evidence to support
your claim of "the left" here supporting rioting and arson?
Do you have evidence that they don't?
I guarantee support is not from the right.
Bob.
In article <hsd1joFr26pU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <rjqpe2$dlg$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-09-15 7:41 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsbv0aFk0pfU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
A very comprehensive summing up of the man who will probably be
remembered as the worst president the USA has ever had.
You mean the one that didn't take the USA to war. Created jobs for
people all be it, many lost through covid.
You realize he created jobs at a rate slightly SLOWER than under
the previous administration, right?
And that he inherited a great rate of growth in the economy and
made it worse?
And has run up a staggering amount of debt with his giveaways to
corporations and the extremely rich?
I think we may be a little biased but if that's true, why does a
large portion of America love him?
That is the question that most of the rest of the world is asking.
I think that, as in Britain with Brexit, the situation has become
tribal and the opprobrium that Trump has generated abroad has only
served to harden the opinions of his supporters. It may also be
that Dr Goebbels dictum applies: rCYIf you tell a lie big enough and
keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
What I find amazing with lefties is that they are absolutely certain
beyond any doubt that they are right and have truth on their side.
The other side are stupid and have been told lies and more lies.
They could never conceive that it may them that has been lied to and
have it completely wrong, even when they find themselves supporting
the most awful behaviour from their side.
If you have not read rCYIt CanrCyt Happen HererCo by Sinclair Lewis you
might find it instructive.
I recommend The Madness of crowds.
Bob.
No more that you don't have proof that those actions are of agents-provocateurs of your fellow right-wing fascist sympathisers.
But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news items,
or are you oblivious to what is around you every day? If you did, you
would know and you wouldn't be making such ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..
I'm sure you are every bit as loony as she is.
You get that she actually BELIEVES COVID-19 is a "psychological
operation", and not an actual disease and pandemic, right?
On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:25:40 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:
No more that you don't have proof that those actions are of agents-provocateurs of your fellow right-wing fascist sympathisers.
But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news items,
or are you oblivious to what is around you every day? If you did, you would know and you wouldn't be making such ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..
On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 12:56:52 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
I'm sure you are every bit as loony as she is.
You get that she actually BELIEVES COVID-19 is a "psychological operation", and not an actual disease and pandemic, right?
In article <xn0mj0p6cm46tj000@news.eternal-september.org>,
Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
Would you like a third opportunity or shall we just accept the
obvious; that you are an habitual liar and your claims are
inventions or your bigoted mind.
Haha.
So that's a no and yes respectively then.
Another that thinks I give a damn what lefties think of me.
That you have to label everyone who thinks you are a lying dirtbag
as a political opponent belies your inability to recognise that it
is not simply your extreme political views but your lack of decency
that is so repugnant.
ps I am not a "lefty" just a long way left of repugnant.
Pleased to hear it.
This lovely girl...
https://twitter.com/samanthamarika1/status/1306342131229810688?s=21
has it spot on. I know exactly how she feels.
On 18/09/2020 12:26 am, Bob Latham wrote:
Do you have evidence that they don't?
I guarantee support is not from the right.
Bob.
No more that you don't have proof that those actions are of agents-provocateurs of your fellow right-wing fascist sympathisers.
But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news
items, or are you oblivious to what is around you every day?
If you did, you would know and you wouldn't be making such
ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..
I am aware that the media in the UK is extremely biased on just about
every topic. The news is no >longer the news in the UK, it's the hourly opinion run of the metro elite left. I find it unwatchable as do >millions of others.
In article <8dOdndx8UsLwbf7CnZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
On 18/09/2020 12:26 am, Bob Latham wrote:
Do you have evidence that they don't?
I guarantee support is not from the right.
Bob.
No more that you don't have proof that those actions are of
agents-provocateurs of your fellow right-wing fascist sympathisers.
Firstly, if I am right wing it is only slightly, I'm not even a
member of the tory party and certainly not anything unpleasant on the
extreme edge. To my eternal shame I voted for the war monger Blair.
Secondly I am concerned by why I'm described as fascist. Do you
actually understand what the word means?
One of the key identifiers of fascism is the cancel culture and
forcing the silence of people who do not support you views. Indeed
only this week we've heard calls to begin book burning of a novel
that hasn't been released yet because the mob has decided they no
longer like the author.
That is fascism. That is the PC, woke, left.
I don't ever recall the right, wishing to silence anyone else, not
once.
I don't advocate anything nasty at all, I hate nobody, I wish to see
fair play to everyone regardless of colour or creed.
I want to see black treated properly in the states and the police
sorted out on this. I'd also be pleased to see measure which help
keep people away from crime.
But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news
items, or are you oblivious to what is around you every day?
I am aware that the media in the UK is extremely biased on just about
every topic. The news is no longer the news in the UK, it's the
hourly opinion run of the metro elite left. I find it unwatchable as
do millions of others.
We know the entire tv media is:
Pro EU.
Pro immigration.
Dinghy crosses are desperate asylum seekers escaping terrible things.
Very PC and increasingly woke.
Anti Trump and then some - psychotic on the subject.
Man's CO2 is destroying the world through climate change.
Pro liberal/left
Anti Israel.
etc. etc.
If you did, you would know and you wouldn't be making such
ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..
Says an obviously left wing, woke, observer who claims another
similar media is worth watching.
I don't share your views, can't you live with that or are you too totalitarian and fascist?
Bob.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
I am aware that the media in the UK is extremely biased on just
about every topic. The news is no >longer the news in the UK,
it's the hourly opinion run of the metro elite left. I find it
unwatchable as do >millions of others.
So you donat read the Daily Mexpress or the Telegraph then.
My son works for an organization which runs masterclasses for
aspiring writers. As a LibDem voter he is well to the right of all
his colleagues. These colleagues universally condemn the BBC as
being an organ of the Tory party and genuinely believe that it,
along with the press, was entirely responsible for the defeat of
Jeremy Corbin at the last election.
Conversely, many contributors to John Redwoodas web site seem to
believe that the BBC is an unreconstructed left wing organization
which ought to be closed down as soon as possible. They often refer
to it as the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.
The above divergence of opinions suggests to me the Beebas output
is generally pretty well balanced
Secondly I am concerned by why I'm described as fascist. Do you
actually understand what the word means?
One of the key identifiers of fascism is the cancel culture and
forcing the silence of people who do not support you views. Indeed
only this week we've heard calls to begin book burning of a novel
that hasn't been released yet because the mob has decided they no
longer like the author.
That is fascism. That is the PC, woke, left.
I don't ever recall the right, wishing to silence anyone else, not
once.
I don't advocate anything nasty at all, I hate nobody, I wish to see
fair play to everyone regardless of colour or creed.
I want to see black treated properly in the states and the police
sorted out on this. I'd also be pleased to see measure which help
keep people away from crime.
But do you not ever watch or research any current events or news
items, or are you oblivious to what is around you every day?
I am aware that the media in the UK is extremely biased on just about
every topic. The news is no longer the news in the UK, it's the
hourly opinion run of the metro elite left. I find it unwatchable as
do millions of others.
We know the entire tv media is:
Pro EU.
Pro immigration.
Dinghy crosses are desperate asylum seekers escaping terrible things.
Very PC and increasingly woke.
Anti Trump and then some - psychotic on the subject.
Man's CO2 is destroying the world through climate change.
Pro liberal/left
Anti Israel.
etc. etc.
If you did, you would know and you wouldn't be making such
ridiculous Trumpoid assertions..
Says an obviously left wing, woke, observer who claims another
similar media is worth watching.
I don't share your views, can't you live with that or are you too
Really? Politically, I can't remember an example of a government
more hell-bent on silencing the opposition than Johnson proroguing
parliament for bogus reasons
, shutting down not just the debate in parliament, but ensuring
that all select committees couldn't sit. Or doesn't that count?
The fact is, both sides are terrible for trying to create an
environment in which their position is not only dominant, but the
only one in town.
While I would agree that the style employed by the left is quite
distinct - lots of political correctness, employment of particular
language, the use of "no-platforming" (a term and principle I
loathe) - that is really only a section (albeit significant) at one
end.
In the right wing, there is a different (but equivalent) way of
silencing opposition, particularly by creating single view forums
(take Fox News in the US or any one of the many right wing
newspapers in the UK) or creating exclusive clubs where dissent is
brutally dealt with.
Hell, look at how the conservatives dealt with
dissent over Brexit? It was not enough to win, all dissenting
voices had to be extinguished...and that meant not only throwing long-standing Tories out of the party for their dissent in
September last year, but forcing prospective candidates to
effective swear allegiance to both the PM and his particular causes
when it came to the election.
(Momentum did the same where it
could under Corbyn).
So, can you still say you can't think of a situation where the
right wing seeks to silence voices?
(there are more examples on both sides).
More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
(you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When
out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been
for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue
to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and
take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few"
or "many" is wearing.
It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.
And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
never listen to the opposition?
The BBC loves diversity, except diversity of opinion which it will
not tolerate.
Bob.
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 6:16:50 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:
Find a piston and connecting rod and shove it up
your asshole until it comes out your pie hole.
Then call it day.
In article <rk2u47$28t$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Really? Politically, I can't remember an example of a government
more hell-bent on silencing the opposition than Johnson proroguing
parliament for bogus reasons
That is your view, you're entitled to it.
, shutting down not just the debate in parliament, but ensuring
that all select committees couldn't sit. Or doesn't that count?
So what remain did both before and after the referendum was fine?
At that time we had a parliament that had gone rogue. The MPs got
elected on a promise to deliver Brexit. Then as it dragged on through
law courts and goodness knows what, these duplicitous MPs decided
they could turn their backs on their promises and stop this going
through and they went to war against the elected government and the
people who elected them. Complete lying shits in all honesty.
Lots of accounts of people wishing people dead and tea shirts being
printed with faces of all the people who had died arguing for a
second vote.
I remember the night of the election last december a very posh girl
"okay yah" telling the camera how she wanted to be a doctor but
hopped Boris dies a horrible death.
Yes, I remember that.
I also remember what happened when the government lost the case to a
very none neutral team of remainer judges. I remember spider woman
couldn't hide her glee as she announced the decision. I also
remember parliament doing nothing when it got back and people saying
so what was all that about.
The fact is, both sides are terrible for trying to create an
environment in which their position is not only dominant, but the
only one in town.
While I would agree that the style employed by the left is quite
distinct - lots of political correctness, employment of particular
language, the use of "no-platforming" (a term and principle I
loathe) - that is really only a section (albeit significant) at one
end.
In the right wing, there is a different (but equivalent) way of
silencing opposition, particularly by creating single view forums
(take Fox News in the US or any one of the many right wing
newspapers in the UK) or creating exclusive clubs where dissent is
brutally dealt with.
Facebook and twitter do quickly remove people right of centre, plenty
gone to Parler because twitter is out of hand.
Hell, look at how the conservatives dealt with
dissent over Brexit? It was not enough to win, all dissenting
voices had to be extinguished...and that meant not only throwing
long-standing Tories out of the party for their dissent in
September last year, but forcing prospective candidates to
effective swear allegiance to both the PM and his particular causes
when it came to the election.
Hmm, The tories were elected 3 times to deliver brexit and of course
the referendum itself. They had a mandate and had to get it through
or die. Rebels plus labour and the LDs did their damndest to stop
this. They even repeatedly went to Brussels quite openly on sabotage missions. Negotiating against our elected government with a foreign
power. I'm sure there's a word for that.
(Momentum did the same where it
could under Corbyn).
So, can you still say you can't think of a situation where the
right wing seeks to silence voices?
Yes. Even if I accepted your prorogue argument, it is very much a one
off certainly in this country under exceptional circumstances with
parliament fighting the government and the electorate.
Parliament with the aid of a partisan speaker even took over power
from the elected government and passed laws against the government
doing what it had been elected to do. Nothing short of evil.
(there are more examples on both sides).
More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
(you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When
out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been
for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue
to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and
take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few"
or "many" is wearing.
It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.
And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
never listen to the opposition?
I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
no knowledge or experience of what you speak.
In article <rk2u47$28t$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Really? Politically, I can't remember an example of a government
more hell-bent on silencing the opposition than Johnson proroguing
parliament for bogus reasons
That is your view, you're entitled to it.
, shutting down not just the debate in parliament, but ensuring
that all select committees couldn't sit. Or doesn't that count?
So what remain did both before and after the referendum was fine?
At that time we had a parliament that had gone rogue. The MPs got
elected on a promise to deliver Brexit. Then as it dragged on through
law courts and goodness knows what, these duplicitous MPs decided
they could turn their backs on their promises and stop this going
through and they went to war against the elected government and the
people who elected them. Complete lying shits in all honesty.
Lots of accounts of people wishing people dead and tea shirts being
printed with faces of all the people who had died arguing for a
second vote.
I remember the night of the election last december a very posh girl
"okay yah" telling the camera how she wanted to be a doctor but
hopped Boris dies a horrible death.
Yes, I remember that.
I also remember what happened when the government lost the case to a
very none neutral team of remainer judges. I remember spider woman
couldn't hide her glee as she announced the decision. I also
remember parliament doing nothing when it got back and people saying
so what was all that about.
The fact is, both sides are terrible for trying to create an
environment in which their position is not only dominant, but the
only one in town.
While I would agree that the style employed by the left is quite
distinct - lots of political correctness, employment of particular
language, the use of "no-platforming" (a term and principle I
loathe) - that is really only a section (albeit significant) at one
end.
In the right wing, there is a different (but equivalent) way of
silencing opposition, particularly by creating single view forums
(take Fox News in the US or any one of the many right wing
newspapers in the UK) or creating exclusive clubs where dissent is
brutally dealt with.
Facebook and twitter do quickly remove people right of centre, plenty
gone to Parler because twitter is out of hand.
Hell, look at how the conservatives dealt with
dissent over Brexit? It was not enough to win, all dissenting
voices had to be extinguished...and that meant not only throwing
long-standing Tories out of the party for their dissent in
September last year, but forcing prospective candidates to
effective swear allegiance to both the PM and his particular causes
when it came to the election.
Hmm, The tories were elected 3 times to deliver brexit and of course
the referendum itself. They had a mandate and had to get it through
or die. Rebels plus labour and the LDs did their damndest to stop
this. They even repeatedly went to Brussels quite openly on sabotage missions. Negotiating against our elected government with a foreign
power. I'm sure there's a word for that.
(Momentum did the same where it
could under Corbyn).
So, can you still say you can't think of a situation where the
right wing seeks to silence voices?
Yes. Even if I accepted your prorogue argument, it is very much a one
off certainly in this country under exceptional circumstances with
parliament fighting the government and the electorate.
Parliament with the aid of a partisan speaker even took over power
from the elected government and passed laws against the government
doing what it had been elected to do. Nothing short of evil.
(there are more examples on both sides).
More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
(you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When
out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been
for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue
to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and
take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few"
or "many" is wearing.
It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.
And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
never listen to the opposition?
I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
no knowledge or experience of what you speak.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <rk2u47$28t$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Really? Politically, I can't remember an example of a government
more hell-bent on silencing the opposition than Johnson proroguing
parliament for bogus reasons
That is your view, you're entitled to it.
Its's also the view - a legally binding view - of the Supreme Court, and
the reasons why it was unacceptable were very eloquently set down in a
very scholarly judgement which included information as to how
to achieve the same outcome legally.
That no primary legislation to constitutionally amend thensituation
shows that it was never the intention to fix tge roadblock as stated,
but simply an abuse of the prerogative.
, shutting down not just the debate in parliament, but ensuring
that all select committees couldn't sit. Or doesn't that count?
So what remain did both before and after the referendum was fine?
What are you specifically talking about?
At that time we had a parliament that had gone rogue. The MPs got
Parliament had not gone rogue. It was operating precisely as it is set
up to operate. Election promises are not binding on MPs *or* government
(as every government in history has shown).
