UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Scuffers said:
Zod said:
o, you don't get it. Your calling somebody a poofter is not comparable with the country's budget. The budget is a complex issue. Your name-calling appears simply to be down to your being a bigot. You have learned nothing from your ban.
so, you think he was right to squander public money on his personal crusade?And yes, as you put it, I do not respect the views of the person that banned me, I find it strange that somebody who allows their personal views to take the fore in their role as a moderator to be somewhat bankrupt.
Yu (and others) seem fixated on the use of simple words rather than looking at the bigger picture, a better man that I covered this:
Scuffers said:
I find it strange that somebody who allows their personal views to take the fore in their role as a moderator to be somewhat bankrupt.
Amen to that. More than one or two guilty of that on certain web sites. No names no pack drill of course... 
Mind you, in my experience of moderators elsewhere, there are some entirely "without prejudice" and genuinely fair minded moderators who in my own personal experience, have been known to over rule those with the "somewhat bankrupt" stance. All power to the fair minded.
Zod said:
The budget has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you appear to be an unpleasant person.
OK, you don't like me, I can live with that!on the whole, I don't care if I like somebody or not, I care about are they doing the right thing, in this case his job, as opposed to wasting public money on his personal projects.
I am sure the good people of the somerset plains love him too for wasting time and money on gay rights rather than the job the EA were supposed to be doing.
for the record, I am not anti gay or homophobic as you put it, I just don't have tne for people that abuse their public paid for positions to bang on about their personal causes.
I personally think that the gay right movement has done more harm to their own cause than just about anybody else by shoving it down the public's collective gullet to the point we are all sick and tired of it.
I didn't say I didn't like you. I don't know you. All I said was that you appear from what you post to be unpleasant. It might be that your postings don't reflect the real you and that you are a nice person.
Either way, my advice is to drop the complaints about the moderator and your attempts to justify your use of offensive terms. Stick to the politics. I don't agree with you, but at least I can argue over that.
Either way, my advice is to drop the complaints about the moderator and your attempts to justify your use of offensive terms. Stick to the politics. I don't agree with you, but at least I can argue over that.
TKF said:
If he was black would you have called him a stinking 
?
GET IT YET?
that just illustrates the point, Poofter is not a censored word, the N word is.?GET IT YET?
like it or not, the N words is pretty much accepted and being 100% racist, (I am not sure I agree with that as it seems to be in common usage within the black community), so it;s now un-acceptable to use that word.
you may not like me using it, in which case, may I suggest you simply don't read it then?
Like the great poofter himself said (and yes, he has called himself this!),
:censored.
ETA
Evades the sites swear filter.
Edited by Big Al. on Wednesday 18th March 15:37
Scuffers said:
Zod said:
jogon said:
Meanwhile fresh off the press at Labour HQ
Racist bh.
That cannot be real, surely?Racist b
h. play the race/gay/etc card hard for all it's worth!
TKF said:
UKIP are pushing on an open door with you aren't they?
in what way?in that I support their policies for the economy, environment, energy, immigration, etc. then yes.
however, as I am sure your trying to say, because you have me pegged as some raging homophobe, and no matter what I say at this point is not going to change your view.
TKF said:
Nope. Fake.
Although she has said similar in the past.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/89...
TKF said:
Scuffers said:
Zod said:
jogon said:
Meanwhile fresh off the press at Labour HQ
Racist bh.
That cannot be real, surely?Racist b
h. play the race/gay/etc card hard for all it's worth!
TKF said:
Nope. Fake.
Perhaps, but it wouldn't be unusual for her...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/89...
this is what pisses me off the most about politics today, it's all about trivial meaningless froth rather than serious stuff.
people these days would rather support and vote for the TV savvy celebrity without a clue how to actually do anything than the highly capable person who looks odd and does not interview well with a TV camera stuffed in his face.
I use Russel Brand as an example, he's very good on TV, uses all the right big words etc. but in reality is as thick as pig-st and has not the first clue on anything.
As opposed to somebody like Michael Gove, somebody who is clearly very intelligent and capable, but get's slaughtered by the political & media lovies.
people these days would rather support and vote for the TV savvy celebrity without a clue how to actually do anything than the highly capable person who looks odd and does not interview well with a TV camera stuffed in his face.
I use Russel Brand as an example, he's very good on TV, uses all the right big words etc. but in reality is as thick as pig-s
t and has not the first clue on anything.As opposed to somebody like Michael Gove, somebody who is clearly very intelligent and capable, but get's slaughtered by the political & media lovies.
Zod said:
Scuffers said:
your illustrating the point very nicely!
you seem to think trivia is more important than real polices?
you seem to love throthing at the mouth over me calling somebody a poofter? or a UKIP rep liking somebody to Abu Hamza?
please explain how these comments are in any way relevant or important to the decisions this country needs to make on policies?
this is exactly my point, when we have somebody in government, responsible for a major part of the UK's public budget abusing it for his own pet cause rather than the job it was intended for leading to thousands of people being flooded out of their homes and businesses.
But you seem to think that me calling him a poofter is more important?
GET IT YET?
No, you don't get it. Your calling somebody a poofter is not comparable with the country's budget. The budget is a complex issue. Your name-calling appears simply to be down to your being a bigot. You have learned nothing from your ban.you seem to think trivia is more important than real polices?
you seem to love throthing at the mouth over me calling somebody a poofter? or a UKIP rep liking somebody to Abu Hamza?
please explain how these comments are in any way relevant or important to the decisions this country needs to make on policies?
this is exactly my point, when we have somebody in government, responsible for a major part of the UK's public budget abusing it for his own pet cause rather than the job it was intended for leading to thousands of people being flooded out of their homes and businesses.
But you seem to think that me calling him a poofter is more important?
GET IT YET?
Also what should he have learned from his ban, that he is "not allowed" to say what he thinks?
Esseesse said:
TKF said:
Nope. Fake.
Perhaps, but it wouldn't be unusual for her...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/89...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff