UKIP First 100 Days WTF!!!
Discussion
allergictocheese said:
WinstonWolf said:
The insults make you look so... Grown up.
12 hours earlier on this same thread...WinstonWolf said:
fk me, you really are a prejudiced ageist fool.
Perhaps this thread has run its course if we're at the throwing dummies at one another stage.Prejudice is a funny old thing, it's awful until it's pointed out that *you* are just the same, it's just the target of your prejudice is different.
WinstonWolf said:
That's not an insult, that's a statement of fact.
Prejudice is a funny old thing, it's awful until it's pointed out that *you* are just the same, it's just the target of your prejudice is different.
And yet you still haven't answered a direct question. This has to be one of the most pathetic displays of deflection and avoidance. A statement of fact is that you're an embarrassment.Prejudice is a funny old thing, it's awful until it's pointed out that *you* are just the same, it's just the target of your prejudice is different.
TKF said:
WinstonWolf said:
Countdown said:
It appears that Scuffers' views are quite common amongst UKIP members.....
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/22/eight-of-the-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anna-tippett/ukip-...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/11/ni...
fhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/22/eight-of-the-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anna-tippett/ukip-...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/11/ni...
Nigel Farage said:
Most over-70s in Britain still feel uncomfortable about homosexuality, the Ukip leader,
whoops 
k me, you really are a prejudiced ageist fool. What have old people ever done to you?Nice try at deflecting though.
To be fair homosexual acts were criminal until 1967. If you're in your 70s or even 60s your formative years would have been spent in a culture where homosexuality was a crime, punishable by jail time - it's understandable why people of a certain age have such ideas. What's unforgivable is politicians pandering to peoples prejudice instead of looking for ways to create cultural inclusion, fairness and liberty for all. UKIP constantly confuse with their blend of populism and libertarian argument, if they truly believe in the freedom and power of the individual then they must take a hard line against the kind of Victorian age/religious social engineering that the politics around race and sexuality is actually all about.
WinstonWolf said:
Disastrous said:
WinstonWolf said:
Disastrous said:
WinstonWolf said:
Disastrous said:
WinstonWolf said:
968 said:
WinstonWolf said:
No, I insist.... After you. Do you support Countdown's discrimination against the over sixties?
Discrimination is discrimination, the subject matter isn't really relevant.
Ironic that you give an answer Blair would be proud of. Discrimination is discrimination, the subject matter isn't really relevant.
No, I don't support ageism. Your turn. But of course you won't answer. More pathetic squirming will ensue.
Is Countdown also 'pathetic' now he's turned out to be an 'ist, or are only some 'ists bad?
(just to clarify for you Winston, it's you I'm seeing as Howard, not 968)
I just wondered who supports his viewpoint, anyone?
ETA - it's not even witty trolling. It's just childish.
Do you support ageism? A simple yes or no will do.
TKF said:
Winston - a direct question if I may. Do you think it's acceptable to refer to someone as a raving poofter?
Are you going to answer on Countdown's behalf?
Game, set and match 968, I think.
Disastrous said:
WinstonWolf said:
Disastrous said:
WinstonWolf said:
Disastrous said:
WinstonWolf said:
Disastrous said:
WinstonWolf said:
968 said:
WinstonWolf said:
No, I insist.... After you. Do you support Countdown's discrimination against the over sixties?
Discrimination is discrimination, the subject matter isn't really relevant.
Ironic that you give an answer Blair would be proud of. Discrimination is discrimination, the subject matter isn't really relevant.
No, I don't support ageism. Your turn. But of course you won't answer. More pathetic squirming will ensue.
Is Countdown also 'pathetic' now he's turned out to be an 'ist, or are only some 'ists bad?
(just to clarify for you Winston, it's you I'm seeing as Howard, not 968)
I just wondered who supports his viewpoint, anyone?
ETA - it's not even witty trolling. It's just childish.
Do you support ageism? A simple yes or no will do.
TKF said:
Winston - a direct question if I may. Do you think it's acceptable to refer to someone as a raving poofter?
Are you going to answer on Countdown's behalf?
Game, set and match 968, I think.
Gav.OK, here goes (INCOMING!)
there is a world of difference between being homophobic and not liking the pro-gay agenda
for me, it's much the same as the AID's debate, as in it seems to be impossible to have any rational debate without the vocal militants screaming that you're a phobe etc etc, or the black agenda pulling the race card over and over again.
I have no issue with Gay's, black people, people with HIV, people of different religions, beliefs, etc etc.
What I do have an issue with is when any group starts to dictate what the rest of us can do/say/think, and worse, use taxpayers money to do so.
there is a world of difference between being homophobic and not liking the pro-gay agenda
for me, it's much the same as the AID's debate, as in it seems to be impossible to have any rational debate without the vocal militants screaming that you're a phobe etc etc, or the black agenda pulling the race card over and over again.
I have no issue with Gay's, black people, people with HIV, people of different religions, beliefs, etc etc.
What I do have an issue with is when any group starts to dictate what the rest of us can do/say/think, and worse, use taxpayers money to do so.
Scuffers said:
OK, here goes (INCOMING!)
there is a world of difference between being homophobic and not liking the pro-gay agenda
for me, it's much the same as the AID's debate, as in it seems to be impossible to have any rational debate without the vocal militants screaming that you're a phobe etc etc, or the black agenda pulling the race card over and over again.
I have no issue with Gay's, black people, people with HIV, people of different religions, beliefs, etc etc.
What I do have an issue with is when any group starts to dictate what the rest of us can do/say/think, and worse, use taxpayers money to do so.
