The woman with the red Labour rosette looks very nervous. Obviously expects Anne to pull out an axe and start murdering people.
- Status
The woman with the red Labour rosette looks very nervous. Obviously expects Anne to pull out an axe and start murdering people.
She actually said:
and you kept on insisting.
As A.Q. said herself, stop trying to spin this into a Trumplike speech.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,209
I completely missed her - I was distracted by the conehead standing next to the lady in the green jacket. That guy has the tallest head I've ever seen!
This is what Farage was going on about on the radio earlier. He has obviously misunderstand the statement. I would understand from that "You would not do that for a foreign country, why do you do it for the european anthem?" You know that the ode to joy/europe has been the anthem for Council of Europe since 1955, it is about much more than the EU.
Mega Tsunami
Emperor
And what about the clowning LibDem MEPs with their “Bollocks to Brexit” Tshirts yesterday?
Perhaps the Brexit party missed a trick – they should have worn their “Bollocks to Brussels” T-shirts.
Quite. One of the EU’s new El Presidentes (just chosen yesterday) will be Ursula von der Leyen (a German defence minister) who not only supports an EU Army, also said this in 2011:
“My goal is the United States of Europe, based on the model of the federal states of Switzerland, Germany or the US”
Perhaps the Brexit party missed a trick – they should have worn their “Bollocks to Brussels” T-shirts.
+1
We have an invasion of UK clowns in the EU
This would be the EU army that we simultaneously have no control over and can veto its existence? I could understand you being confused; Jacob Rees-Mogg certainly seemed to be.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
Something a bit weird about saying a "country cannot be part of another country", but then mentioning the UK in the same breath.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
What are you blibbering about? I made a specific statement, and the answer I got was to a different statment. Then you tell me that "what I said is not what was actually said". What are you even on about?! If you're just telling me that what I asked is not what was answered, then I already know that.
Let's keep it simple. The claim was "some areas are not safe for non-Muslims". Is this a true statement, yes/no?
The response I got was "I don't agree that areas are unsafe because they are Muslim. Stop trying to scapegoat* people.". Which isn't the same. The you come along and tell me I'm the one "not saying what was actually said"? Go away.
* particularly ironic given that's exactly what this reply was actually doing.
Senethro
Overlord
Why don't you post evidence for a thing to qualify it, instead of wasting everyones time trying to adjust the reading of a phrase so that it cannot reasonably be false, but has no significance?
Oh wait, because you don't actually care about the subject. The wasting of peoples time is the end in itself.
You're pathetic.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
By "adjust the reading of the phrase" you mean "directly quoting the original phrase as it was written, while trying to stop everyone else constantly changing it into something else that wasn't said"?
And when you say "it cannot be reasonably false" I'll assume that means I can put you down as someone else who agrees that it's true then. Cheers.
The feeling is obviously very much mutual
I don't even normally bother responding to you at all these days, but I was bored so sue me.
Senethro
Overlord
By "adjust the reading of the phrase" you mean "directly quoting the original phrase as it was written, while trying to stop everyone else constantly changing it into something else that wasn't said"?
And when you say "it cannot be reasonably false" I'll assume that means I can put you down as someone else who agrees that it's true then. Cheers.
The feeling is obviously very much mutual
Just examine yourself little man. You're feigning defending a racist conspiracy theory in a timewasting, pedantic manner due the particular people on this forum who oppose that racist conspiracy theory. Very much like a toddler transgressively enjoying a brief burst of warmth that someone else is going to have to clean up.
Careful everyone, step around the puddle of Manfred.
Lexicus
Deity
I genuinely don't know which is the scarier prospect, that he is doing what he's doing intentionally or that he might be doing it unintentionally because substance-avoiding semantic quibbling is just how dude rolls
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
Maybe I'm just not so terrified of why someone might be saying a true statement that I feel the need to deny it's actually true.
I just find it intriguing/sad/whatever that less than half of Tory party members agree with an objectively true statement, yet what's regarded as bad about this is that it isn't even fewer of them. Like pretending that facts you find uncomfortable don't exist is somehow a virtue.
But obviously you agree with that because that's what's happening here. Even the people kicking up a big stink about this are still admitting things such as the statement "cannot be reasonably false", or that "ofc there are areas that aren't welcoming to outsiders". So you agree that it's true, but you hate the fact so much that you're willing to paint anyone mentioning it as an arch villain. Or you'll slyly reword it into something you can actually object to, then moan about the other person "rephrasing" it when they keep pulling it back to the actual initial statement.
It's kind of sad, but what else can I expect from the feels-before-reals brigade I suppose.
Edit: An aside, but I thought it was odd for you to label it as a "conspiracy theory" as well, seeing as there's no conspiracy here (real or posited), which is surely a key component of such a thing?
I just find it intriguing/sad/whatever that less than half of Tory party members agree with an objectively true statement, yet what's regarded as bad about this is that it isn't even fewer of them. Like pretending that facts you find uncomfortable don't exist is somehow a virtue.
But obviously you agree with that because that's what's happening here. Even the people kicking up a big stink about this are still admitting things such as the statement "cannot be reasonably false", or that "ofc there are areas that aren't welcoming to outsiders". So you agree that it's true, but you hate the fact so much that you're willing to paint anyone mentioning it as an arch villain. Or you'll slyly reword it into something you can actually object to, then moan about the other person "rephrasing" it when they keep pulling it back to the actual initial statement.
It's kind of sad, but what else can I expect from the feels-before-reals brigade I suppose.
Edit: An aside, but I thought it was odd for you to label it as a "conspiracy theory" as well, seeing as there's no conspiracy here (real or posited), which is surely a key component of such a thing?
Senethro
Overlord
Noone is interested in attacking your precious definitions, they're interested in the spread of racist lies. What you've done is adopt a phrase that can be accepted as true if someone trips over a dodgy kerb on a street where a guy called Johnny Iqbal lives.
The actual claim is that there are parallel societies in the UK under sharia law, as propagated by racists who are insistent that these "outsiders" are a threat to the British state and people. But as usual you've latched upon a single phrase (areas being "unsafe"), shorn it of context so it could mean anything, and are now pretending to defend it vigorously.
The actual claim is that there are parallel societies in the UK under sharia law, as propagated by racists who are insistent that these "outsiders" are a threat to the British state and people. But as usual you've latched upon a single phrase (areas being "unsafe"), shorn it of context so it could mean anything, and are now pretending to defend it vigorously.
Lexicus
Deity
You repeatedly demonstrate a susceptibility to far-right propaganda because you lack political fluency. As an example, you take the statement at face value because you apparently have no idea of the context in which such a statement is made. "Areas unsafe for non-Muslims" is recognizable to anyone with basic political fluency as a nod to the far-right conspiracy theory Senethro mentions involving parallel societies and Sharia law. The fact that you didn't recognize this shouldn't really be held against you, it's the attitude you take toward people who actually have political fluency and understand the context - as if we are just making things up for the hell of it, or trying to intentionally twist the definitions of words - that is, to put it mildly, not what I would expect to see from someone approaching this stuff in good faith from a position of genuine ignorance.
I cannot add much to what Senethro and Lexicus have said. You are either repeating racist talking points because you are racist yourself or simply because you are clueless and/or careless about it and just throw words about.
Last edited:
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
You're all a load of loonies. Sorry.
- Status
