talkFORUM Archive

I know Roy. I don't like to divert the thread, but I also don't like people calling people racist, just because they disagree with them.

I wonder what happened to that other poster by the way. I guess he found somewhere else to peddle the bullshit.

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:I don't have skewed logic. I see prejudice as more than just shouting racist as every opportunity however. By the way, where is your proof of this racism Tick? Please provide examples.

Prejudice - "a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." That pretty much sums up your views on the Brits, the police, the armed forces, the Conservatives, UKip etc. etc. etc.

Prejudice against someone based on their individual choice (political affiliation) and prejudice against someone based on something they had no choice over (racial identity) are two very different things.

And my "prejudice" against the Tories, UKIP, pigs etc is based on actual experience and reason.

What if someone said their racism was based on actual experience and reason? Would that be acceptable?

Why would it be about race? Surely the experience and reason would relate to that of an individual or set of individuals?

And getting back to the original point I came to discuss, UKIP politicians are on record of making racist comments. Which are indefensible.

It would be about race, because your base your prejudices on a whole group of people; The same as someone with racist opinions does.

Still waiting for your examples of racism on here by the way.

No it would be based on the actions/choices made by people. Not what they look like or who their ancestors were.

And i've taken people on here to task in the past over their racism and used their own comments as proofe.

Hey, when you accused me of that I invited you repeatedly to quote some examples and you were absolutely unable to do so. Instead you just got abusive.
Here's a new challenge then, give us some examples of where you've given examples which proved your wild allegations of racism when you're losing an argument.

Royal24s wrote:Hey, when you accused me of that I invited you repeatedly to quote some examples and you were absolutely unable to do so. Instead you just got abusive.
Here's a new challenge then, give us some examples of where you've given examples which proved your wild allegations of racism when you're losing an argument.

i accused you of being an intolerant bellend.

No you didn't . You accused me of an " agenda of hate" , and you said that in relation to racism , but you couldn't back it up.
By the way, tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing. You can disagree with something and argue against it without wanting to ban it.
I'm actually far more tolerant than those who claim to be tolerant here, because I am tolerant of things I don't like as well as things I do like.
You and the liberal self hate group are tolerant of the things you like, but the same could have been said of Adolf Hitler as a matter if fact.
Describing yourself as tolerant does not actually make you tolerant, and, conversely , accusing others of being intolerant or racist does not win any logical argument. You use these baseless allegations as a hand grenade in an attempt to destroy the bringer of truths and logics which you are intolerant of. You cannot prevail in a civilised debate , so you attempt to win by falsely discrediting those who disagree with you, and THAT is intolerance.

Royal24s wrote:No you didn't . You accused me of an " agenda of hate" , and you said that in relation to racism , but you couldn't back it up.
By the way, tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing. You can disagree with something and argue against it without wanting to ban it.
I'm actually far more tolerant than those who claim to be tolerant here, because I am tolerant of things I don't like as well as things I do like.
You and the liberal self hate group are tolerant of the things you like, but the same could have been said of Adolf Hitler as a matter if fact.
Describing yourself as tolerant does not actually make you tolerant, and, conversely , accusing others of being intolerant or racist does not win any logical argument. You use these baseless allegations as a hand grenade in an attempt to destroy the bringer of truths and logics which you are intolerant of. You cannot prevail in a civilised debate , so you attempt to win by falsely discrediting those who disagree with you, and THAT is intolerance.

Yes and i meant that you have a hateful agenda.

The rest of your rant is, as usual, all over the place.

Yes, but other than evading the issues, can you produce these examples please.

Royal24s wrote:Yes, but other than evading the issues, can you produce these examples please.

I did at the time.

Darkyboy wrote:I know Roy. I don't like to divert the thread, but I also don't like people calling people racist, just because they disagree with them.

I wonder what happened to that other poster by the way. I guess he found somewhere else to peddle the bullshit.

The poster was apparently one the worst serial thread disrupters and probably holds the record for permanent bans, but as he plied his trade mostly on the kiddie section, I've no idea if he's still around or not.

The Tick wrote:

Royal24s wrote:Yes, but other than evading the issues, can you produce these examples please.

I did at the time.

Pretty clear to anyone interested that these left wing scumbags have nothing once their racist card bluff is called.

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:I don't have skewed logic. I see prejudice as more than just shouting racist as every opportunity however. By the way, where is your proof of this racism Tick? Please provide examples.

Prejudice - "a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." That pretty much sums up your views on the Brits, the police, the armed forces, the Conservatives, UKip etc. etc. etc.

