Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:19 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

This is exactly my point - no matter what you say if you look hard enough ou will find somebody somewhere who is offended. Tan and Mackay have history so what is Tan going to say? Feeling persecuted is in the Jewish DNA they will complain if someone doesn't understand their superiority

I doubt Dave Whelan is stressed about where his next fried rice is coming from!!

Thanks for that.

I used to think you were just a bit thick but there seem to be some underlying issues that explain your posts

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:29 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Thanks for that.

I used to think you were just a bit thick but there seem to be some underlying issues that explain your posts

That's rich coming from you - your personal issues are numerous and serious, the sad thing is your arrogance prevents you from accepting them and doing something about them.

It is no wonder this board is as dead as a Do-Do when posters like you dominate it. The only person who gives your views any credence is you - pity you can't see it.

You spout all this tree hugging but your views are amongst the most spiteful on here - as I said no wonder the board is now devoid of the intelligent posters they simply got sick of the likes of you forcing your barmy views down their throat.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:03 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

That's rich coming from you - your personal issues are numerous and serious, the sad thing is your arrogance prevents you from accepting them and doing something about them.

It is no wonder this board is as dead as a Do-Do when posters like you dominate it. The only person who gives your views any credence is you - pity you can't see it.

You spout all this tree hugging but your views are amongst the most spiteful on here - as I said no wonder the board is now devoid of the intelligent posters they simply got sick of the likes of you forcing your barmy views down their throat.

The board is "now devoid of the intelligent posters" because most are sick of responding to idiots like you who can see no problem with racism, however casual it may be ande can label a whole ethno-religious group as having "victimhood in their DNA"

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:39 am  

cod'ead wrote:

The board is "now devoid of the intelligent posters" because most are sick of responding to idiots like you who can see no problem with racism, however casual it may be ande can label a whole ethno-religious group as having "victimhood in their DNA"

Where did I say racism was OK? I didn't, what I suggested was that certain stereo-typing appears OK e.g. stingy Yorkshireman but other stuff e.g. money grabbing Jews is not. Where do you draw the line? That didn't suit your myopic view of matters - reading has always been an issue for you.

You cannot say anything negative about a religious group without being labelled a racist!! If you complain about IS chopping people's heads off your a racist - the sanitation of debate is killing it. We have politicians who never say anything because they are scared the PC brigade will jump all over them. Politician tweets a picture of house and next thing she is out?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Jews haven't used the concept of persecution as a means of influence - seriously?

People don't post on here because they are sick of you ramming your views down their throats and then resorting to spiteful insults when your views are challenged - all the characteristics of a bully.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:00 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You cannot say anything negative about a religious group without being labelled a racist!! If you complain about IS chopping people's heads off your a racist - the sanitation of debate is killing it. We have politicians who never say anything because they are scared the PC brigade will jump all over them. Politician tweets a picture of house and next thing she is out?

Like it or not there are some things that you may think but not express, or at least keep within a very select bunch of friends and associates, you wouldn't stand up in a crowded pub taproom and declare out loud the "All Jews are money-grabbers" but you may mention it around a table in a low voice, its called being circumspect and like it or not opinions which target certain sections of society are always going to offend someone, and the news is - they always have, even in the good old days when you couldn't be prosecuted for it.

Politicians are well coached in this and most of them pay heed to their media training, occasionally one of them will forget and revert to type but on the whole they know, and the ones who speak to the media regularly, are coached regularly and spoon fed lines and phrases, hence the reason who most politicians won't answer pointed questions designed to trip them up.

Media training doesn't appear to be on the agenda for business folk though, although you'd think that someone high profile like Dave Whelan, who is bound to be interviewed or asked for statements on a regular basis would partake of a little coaching, possibly ego may play a part, possibly the fact that in his daily life he will be surrounded by people who's livelyhood depends on them saying "Yes Sir" or laughing at the opportune moments may blind him to the fact that his 78 year old opinions and stereotypes are not valid in 2014 - its difficult for them to change the habits of a lifetime, especially when no-one explains why.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:28 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Where did I say racism was OK? I didn't, what I suggested was that certain stereo-typing appears OK e.g. stingy Yorkshireman but other stuff e.g. money grabbing Jews is not. Where do you draw the line? That didn't suit your myopic view of matters - reading has always been an issue for you.

You cannot say anything negative about a religious group without being labelled a racist!! If you complain about IS chopping people's heads off your a racist - the sanitation of debate is killing it. We have politicians who never say anything because they are scared the PC brigade will jump all over them. Politician tweets a picture of house and next thing she is out?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Jews haven't used the concept of persecution as a means of influence - seriously?

People don't post on here because they are sick of you ramming your views down their throats and then resorting to spiteful insults when your views are challenged - all the characteristics of a bully.

You are completely barking, stark-staring barmy

Your posts are invariably littered with staw-men and non-sequiturs. Instead of responding to them, it's far easier for anyone to just roll their eyes, point and continue laughing behind their hands

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:21 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Feeling persecuted is in the Jewish DNA they will complain if someone doesn't understand their superiority

I doubt Dave Whelan is stressed about where his next fried rice is coming from!!

I hardly post on here, so you cannot accuse me of being part of the cognoscenti on here, I'm also not Jewish, but your statement is simply anti Semitic.

Whelan has form for this sort of thing, I doubt he's consciously racist or anti Semitic he appears to be an old man who hasn't moved with the times. Last month I heard an interview with him with regards to the positive discrimination rules in American Football where he referred to BME people as "coloured", not offensive to me but certainly not acceptable to people from those backgrounds anymore.

Whelan is a silly old giffer, what's your excuse?

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:32 pm  

Your post strikes me as ageist. If you substituted the word "black" for the word "old" how do you think that would go down?

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:58 pm  

Euclid wrote:

Your post strikes me as ageist. If you substituted the word "black" for the word "old" how do you think that would go down?

Yeah, it would strike someone as ageist if you were a massive gormclops purposely misinterpreting it for your own puerile agenda.

It would be ageist if I were referring to all people over an unspecified age, but I wasn't was I, I was referring to Dave Whelan.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:46 pm  

Well I wasn't fishing but I certainly got a bite.
Resorting to insult doesn't really advance your argument or earn respect.
Oh, and concepts like racism, ageism or any other "ism" are not number specific, they can apply to one, many or all of any group.