This entire discussion began because you called someone a raving poofter.there is a world of difference between being homophobic and not liking the pro-gay agenda
for me, it's much the same as the AID's debate, as in it seems to be impossible to have any rational debate without the vocal militants screaming that you're a phobe etc etc, or the black agenda pulling the race card over and over again.
I have no issue with Gay's, black people, people with HIV, people of different religions, beliefs, etc etc.
What I do have an issue with is when any group starts to dictate what the rest of us can do/say/think, and worse, use taxpayers money to do so.
You're right, there's a world of difference between being homophobic and not liking the pro-gay agenda.
In your post you were homophobic.
Perhaps you can see this and you are refusing to acknowledge it or apologise? Perhaps you really think that in 2015 calling someone a raving poofter simply because you don't like them is acceptable?
You've squirmed (a Kipper trait it seems from Winston's absurd performance) out of answering TTwiggy's question about how you'd describe Diane Abbott. Do you understand that if you referred to her a filthy wog people might call you out about it?
TKF said:
This entire discussion began because you called someone a raving poofter.
You're right, there's a world of difference between being homophobic and not liking the pro-gay agenda.
In your post you were homophobic.
Perhaps you can see this and you are refusing to acknowledge it or apologise? Perhaps you really think that in 2015 calling someone a raving poofter simply because you don't like them is acceptable?
You've squirmed (a Kipper trait it seems from Winston's absurd performance) out of answering TTwiggy's question about how you'd describe Diane Abbott. Do you understand that if you referred to her a filthy wog people might call you out about it?
nope, in my books, anybody overtly pushing the gay agenda like that is a raving poofter.You're right, there's a world of difference between being homophobic and not liking the pro-gay agenda.
In your post you were homophobic.
Perhaps you can see this and you are refusing to acknowledge it or apologise? Perhaps you really think that in 2015 calling someone a raving poofter simply because you don't like them is acceptable?
You've squirmed (a Kipper trait it seems from Winston's absurd performance) out of answering TTwiggy's question about how you'd describe Diane Abbott. Do you understand that if you referred to her a filthy wog people might call you out about it?
and dislike of them is not the point, never met the guy, the point is I despise him for what he did/does.
Scuffers said:
OK, here goes (INCOMING!)
there is a world of difference between being homophobic and not liking the pro-gay agenda
for me, it's much the same as the AID's debate, as in it seems to be impossible to have any rational debate without the vocal militants screaming that you're a phobe etc etc, or the black agenda pulling the race card over and over again.
I have no issue with Gay's, black people, people with HIV, people of different religions, beliefs, etc etc.
What I do have an issue with is when any group starts to dictate what the rest of us can do/say/think, and worse, use taxpayers money to do so.
What? there is a world of difference between being homophobic and not liking the pro-gay agenda
for me, it's much the same as the AID's debate, as in it seems to be impossible to have any rational debate without the vocal militants screaming that you're a phobe etc etc, or the black agenda pulling the race card over and over again.
I have no issue with Gay's, black people, people with HIV, people of different religions, beliefs, etc etc.
What I do have an issue with is when any group starts to dictate what the rest of us can do/say/think, and worse, use taxpayers money to do so.
You have "no issues" with "Gay's". But someone who tells you that you shouldn't have an issue with homosexuals is a "raving poofter".
You have no issues with black people. But someone who tells you that you should (say) treat them equally in employment with white people is what, exactly? An uppity spade?
And no one should use public money to do this, so in your world there should be no laws "dictating" to you how you should treat minorities - is that right?
And WTF is the HIV thing about? You know that nowadays HIV is a chronic and treatable condition roughly on a par with diabetes, don't you?
Scuffers said:
nope, in my books, anybody overtly pushing the gay agenda like that is a raving poofter.
and dislike of them is not the point, never met the guy, the point is I despise him for what he did/does.
So anyone trying to stand up for their cause deserves an directed insult related to that cause, if you don't agree with it?and dislike of them is not the point, never met the guy, the point is I despise him for what he did/does.
I'm not sure I've read anything more stupid on this forum, and that there's a lot that takes some beating here.
968 said:
Scuffers said:
nope, in my books, anybody overtly pushing the gay agenda like that is a raving poofter.
and dislike of them is not the point, never met the guy, the point is I despise him for what he did/does.
So anyone trying to stand up for their cause deserves an directed insult related to that cause, if you don't agree with it?and dislike of them is not the point, never met the guy, the point is I despise him for what he did/does.
I'm not sure I've read anything more stupid on this forum, and that there's a lot that takes some beating here.
no issue with people supporting a cause, more about people that take pushing their cause playing the victim card or using public money inappropriately, etc etc.
FWIW, I have the same contempt for the Hacked-off morons, which if they had half a brain, would have either set a password or not used a public voicemail system.
Scuffers said:
Zod said:
You might have a chance to persuade people, scuffers, if you didn't use terms like "raving poofter", but you do, so you fail.
Not trying to persuade anyone, just explaining my view and use of language.I am sure you will take no notice and carry on as usual, no matter...
Scuffers said:
no, please at least try to comprehend.
no issue with people supporting a cause, more about people that take pushing their cause playing the victim card or using public money inappropriately, etc etc.
No, not trying to persuade anyone,. Not at all. no issue with people supporting a cause, more about people that take pushing their cause playing the victim card or using public money inappropriately, etc etc.
Scuffers said:
FWIW, I have the same contempt for the Hacked-off morons, which if they had half a brain, would have either set a password or not used a public voicemail system.
So if you don't lock your house it's perfectly alright for me to come in rifle through your stuff and read your mail?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff