I see that Flightpath didn't retract the racially derogatory term he used on the previous thread.
Not surprising, you often find that people who throw accusations of racism around are doing it to hide their own prejudices.
Not surprising because it wasn't a racially derogatory comment. As millions of people of colour and those arbiters of all things racist, the NAACP, would tell you.
You already knew that, but it didn't prevent you doing what you claim to despise others for.
Ask Alan Hansen if its regarded as a racially derogatory term.
As Flightpath repeatedly throws accusations of racism around he should be judged by his own standards.
And on that he has failed.
I was very disappointed that no one pointed out what has been pointed out here when rhe race baiting mob went for Hansen.
Things like the disgraceful treatment of Hansen have alienated vast numbers of ordinary people who know a witch hunt when they see one.
The thing to do is to let the witch hunters become ridiculous in their extremism and then measure them up to their own demanded standards, which destroys them.
Flightpath being a case in point and Avery before him.
Antifrank can be very reasonable, sometimes too much so; and too easy to tease as a result.
A couple of weeks ago, I asked how he would respond if a Kipper said that he found it offensive being called a Kipper. He took the question seriously but the correct answer was "Get a life, you moron."
We've now managed to provoke a less reasonable side - so he is human after all.
The Kippers need to remember that he may think you are lowlife of the worst order but he won't offend you by calling you a Kipper.
'Tory' is in its origin a term of derision. Its now become shorthand. The epithet 'PB Tory' in its inception even more so since it implies as I understand it some blind adherence to a false argument. This sort of accusation is lets face it not uncommon when it comes to political argument.
What do people really mean when they say neocon?
You are right. I think neocon started the other way around, something they called themselves in a positive light as new conservatives with the implication of being enlightened by past lessons. It has since been used by those who oppose their ideas to link it with the worst manifestations/consequences of implementing their policies (no matter how faulty the implementation).
A neocon was the name originally given to democrats who disagreed with the Democrat foreign policy. They moved from the left to a position on the right where they demanded the promotion of US national interests abroad. In other respects, such as social matters, I do not think they are or were 'right wing'. Its seems to be regularly misused now as a term for the rabid right wing.
Antifrank can be very reasonable, sometimes too much so; and too easy to tease as a result.
A couple of weeks ago, I asked how he would respond if a Kipper said that he found it offensive being called a Kipper. He took the question seriously but the correct answer was "Get a life, you moron."
We've now managed to provoke a less reasonable side - so he is human after all.
The Kippers need to remember that he may think you are lowlife of the worst order but he won't offend you by calling you a Kipper.
'Tory' is in its origin a term of derision. Its now become shorthand. The epithet 'PB Tory' in its inception even more so since it implies as I understand it some blind adherence to a false argument. This sort of accusation is lets face it not uncommon when it comes to political argument.
What do people really mean when they say neocon?
You are right. I think neocon started the other way around, something they called themselves in a positive light as new conservatives with the implication of being enlightened by past lessons. It has since been used by those who oppose their ideas to link it with the worst manifestations/consequences of implementing their policies (no matter how faulty the implementation).
A neocon was the name originally given to democrats who disagreed with the Democrat foreign policy. They moved from the left to a position on the right where they demanded the promotion of US national interests abroad. In other respects, such as social matters, I do not think they are or were 'right wing'. Its seems to be regularly misused now as a term for the rabid right wing.
It is not US national interests that neo cons promote.
I see that Flightpath didn't retract the racially derogatory term he used on the previous thread.
Not surprising, you often find that people who throw accusations of racism around are doing it to hide their own prejudices.
Not surprising because it wasn't a racially derogatory comment. As millions of people of colour and those arbiters of all things racist, the NAACP, would tell you.
You already knew that, but it didn't prevent you doing what you claim to despise others for.
Ask Alan Hansen if its regarded as a racially derogatory term.
As Flightpath repeatedly throws accusations of racism around he should be judged by his own standards.
And on that he has failed.
It was not racially derogatory. Any accusation with some appendage like what Clarkson is alleged to have used eg you irish wotsit, or you coloured wotsit or you black wotsit is prejudicial and derogatory. But referring to UKIPs policy as removing rights from coloured people is no more derogatory that saying they want to remove rights from ethnic people or black people. its the policy itself which is derogatory. How should we describe its effects? Farage indeed claimed to be 'colour' blind. I am pointing out that people with coloured skin will have their rights taken away by Farage.