What could have been binding was the referendum. If it had been written
as a binding (not advisory) referendum like the Scottish devolution referendum bill was, the parliament would have been legally bound to
enact Brexit. If they then wanted to stop it, they woild have had to initiate and implmemt primary legislation to overturn the referendum
bill. It would then be a brazen breach of trust with the peopel.
Of course, if it were a binding referendum, tge debate would have been significantly different.
elected on a promise to deliver Brexit. Then as it dragged on through
law courts and goodness knows what, these duplicitous MPs decided
they could turn their backs on their promises and stop this going
through and they went to war against the elected government and the
people who elected them. Complete lying shits in all honesty.
The MP has free hand to do (or not) as they will. Thay is exactly how
our parliament works despite many attempts to change it. The opposition generally supports change...but has less interest once in government.
There are only two checks on this powet: the fear pf being bopted out at
the next election and the (toothless) recall act.
The former is of limited effect, particularly in a safe seat.
The latter is a high bar for constituents tp trigger.
Lots of accounts of people wishing people dead and tea shirts being
printed with faces of all the people who had died arguing for a
second vote.
I remember the night of the election last december a very posh girl
"okay yah" telling the camera how she wanted to be a doctor but
hopped Boris dies a horrible death.
Yes, I remember that.
Do you remember any of the vitriol on the other side? The "Enemies of
the People" headlines? The character assasinations?
I also remember what happened when the government lost the case to a
very none neutral team of remainer judges. I remember spider woman
couldn't hide her glee as she announced the decision. I also
remember parliament doing nothing when it got back and people saying
so what was all that about.
Forget personaloties. Did you read the judgement? Did you npte how
every point was justified scrupulously with precedent (even if the lack ofnprecedent on one point required going back to the Bill of Rights)?
That this panel even gave clear advice indicating how to resolve the situation showed it wasn't a partisan decision as the right wing press
would have you believe.
The fact is, both sides are terrible for trying to create an
environment in which their position is not only dominant, but the
only one in town.
While I would agree that the style employed by the left is quite
distinct - lots of political correctness, employment of particular
language, the use of "no-platforming" (a term and principle I
loathe) - that is really only a section (albeit significant) at one
end.
In the right wing, there is a different (but equivalent) way of
silencing opposition, particularly by creating single view forums
(take Fox News in the US or any one of the many right wing
newspapers in the UK) or creating exclusive clubs where dissent is
brutally dealt with.
Facebook and twitter do quickly remove people right of centre, plenty
gone to Parler because twitter is out of hand.
I don't agree with a lot of the nonsense in terms of those platforms,
but private companies can do as they wish.
Hell, look at how the conservatives dealt with
dissent over Brexit? It was not enough to win, all dissenting
voices had to be extinguished...and that meant not only throwing
long-standing Tories out of the party for their dissent in
September last year, but forcing prospective candidates to
effective swear allegiance to both the PM and his particular causes
when it came to the election.
Hmm, The tories were elected 3 times to deliver brexit and of course
the referendum itself. They had a mandate and had to get it through
or die. Rebels plus labour and the LDs did their damndest to stop
this. They even repeatedly went to Brussels quite openly on sabotage
missions. Negotiating against our elected government with a foreign
power. I'm sure there's a word for that.
First, that isn't (as I noted above) how our electoral system works.
You hand an MP a mandate for (up to) five years during which they vote acvording to their conscience. They are entitlednto change their stance
at any point, and we are entitled to vote them out.
That is our system.
Secondly, all this mud-slinging about traitors is simply divisive.
There are always going to be more than one side to any issue, and the majority winning doesn't convert 100% to a specific cause.
Conservatives winning an election doesn't make the whole cointry Tory
Kor Labour when they win).
The "losing" side has to be able to oppose, or...are you trying to
silence the opposition? Hmmmm. I thought only left wingers did that..
(Momentum did the same where it
could under Corbyn).
So, can you still say you can't think of a situation where the
right wing seeks to silence voices?
Yes. Even if I accepted your prorogue argument, it is very much a one
off certainly in this country under exceptional circumstances with
parliament fighting the government and the electorate.
Parliament with the aid of a partisan speaker even took over power
from the elected government and passed laws against the government
doing what it had been elected to do. Nothing short of evil.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the constitutional set up of parliament.
(there are more examples on both sides).
More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
(you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When
out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been
for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue >>> to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and
take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few"
or "many" is wearing.
It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.
And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
never listen to the opposition?
I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
no knowledge or experience of what you speak.
And that is what makes it so effective and divisive.
Thanks Mark. Good to have the opinion of somebody who actually knows their facts.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
It is obvious that, despite Markas sensible and measured response,
you are unwilling even to contemplate the fact that your views are questionable. In the face of this sort of bigotry continuation of
the thread seems rather pointless.
Speaking for myself, I have voted Conservative in every election
since 1959 - except the last one. Given the current political
climate nothing would induce me to do so again.
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:<snipped>
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <rk2u47$28t$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
More troubling to me is the playbook that the right across the world
(you can see it here, in the US, Norway, Spain, Brazil and countless
other countries) which seems to involve being a perpetual victim. When >>>> out of power, they are victims of the nasty opposition (as it has been >>>> for both sides since time immemorial) but when *in* power, they continue >>>> to insist that they are victims of the opposition or a "fifth column"
always seeking to undermine them. They also use a lot of hyperbole and >>>> take everything to an extreme; whether that's screaming headlines or
claiming "invasions", the use of "no" and "every" when they mean "few" >>>> or "many" is wearing.
It's not politics - it's non-stop electioneering.
And it's incredibly divisive. It encourages the left to keep to the
left, the right to keep to the right and for *neither* to actually
debate and come to a sensible conclusion. How do you persuade if you
never listen to the opposition?
I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I have
no knowledge or experience of what you speak.
And that is what makes it so effective and divisive.
Thanks Mark. Good to have the opinion of somebody who actually knows their facts.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:<snipped>
I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but I haveIt is obvious that, despite MarkrCOs sensible and measured response, you are unwilling even to contemplate the fact that your views are questionable. In the face of this sort of bigotry continuation of the thread seems rather pointless.
no knowledge or experience of what you speak.
In article <hsluavFmp9qU1@mid.individual.net>,
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
It is obvious that, despite MarkrCys sensible and measured response,
you are unwilling even to contemplate the fact that your views are
questionable. In the face of this sort of bigotry continuation of
the thread seems rather pointless.
Firstly, I wrote that before Mark's post which quotes mine so that is
utter nonsense.
The only people I have ever met who hold views like that are ALL
anti-brexit remainers and that's what this is really about. Most
brexit people will never forgive the despicable, disgusting behaviour
from remain that went on for years and is even still going on.
MPs turned out to be two faced lying shits, you countenance that.
Speaking for myself, I have voted Conservative in every election
since 1959 - except the last one. Given the current political
climate nothing would induce me to do so again.
I agree, they're not making good decisions anywhere.
Bob.
Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
that you said makes perfect sense.
Not forgetting that the main brexiteers admitted after the
referendum that they had been lying through their teeth.
Disgusting really.
On 19/09/2020 8:37 pm, Sir Tim wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:<snipped>
I'm sorry, I don't doubt your word or heart felt opinion but IIt is obvious that, despite Markas sensible and measured
have no knowledge or experience of what you speak.
response, you are unwilling even to contemplate the fact that
your views are questionable. In the face of this sort of bigotry continuation of the thread seems rather pointless.
That's why I have killfiled him (after trying to be reasonable and
engage in discourse). It seems that all he wants to do is expound
his PoV and (sometimes politely, sometimes not so much) dismiss
anything that doesn't agree with his beliefs.
That's not a discussion that's a closed-minded pitch. This is a
discussion group.
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/20 1:10 PM, Mark wrote:
I keep out of these discussions as a
rule. I won't stay silent on this,
though.
Ah you are a man who lives by his
principles I see
I do. Rules are not principles, and self-
imposed rules can always be
sidelined. As I have done on this occasion.
