|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 23, 2015 19:19:41 GMT
Not having read the entire thread I would like to make a couple of observations. I believe that Nigel has set the agenda politically in this country and has been scrutinised more than any other leader.( evidence for this at the minimum is the existence of this thread). He is charismatc and I believe speaks his mind, answers questions straightforwardly more than most/any other politician.Easy really because he sincerely believes in what he says , without having to defer to spindoctors. He has done remarkably well to lead a new party to third place in terms of votes gained in the last election. BUT ,I am more concerned about policies, and I wonder if Douglas Carswell should be given a more prominent role in carrying the debate forward. Nigel has become the target for those who don't want real change, or those, in my opinion, who can't seem to think outside the box. Turning to policies..1 the argument for a referendum has been won, even Andy Burnham now thinks it is necessary. Actually leaving the EU has got support from some members of the Tory and Labour party, so it is not all about Nigel. 2..I can't seriously imagine that any politician is going to say 'we don't need any control of our borders'. . so where is the argument against this? 3 Personally I am against the HS2 rail project, as is UKIP, so that is a clear difference to other parties. The railways need improvement but I think one and a half hours, Stoke to London, is fast enough. In any case our city is by-passed for Crewe so no local advantage. I believe that the service would only be used by businesses , the costs passed onto the public... actually widening the gap between rich and poor. 4 The Foreign Aid budget at least needs to be looked at. Is it £9b? Some of it does go to corrupt and unnecessary projects. We still are a relatively rich country and should help others. The problem is that we are also in debt and our public services are stretched and collapsing. If your son was denied a cancer treatment on the grounds of cost, and yet the Govt deems it okay to give money away, which reciprocally benefits rich businesses in this country, would you feel the same about foreign aid? Not an easy one, I know, I don't have the answer but it is right to scrutinise what we do. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 23, 2015 21:25:04 GMT
Bring it up all you like but to put it in full context wasn't I reprimanded by Admin wishing to curry favour with the people she had called rednecks shortly before and the very same people who tried to claim it was racist are those who will come up with a mountain of excuses as to why Nigel's comments on romanians weren't racist. Maybe, maybe not. Just seems a little ironic where you are advising someone else about posting racist messages, when you have been warned yourself. Those in glass houses and all that. A warning I didn't accept, not sure why you try to misrepresent what I said mind as there is no advice simply stating a fact that regular posting of homophobic and racist comments led to the bans for he who doesn't take himself seriously so the ironic thing seems to be you not understanding what I typed never mind another UKIP supporter who ignores Niges and his parties many lapses trying to shout racist, those supporting glass parties and all that.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 23, 2015 21:50:00 GMT
Maybe, maybe not. Just seems a little ironic where you are advising someone else about posting racist messages, when you have been warned yourself. Those in glass houses and all that. A warning I didn't accept, not sure why you try to misrepresent what I said mind as there is no advice simply stating a fact that regular posting of homophobic and racist comments led to the bans for he who doesn't take himself seriously so the ironic thing seems to be you not understanding what I typed never mind another UKIP supporter who ignores Niges and his parties many lapses trying to shout racist, those supporting glass parties and all that. Well, as long as you didn't accept it, it obviously didn't happen. It is true I had some difficulty understanding what you wrote, but I put that down to a lack of commas.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 21:54:39 GMT
A warning I didn't accept, not sure why you try to misrepresent what I said mind as there is no advice simply stating a fact that regular posting of homophobic and racist comments led to the bans for he who doesn't take himself seriously so the ironic thing seems to be you not understanding what I typed never mind another UKIP supporter who ignores Niges and his parties many lapses trying to shout racist, those supporting glass parties and all that. Well, as long as you didn't accept it, it obviously didn't happen. It is true I had some difficulty understanding what you wrote, but I put that down to a lack of commas. No ...his support for the Pakistani's up in Rochdale was a revelation too .... He likes to insult straight people , but queers is a no go area for him ... 'Forest Mumf ' buggering off....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 22:01:03 GMT