All you can do is nit pick over terms rather than denounce Farage for his clear and publicly uttered remarks.
I see you still haven't the manners to admit your error.
As to Farage, what has his comments to do with me ? Discuss him with UKIP members if you want.
I'm more interested in pointing out the government inaction towards the racist gangrape of two hundred thousand children (antifrank's calculation) and the toleration of the public services of it.
That you think Farage's views are of more concern says a lot about you.
There is no error and there is no inaction by the government. Quoting someone else's calculation does not make it true nor indeed does if there was only 1 would it make it any less acceptable. The fact you conflate the issue of Farage wanting to repeal the race relations act with the Rotherham scandal (and the notion that talking about one minimizes the other) tells us about you.
The bit on the media is spot on. Ed really should just go for Murdoch's jugular and pledge to cap the cost of sky. It'd be wildly popular amongst normal people. The top rated comment on this thread, linked to on my facebook feed, sums up the popular mood out there;
"I cancelled Sky last July after 25 years of unbroken loyalty - I threatened I'd leave if they didn't offer me a much better deal (like many people get) and, lo and behold, they said they could knock £10 off. Not much of a saving as I was already paying £94 a month and they'd sent me a letter saying they were going to increase it by another £5 or so"
C'mon Ed. Figure out a vaguely workable policy & send this out by text on May 6th;
"The success of the premier league shouldn't mean that loyal local supporters are priced out of watching their team. Vote labour tomorrow and, from next season it will cost no more than £20 a month to watch live PL football on TV."
Labour values, init.
Blimey ...... how can one possibly pay £99 per month to Sky for their services? I pay them just £9 per month for their unlimited broadband service (having originally been with O2 before they sold out to Sky). That'll do me nicely.
They'll do it cheaper, I just got them to drop mine to £17 something a month incl line rental. I think that's about a fiver for unlimited broadband.
This must be the first post from Cabo Verde. What we used to call the Cape Verde Islands is now one of those African basket cases that is beginning to improve. From being a one- party semi-marxist state it voted to become a multi-party state in 1990 and recently embarked on a privatisation programme. The result has been the development of financial services and especially tourism. It now calls itself The African Caribbean. And the big news is that the humpback whales have arrived to breed.
Antifrank can be very reasonable, sometimes too much so; and too easy to tease as a result.
A couple of weeks ago, I asked how he would respond if a Kipper said that he found it offensive being called a Kipper. He took the question seriously but the correct answer was "Get a life, you moron."
We've now managed to provoke a less reasonable side - so he is human after all.
The Kippers need to remember that he may think you are lowlife of the worst order but he won't offend you by calling you a Kipper.
'Tory' is in its origin a term of derision. Its now become shorthand. The epithet 'PB Tory' in its inception even more so since it implies as I understand it some blind adherence to a false argument. This sort of accusation is lets face it not uncommon when it comes to political argument.
What do people really mean when they say neocon?
You are right. I think neocon started the other way around, something they called themselves in a positive light as new conservatives with the implication of being enlightened by past lessons. It has since been used by those who oppose their ideas to link it with the worst manifestations/consequences of implementing their policies (no matter how faulty the implementation).
A neocon was the name originally given to democrats who disagreed with the Democrat foreign policy. They moved from the left to a position on the right where they demanded the promotion of US national interests abroad. In other respects, such as social matters, I do not think they are or were 'right wing'. Its seems to be regularly misused now as a term for the rabid right wing.
Hats off to the surgeon who worked out which malignant bits of Nigel Farage had to be removed. That must have been a complex operation.
You are nearly as obsessed about Farage and Kippers as Flightpath is. I notice you didn't answer the post on the previous thread about whether you would accept a democratically elected UKIP government and if not, on what basis would you put your views as being superior to the electorate.
The electorate are capable of getting things wrong. My conscience is not dictated to by democratic votes.
Fortunately, the British public are far too sensible to elect a highly reactionary xenophobic rabble, so your hypothetical doesn't arise.
Nigel Farage would be delighted that I commented on his planted news story this morning. Attention whores always are.
How's the blog? ( just for yourself to keep betting notes on, that you link to on here and announce whenever you update)
Antifrank's blog has had some great posts particularly in relation to Scotland. I'll owe him a pint if it all comes off.