I suspect that based on your response, I am
wasting my time in writing
this, but I'll give it one more go.
It is not possible to raise a racial
epithet - particularly one that is
particularly charged - in response to an
open debate and then saying
there is no racial meaning...which is
what you've done.
That is your opinion sir and I do not
agree.
On which bit do you not agree?
BTW it was Louise...
Incidentally, the "Louise" thing is just
juvenile. Seriously, cut it out.
...who introduced the rCL racialrCY thing, not
me, that is exactly the reason I replied
the way I did.
How did he?
I seem to remember a number of occasions
(and I'm sure there are more) from his very
start in F1 when race was raised against
him not vice versa.
About an rCLopen debaterCY, there is nothing
open about to try shutting up
people by labeling them as racists and
consider the matter closed.
Who is trying to close down an open debate?
I have suggested that you clarify your use
of what I (strongly) believe to be
racially-motivated language and consider
apologising for it.
At no point did I try to close down the
debate.
I *do* now consider that (given this
response) you are confirming that you are
racist.
That doesn't stop the debate. On the
contrary, if I were you I'd think about
that and continue the debate in order to
clarify your position. Or, as I said in my
last post, people will be entitled to draw
their own conclusions. I know that I have.
Similarly, if people cannot call out such
a situation without being accused of
labelling "everything" as racist, then
nothing is racist. That's simply
untenable.
Again that is your opinion,
Yes. That's why I wrote it.
we probably have VERY different opinions
about what is racism and what is not but
you will have a very hard time to find
anything at all in my entire life where I
treated someone different because of the
color of a skin.
Would you use the same words to (say) Kimi
Raikkonen as the ones that have triggered
this debate?
If not, you have treated Lewis Hamilton
differently because of the colour of his
skin, have you not?
The things Louise said are so utterly
absurd I have no words for it.
And yet you have put a *lot* of words out,
but they are ad hominem (and, I would say
racist) attacks rather than addressing what
you view to be the absurdity of his
argument.
What do you object to in his words?
If you explain that, there can be a
reasonable debate which might come
to a reasonable outcome.
Calling him (offensive) names creates great
heat and no light.
He is so incredibly privileged his entire
life but doesnrCOt have the faintest idea
about it nor what is going on in the real
world outside his multi million dollar
bubble.
He certainly hasn't been privileged his
*entire* life, but certainly he has become
very privileged.
Much as I'm not a fan of people famous for
one area using their platform unduly, he
has a right to express his political
opinion on this and other things. If he
gets it wrong, address his opinion not his
skin colour or his perceived race.
He is calling people ignorant for saying
very obvious things, claiming and whining
how disadvantaged he is because of his
skin color as if he is rescued from a
cotton field,
Again, the attachment to slave-related
tropes.
herCOs calling NORMAL people out for
eating meat, how delusional can a person
be?
Lots of people campaign against meat
eating, either entirely or in terms
of volume.
I don't see you campaigning against PETA.
I also don't see the connection between
this and blatant attacks against him
personally.
He alone has a carbon footprint of whole
continent and is telling us to stop eating
meat to save the world!? Still I may not
respond to this kind of stupidity because
that will make me a racist? Yeah right!
No.
It's really easy to quote his views and
explain why you think they're batshit
crazy. Pick them apart line by line,
provide context and explain why you believe
he's wrong.
None of it requires calling him what you
called him.
It is *that* which will make you a racist,
not disagreeing with him.
See the difference?
Yes you did, you are rCo as I said rCo over sensitive to a word that causesPeople riding the high horse and telling
they donrCOt respond to bigots racists or
whatever are actually saying they have
absolutely NOTHING to say or debunk and
therefore avoid speaking about the actual
content by disqualifying others.
Well, I'm not one of them. I have been very
clear on the matter, and I *am* explaining
my position.
I'm struggling to see what your argument isTry reading.
because you have just insulted the person
(ad hominem) rather than going to the point
(ad rem).
I didnrCOt change the meaning of that word.It's possible to accidentally use the
wrong language, but the right response is
to back down and apologise. It's possible
to (accidentally) use racist language
without being a racist...but to insist on
using it pretty much defines being a
racist.
ItrCOs equally possible you are a little
oversensitive to the word negro, if so,
there is no shame in admitting that you
are.
If I am speaking Spanish (which I do), I
have no problem with the word as it simply
means "black" and has no racial overtones
that I am aware of, at least in the way in
which I employ it. (Of course, I am not a
native Spanish speaker, so if I am wrong I
am happy to be corrected at which stage I
would apologise).
If I am speaking English, I will not use
the word. It has significant racial
overtones, and it's inappropriate.
I have a simple "rule of thumb": I do notGood for you and by all means keep doing so, however donrCOt force others
use a word to describe someone that I have
good reason to believe they will find
offensive *unless* I am trying to offend
them...and even then, I would choose my
word carefully and proportionately, and
have to live with the consequences of
insulting the person to that level.
There are few situations where you can go
wrong with that principle in my experience,
and conversely going against that principle
will get you into trouble.
I have good reason to believe that black
people will find that word offensive, so I
will not use it. I don't think that makes
me oversensitive.
I think that makes me: _respectful_.
Personally, I would suggest retracting
your comments and apologising, or I think
people are entitled to draw the obvious
inference.
It's entirely up to you, however.
At least yourCOve got that part right!
I think I have a lot more than that right.
In article <rk6ade$frd$1@dont-email.me>,
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
that you said makes perfect sense.
I didn't see any mention of the fact that the entire panel of judges
were ramainers, did I miss that?
Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop it
doing what it had been elected to do.
Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.
I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though that he
was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe is, he took
his wife and child out for the day and sat by the river for while. He
then went home and stupidly told the press he was testing his eyes,
yes very silly. However, he did not have contact with anyone outside
of his household. Chances he spread CV19 = 0.
Not many days later, largely the left, antifa, BLM had massive
marches, vandalised and tore down statues and generally kicked off.
"A mostly peaceful demonstration" with 27 (If I recall) police got
injured and objects like bicycles being thrown at police. CV19
spread risk = considerable. Arrests = ????.
Did the media kick off about the CV19 risk, did they hell, it was
fine.
On 20/09/2020 9:33 pm, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rk6ade$frd$1@dont-email.me>,
-a-a-a ~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
that you said makes perfect sense.
I didn't see any mention of the fact that the entire panel of judges
were ramainers, did I miss that?
Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop it
doing what it had been elected to do.
Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.
I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though that he
was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe is, he took
his wife and child out for the day and sat by the river for while. He
then went home and stupidly told the press he was testing his eyes,
yes very silly. However, he did not have contact with anyone outside
of his household. Chances he spread CV19 = 0.
Not many days later, largely the left, antifa, BLM had massive
marches, vandalised and tore down statues and generally kicked off.
"A mostly peaceful demonstration" with 27 (If I recall) police got
injured and objects like bicycles being thrown at police.-a CV19
spread risk = considerable. Arrests = ????.
Did the media kick off about the CV19 risk, did they hell, it was
fine.
'The Left' presumably being anybody not Right as you.
And what news was it that you were watching - Fox shock highlights or something ? Because most of
the protests and marches did not have such occurences.
In article <rk6ade$frd$1@dont-email.me>,
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
that you said makes perfect sense.
I didn't see any mention of the fact that the entire panel of judges
were ramainers, did I miss that?
Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop it
doing what it had been elected to do.
Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.
I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though that he
was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe is, he took
his wife and child out for the day and sat by the river for while. He
then went home and stupidly told the press he was testing his eyes,
yes very silly. However, he did not have contact with anyone outside
of his household. Chances he spread CV19 = 0.
Not many days later, largely the left, antifa, BLM had massive
marches, vandalised and tore down statues and generally kicked off.
"A mostly peaceful demonstration" with 27 (If I recall) police got
injured and objects like bicycles being thrown at police. CV19
spread risk = considerable. Arrests = ????.
Did the media kick off about the CV19 risk, did they hell, it was
fine.
A few after that, while all the public toilets in London were closed,
a lad takes a pee to the side of a monument, no damage. He was
arrested and sent to prison.
It is very clear how fair the law isn't.
I don't have much faith in things claimed to be non-partisan, nothing
ever is.
I do. Rules are not principles, and self-
imposed rules can always be
sidelined. As I have done on this occasion.
Yes they can, although it's a bit of weaseling out, I donrCOt care itrCOs just a bit funny.
I suspect that based on your response, I am wasting my time in
writing this, but I'll give it one more go.
I think you are right because you have made your mind up before your
first reply.
It is not possible to raise a racial epithet - particularly one
that is particularly charged - in response to an open debate and
then saying there is no racial meaning...which is what you've
done.
That is your opinion sir and I do not
agree.
On which bit do you not agree?
On the whole bit you claimrCa
BTW it was Louise...
Incidentally, the "Louise" thing is just
juvenile. Seriously, cut it out.
Well this Louise thing isnrCOt quite the point here but if it makes you
feel better I will call him Ham, that Louise is something I found both
funny and appropriate for that drama queen.
...who introduced the rCL racialrCY thing, not me, that is exactly the
reason I replied the way I did.
How did he?
He claimed to be disadvantaged because he is black, that is how.
I seem to remember a number of occasions (and I'm sure there are
more) from his very start in F1 when race was raised against him not
vice versa.
Besides your memory and imagination, can you show anything about that?
About an rCLopen debaterCY, there is nothing open about to try shutting
up people by labeling them as racists and consider the matter
closed.
Who is trying to close down an open debate?
You and everyone else who tries to disqualify people as racists.
I have suggested that you clarify your use of what I (strongly)
believe to be racially-motivated language and consider apologising
for it.
At no point did I try to close down the debate.
I will give you the benefit of doubt here.
I *do* now consider that (given this response) you are confirming
that you are racist.
You already did that BEFORE you replied but feel free, no matter how
absurd and wrong you are.
That doesn't stop the debate. On the contrary, if I were you I'd
think about that and continue the debate in order to clarify your
position. Or, as I said in my last post, people will be entitled to
draw their own conclusions. I know that I have.
I know you have, that is what I said in the first part of this posting.
Similarly, if people cannot call out such a situation without
being accused of labelling "everything" as racist, then nothing is
racist. That's simply untenable.
Again that is your opinion,
Yes. That's why I wrote it.
we probably have VERY different opinions about what is racism and
what is not but you will have a very hard time to find anything at
all in my entire life where I treated someone different because of
the color of a skin.
Would you use the same words to (say) Kimi Raikkonen as the ones
that have triggered this debate?
If not, you have treated Lewis Hamilton differently because of the
colour of his skin, have you not?
If I do not call Kimi a negro I must be a racist is that what you are saying?
The things Louise said are so utterly absurd I have no words for
it.
And yet you have put a *lot* of words out, but they are ad hominem
(and, I would say racist) attacks rather than addressing what you
view to be the absurdity of his argument.
What do you object to in his words?
Bloody hell, why donrCOt you read my post before start arguing, I made it perfectly clear.
If you explain that, there can be a reasonable debate which might
come to a reasonable outcome.
Calling him (offensive) names creates great heat and no light.
That is ALL you see ? Try reading again.
He is so incredibly privileged his entire life but doesnrCOt have the
faintest idea about it nor what is going on in the real
world outside his multi million dollar bubble.
He certainly hasn't been privileged his *entire* life, but certainly
he has become very privileged.
Really, serious? How many race karts did YOU own before you reached
the age of 10?
Much as I'm not a fan of people famous for one area using their
platform unduly, he has a right to express his political opinion on
this and other things. If he gets it wrong, address his opinion not
his skin colour or his perceived race.
I DID, but you are obviously unable to read it.
He is calling people ignorant for saying very obvious things,
claiming and whining how disadvantaged he is because of his skin
color as if he is rescued from a cotton field,
Again, the attachment to slave-related tropes.
And again you donrCOt seem to understand WHY I reply this way to an
extreme privileged person who falsely complains how disadvantaged he
is because he is black.
herCOs calling NORMAL people out for eating meat, how delusional can
a person be?
Lots of people campaign against meat
eating, either entirely or in terms
of volume.
Yup unfortunately you donrCOt read before you start arguing. Keep
reading what I wrote, it helps. ( well not you, you first made up you
mind, but in general. )
I don't see you campaigning against PETA.
I also don't see the connection between this and blatant attacks
against him personally.
He alone has a carbon footprint of whole continent and is telling
us to stop eating meat to save the world!? Still I may not respond
to this kind of stupidity because that will make me a racist? Yeah
right!
No.
It's really easy to quote his views and explain why you think
they're batshit crazy. Pick them apart line by line, provide context
and explain why you believe he's wrong.
I did, try reading.
None of it requires calling him what you called him.
I know
It is *that* which will make you a racist, not disagreeing with him.
See the difference?
Calling a negro a negro makes one a racist? How about calling a negro
black? There is nothing wrong with the word negro, some people like
to make something out of it that it isnrCOt.
People riding the high horse and telling they donrCOt respond to
bigots racists or whatever are actually saying they have absolutely
NOTHING to say or debunk and therefore avoid speaking about the
actual content by disqualifying others.
Well, I'm not one of them. I have been very clear on the matter, and
I *am* explaining my position.
Yes you did, you are rCo as I said rCo over sensitive to a word that
causes a red mist to you.
I'm struggling to see what your argument is because you have just
insulted the person (ad hominem) rather than going to the point (ad
rem).
Try reading.
It's possible to accidentally use the wrong language, but the
right response is to back down and apologise. It's possible to
(accidentally) use racist language without being a racist...but to
insist on using it pretty much defines being a racist.
ItrCOs equally possible you are a little oversensitive to the word
negro, if so, there is no shame in admitting that you are.
If I am speaking Spanish (which I do), I have no problem with the
word as it simply means "black" and has no racial overtones that I
am aware of, at least in the way in which I employ it. (Of course, I
am not a native Spanish speaker, so if I am wrong I am happy to be corrected at which stage I would apologise).
If I am speaking English, I will not use the word. It has
significant racial overtones, and it's inappropriate.
I didnrCOt change the meaning of that word. What people like to make
out of it, is entirely up to each individual. It means nothing more
then someone from an African origin.
I have a simple "rule of thumb": I do not use a word to describe
someone that I have good reason to believe they will find offensive *unless* I am trying to offend them...and even then, I would choose
my word carefully and proportionately, and have to live with the consequences of insulting the person to that level.
There are few situations where you can go wrong with that principle
in my experience, and conversely going against that principle will
get you into trouble.
I have good reason to believe that black people will find that word offensive, so I will not use it. I don't think that makes me
oversensitive.
I think that makes me: _respectful_.
Good for you and by all means keep doing so, however donrCOt force
others to follow your own believes or insult them for not doing so.
That is NOT respectful at all.
If people choose to be offended for all kind of things, that is
entirely up to them.
Personally, I would suggest retracting your comments and
apologising, or I think people are entitled to draw the obvious
inference.
It's entirely up to you, however.
At least yourCOve got that part right!
I think I have a lot more than that right.
That's why I have killfiled
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
Please stop replying to him now. Please.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <rk6ade$frd$1@dont-email.me>,
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. Well-reasoned non-partisan educated expositions are a very
rare thing on the internet these days. Thanks Mark, everything
that you said makes perfect sense.
I didn't see any mention of the fact that the entire panel of judges
were ramainers, did I miss that?
While that was *asserted*, there are a few issues with raising
that...
Firstly, by convention judges are required to remain silent on
issues not relating to their judgements. They are supposed to be
kept separate from politics (separation of judiciary and
legislature), and it falls to people like the Justice Secretary and
Attorney General to speak up on their behalf when necessary. They
kept a respectful silence while the popular press made unfounded allegations...and the government (much to the annoyance of the
judiciary) took days to raise the obvious objections that they
should have immediately raised. This has allowed these allegations
to be treated as fact in some circles, but that doesn't make it so.
Secondly - and far more importantly - judgements are not based on
plucking theories out of the air. They are based on very careful
and scholarly argument, using existing law and precedent to build a
reasoned argument as to why one particular view should prevail.
These tend to get more robust as you go up the court hierarchy, and
they equally get more scrutiny by other judges as well as
barristers and lawyers across the board. Judges - particularly
senior judges - cannot afford to be seen as having made mistakes in
law (missing/ignoring evidence/precedent or flaws in reasoning) as
it will quickly be identified and challenged. You will notice that
the coverage focused on character assassination of the judges
rather than the substance of the judgement.
Two things to note:
The judgement - however uncomfortable for the government - was
sound. As the judgement noted, primary legislation could be
presented which would mean that a future repeat of the same
circumstances would survive challenge. That would require, of
course, the government to persuade parliament that this extra power
should be allowed, but with such a large majority that should be straightforward.
You will notice that the government has *not* attempted to change
the law.
So, I don't know why people keep raising the judgement and the
(alleged) partiality of the Supreme Court. Even if the allegations
were true, there is nothing in the judgement to suggest that
partiality affected the ruling.
Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop
it doing what it had been elected to do.
I have seen both sides using every legal (and in the case of the
government, not so legal) instrument to promote their cause.
Parliament is *not* elected to do any given thing. Ever.
Prime Ministers are not elected (nor any member of the cabinet) -
they are just those who command the confidence of the house.
Governments are not elected either. They are formed by the Prime
Minister, and don't even have to be elected (not least those in the
Lords).
Our system is one where we elect a representative (it's a
*Representative* Democracy, not a democracy) to represent us for a
time in parliament. We would like to think that they will always
represent our views, but they are not required to. Indeed, it's
recognised that they don't have to by the fact that built into
parliament (and officially recognised and funded) are "whips"
offices for both Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's
Opposition. These are *explicitly* there to "whip" individual MPs
to support (or reject) bills even when they would otherwise do the
opposite (or abstain).
You wouldn't know any of this from the coverage in the press. They
talk as though the MPs have breached some sort of contract, and
they absolutely haven't (on either side).
Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.
The role of Speaker is a very difficult one. On this, I have mixed
feelings. I do think he took an extreme position on the role
compared to predecessors, but his argument (that the Speaker has a
role to ensure both sides of a case are heard in face of a
government attempting to shut down opposition) was reasoned.
Overall, I am not surprised he's now suffering from a tattered
reputation.
He wasn't right...but he also was within his constitutional powers,
as evidenced by the fact that the government couldn't stop him.
I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though
that he was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe
is, he took
For me, he broke the rules potentially multiple times:
1. He went back to Downing Street after going home where there was known Covid infection, and that was against the rules.
If there is an infection at home, you don't go into work (and we
know a number of people fell ill with Covid in the fortnight after
that, but can't know how many if any were due to him).
2. He travelled a very long way to stay with his parents. I can appreciate that you want to have your family's support with children if you fall
ill, but I can't accept that someone like him couldn't arrange a more suitable support that didn't involve taking children and sick people
hundreds of miles.
3. The whole day trip to Barnard Castle is just plain bonkers.
his wife and child out for the day and sat by the river for
while. He then went home and stupidly told the press he was
testing his eyes, yes very silly. However, he did not have
contact with anyone outside of his household. Chances he spread
CV19 = 0.
Well, not on the first count, and we'll have to take his word for counts
2 (of course you travelled from London to Durham without stopping at
service stations...despite small children!) and
3...but given the cock
and bull story about eye testing, why would anyone take his word for anything?
Not many days later, largely the left, antifa, BLM had massive
marches, vandalised and tore down statues and generally kicked off.
"A mostly peaceful demonstration" with 27 (If I recall) police got
injured and objects like bicycles being thrown at police. CV19
spread risk = considerable. Arrests = ????.
Did the media kick off about the CV19 risk, did they hell, it was
fine.
Actually, the media *did* kick off about that. I think all of these
rallies are ridiculous at this time, even peaceful ones.
A few after that, while all the public toilets in London were
closed, a lad takes a pee to the side of a monument, no damage.
He was arrested and sent to prison.
It is very clear how fair the law isn't.
The law is never 100% fair - there are humans involved.
I don't have much faith in things claimed to be non-partisan,
nothing ever is.
No. And that's the point. The best way to deal with it is to try
to understand the multiple views and make your own mind up.
Right now, I can pick up (say) the Guardian and the Daily Express
and take a red marker to highlight bias - especially assertion
presented as fact) and end up with very red newspapers.
The problem I have is that if you *only* read the Guardian, or you
*only* read the Express...or you only sit in one particular Facebook
bubble, you only ever see one set of views...
This leads to two big issues of the day:
- Confirmation bias: when you are confronted with ideas that chime
with your "tribe", you accept it too easily as it's "obviously
true"...even when it's false.
- Belief perseverence: related to the above, but what happens when
you are then faced with views counter to yours, and find yourself
rejecting them automatically.
None of us can be informed if we are open to only one side of the
argument.
In article <rk7gcf$dnl$1@dont-email.me>,
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Two things to note:
The judgement - however uncomfortable for the government - was
sound. As the judgement noted, primary legislation could be
presented which would mean that a future repeat of the same
circumstances would survive challenge. That would require, of
course, the government to persuade parliament that this extra power
should be allowed, but with such a large majority that should be
straightforward.
You will notice that the government has *not* attempted to change
the law.
That is very true. There are a number of things they're not done that
were expected like dealing with the utterly corrupt Electoral
Commission who's conduct was quite appalling and biased. There are
plenty of others too.
I suspect some of this priorities, I think they have their hands full
don't you?
So, I don't know why people keep raising the judgement and the
(alleged) partiality of the Supreme Court. Even if the allegations
were true, there is nothing in the judgement to suggest that
partiality affected the ruling.
I'm sure that is very comforting to Remain, I doubt you would find
many Leavers who would agree with you. It is well known that the
majority of the high offices and certainly the HOL is a Remain hot
bed, it's undeniable.
Yet you expect me to believe that they decided as they did without
any thought of Brexit.
So I suppose by the same token you should be happy to come to a trade agreement with the EU that gave the ECJ the last say in all
disagreements. After all, they would judge without prejudice wouldn't
they?
Nor did I see much mention of a government surrounded by people
trying every single dirty trick in the book without limit to stop
it doing what it had been elected to do.
I have seen both sides using every legal (and in the case of the
government, not so legal) instrument to promote their cause.
Parliament is *not* elected to do any given thing. Ever.
You may be correct legally but I guarantee the electorate who voted
for Brexit don't see it that way.
Morally, those MPs were a bankrupt disgrace.
Prime Ministers are not elected (nor any member of the cabinet) -
they are just those who command the confidence of the house.
Governments are not elected either. They are formed by the Prime
Minister, and don't even have to be elected (not least those in the
Lords).
Our system is one where we elect a representative (it's a
*Representative* Democracy, not a democracy) to represent us for a
time in parliament. We would like to think that they will always
represent our views, but they are not required to. Indeed, it's
recognised that they don't have to by the fact that built into
parliament (and officially recognised and funded) are "whips"
offices for both Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's
Opposition. These are *explicitly* there to "whip" individual MPs
to support (or reject) bills even when they would otherwise do the
opposite (or abstain).
This is constitutional stuff of which you do know more more than I, I
admit. However, a lying shit, is a lying shit and many of that
generation of MPs were .....
They will never be forgotten or forgiven no matter how much they are
legally in the clear for their treachery.
You wouldn't know any of this from the coverage in the press. They
talk as though the MPs have breached some sort of contract, and
they absolutely haven't (on either side).
I wonder if with your constitutional knowledge if you would say the
same had you been a Leaver.
Those tricks included, making legislation over the top of the
government thanks to the antics of a very partisan speaker.
The role of Speaker is a very difficult one. On this, I have mixed
feelings. I do think he took an extreme position on the role
compared to predecessors, but his argument (that the Speaker has a
role to ensure both sides of a case are heard in face of a
government attempting to shut down opposition) was reasoned.
Overall, I am not surprised he's now suffering from a tattered
reputation.
He could not control his bias. He assessed the facts and could resist
abusing his office in a pre planned attempt to stop Brexit. Remember
he was caught plotting.
The Electoral commission and the speaker both allowed their office to
be used for a political ends.
The Supreme Court with grinning spider
woman, was entirely proper? Hmmm.
He wasn't right...but he also was within his constitutional powers,
as evidenced by the fact that the government couldn't stop him.
Undeniable, but everyone on both sides knew he shouldn't be doing
what he did.
I also notice that Dominic Cummings is still well hated here, I
suppose that shouldn't surprise me. I would remind you though
that he was naive, he did break the rules. The story I believe
is, he took
For me, he broke the rules potentially multiple times:
1. He went back to Downing Street after going home where there was known
Covid infection, and that was against the rules.
He did. He did it because there was an attempt to take out Brexit by
the notorious civil service behind the back of a seriously ill prime
minister fighting for his life. The lowest of the low. A rather
extreme circumstance of national consequence where he was forced by
someone else who couldn't keep his personal politics away from the
execution of his civil service duties.
If there is an infection at home, you don't go into work (and we
know a number of people fell ill with Covid in the fortnight after
that, but can't know how many if any were due to him).
Right so he should have let the anti-Brexit plot succeed. Okay I see
your drift. You'll understand if I don't agree. Stopping a plot and
treachery to kill Brexit not as important as covid rule. Got that.
2. He travelled a very long way to stay with his parents. I can appreciate >> that you want to have your family's support with children if you fall
ill, but I can't accept that someone like him couldn't arrange a more
suitable support that didn't involve taking children and sick people
hundreds of miles.
Again, I do accept it, I would have done the same and gone to my
family.
3. The whole day trip to Barnard Castle is just plain bonkers.
Agreed but harmless.
Well, not on the first count, and we'll have to take his word for counts
2 (of course you travelled from London to Durham without stopping at
service stations...despite small children!) and
Credit card payment at the pumps, maybe take a pee carefully avoiding
others.
3...but given the cock
and bull story about eye testing, why would anyone take his word for
anything?
Yup, silly story.
I don't have much faith in things claimed to be non-partisan,
nothing ever is.
No. And that's the point. The best way to deal with it is to try
to understand the multiple views and make your own mind up.
I did.
Right now, I can pick up (say) the Guardian and the Daily Express
and take a red marker to highlight bias - especially assertion
presented as fact) and end up with very red newspapers.
You can probably guess on both sides what is doubtful I agree.
I don't buy any papers, haven't for decades.
The problem I have is that if you *only* read the Guardian, or you
*only* read the Express...or you only sit in one particular Facebook
bubble, you only ever see one set of views...
Just for clarity, not on FB either.
This leads to two big issues of the day:
- Confirmation bias: when you are confronted with ideas that chime
with your "tribe", you accept it too easily as it's "obviously
true"...even when it's false.
Agreed and people buy papers to re-enforce their existing views,
that's how papers sell.
All people do this on both sides.
- Belief perseverence: related to the above, but what happens when
you are then faced with views counter to yours, and find yourself
rejecting them automatically.
Yes, I can agree to that, again we all do that.
None of us can be informed if we are open to only one side of the
argument.
I don't dispute your legal or constitutions position. But I still say
those MPs cynically promised to deliver Brexit and then when elected,
they did there level best via very dirty tactics to wreck it. They
may well have the law on their but if there is any universe justice,
In article <hsohp3F8t5dU1@mid.individual.net>,
keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
Not forgetting that the main brexiteers admitted after the
referendum that they had been lying through their teeth.
Disgusting really.
Have you got a straight face?
On 9/20/2020 7:43 PM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsohp3F8t5dU1@mid.individual.net>,
keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
Not forgetting that the main brexiteers admitted after the
referendum that they had been lying through their teeth.
Disgusting really.
Have you got a straight face?
Certainly it isn't twisted like yours. How about the 350 million pounds
a week being paid to the EU or the 80 million Turks poised to invade
Britain when Turkey joins the EU (BTW the population of turkey is significantly less than that). Of course Boris has form as a liar having been sacked several times for it.
In article <hsrj3pFsbn0U1@mid.individual.net>,
keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
On 9/20/2020 7:43 PM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <hsohp3F8t5dU1@mid.individual.net>,
keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
Not forgetting that the main brexiteers admitted after the
referendum that they had been lying through their teeth.
Disgusting really.
Have you got a straight face?
Certainly it isn't twisted like yours. How about the 350 million pounds
a week being paid to the EU or the 80 million Turks poised to invade
Britain when Turkey joins the EU (BTW the population of turkey is
significantly less than that). Of course Boris has form as a liar having
been sacked several times for it.
Oh god we're back to the bus again.
Just to be clear it was an underestimate of the gross figure.
Just to clear, it was a straight up lie, just like the euro-bananas.
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
I suspect that based on your response, I am wasting my time in
writing this, but I'll give it one more go.
I think you are right because you have made your mind up before your
first reply.
Absolutely not.
It is not possible to raise a racial epithet - particularly one
that is particularly charged - in response to an open debate and
then saying there is no racial meaning...which is what you've
done.
That is your opinion sir and I do not
agree.
On which bit do you not agree?
On the whole bit you claimrCa
To rebut my claim, you have to provide a counter argument. Rejecting it neither rebuts nor refutes it.
If you want to do that, you have to explain *how* you can use a racial epithet without it being racially motivated. I really can't see how you
can do that as I think it's a logical impossibility, but I am open to
seeing an argument made.
BTW it was Louise...
Incidentally, the "Louise" thing is just
juvenile. Seriously, cut it out.
Well this Louise thing isnrCOt quite the point here but if it makes you
feel better I will call him Ham, that Louise is something I found both
funny and appropriate for that drama queen.
Name calling adds nothing other than making you seem childish.
...who introduced the rCL racialrCY thing, not me, that is exactly the >>>> reason I replied the way I did.
How did he?
He claimed to be disadvantaged because he is black, that is how.
I don't think he did.
I think he has been clear that much of his
campaign is about others who are *not* as privileged as he is, which is
most black people given his wealth and position.
I seem to remember a number of occasions (and I'm sure there are
more) from his very start in F1 when race was raised against him not
vice versa.
Besides your memory and imagination, can you show anything about that?
Testing 2008:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7225523.stm
Spanish GP 2008:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spanish-grand-prix-lewis-hamilton-393292
Spanish GP 2009:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180451/Lewis-Hamilton-taunted-racist-fans-SECOND-time-Spanish-Grand-Prix.html
There are many reports. Not my imagination. I'm sure there are more.
About an rCLopen debaterCY, there is nothing open about to try shutting >>>> up people by labeling them as racists and consider the matter
closed.
Who is trying to close down an open debate?
You and everyone else who tries to disqualify people as racists.
I'm not trying to close it down. How can I close it down by engaging
and encouraging responses? That's the precise opposite.
I am also not trying to disqualify anyone as racist. I am trying to get
any racist language out of the discussion as there is no purpose to
raising racist language other than to promote that view, which has no
place here.
I was trying to remove the racist language, not remove the debate. I
won't apologise for that.
Have a think about what kind of person *would* object to racist language being removed.
I have suggested that you clarify your use of what I (strongly)
believe to be racially-motivated language and consider apologising
for it.
At no point did I try to close down the debate.
I will give you the benefit of doubt here.
There is no doubt to give the benefit of. My meaning was very clear
and, unless you can point to me trying to close down the debate (Hint:
you can't because I didn't), that is certain.
I *do* now consider that (given this response) you are confirming
that you are racist.
You already did that BEFORE you replied but feel free, no matter how
absurd and wrong you are.
All you have to do is explain why what you said was not racially
motivated.
That doesn't stop the debate. On the contrary, if I were you I'd
think about that and continue the debate in order to clarify your
position. Or, as I said in my last post, people will be entitled to
draw their own conclusions. I know that I have.
I know you have, that is what I said in the first part of this posting.
Only after ample opportunity for you to explain. You can still engage
with the actual question and demonstrate that it's not the case.
Similarly, if people cannot call out such a situation without
being accused of labelling "everything" as racist, then nothing is
racist. That's simply untenable.
Again that is your opinion,
Yes. That's why I wrote it.
we probably have VERY different opinions about what is racism and
what is not but you will have a very hard time to find anything at
all in my entire life where I treated someone different because of
the color of a skin.
Would you use the same words to (say) Kimi Raikkonen as the ones
that have triggered this debate?
If not, you have treated Lewis Hamilton differently because of the
colour of his skin, have you not?
If I do not call Kimi a negro I must be a racist is that what you are
saying?
I am saying that the only reason you can use those words is to pick out
Lewis as a black personrCa
which adds nothing to the debate...so it's
difficult to demonstrate that its use is motivated by anything but
racism. If his political views are (to use your word) "absurd", address
the absurdity with a cogent argument.
racially charged language - it looks as though you have no response to
the political argument he has, and simply want to racially abuse him
instead.
And your continued use of that word - despite the context given - shows
you have absolutely no intention of being respectful.
The things Louise said are so utterly absurd I have no words for
it.
And yet you have put a *lot* of words out, but they are ad hominem
(and, I would say racist) attacks rather than addressing what you
view to be the absurdity of his argument.
What do you object to in his words?
Bloody hell, why donrCOt you read my post before start arguing, I made it
perfectly clear.
No you didn't.
Or I wouldn't be asking. Here's an idea: why don't you
restate your position on Lewis Hamilton's views, but do it without
mentioning his skin colour.
If you explain that, there can be a reasonable debate which might
come to a reasonable outcome.
Calling him (offensive) names creates great heat and no light.
That is ALL you see ? Try reading again.
I didn't say that's all that I see. You just put that word into my
mouth. I *do* see you calling him offensive names, though.
He is so incredibly privileged his entire life but doesnrCOt have the
faintest idea about it nor what is going on in the real
world outside his multi million dollar bubble.
He certainly hasn't been privileged his *entire* life, but certainly
he has become very privileged.
Really, serious? How many race karts did YOU own before you reached
the age of 10?
I didn't kart, so what does that prove?
My understanding is that his
Dad put in a lot of time and effort to pay for his karting, including re-mortgaging his house. I don't think he was the most underprivileged
kid, but certainly not rich and privileged.
Much as I'm not a fan of people famous for one area using their
platform unduly, he has a right to express his political opinion on
this and other things. If he gets it wrong, address his opinion not
his skin colour or his perceived race.
I DID, but you are obviously unable to read it.
You vaguely addressed his position (without much detail), but you also
threw in racial epithets. That completely undermines your position.
He is calling people ignorant for saying very obvious things,
claiming and whining how disadvantaged he is because of his skin
color as if he is rescued from a cotton field,
Again, the attachment to slave-related tropes.
And again you donrCOt seem to understand WHY I reply this way to an
extreme privileged person who falsely complains how disadvantaged he
is because he is black.
No, I don't.
herCOs calling NORMAL people out for eating meat, how delusional can
a person be?
Lots of people campaign against meat
eating, either entirely or in terms
of volume.
Yup unfortunately you donrCOt read before you start arguing. Keep
reading what I wrote, it helps. ( well not you, you first made up you
mind, but in general. )
I have read it all.
I don't see you campaigning against PETA.
I also don't see the connection between this and blatant attacks
against him personally.
He alone has a carbon footprint of whole continent and is telling
us to stop eating meat to save the world!? Still I may not respond
to this kind of stupidity because that will make me a racist? Yeah
right!
No.
It's really easy to quote his views and explain why you think
they're batshit crazy. Pick them apart line by line, provide context
and explain why you believe he's wrong.
I did, try reading.
I have.
None of it requires calling him what you called him.
I know
So why do it?
It is *that* which will make you a racist, not disagreeing with him.
See the difference?
Calling a negro a negro makes one a racist? How about calling a negro
black? There is nothing wrong with the word negro, some people like
to make something out of it that it isnrCOt.
Let me spell it out again (I already have):
Firstly, it is generally accepted that it's offensive in English to name people by a characteristic, even though it has happened in the past.
For example, to call someone "a disabled" or "a deaf" is not acceptable, whereas "a deaf person" or "a person with disabilities" is acceptable as
it clearly dignifies them as being a person first who happens to have a characteristic. Calling someone "a black" or "a n****" is offensive for
the same reason.
Secondly - and you know this - various "n" words have been used
traditionally as abuse, and are generally considered as unacceptable in English. Using them can only cause offence*.
* There is some fringe use of the terms by black people which is
considered by some to be acceptable, but I know that many (of all
colours) are uncomfortable with a word only being offensive when used
by specific people.
So, I rebut the fact that there is nothing wrong with that word. Used
in a different context (e.g. as a colour in Spanish) is absolutely acceptable, freed as it is of the racist overtones it carries in
English.
Using it in English can (I would strongly argue) only be throughMy post is not about that one word, although it is the only word you are
ignorance or an intentional aim to offend.
People riding the high horse and telling they donrCOt respond to
bigots racists or whatever are actually saying they have absolutely
NOTHING to say or debunk and therefore avoid speaking about the
actual content by disqualifying others.
Well, I'm not one of them. I have been very clear on the matter, and
I *am* explaining my position.
Yes you did, you are rCo as I said rCo over sensitive to a word that
causes a red mist to you.
It doesn't cause a red mist. I am very calm about it. As I explain
below, it is an offensive term which should be generally avoided in
English.
I'm struggling to see what your argument is because you have just
insulted the person (ad hominem) rather than going to the point (ad
rem).
Try reading.
I have. This is tedious.
It's possible to accidentally use the wrong language, but the
right response is to back down and apologise. It's possible to
(accidentally) use racist language without being a racist...but to
insist on using it pretty much defines being a racist.
ItrCOs equally possible you are a little oversensitive to the word
negro, if so, there is no shame in admitting that you are.
If I am speaking Spanish (which I do), I have no problem with the
word as it simply means "black" and has no racial overtones that I
am aware of, at least in the way in which I employ it. (Of course, I
am not a native Spanish speaker, so if I am wrong I am happy to be
corrected at which stage I would apologise).
If I am speaking English, I will not use the word. It has
significant racial overtones, and it's inappropriate.
I didnrCOt change the meaning of that word. What people like to make
out of it, is entirely up to each individual. It means nothing more
then someone from an African origin.
You do not live in a bubble. The word has become historically linked
with oppression of black people, so society (by and large) accepts that
it is no longer appropriate. By choosing to stick to archaic usages
that are now linked with racism is not a neutral position.
Do you not see that?
I have a simple "rule of thumb": I do not use a word to describe
someone that I have good reason to believe they will find offensive
*unless* I am trying to offend them...and even then, I would choose
my word carefully and proportionately, and have to live with the
consequences of insulting the person to that level.
There are few situations where you can go wrong with that principle
in my experience, and conversely going against that principle will
get you into trouble.
I have good reason to believe that black people will find that word
offensive, so I will not use it. I don't think that makes me
oversensitive.
I think that makes me: _respectful_.
Good for you and by all means keep doing so, however donrCOt force
others to follow your own believes or insult them for not doing so.
That is NOT respectful at all.
I am not forcing anyone to do anything - please read back and you'll see
that - I am simply highlighting to you that your use of these words will
be seen as racist and disrespectful and, as a result, you will be
assumed to be racist.
You are free to choose to continue to use those words. Others will be
free to assume you are racist.
If people choose to be offended for all kind of things, that is
entirely up to them.
Yes. And they are free to make inferences from your (or my) use of
language.
Personally, I would suggest retracting your comments and
apologising, or I think people are entitled to draw the obvious
inference.
It's entirely up to you, however.
At least yourCOve got that part right!
I think I have a lot more than that right.
I'm sure the court of public opinion is pretty clear on where you stand
now.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 255:47:50 |
| Calls: | 161 |
| Files: | 755 |
| Messages: | 91,127 |