Oh I think he does in the respect that Rangers don't wave the Irish tricolour and openly support terrorist movements such as the IRA ....neither do their players refuse to support the wearing of poppies in November as certain Celtic players have previously done .....it's all about opinions though ..... Why do you feel the need to apologise for Harry's pish? What's the problem in Celtic fans and the tricolour? It's a vital part of the honourable history of the club. A club founded in charity to help the poor out of poverty in Glasgow's East End. Of course there are some arses in the support who give it large on the IRA. And arse is a good word to describe these people. But that isn't the club. The same applies to Rangers; they have supporters (arses) who openly support terrorist movements but the club doesn't. In this regard the clubs are the same. And the poppy stuff - tell me a Celtic player who has refused to wear a poppy. There isn't one. The fact that a number of their supporters don't like it is fair enough. Again though, nothing to do with the club. I've no idea who Harry is and whether the pish he contributes, from time to time, on this forum is what he thinks or is just stuff he does for effect. I suspect it is largely the former. It's ugly. I don't feel the need to apologise for any one or anything ....I certainly don't need to justify my self or my opinions to you or anyone else ....it's a free board isn't it with freedom of expression ?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 24, 2015 1:05:18 GMT
Why do you feel the need to apologise for Harry's pish? What's the problem in Celtic fans and the tricolour? It's a vital part of the honourable history of the club. A club founded in charity to help the poor out of poverty in Glasgow's East End. Of course there are some arses in the support who give it large on the IRA. And arse is a good word to describe these people. But that isn't the club. The same applies to Rangers; they have supporters (arses) who openly support terrorist movements but the club doesn't. In this regard the clubs are the same. And the poppy stuff - tell me a Celtic player who has refused to wear a poppy. There isn't one. The fact that a number of their supporters don't like it is fair enough. Again though, nothing to do with the club. I've no idea who Harry is and whether the pish he contributes, from time to time, on this forum is what he thinks or is just stuff he does for effect. I suspect it is largely the former. It's ugly. I don't feel the need to apologise for any one or anything ....I certainly don't need to justify my self or my opinions to you or anyone else ....it's a free board isn't it with freedom of expression ? Well get you. Bad day? This is a Harry type response. Play the man not the ball sort of thing. You are right - this is a message board and you write what you want and you're not obliged to justify what you say. Who's saying otherwise? But when you write something, particularly like the following which is factually inaccurate and, IMO, unbalanced (for the reasons explained above) you can expect it to be challenged. That's what makes message boards interesting. Well, most of the time. Oh I think he does in the respect that Rangers don't wave the Irish tricolour and openly support terrorist movements such as the IRA ....neither do their players refuse to support the wearing of poppies in November as certain Celtic players have previously done .....it's all about opinions though .....
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 24, 2015 1:50:29 GMT
Why do you feel the need to apologise for Harry's pish? What's the problem in Celtic fans and the tricolour? It's a vital part of the honourable history of the club. A club founded in charity to help the poor out of poverty in Glasgow's East End. Of course there are some arses in the support who give it large on the IRA. And arse is a good word to describe these people. But that isn't the club. The same applies to Rangers; they have supporters (arses) who openly support terrorist movements but the club doesn't. In this regard the clubs are the same. And the poppy stuff - tell me a Celtic player who has refused to wear a poppy. There isn't one. The fact that a number of their supporters don't like it is fair enough. Again though, nothing to do with the club. I've no idea who Harry is and whether the pish he contributes, from time to time, on this forum is what he thinks or is just stuff he does for effect. I suspect it is largely the former. It's ugly. I don't feel the need to apologise for any one or anything ....I certainly don't need to justify my self or my opinions to you or anyone else ....it's a free board isn't it with freedom of expression ? You know what he's like mate
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 23:18:29 GMT
I don't feel the need to apologise for any one or anything ....I certainly don't need to justify my self or my opinions to you or anyone else ....it's a free board isn't it with freedom of expression ? You know what he's like mate I think I will stick to the cricket thread in future ......
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 25, 2015 11:12:12 GMT
Brian was a much better manager, I wonder how he would fare in the Prem?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 25, 2015 16:18:28 GMT
A warning I didn't accept, not sure why you try to misrepresent what I said mind as there is no advice simply stating a fact that regular posting of homophobic and racist comments led to the bans for he who doesn't take himself seriously so the ironic thing seems to be you not understanding what I typed never mind another UKIP supporter who ignores Niges and his parties many lapses trying to shout racist, those supporting glass parties and all that. Well, as long as you didn't accept it, it obviously didn't happen. It is true I had some difficulty understanding what you wrote, but I put that down to a lack of commas. Excellent you're shit hot on punctuation not so much on comprehension, two posts two straw man arguments.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 25, 2015 16:35:10 GMT
Well, as long as you didn't accept it, it obviously didn't happen. It is true I had some difficulty understanding what you wrote, but I put that down to a lack of commas. No ...his support for the Pakistani's up in Rochdale was a revelation too .... He likes to insult straight people , but queers is a no go area for him ... 'Forest Mumf ' buggering off.... Some very revealing points in your post, it's noticeable you become emboldened when there is a presence of similar minded bigots on the board but crawl back under your stone when they disappear. Post this made up support for “pakistani's“ in Rochdale too.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 25, 2015 17:20:39 GMT
Well, as long as you didn't accept it, it obviously didn't happen. It is true I had some difficulty understanding what you wrote, but I put that down to a lack of commas. Excellent you're shit hot on punctuation not so much on comprehension, two posts two straw man arguments. You are right again. I am struggling to comprehend how anyone can lecture/advise/gloat (call it whatever you like) another poster about racist posts when they've been warned for....... posting racist comments. Still as long as you didn't accept it, thats the main thing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 17:22:38 GMT
No ...his support for the Pakistani's up in Rochdale was a revelation too .... He likes to insult straight people , but queers is a no go area for him ... 'Forest Mumf ' buggering off.... Some very revealing points in your post, it's noticeable you become emboldened when there is a presence of similar minded bigots on the board but crawl back under your stone when they disappear. Post this made up support for “pakistani's“ in Rochdale too. My bigotry has served me well over the years and I have no plans to alter my contempt for rapists and sex offenders . That contempt also applies to morons who fail to condemn such filth . People like you .... Forest Mumf
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 25, 2015 17:32:37 GMT
Excellent you're shit hot on punctuation not so much on comprehension, two posts two straw man arguments. You are right again. I am struggling to comprehend how anyone can lecture/advise/gloat (call it whatever you like) another poster about racist posts when they've been warned for....... posting racist comments. Still as long as you didn't accept it, thats the main thing. Left wing hypocrisy at it's worst, he should be banned and would have been banned if he was a right wing poster.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 25, 2015 17:34:04 GMT
Some very revealing points in your post, it's noticeable you become emboldened when there is a presence of similar minded bigots on the board but crawl back under your stone when they disappear. Post this made up support for “pakistani's“ in Rochdale too. My bigotry has served me well over the years and I have no plans to alter my contempt for rapists and sex offenders . That contempt also applies to morons who fail to condemn such filth . People like you .... Forest Mumf Mumf.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 25, 2015 18:08:04 GMT
You are right again. I am struggling to comprehend how anyone can lecture/advise/gloat (call it whatever you like) another poster about racist posts when they've been warned for....... posting racist comments. Still as long as you didn't accept it, thats the main thing. Left wing hypocrisy at it's worst, he should be banned and would have been banned if he was a right wing poster. What was said?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 25, 2015 18:24:47 GMT
Left wing hypocrisy at it's worst, he should be banned and would have been banned if he was a right wing poster. What was said? I made a point that the condemnation of killings of innocent people was less vocal when it was the israeli's doing it compared to Muslims using the phrase “pasty faced” in relation to israeli's which I don't accept is racist for many reasons.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 25, 2015 18:26:17 GMT
You are right again. I am struggling to comprehend how anyone can lecture/advise/gloat (call it whatever you like) another poster about racist posts when they've been warned for....... posting racist comments. Still as long as you didn't accept it, thats the main thing. Left wing hypocrisy at it's worst, he should be banned and would have been banned if he was a right wing poster. Right wing morony at its finest if you continue to insist that as a fairly open conservative voter i'm a left winger.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 25, 2015 18:30:03 GMT
I made a point that the condemnation of killings of innocent people was less vocal when it was the israeli's doing it compared to Muslims using the phrase “pasty faced” in relation to israeli's which I don't accept is racist for many reasons. I don't think it's racist either.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 25, 2015 18:30:49 GMT
Excellent you're shit hot on punctuation not so much on comprehension, two posts two straw man arguments. You are right again. I am struggling to comprehend how anyone can lecture/advise/gloat (call it whatever you like) another poster about racist posts when they've been warned for....... posting racist comments. Still as long as you didn't accept it, thats the main thing. Comments that suggests plural so back to making stuff up again.... but anyway you mean like you don't accept UKIP are racist on the same basis for Nige's comments on romanians.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 25, 2015 18:33:23 GMT
I made a point that the condemnation of killings of innocent people was less vocal when it was the israeli's doing it compared to Muslims using the phrase “pasty faced” in relation to israeli's which I don't accept is racist for many reasons. I don't think it's racist either. Well you're on the wrong board then because calling thing chalkboards is PC gone made but the MOBO's, Black police officers association are discriminatory etc etc
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 25, 2015 19:17:36 GMT
I wouldn't like to call the eurosceptic Dennis Skinner a racist From a different thread; FROM THE BBC: Dennis Skinner ? ? ? Labour MP Bolsover ? ? Date of birth 11 February 1932 Political profile In the years since his election in 1970, Dennis Skinner, "the beast of Bolsover", has become one of the best known parliamentarians in the country despite never holding any sort of office or frontbench position. He is one of the Commons most assiduous attendees, present for questions almost every day and always sitting in the same spot. He is a consistent questioner and the single most rumbustious intervener in the House, forever making wittily aggressive interjections. He is an uncompromising class warrior and can be outrageously rude - he has been ejected by the Speaker on many occasions. A former miner, he is on the left of the party and has refused ever to mellow or compromise his opinions. He has sat for many years on the party's NEC, and with Tony Benn, frustrated Neil Kinnock's efforts to tackle Militant. He is opposed to the European Union, as an institutionalisation of capitalist principle and is a committed republican. He often rebels against the Blair government, but is not as persistent a critic of it as might be expected, mainly because his hatred of the Conservatives is greater than his disdain for New Labour. Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/244324/dennis-skinner-tony-benn-right#ixzz3bBBZ6yLx
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 25, 2015 19:20:35 GMT
Nor would I call the left wing Eurosceptics Michael Foot and Tony Benn racists The article below is from the Guardian in 2002.Interestingly ,similar to Dennis, Tony is an advocate of leaving the EU (and the abolition of the House of Lords).UKIP (and Nigel) were not the first to take up the mantle! Labour's left may have been in a better state today had they taken heed of these two respected veterans, rather than following the largely disowned Blair. Those with Left inclinations should think again before they jump on the bandwagon of discrediting UKIP and its leader. ....................................... Tony Benn's passionate advocacy of democracy and his articulate criticism of the EU gave Brussels' great and good a reality check last week, writes Andrew Osborn Throwing stones at the EU, the European project writ large and the euro is deeply unfashionable. It's a given that many Britons do think much is wrong with the EU, but saying so aloud is fraught with difficulty. Dissenting voices are often written off as paranoid Little Englanders, closet members of the Tories or, worse, the British National Party. To question the European project's gathering speed or direction is, in the eyes of many, heresy. EU critics are either dismissed as xenophobes overly hung up on the past, as troglodytes ludicrously attached to the Queen's head on pound notes, or worse still, as fools labouring under the misconception that Britain is best. They are deemed, in short, to be fearful time-warped reactionaries who can't and won't recognise that the EU is the future - "they don't know what's good for them" goes the refrain - and if they're not 100 % with us then they must be 100 % against us. But former Labour cabinet member and veteran socialist Tony Benn, a fervent anti-nationalist, succeeds where many fail, and he did so in Brussels last week with great aplomb. Taking his highly rated one-man show Free at Last to the self-styled capital of Europe, he laid bare his views on the EU with impressive force. And in doing so he reminded many that Euroscepticism is not a dirty word (although he intensely dislikes the label on the grounds that it has become pejorative) and that there are genuine leftwing gripes with the EU which are legitimate and deserve to be aired. In the UK his show is normally attended by the converted, but here in Brussels the audience was very different. Many of the 500 or so spectators had come along out of curiosity. Eurocrats, MEPs, lobbyists, consultants, journalists, thinktank-ers, research assistants and lawyers all crammed in to hear the 77-year old reminisce about the past and fulminate about the future. Of course they expected a lively discourse - and they were not disappointed - but what they heard about the EU was, in many cases, not what they wanted to hear. One of Benn's main criticisms was that there is not enough democracy in Brussels, a point with which it is hard to argue. The European commission, he reminded the audience, is not elected and therefore not accountable, and the European parliament, he told crestfallen MEPs, is not a parliament in the real sense of the word. Its occupants are anonymous, since people vote only for parties and not representatives (European elections use proportional representation), and the assembly's powers to legislate are limited. (It has joint competence on only a selected number of policy areas). The real parliament and the real power is the EU's council of ministers, he added, where many decisions are taken in secret and where ministers agree laws unencumbered by national parliamentary scrutiny - despite the fact that those same laws will have a profound and irreversible effect on the people of Britain. And that, he suggested, is not democracy or anything coming close to it. The most important question to ask someone in power, he quipped, was how you go about getting rid of them, and in the case of the European commission the disturbing answer is you can't. It was true, he conceded, that the European parliament can trigger the collapse of the commission, but what good, he argued, was such a blunt instrument. If there is a problem with the plumbing it is nonsensical to tear down the whole house. Spontaneous outbursts of applause punctured some of his discourse, but many of the audience whose livelihoods revolve around the EU, and who believe in it warts and all, shifted uncomfortably in their seats. His words contrasted sharply with those uttered on an almost weekly basis by the organisers of the official debate about Europe. That debate - called the convention on the future of europe and chaired by another elder statesman, former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing - is leaden and impenetrable. But Benn, puffing on his pipe and inclining his hearing aid towards his questioners, cut to the issues which really matter and did so in a genuinely engaging way. The EU should, he claimed, evolve at the pace of national parliaments. A passionate internationalist, he would like to see a commonwealth of European states encompassing countries like Russia too. However, in its current form the EU is, he believes, too big and too flawed to be truly democratic. There is simply no room for real debate, street politics or a meaningful link between the elected and the electors. And with the union poised to take in 10 new countries as early as 2004, he argues, things can only get worse from a democratic point of view. A prominent Tory MEP who insisted on shouting "Hear Hear!" after any of Benn's pronouncements he liked (and there were many of them) reminded the audience that doubts about the EU and its direction are shared by the right too. However, if Benn did anything last week it was to remind people that the Tories and the right do not and should not have a monopoly on so-called Euroscepticism, and that it is not a dirty word. Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/244324/dennis-skinner-tony-benn-right#ixzz3bBCUiytJ
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 25, 2015 20:54:40 GMT
I made a point that the condemnation of killings of innocent people was less vocal when it was the israeli's doing it compared to Muslims using the phrase “pasty faced” in relation to israeli's which I don't accept is racist for many reasons. I don't think it's racist either. You don't think calling Israeli's "pasty faced" is racist? Heres a definition of pasty faced: "An individual, typically male, whose facial features are generally rounded and ill-defined. The skin is pale and frequently clammy in appearance; the eyes are droopy, the lips pudgy, and jawline is nonexistent." Now, you can carry on arguing that abusing a race based on the colour of their skin isn't racist if you want, but you'll be in an even smaller club than normal. As Carps has pointed out earlier, you'll get more respect if you drop the hypocrisy and not try to justify the racist abuse of Israeli's just beacause you disagree with their politics.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 25, 2015 21:06:19 GMT
I don't think it's racist either. You don't think calling Israeli's "pasty faced" is racist? Heres a definition of pasty faced: "An individual, typically male, whose facial features are generally rounded and ill-defined. The skin is pale and frequently clammy in appearance; the eyes are droopy, the lips pudgy, and jawline is nonexistent." Now, you can carry on arguing that abusing a race based on the colour of their skin isn't racist if you want, but you'll be in an even smaller club than normal. As Carps has pointed out earlier, you'll get more respect if you drop the hypocrisy and not try to justify the racist abuse of Israeli's just beacause you disagree with their politics. I see you've got that definition from the 'urban' dictionary instead of the actual dictionary, you've gone and unearthed a definition that is most likely to back up your point and it does you no favours in this debate whatsoever. Pasty-faced to me means pale and so I googled what pasty-faced means and the Cambridge definition, along with pretty much every other definition is 'looking pale and sick'. I don't want to speak for followyoudown but I'd say if you ask him he meant 'pale in complexion'.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 25, 2015 21:09:02 GMT
I don't think it's racist either. You don't think calling Israeli's "pasty faced" is racist? Heres a definition of pasty faced: "An individual, typically male, whose facial features are generally rounded and ill-defined. The skin is pale and frequently clammy in appearance; the eyes are droopy, the lips pudgy, and jawline is nonexistent." Now, you can carry on arguing that abusing a race based on the colour of their skin isn't racist if you want, but you'll be in an even smaller club than normal. As Carps has pointed out earlier, you'll get more respect if you drop the hypocrisy and not try to justify the racist abuse of Israeli's just beacause you disagree with their politics. In fairness, the complaint against Israel was less about their politics and more about their indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Specifically in the most recent onslaught 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women ( source BBC / UN). In the interest of fairness it must be said civilians were also killed in Israel. Seven of them.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 25, 2015 21:10:37 GMT
You don't think calling Israeli's "pasty faced" is racist? Heres a definition of pasty faced: "An individual, typically male, whose facial features are generally rounded and ill-defined. The skin is pale and frequently clammy in appearance; the eyes are droopy, the lips pudgy, and jawline is nonexistent." Now, you can carry on arguing that abusing a race based on the colour of their skin isn't racist if you want, but you'll be in an even smaller club than normal. As Carps has pointed out earlier, you'll get more respect if you drop the hypocrisy and not try to justify the racist abuse of Israeli's just beacause you disagree with their politics. I see you've got that definition from the 'urban' dictionary instead of the actual dictionary, you've gone and unearthed a definition that is most likely to back up your point and it does you no favours in this debate whatsoever. Pasty-faced to me means pale and so I googled what pasty-faced means and the Cambridge definition, along with pretty much every other definition is 'looking pale and sick'. I don't want to speak for followyoudown but I'd say if you ask him he meant 'pale in complexion'. Are you really being serious? So if somebody abuses another as they are dark in complection, that would be OK? In your own words, "pasty faced" equates to being pale. It therefore refers to the colour of someones skin. You might think that abusing someone based on the colour of their skin is OK, but you'll find most don't.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 25, 2015 21:12:02 GMT
I see you've got that definition from the 'urban' dictionary instead of the actual dictionary, you've gone and unearthed a definition that is most likely to back up your point and it does you no favours in this debate whatsoever. Pasty-faced to me means pale and so I googled what pasty-faced means and the Cambridge definition, along with pretty much every other definition is 'looking pale and sick'. I don't want to speak for followyoudown but I'd say if you ask him he meant 'pale in complexion'. Are you really being serious? So if somebody abuses another as they are dark in complection, that would be OK? In your own words, "pasty faced" equates to being pale. It therefore refers to the colour of someones skin. You might think that abusing someone based on the colour of their skin is OK, but you'll find most don't. It wasn't used in abusive context though was it, context is important.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 25, 2015 21:13:05 GMT
You don't think calling Israeli's "pasty faced" is racist? Heres a definition of pasty faced: "An individual, typically male, whose facial features are generally rounded and ill-defined. The skin is pale and frequently clammy in appearance; the eyes are droopy, the lips pudgy, and jawline is nonexistent." Now, you can carry on arguing that abusing a race based on the colour of their skin isn't racist if you want, but you'll be in an even smaller club than normal. As Carps has pointed out earlier, you'll get more respect if you drop the hypocrisy and not try to justify the racist abuse of Israeli's just beacause you disagree with their politics. In fairness, the complaint against Israel was less about their politics and more about their indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Specifically in the most recent onslaught 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women ( source BBC / UN). In the interest of fairness it must be said civilians were also killed in Israel. Seven of them. I'm not too impressed with what is happening in Zimbabwe but using the n word to describe Mugabee would be wrong. Just as it's wrong to racially abuse Israeli's due to the actions of their government i.e politics.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 25, 2015 21:14:16 GMT
Are you really being serious? So if somebody abuses another as they are dark in complection, that would be OK? In your own words, "pasty faced" equates to being pale. It therefore refers to the colour of someones skin. You might think that abusing someone based on the colour of their skin is OK, but you'll find most don't. It wasn't used in abusive context though was it, context is important. How do you know, you've not even read the thread. IS using the n word wrong, or justified in certain contexts?
|
|