Maybe so, but strange that someone who writes something just for his own reference to keep a record of his betting thoughts and look back on after to see where he erred and succeeded feels the need to publish it, and announce when it is updated with links... Why would you if it's just for yourself?
Then am alls other people who write books that are serialised attention seeking whores
Prob a wet dream
I dunno, I'm a fan of the blog though and find it a useful resource. Others may disagree
Hats off to the surgeon who worked out which malignant bits of Nigel Farage had to be removed. That must have been a complex operation.
You are nearly as obsessed about Farage and Kippers as Flightpath is. I notice you didn't answer the post on the previous thread about whether you would accept a democratically elected UKIP government and if not, on what basis would you put your views as being superior to the electorate.
The electorate are capable of getting things wrong. My conscience is not dictated to by democratic votes.
Fortunately, the British public are far too sensible to elect a highly reactionary xenophobic rabble, so your hypothetical doesn't arise.
Nigel Farage would be delighted that I commented on his planted news story this morning. Attention whores always are.
How's the blog? ( just for yourself to keep betting notes on, that you link to on here and announce whenever you update)
Antifrank's blog has had some great posts particularly in relation to Scotland. I'll owe him a pint if it all comes off.
Maybe so, but strange that someone who writes something just for his own reference to keep a record of his betting thoughts and look back on after to see where he erred and succeeded feels the need to publish it, and announce when it is updated with links... Why would you if it's just for yourself?
Then am alls other people who write books that are serialised attention seeking whores
Prob a wet dream
I dunno, I'm a fan of the blog though and find it a useful resource. Others may disagree
Hats off to the surgeon who worked out which malignant bits of Nigel Farage had to be removed. That must have been a complex operation.
You are nearly as obsessed about Farage and Kippers as Flightpath is. I notice you didn't answer the post on the previous thread about whether you would accept a democratically elected UKIP government and if not, on what basis would you put your views as being superior to the electorate.
The electorate are capable of getting things wrong. My conscience is not dictated to by democratic votes.
Fortunately, the British public are far too sensible to elect a highly reactionary xenophobic rabble, so your hypothetical doesn't arise.
Nigel Farage would be delighted that I commented on his planted news story this morning. Attention whores always are.
How's the blog? ( just for yourself to keep betting notes on, that you link to on here and announce whenever you update)
Antifrank's blog has had some great posts particularly in relation to Scotland. I'll owe him a pint if it all comes off.
Maybe so, but strange that someone who writes something just for his own reference to keep a record of his betting thoughts and look back on after to see where he erred and succeeded feels the need to publish it, and announce when it is updated with links... Why would you if it's just for yourself?
Then am alls other people who write books that are serialised attention seeking whores
Prob a wet dream
I dunno, I'm a fan of the blog though and find it a useful resource. Others may disagree
Hats off to the surgeon who worked out which malignant bits of Nigel Farage had to be removed. That must have been a complex operation.
You are nearly as obsessed about Farage and Kippers as Flightpath is. I notice you didn't answer the post on the previous thread about whether you would accept a democratically elected UKIP government and if not, on what basis would you put your views as being superior to the electorate.
The electorate are capable of getting things wrong. My conscience is not dictated to by democratic votes.
Fortunately, the British public are far too sensible to elect a highly reactionary xenophobic rabble, so your hypothetical doesn't arise.
Nigel Farage would be delighted that I commented on his planted news story this morning. Attention whores always are.
How's the blog? ( just for yourself to keep betting notes on, that you link to on here and announce whenever you update)
Antifrank's blog has had some great posts particularly in relation to Scotland. I'll owe him a pint if it all comes off.
Maybe so, but strange that someone who writes something just for his own reference to keep a record of his betting thoughts and look back on after to see where he erred and succeeded feels the need to publish it, and announce when it is updated with links... Why would you if it's just for yourself?
Then am alls other people who write books that are serialised attention seeking whores
Prob a wet dream
I dunno, I'm a fan of the blog though and find it a useful resource. Others may disagree
Comments
Flightpath being a case in point and Avery before him.
Anthony Wells would probably be the best person to ask.
Its seems to be regularly misused now as a term for the rabid right wing.
Betting PostBacked Massa at 3.1 for a podium with Betfair. Reasoning and other cunning thoughts here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/australia-pre-race.html
The fact you conflate the issue of Farage wanting to repeal the race relations act with the Rotherham scandal (and the notion that talking about one minimizes the other) tells us about you.