Prejudice against someone based on their individual choice (political affiliation) and prejudice against someone based on something they had no choice over (racial identity) are two very different things.

And my "prejudice" against the Tories, UKIP, pigs etc is based on actual experience and reason.

What if someone said their racism was based on actual experience and reason? Would that be acceptable?

Why would it be about race? Surely the experience and reason would relate to that of an individual or set of individuals?

And getting back to the original point I came to discuss, UKIP politicians are on record of making racist comments. Which are indefensible.

It would be about race, because your base your prejudices on a whole group of people; The same as someone with racist opinions does.

Still waiting for your examples of racism on here by the way.

No it would be based on the actions/choices made by people. Not what they look like or who their ancestors were.

And i've taken people on here to task in the past over their racism and used their own comments as proofe.

So you have offered no proof that your multiple prejudices are justified and any more acceptable than any perceived racism on here. You have also offered no proof of racism by other people on here. And you call other people embittered.

I did so at the time. Why I have to bring it up again when the discussion was meant to be about UKIP's own racism is a mystery.

Sounds like obfuscation to me.

Will UKIP still be racist when it could be the first UK political party to have an ethnic leader.

AlcoholBrazil wrote:Will UKIP still be racist when it could be the first UK political party to have an ethnic leader.

What's an "ethnic" leader?

The Tick wrote:I did so at the time. Why I have to bring it up again when the discussion was meant to be about UKIP's own racism is a mystery.

Sounds like obfuscation to me.

Not obfuscation Tick. You keep making accusations and have no proof. Fine. We'll just have to leave it at that.

The Tick wrote:

AlcoholBrazil wrote:Will UKIP still be racist when it could be the first UK political party to have an ethnic leader.

What's an "ethnic" leader?

Ha! Quite.

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:I did so at the time. Why I have to bring it up again when the discussion was meant to be about UKIP's own racism is a mystery.

Sounds like obfuscation to me.

Not obfuscation Tick. You keep making accusations and have no proof. Fine. We'll just have to leave it at that.

As I said, I delivered the proof at the time, and there's no obligation for me to do so again.

You aren't going to use that to distract from the main point regarding UKIP's racist contingent.

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:I did so at the time. Why I have to bring it up again when the discussion was meant to be about UKIP's own racism is a mystery.

Sounds like obfuscation to me.

Not obfuscation Tick. You keep making accusations and have no proof. Fine. We'll just have to leave it at that.

As I said, I delivered the proof at the time, and there's no obligation for me to do so again.

You aren't going to use that to distract from the main point regarding UKIP's racist contingent.

Just makes me laugh how Ukip supporters believe the onus is on others to prove that they're not racist.
Anyone with a brain would realise that they're a nasty little racist party, and anyone inclined to vote for them has some serious issues to deal with.

subsub wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:I did so at the time. Why I have to bring it up again when the discussion was meant to be about UKIP's own racism is a mystery.

Sounds like obfuscation to me.

Not obfuscation Tick. You keep making accusations and have no proof. Fine. We'll just have to leave it at that.

As I said, I delivered the proof at the time, and there's no obligation for me to do so again.

You aren't going to use that to distract from the main point regarding UKIP's racist contingent.

Just makes me laugh how Ukip supporters believe the onus is on others to prove that they're not racist.
Anyone with a brain would realise that they're a nasty little racist party, and anyone inclined to vote for them has some serious issues to deal with.

Old subsub almost had me fooled a while back when he insisted he wasn't a wind up merchant.... and then he posts tripe like the above.
Oh well, you live and learn.

subsub wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:I did so at the time. Why I have to bring it up again when the discussion was meant to be about UKIP's own racism is a mystery.

Sounds like obfuscation to me.

Not obfuscation Tick. You keep making accusations and have no proof. Fine. We'll just have to leave it at that.

As I said, I delivered the proof at the time, and there's no obligation for me to do so again.

You aren't going to use that to distract from the main point regarding UKIP's racist contingent.

Just makes me laugh how Ukip supporters believe the onus is on others to prove that they're not racist.
Anyone with a brain would realise that they're a nasty little racist party, and anyone inclined to vote for them has some serious issues to deal with.

What is racist though?

Not wanting your street full of a bunch of Muslims brought in from the Middle East at a fighting age and male. Acting as younger people. And done under a lie. But just say, ach well, not to worry. Does that make someone a racist? Not wanting changes forced down peoples throats and having their everything they knew and liked changed without even a say. Does that make someone racist?

If that makes someone racist then guess what. I'm racist. Aw well. How ever will I go on. If this is what some think makes a person a racist. And sad as fuck that that word is used as a weapon of shame to the weaker willed and minded to shut them up.

Like anything in this world. Moderation is the key IMO. And I think most UKIP supporters like most people are a bit of all these things here. Worried about the future of their country and how the Globalists are bastardizing it. The insane laws were you dare not say anything or be jailed. Stalin would love that one. The NHS and schooling and the bad shape a lot of it is in. And a lot of other issues. And there are many, lets face it.

But hey if you say lets not take everyone in then you are a racist. If that is all you have then that is why people are sick of it. And trust me they are. People are scared to say things now encase they are labelled or sacked in work. It will work on the weaker types. But also know that once some speak out the others will find their voice.

That doesn't make people racist IMO. It makes people sick of this agenda of shoving things down peoples throats and what they can or can't say or be called a name. And changing their world without even asking. Taking the piss it is what it really is.

And the arrogance of the left wing needs a good slapping down IMO. Hiding behind bullshit and evil laws. Issues to deal with, Fucking cheek of that alone sums it all up. The real issues to deal with is the fall out from all this mess. Enough is enough. Let them words ring truer than shouting racist because it goes against the globalist agenda. But this is all part of what is coming.

subsub wrote: Anyone with a brain would realise that they're a nasty little racist party, and anyone inclined to vote for them has some serious issues to deal with.

So tell me, subster.

Who were people whose primary concern was wanting the UK to leave the EU supposed to vote for?

Labour - Pro EU
Tory - Pro EU
LibDem - Pro EU

Are you suggesting that anyone supporting Brexit is racist? I'm guessing you will say no. But tell me, who were those wanting the UK to leave the EU supposed to vote for when the three other main parties all adopted an official pro-EU stance?

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:I did so at the time. Why I have to bring it up again when the discussion was meant to be about UKIP's own racism is a mystery.

Sounds like obfuscation to me.

Not obfuscation Tick. You keep making accusations and have no proof. Fine. We'll just have to leave it at that.

As I said, I delivered the proof at the time, and there's no obligation for me to do so again.

You aren't going to use that to distract from the main point regarding UKIP's racist contingent.

So you have no proof of racism on the forum and you deny there is anti-Semitism in the Labour party. You are not exactly in a position to call another party racist are you?

subsub wrote:

The Tick wrote:

Darkyboy wrote:

The Tick wrote:I did so at the time. Why I have to bring it up again when the discussion was meant to be about UKIP's own racism is a mystery.

Sounds like obfuscation to me.

Not obfuscation Tick. You keep making accusations and have no proof. Fine. We'll just have to leave it at that.

As I said, I delivered the proof at the time, and there's no obligation for me to do so again.

You aren't going to use that to distract from the main point regarding UKIP's racist contingent.

Just makes me laugh how Ukip supporters believe the onus is on others to prove that they're not racist.
Anyone with a brain would realise that they're a nasty little racist party, and anyone inclined to vote for them has some serious issues to deal with.

If you had followed this discussion, you would see that I had asked Tick to show proof of racism on the forum. He has failed to do this and I asked him to justify his own prejudices against "lazy Brits", the Conservatives, UKip, the police, the armed forces etc. After all, racism is just one prejudice and there are plenty of others that people have.

Given the anti-Semitism in the Labour party, it's a bit much to keep bleating "UKip are racist". I've no doubt that there are people in UKip who are racist. But that will apply to all parties and in Labour as much as any party.

You can keep spouting the "UKip is a racist little party" line all you like, but it shows your own ignorance on the subject.

subsub wrote:Just makes me laugh how Ukip supporters believe the onus is on others to prove that they're not racist.
Anyone with a brain would realise that they're a nasty little racist party, and anyone inclined to vote for them has some serious issues to deal with.

That's the same fucking bollocks from the same fucking one eyed prejudiced quarter. Some people feel they have no choice but to vote UKIP because the other parties have sold them up the river, and were fighting the remoaners quarter for a start. You need to take your blinkers off and have a gander at some of the Labour shitearses for a start.

Zambo wrote:

subsub wrote:Just makes me laugh how Ukip supporters believe the onus is on others to prove that they're not racist.
Anyone with a brain would realise that they're a nasty little racist party, and anyone inclined to vote for them has some serious issues to deal with.

That's the same fucking bollocks from the same fucking one eyed prejudiced quarter. Some people feel they have no choice but to vote UKIP because the other parties have sold them up the river, and were fighting the remoaners quarter for a start. You need to take your blinkers off and have a gander at some of the Labour shitearses for a start.

"It's not just us; look at Labour, too"

Heh, great defence, that..