Monday, August 10, 2009

Thoughts On the Town Hall Disruptions

By Louis Proyect
August 09, 2009

On August sixth, a Marxmail subscriber posed the question of “proletarian defense guards for Democrats, specifically Democratic congress members attempting to hold town hall meeting.” He, as the rest of us, must have realized how anachronistic such a term was but added:

It sounds weird, true, but I was contacted today as part of a mobilization to confront the hysterical collection of Ron Paulites, birthers, and other associated storm troopers who will be attempting to shut down a discussion of health care tonight by our aging congressman. In other parts of the country liberal representatives have had to flee of be escorted out by the police. The UAW is also supposed to lend some rank and file militants to this so we shall see how things turn out.

Does a proletarian defense guard for an aging Democratic hack make any sense to anyone here? It is true that the local right wing is particularly virulent and I noticed several “Death to communists” at the “tea party” tax protest. It brought to mind the fact that all the Obama signs/ stickers I saw on campus were defaced with a Soviet flag stickers. Given how incensed these people are one wonders what they would do if a real socialist were in any elected office.

I am not going to agonize now over the popular front overtones about all this but I really hate these creeps and I can be as loud as these assholes any day of the week. The larger question remains is that what is the correct path in this era of political polarization and the increasing virulence of the neo-Nazi faction of the Republican Party. I would appreciate other comrades’ experience and thoughts on this issue.

A Huffington Post article fleshed out the Marxmail subscriber’s report on trade union involvement, as well as the frenzy that this had driven the rightwing into:

Union officials continued to receive a barrage of threats on Friday evening and into Saturday punctuated by warnings that if organizers were sent to counter-demonstrate at health care town halls they would be met with violence.

An official with the AFL-CIO, a federation of labor organizations, passed on what he described as a “pretty direct threat” to those union hands who were showing up to balance out anti-Obama demonstrations being waged at local Democratic forums.

“I will be going to a local town hall this weekend, all you union members BEWARE!” an emailer wrote at 9:40 Saturday morning. “We will be waiting for you. better make sure you have arrangements with your local ER. today is the day when the goon meets the gun. see you there
.”

The rightwing has been posting Youtube clips about these confrontations. The one below shows the trade union defense guard clearing them out of a town hall meeting organized by Kathy Castor, a Democratic Congresswoman from Florida. It reminded me of some of the assignments I had defending meetings in the 1960s but I was about half the size of these guys.

So far most of the violence at these meetings has consisted of pushing and shoving from the rightwingers, but we cannot rule out an escalation at some point especially in light of the recent murder of an abortion provider in Kansas. For the last several months, talk radio, Fox TV, Lou Dobbs on CNN, the “birthers”, and the far right wing of the Republican Party in Washington has worked itself into a lather around a number of seemingly unrelated issues: whether Obama was born in the US or not; the supposed possibility that health care reform will lead to old people being thrown to the wolves; and a general sense of economic vulnerability.



When the evening newscast the other night was showing footage of the chaos at another one of these town meetings, I told my wife that it reflected the basic difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats do everything they can to demobilize their base, who are seen as inconvenient and extraneous to their main way of getting things done, namely through closed door meetings with corporate executives and nonprofit honchos over how to screw the American people while giving the opposite impression. Meanwhile, the Republicans are much more reliant on an activist base because their social support is much narrower. As a party that rules directly and openly in the interests of the moneyed elite, it requires all sorts of grass roots organization to push its filthy agenda forward.

But in practice, this means that the grass roots is almost always reliant on seed money from deep-pocketed foundations and corporate benefactors. Conservatives for Patients’ Rights takes credit for interventions at these town meetings. A character named Rick Scott, who is a millionaire investor and formerly head of the Columbia/HCA health-care company, leads CPR. A fraud investigation in the 1990s resulted in the Columbia/HCA pleading guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans. It ended up paying a record $1.7 billion in fines. According to Politico, CPR has raised $20 million to fight health care reform. You can bet that this is more than enough to pay for transporting mobs from one town hall meeting to another, including the one that just got the heave-ho from trade unionists in Florida.

It is impossible to predict what the next four years have in store but you cannot rule out such confrontations being repeated with some regularity given the sharpening of class tensions in the U.S. over what looks like a protracted L shaped recession. Even though the Dow-Jones index is heading toward the 10,000 level, the job and housing situation remain bleak.

Obama will do everything in his power to convince those who voted for him to remain patient while he carries out what amounts to a third Bush term, but there will be more and more defensive measures by the poor and the working class in defense of its own class interests. One can be reasonably assured that the level of discontent in the US will rise despite the African-American President’s clear gift for demagogy and deception.

And as the workers and the poor begin to fight for their rights, the retrograde social forces churned up from a capitalism in decay will become more and more violent and inclined to direct action. While this does not pose any immediate threat of fascism, largely a function of the unlikelihood of a revolutionary socialist movement gaining the necessary numbers and influence any time soon, there will be a need to study the 1930s just as the Marxism list subscriber alluded to when he referred to proletarian defense guards—the sort of thing that hasn’t been seen since then.

For one of the best introductions to the period, I can recommend Leon Trotsky’s Whither France, a sharp polemic against a Popular Front Government that like Obama’s tried to keep its social base demobilized while the fascists were taking over the streets. Trotsky wrote:

It is not the spirit of combination among parliamentarians and journalists, but the legitimate and creative hatred of the oppressed for the oppressors which is today the single most progressive factor in history. It is necessary to turn to the masses, toward their deepest layers. It is necessary to appeal to their passions and to their reason. It is necessary to reject the false “prudence” which is a synonym for cowardice and which, at great historical turning points, amounts to treason. The united front must take for its motto the formula of Danton: “De l’audace, encore de l’audace, toujours de l’audace.” To understand the situation fully and to draw from it all the practical conclusions, boldly and without fear and to the end, is to assure the victory of socialism.

I imagine that everybody will have no trouble understanding Danton’s French, but it turns out that he was saying: “Audacity, again audacity, and always audacity.” Given our weakened state, most leftists have difficulty thinking in terms of audaciousness. But if the period we are entering is marked by open conflict between workers and their class enemies, we have to dust off our weapons and march off to the class war once again.

RENEGADE EYE

277 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 277 of 277
SecondComingOfBast said...

AIDS is caused mainly by anal sex. The fact that it exploded among the homosexual population is obviously due to the fact that there are a large number of gays who practice anal sex. The implications are that they practice this act in far larger numbers, and with far greater frequency percentage wise, than do members of the heterosexual population. They also tend to be less monogamous, far less so, than the heterosexual population in general. Then you have another factor, one that at least one vocal segment of the gay population likes to pretend does not exist: bisexuals who contributed to the spreading of the disease among the heterosexual community.

Another factor that contributed to the spread of the disease in the gay community was activism. A large, radical segment of the gay community (which consisted in no small part of vast numbers of the infected portion of the population) proclaimed the disease itself to be a myth.

To make matters worse, other gay activists demanded the halting of research into vaccines meant to stop the spread of the disease, demanding instead that research dollars be devoted exclusively to the cure of those who contracted the disease.

Incidentally, there are now clinical trials being conducted in South Africa, as we speak, which is geared towards testing a vaccine which will hopefully stop the spread of the disease.

Personally, I think its a good idea to concentrate on the disease as one that has its origins in the practice of anal sex. It is disingenuous to not realize that the homosexual population has been by far the single greatest contributor to the spread of the disease by virtue of the practice of anal sex, particularly through the practice of sex with multiple partners.

Those practices have probably contributed highly to the spread of the disease in Africa, regardless of whether or not the largest percentage of the infected persons are gay. The major point is anal sex, unprotected sex, sex with multiple partners, and in the case of Africa, rape as both a sexual practice of choice, and as a tactic of war.

Gert said...

My last word on the 'NHS controversy':

From Wall Street Journal, here:

LONDON -- The rancorous U.S. health-care debate has hopped the Atlantic, with British politicians and citizens racing to defend the honor of the country's National Health Service against perceived attacks from the Americans.
The rush is a response to claims about the alleged inefficiency and poor quality of the U.K. system made by critics of President Barack Obama's proposals on health-care reform. Opponents of the proposals claim the president intends to nationalize health care and point to purported weaknesses in the U.K.'s service as a warning of what could happen in the U.S.
That has brought a fierce response from many corners of the U.K., where the U.S. health-care debate suddenly threatens to become a local political issue. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leader David Cameron each have interrupted their summer holidays to weigh in.
[snip]
The attacks have struck a nerve in Britain, where criticism of the NHS has been headline news. The front page of the Daily Telegraph newspaper Friday carried a cartoon of a British doctor saying he preferred the U.S. health-care system because "their hospital TV dramas are so much better."
Mr. Brown joined a wave of Britons who rallied to defend the 61-year-old institution on the "welovetheNHS" stream on Twitter. "The NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death," wrote Mr. Brown on Thursday.
"It's not just a health-care system; it's part of our social fabric," said Lord Ara Darzi, a surgeon and former minister in Britain's Department of Health. He defended the U.K. system as effective and comprehensive. "I don't come to work in the morning thinking if the patients are going to be able to afford the treatment I'm about to give them," Lord Darzi added.
The NHS, founded in 1948, is funded through taxes and has a budget of £105.8 billion ($175.4 billion) for the coming year. It offers all U.K. residents free access to health care, with some exceptions such as certain dental procedures and some prescription medicines.
Many British people take the availability of free health care for granted. But national health provision remains a highly emotive issue, with many people saying the problem is that spending isn't large enough.
One British conservative politician who has sided with Mr. Obama's critics is European parliamentary member Daniel Hannan. During a U.S. television interview Thursday, Mr. Hannan characterized the U.K. system as one with long waiting lists for operations and a lack of patient choice. It is "a relic" of wartime Britain and "puts the power of life and death in a state bureaucracy," said Mr. Hannan, during the interview on Fox News, which is owned by Wall Street Journal parent News Corp.
Despite being virtually unknown in the U.K., Mr. Hannan touched a nerve for the Conservative Party, which has sought to dispel its image as a party that wants to cut back public services such as the NHS.
The Conservative Party spent Friday distancing itself from Mr. Hannan, who is seen as a right-wing maverick in the party. Mr. Cameron went before television cameras and dismissed Mr. Hannan's views as "eccentric" and said his party "stands foursquare behind the NHS."
Mr. Hannan, reached by phone Friday, declined to comment, saying he was on holiday.

(continued below)

Gert said...

The Department of Health also has rushed to the NHS's defense, supplying journalists with a three-page fact sheet to counter what it considers are misconceptions about the service. It said services are provided on the basis of clinical need, rather than age or the ability to pay, and that patients can make choices about doctors and hospitals.
The fact sheet also supplies statistics measuring Britain favorably against America, including better life expectancy rates (78 years in the U.K. versus 77 years in the U.S.) despite spending less per capita ($2,500 a year and $6,000 a year, respectively).
"The NHS delivers fast, high-quality and safe care to over one million people every 36 hours, waiting times are at record lows, patient satisfaction is at an all-time high, we have more doctors and nurses than ever before," said U.K. Health Secretary Andy Burnham. "Health care should not be a luxury that some cannot afford."
Andrew Hickey, a 30-year-old software engineer, is among Britons miffed the reputation of the NHS and its employees is being dragged through the mud. "Not only are people in America getting the wrong information, the people in Britain are being slandered," said Mr. Hickey, who spent several years working for the NHS as a nursing assistant and whose wife is an NHS nursing assistant now.
He added: U.S. politicians are saying NHS employees "work for a system that kills old people. That goes against absolutely everything the NHS stands for."

Gert said...

Pagan:

"AIDS is caused mainly by anal sex. The fact that it exploded among the homosexual population is obviously due to the fact that there are a large number of gays who practice anal sex."

... is a stereotypical cliche mainly (but not only) uttered by homophobes.

For one, many homosexuals DO NOT practice anal sex and quite a few heterosexuals practice it too. See any self-respecting straight blue movie and anal sex is almost always an integral part of the menu.

Infection routes for AIDS are now multiple: almost any (but not all) exchange of bodily fluids can cause it.

Infected syringes, blood transfusions and unprotected sex (straight or gay) are all routes (in no particular order). In essence, have unprotected sex of any kind and you're greatly increasing your chances of being infected by an STD, including the most lethal of them all, AIDS.

Is this what they teach you in school, Pagan, that you'll be OK if you only have non-anal sex with 'clean girls'?

"Another factor that contributed to the spread of the disease in the gay community was activism. A large, radical segment of the gay community (which consisted in no small part of vast numbers of the infected portion of the population) proclaimed the disease itself to be a myth."

A long time ago perhaps Pagan. The gay community has long since moved on. Unlike you...

Ducky's here said...

Well whatever the problems with the NHS service it remains that America spends more per capita of PUBLIC FUNDS on health care than Britain.

If Britain ever funded NHS the way we spend money here the Brits might be moving closer to the elusive perfect health care system.

As it is, in America we are still suffering from the days of St. Ronnie Raygun and his toadie Maggie Thatcher who made our system more "for profit", greatly ratcheted up profit expectations in all sections of our economy and promptly trashed our health care system for a portion of the population.

Gert said...

Sentinel:

There was no ad hominem from my side: you're far right, what's ad hominem about that? You've invoked Marxism and 'Cultural Marxism' G-d only knows how many times. That's the hallmark of the far right. Be loud and proud but don't fake 'offence' were none was given.

You brought Cookie up, for no good reason. You keep doing so. You brought up anti-Semitism and Nazis. And nationalism, claiming I equated it with Nazism. I don't. Only in your mind.

My support for the Palestinian cause isn't 'fanatic': the friendship lost was a two way street (about which you know little if anything). I support a cause that too few do. If it means losing the odd friendship over it, then so be it. Do you call Zionists 'fanatics' too?

You've now gone hysterical.

My question remains: if AIDS is a homosexual disease (again, I didn't bring that up) what do you plan to do about it? It's not sidelining, it's a rational question about your allegedly rational position.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I misspoke. I said "AIDS is caused mainly by anal sex". I should have specified that the probable origins of HIV/AIDS was the practice of anal sex. Of course, I know that once the disease is out in the general population, it can be spread by other forms of sexual contact. That does not change the fact that anal sex is still the largest factor, both on-going and in origin (at least in the developed world) and that the largest contributors of the disease (again, at least in the developed world) is amongst the homosexual population, given that they practice unprotected anal sex in far greater numbers (at least in terms in percentage of population) than do heterosexuals, and they are far more likely to not be monogamous.

All you have to do is look at the numbers of stricken gays. How else can this happen but through anal sex? You're not likely to get it sucking a dick, unless you have a sore in your mouth, bleeding gums, etc.

As for how the gay community has "moved on", that might well be, but it's beside the point. Thanks to their ignorance and stupidity, the disease exploded amongst their own community, and from there into the heterosexual population in large part by way of bisexual activity. Ever since then we've been having to play catch-up, thanks to them.

Gert said...

Pagan:

"Thanks to their ignorance and stupidity, the disease exploded amongst their own community, and from there into the heterosexual population in large part by way of bisexual activity."

The gay community was by and large (and to some extent still today) a stigmatised group, inevitably they tried initially to avoid getting associated with this deadly disease.

Your bias still shines through though: if multiple infection routes are now the norm, then why not equally blame ALL those who take no precautions to prevent transmission?

"[...] given that they practice unprotected anal sex in far greater numbers (at least in terms in percentage of population) than do heterosexuals, and they are far more likely to not be monogamous."

Hearsay. Many in the gay community will dispute that: AIDS awareness is very high among them.

The most promiscuous people are sex-workers (of various kinds): thanks to consistent use of condoms and other precautionary measures, sexual health is often extraordinarily high in these groups.

Anonymous said...

It's your attitude to homosexuality that makes you choose sources that appear to confirm gayness and AIDS are God's punishment.

LOL! I'm a Platonist. We don't believe in "sins" and/or their subsequent "punishment".

You really should focus on refuting the arguments of your adversaries, and NOT your misperceived notions of their intentions and motivations.

But then, when all you've got are moral arguments, I suspect that scientific facts like per sexual act anal vs vaginal HIV transmission rates are too stubborn to bend on the altar of political correctness and maintenance of the myth of the harmless homosexual.

Better luck w/you next argument. Maybe then you'll finally have some facts on your side.

Frank Partisan said...

I'll reply later.

There is a rightist, who claims he was beat up by union members at a town hall meeting. He has a website, that is appealing for money. Why does he need money? The fool has no health insurance. He is fighting to not have insurance.

Anonymous said...

Why is all this emphasis on AIDS being a 'gay plague' so important to you?

It not. Danny boy brought up the whole "gay plague" argument and you followed suit so you could toss in a few accusations of homophobia on anyone who would dare attempt to refute it.

"The Gay Plague" which stems from the ridiculed idea that has no basis in science or fact that AIDS/HIV is a homosexual demographic disease, when it is not at all, as we can see in Africa.

What utter bullsh*t. AIDS is not a homosexual demographic disease? Talk about living in denial. No wonder AIDS is making a such a tremendous comeback in the gay community.

Anonymous said...

...and you'll note that I denounce the practice of anal sodomy, the riskiest transmission factor, not homosexuality. For my admonitions vis a vis anal sodomy aren't limited to homosexuals, for heterosexuals seem to be adopting the much more risky practice in greater numbers, much to their own peril.

Anonymous said...

'Homosexual males, who make up less than 2% of the US population, account for 56% of the adult AIDS cases. As of January 1, 1997, 324,728 men who have sex with men have been diagnosed with AIDS.'

But according to Danny, homosexual's need not fear, for no basis in science or fact that AIDS/HIV is a homosexual demographic disease.

Poppycock.

The Sentinel said...

Gert,


"My last word on the 'NHS controversy'"

Doesn't do anything at all to counter the masses of evidence that I have provided that the NHS is now falling apart.

It has buckled at the strain of having to cater for so many more people, so many new procedures and even diseases that were long eradicated, and is financially in trouble because it is catering for so many people that have never paid into it - and having the worst PC bunch of lying incompetents in governance of it all.

The NHS was once great and it can be again, once this poisonous PC infection has been cured and eradicated and sanity and reality have been restored.


"There was no ad hominem from my side: you're far right, what's ad hominem about that?"

Do you understand what argumentum ad honimen means? "Argue the man" - not the opinion?

That is exactly what you did - you tried to discredit my opinion, not with facts or evidence relating to that opinion, by attempting to discredit me personally. That is what you did. Face it.


"You've invoked Marxism and 'Cultural Marxism' G-d only knows how many times"

I've produced evidenced articles that you couldn't refute, sure.


"That's the hallmark of the far right."

In your mind maybe, to most accusations of anti-Semitism are the key feature.


"You brought Cookie up, for no good reason"

I told you why - to demonstrate that even someone you considered a friend was not immune from your tactics of argumentum ad honimen and insults.


"My support for the Palestinian cause isn't 'fanatic'"

Many disagree with that though don't they?


"You've now gone hysterical."

Really? Why do you think that? Because instead of being intimidated by your argumentum ad honimen, conversely I have demonstrated some of the mud that has been thrown at you?

The truth is I am as calm as I always am; you are the one noted for hysteria.


"My question remains: if AIDS is a homosexual disease (again, I didn't bring that up) what do you plan to do about it?"

I don't plan on doing anything about it. I am not a doctor, a scientist nor a politician.

OK, I have answered your question in full, so my question remains, awaiting an answer in full:

Why don't you explain what a grown gentile man from Belgium, who now lives in the UK, is doing so obsessed with Israel that he has long dedicated his blog purely to criticising them daily, with so much vitriol and myopia that he has lost friends over it to the point that he is more or less alone with it on the blog, expect for his hate mail? Why do Jews and their interactions - interactions that have no possible bearing on your life or experience - arouse that level of fanatical interest for you? What is the basis for this obsession? What is its root?


"Hearsay. Many in the gay community will dispute that: AIDS awareness is very high among them."

And so it should be, considering they are the group far more likely to be infected.

But all in all, you seem to have at least given up trying to perpetuate the lie that AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease and failed over to some twisted moral "so-what-if-it is-you-homophobe" mode.

A bit of progress I guess.


Ducky's Here,

"Well whatever the problems with the NHS service it remains that America spends more per capita of PUBLIC FUNDS on health care than Britain."

And they would appear to get a much better service for the money - unless you can give examples of over 2300 people starving to death in US hospitals in the past 10 years, filthy hospitals killing off patients and making many,many more ill then when they arrived, patients being left on trolley in corridors for days... and all of the rest of the evidence I presented.



FJ & Pagan Temple,

I sometimes wonder if this is what it would be like if you were banged up in the nut house and trying to prove your sanity to a board of inmates!!!!

Anonymous said...

LOL!

Frank Partisan said...

I agree with the guy on Youtube called The Young Turk. Obama has already made a deal, between the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and Senate Finance. There will be no public option.

There is a rightist, who claims union members beat him up, at a town hall meeting. He has a website appealing for $$. Why the $$? He has no health insurance.

MSNBC reported a guy, carrying a sign similar to Tim McVeigh's t-shirt, the day he bombed the Federal Building. He openly had a gun on his possesion. The police said it was legal what he was doing. Could you imagine a Muslim near Bush doing the same thing. He'd be in jail in a minute.

Gert said...

Farmer:

'Homosexual males, who make up less than 2% of the US population, account for 56% of the adult AIDS cases. As of January 1, 1997, 324,728 men who have sex with men have been diagnosed with AIDS.'

You're making my case for me.

With about 50 % of cases worldwide being women it's absurd to call AIDS a 'homosexual' disease. It originated in the male homosexual population and the initial response by that community wasn't great, that is certainly true. Read for instance And the Band Played On by Randy Shiltz, which paints a truthful but hardly flattering picture of the early days and the gay community's response.

Today only a homophobe would still call it a 'homosexual disease'.

Isn't the 2% a bit Ahmadinejadesque? ('There are no homosexuals in Iran!") Most of the world puts homosexuals at about 5 to 10 % of the population.

As regards your aversion to anal sodomy, the whole point of avoiding transmission is to be protected, no matter what gender you are, what sexual orientation you are or what sexual practices you indulge in. Or will you tell your daughters that all in all they've a lower probability of contracting it when they have (non-anal) sex with a stranger? We're all strangers before we meet, by the way...

Condemning anal sodomy is pointless: it cannot be policed and a ban couldn't be enforced. Anal sodomy isn't my cup of tea either but what happens between closed doors cannot be policed or enforced.

"LOL! I'm a Platonist. We don't believe in "sins" and/or their subsequent "punishment".

You must have very badly behaved children. No punishment? And what did you say over at Madze once? That divine law lasts longer? But you don't believe in sin...

Leave PC out of it: it's not where I'm coming from. The reflexive blaming everything on PC is something I leave to the far Right.

Gert said...

Sentinel:

You're far Right. I said so. That's not ad hominem. In return a got a barrage of O/T hysteria but no refutation.

"I've produced evidenced articles that you couldn't refute, sure."

All you ever do is trying to bury the opponent under an avalanche of carefully chosen links.

Two can play that game. Remember how I once played the devil's advocate (at yours) by 'proving' that Britain was a 'racist country'? I provided hundreds of links to 'prove' it.

I don't even disagree entirely with you on the NHS but you come (as always) from a deeply Manichean perspective.

The NHS, for its problems, remains cherished by the majority of Britons, in a strongly bipartisan way, as the outpouring of support against the US Conservative negative campaigning clearly shows.

Obviously to these people it's OK for the British to supply some cannon fodder to fight the US's useless and illegal wars but those same Brits are also perfect cannon fodder in their hysterical war of words on anything nearing a universal heath care system. I thought a Nationalist and Patriot like you would see through that, instead you're behaving like a useful idiot...

"But all in all, you seem to have at least given up trying to perpetuate the lie that AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease and failed over to some twisted moral "so-what-if-it is-you-homophobe" mode."

I've never claimed it was primarily a heterosexual disease. It's a disease, both heteros and homos can get it. There are several non-sexual infection routes too. Simple really...

As regards supporting the Palestinian cause: what's left to say you don't already know? IMHO the displacement and dispossession of the Palestinians is one of the biggest and longest lasting injustices in existence. I support trying to rectify that. I do that together with people from all over the world, from all creeds, colours or nationalities. Why does this bother you?

Gert said...

Ren:

"MSNBC reported a guy, carrying a sign similar to Tim McVeigh's t-shirt, the day he bombed the Federal Building. He openly had a gun on his possesion. The police said it was legal what he was doing. Could you imagine a Muslim near Bush doing the same thing. He'd be in jail in a minute."

Some animals are more equal than other animals.

There's also that famous case of one of Michael Moore's most famous detractors (runs an anti-Moore website) who had to go and beg for money for a treatment he couldn't afford. Moore claims he paid for the bills, at first anonymously.

The Sentinel said...

Gertrude,

"You're far Right. I said so. That's not ad hominem. In return a got a barrage of O/T hysteria but no refutation."

And you keep persisting in your pure argumentum ad honimen and obnoxious labels, because that's all you've got.

I'm just an ordinary bloke who works hard and looks after his family and doesn't like the way that my country - which is my long past ancestral home, which has been built up and served in part by generations of my ancestors and that I have served in turn - is being torn apart; I'm not "far" anything, that's just another piece of the calculated hateful smears and attempts at suppression from the PC for anyone who gives a toss about their country and its people.

Do even you understand what argumentum ad honimen means? "Argue the man" - not the opinion?

That is exactly what you did - you tried to discredit my opinion, not with facts or evidence relating to that opinion, by attempting to discredit me personally. That is what you did. Face it.

But you won't will you? Something else many other have called you out on, including your good friend Cookie.


"All you ever do is trying to bury the opponent under an avalanche of carefully chosen links."

Otherwise known as presenting evidence to back up your case.

A cardinal sin in your PC world I know.


"Two can play that game. Remember how I once played the devil's advocate (at yours) by 'proving' that Britain was a 'racist country'? I provided hundreds of links to 'prove' it."

No I don't; and you couldn't prove the NHS has NOT become a shambolic screw up under our PC overlords whilst I proved it HAS - so whats your point anyway?


"I don't even disagree entirely with you on the NHS but you come (as always) from a deeply Manichean perspective."

That's merely your perspective of my perspective.

As much as the PC junta like yourself think they have the right to dictate what people think and how they act, my perspective is my still my own in any case just at the moment, thanks.


"The NHS, for its problems, remains cherished by the majority of Britons"

I really don't need a Belgian to tell how my countrymen think, thanks.


"Obviously to these people it's OK for the British to supply some cannon fodder to fight the US's useless and illegal wars..."

I've posted against those wars and the British involvement in them actually; on my blog and here.


"...but those same Brits are also perfect cannon fodder in their hysterical war of words on anything nearing a universal heath care system. I thought a Nationalist and Patriot like you would see through that, instead you're behaving like a useful idiot..."

Doesn't even make sense. Remotely.

I deal with truths, not pie-in-the-sky PC fantasies.

The NHS has become a shambles over the past decade or two and I have the integrity and honesty to say so, even if it embarrasses me.

As for what's best for the US, that's up to them, and them alone.


"I've never claimed it was primarily a heterosexual disease."

But you certainly played along with it and then turned it into yet another obnoxious PC hate label-fest for those who countered that stupid lie with evidence.


"Why does this bother you?"

Why does what I "do" bother you?

What you do doesn't bother me at all, but it does bother a lot of people who wonder why you're "really" doing it.

Intrusive, no?

But who cares what they say about you or label you with, as you say "Does the allegation make it true?"

The Sentinel said...

I wondered where the main protagonist for the "NHS is a dreamboat" fantasy and "AIDS is a hetro disease" had gone; and so I went over to have a look, as I do every now and again after receiving the tips of how he likes to make gratuitous personal attacks behind peoples back.

But its OK, because despite having every single contention he put forward thoroughly discredited with irrefutable evidence, in his mind he has "withdrawn from the healthcare debate, my points have been made, they have no rebuttals, just bluster" - must be nice to live in such a world.

He does have one very predictable concern though "but I do have to ask you, if the rules got broken, would you enforce them" - but he doesn't mention if that would be the rule against people that deftly prove his main argument is based upon nothing other then an extremely erroneous application of Occam's razor, the rule against people proving his contentions on the NHS wrong or just the general rule about disagreeing with anything he has to say. Period.

Like I said a while back, I'm no psychic but...

Gert said...

Sentinel:

"And you keep persisting in your pure argumentum ad honimen and obnoxious labels, because that's all you've got."

I assess your political position as being on the Far Right of the political spectrum. Why you keep insisting this is ad hominem totally beats me.

"But you won't will you? Something else many other have called you out on, including your good friend Cookie."

You talk of something (repetitively ad nauseam) of which you know almost nothing. Cookie had been under pressure from his Conservative blog buddies to break with the 'Eurotrash (me)'. He caved. There's more to it than that but it plays a big part. We'll patch things up, I'm sure of it. Even how we 'met' you don't know: a massive spammish attack on me, led by his Pirates Armada. Later he apologised for the abuse and we became friends. The Armada didn't like that too much...

Give it a rest: it's between friends.

"A cardinal sin in your PC world I know."

PC is like the bogeyman to people like you: you can project anything onto it and try explain all the ills of the world. Your view on PC is a conspiracy theory.

"I really don't need a Belgian to tell how my countrymen think, thanks."

Sure, and it's not me who's telling you what they think. They speak loudly and clearly for themselves. Unless of course they've been tortured by the 'spin and PC' brigade... (LOL)

"I deal with truths, not pie-in-the-sky PC fantasies.

The NHS has become a shambles over the past decade or two and I have the integrity and honesty to say so, even if it embarrasses me."


Clearly a lot of people disagree with you on that 'truth'. It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be. But it is to you. So be it.

"But you certainly played along with it [...]"

Read it back. My position is simple: singling out homosexuals as the only carriers/transmitters of AIDS is baloney, as well as dangerous: your own friends and family, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or sexual practices are equally at risk, more so if they were to believe they're less at risk.

"[...] but it does bother a lot of people who wonder why you're "really" doing it."

I can't help it if some imbeciles can't see what's plain for all to see. But the 'why aren't you bothered about XY and Z, instead of I-P?' is Classic Zionist Apologetics (aka Hasbarah TM), an attempt at shutting people up.

You should calm down instead of fighting windmills here. Go get a drink, chill with your family, whatever. This isn't worth the aggravation. We differ in opinion. Get over it.

Frank Partisan said...

I left comments last night, that I can't find now.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRK_Xw1KG9U Did Obama sell out already? I'm afraid the Young Turk is right.

A teabagger claims he was beat up by union members at a town hall meeting. He has a website up asking for $$. Why $$? He has no health insurance!

MSNBC reported there was a guy picketing Obama outside a town hall meeting, openly armed with a gun in a holster. He had a sign with a quote from Jefferson Tim McVeigh was fond of. Nothing was done to him.

Could a Muslim picket Bush, openly armed? I doubt it.

Sentinel: Gert's blog differentiates Jews from Zionism. I can't say that about yours.

Gert: You should see Mexican tabloids. Pix of grissly crime, is their forte.

Anonymous said...

Condemning anal sodomy is pointless: it cannot be policed and a ban couldn't be enforced.

Reducing the likelihood of AIDS virus transmission by a per-contact factor of 1,000 is pointless? And nobody's talking about "banning" or "policing" the practice, simply educating people as to "risk factors". But then again, putting the heterosexual community at risk is the only way homosexuals can count on their continued funding of research into a cure. And ultimately, that's what AIDS PC'ness is ALL about.

Gert said...

Ren:

"I left comments last night, that I can't find now."

That comment is there, just a few up from the bottom... Make sure you're ON THE RIGHT PAGE!

I think some South African tabloids really take the biscuit, when it comes to 'reporting' violence...

Anonymous said...

No punishment? You don't get it, do you? Ignorance punishes itself. The principle is called "generation from opposites". But have no fear if you haven't learned that lesson yet, it'll catch up to you.

Gert said...

FJ:

"And nobody's talking about "banning" or "policing" the practice, simply educating people as to "risk factors". But then again, putting the heterosexual community at risk is the only way homosexuals can count on their continued funding of research into a cure."

Conspiracy 101, here we come...

Firstly, who here objects to educating people about the risk factors? Certainly not me. Not Daniel either, I'd imagine. But sex education in Conservative circles? I wonder what Conservapedia has to say about that. Perhaps if it was.limited to 'dirty faggots who take it up the kazoo, is wot did it', then it would be passable for 'sex education'.

Are you opposed to funding research for a cure against AIDS? And you really believe homosexuals are deliberately putting the heterosexual community at risk, so they "can count on their continued funding of research into a cure"?

Now you see, no matter how much I despise the Troofers (911 Truth), their conspiracy theory all of a sudden becomes... almost plausible, at least compared to your shit.

You surprised to be called a homophobe? "The Protocols of the Elders of Los Angeles" really springs to mind.

Please tell me you don't believe that crap? Puuhhh-leaeaease?

Anonymous said...

Firstly, who here objects to educating people about the risk factors?

The same people the liberals target ALL their "orgasm a day" rights messages to, kids.

Are you opposed to funding research for a cure against AIDS?

No, not at all. I support funding it in proportion to the actual threat it poses to the American community. Just as I support funding breast cancer research in proportion to the threat THAT disease poses to the community. And in my opinion, BOTH of the above programs are currently grossly over-funded in proportion to research into other deadly diseases, due to the political pressures brought to bear by special interest, the homosexual and women's lobbies. You know, who I'm talking about. GLAAD, NOW, etc... hence the phrase "political" correctness.

And you really believe homosexuals are deliberately putting the heterosexual community at risk, so they "can count on their continued funding of research into a cure"? Yes, through diverting research funds to their "pet" (and in the case of AIDS largely "preventable") causes.

you surprised to be called a homophobe?

Not by idiots like you intent on picking the pockets of the American taxpayer to fund technological solutions to your own pet moral problems.

So stay out of America's health care debate. Oh, that's right, you depend upon the National Health to do your medical research and solve your medical problems for you... poor b*stard. Those incompetent 9-5 government sponsored leeches will NEVER find a cure. After all, they'd soon be out of a job if they did.

The Sentinel said...

Gert,


“This isn't worth the aggravation. We differ in opinion. Get over it.”

And what did I already say a dozen comments back in regards to opinions:

”And I see the opposite. That's life. Get over it.”


You started the personal element to this not me; instead of your comment addressing my opinion your comment addressed me personally, you tried to discredit my opinion by introducing this far right thing and then demanding that I defend myself against your labels.

The recent exchanges we have had prior to that were cordial and I have never asked you defend yourself against any of the labels thrown at you.



But if you can’t understand why people don’t like being labeled and pigeon holed by you following your own little assessment then you need to get out and meet more people in the flesh.

(And like I said, with the result still on my blog in the margin, one much more thorough online assessment recently placed me as authoritarian left.)

Like I told you I am not “far” anything, I am just an ordinary bloke - just like millions of Britons and Englishmen - who are becoming more and more pissed off that their country is being taken apart by politically motivated fanatical idiots who routinely discriminate against me and my countrymen in their own country and then try and label us as some sort of hate criminals for speaking out about it or for caring about our own country, its future and the future of our children.

It is outrageous but we are not supposed to say it is; just for instance, what sane country would allow people who are clearly not English to advertise jobs for an English government agency paid for by English people in England that specifically bars the English from applying. That’s right - anyone can apply but the English!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-473249/English-girl-barred-Government-job--wrong-kind-white.html


Or how the media love to paint whites as the racist instigators of any ethnic trouble, the same way they did with the recent trouble in Birmingham when all I have seen is the opposite: Ethnic racist violence against whites; look at this video of a innocent white kid getting beaten and robbed (watch them go into his pockets as he hits the floor) by a gang for simply walking down the street in his own country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmrIIlEwy6g

And case that video was too fast here some stills, with some other indigenous victims lying unconscious on the floor.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205263/Police-arrest-31-demonstration-Islamic-fundamentalism.html

Can you show me any evidence that it was anyone else other then whites ending up in this violent mess?

And all with the government sponsored UAF thugs doing what they do best: violence, Ironically confusing the TUC delegation as political opponents and pelting them with missiles (I’ll bet that opened a few eyes) all the while an ethnic and far left crowd was whipped up into a frenzy by a so-called “respect” councilor, Salma Yaqoob, chanting “our streets, our streets” over and over again whilst punching the air. (41 seconds in)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P6EeJ5v6Tk


That is what millions of my countrymen really see and think. But with second thoughts don’t bother wasting your time with this; I’m not really interested. I’ve told you a fraction of what bothers me and a huge section of the indigenous British people and as a result I find myself, bizarrely, back to some justification of why caring about my country doesn’t make me a hate filled monster.

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye,


“Sentinel: Gert's blog differentiates Jews from Zionism. I can't say that about yours.”

Or maybe he’s speaking in code?

I don’t really think that he is, but you seem to place a lot of weight on it. What’s good for the goose…

Like your contention of “crime” being a code word for racists with the awkward part being that in order to mention violent crime in just the UK such as stabbings, shooting and gang rapes, you are invariably involving people from one ethnic group because they are well documented to be behind the majority of those crimes. So perhaps we shouldn’t talk about crime at all, to avoid any confusion on that code.

Because anyway, it is not the victims of crime who really the victims, it is the people that commit the crime against these victims of crime that are really the victims, is it not?

But all in all, I rarely bother to post anything these days but when I do post if the post relates to Zionists then I say, if it relates to Jews then I say so, if its relates to Gurkha’s or squaddies then I say, – I don’t sugar coat it, but in all reality given the vast, overwhelming majority of Zionists are Jews its an odd observation you make in any case.

But then I think you just like to think the worst about me purely because my politics differ from yours. When hofffman-gill choose to call FJ and I "infernal cretins" behind our back, behind comment moderation and absolutely gratuitously you quite obviously tacitly agreed with it by carrying it further against FJ.

Certainly you didn’t seem to think there was anything wrong with a man who had demanded rules (that you gave him) on your blog “to prevent personal attacks” on people, then using his own blog that doesn’t have any of the rules against personal attacks that he demanded you implement on your blog, carrying out the very kind of personal attack that he demanded you make rules to stop on your blog, without having them on his blog.

Now is there some kind of code in there I wonder.

Frank Partisan said...

I don't know how to explain, I left comments last night and today, and I can't find them.

A teabagger from Missouri claims, he was beat up by union members at a town hall meeting. He has a website asking for $$. Why? He has no health insurance.

Obama's security allows people to demonstrate outside his speech, openly carrying guns. Bush's security wouldn't allow Muslims to picket him openly armed. A guy had a gun and holster, carrying a sign with a slogan Tim McVeigh wore on his shirt, the day of the bombing in Oklahoma City.

There will be no public option in Obamacare, is my belief. He will go with the Senate Finance proposal.

Sentinel: Your posts don't differentiate Jews from Zionism.

I'm having anothrer post on this subject.

Frank Partisan said...

I found my comments.

Sentinel: My attacks at DHG's blogs, weren't hurtful. You should admit they were funny. I didn't say anything, that I didn't say at FJ's blog.

Gert said...

Sent:

"But all in all, I rarely bother to post anything these days but when I do post if the post relates to Zionists then I say, if it relates to Jews then I say so, if its relates to Gurkha’s or squaddies then I say, – I don’t sugar coat it, but in all reality given the vast, overwhelming majority of Zionists are Jews its an odd observation you make in any case."

There are probably more non-Jewish supporters of Israel, including supporters of the Jewish RoR, thus Zionists, than there are Jews in the world. Zionism enjoys support from the overwhelming majority of Western countries, countries in which Jews usually make up only a small minority.

The numbers though don't matter. Many Zionists are Jewish, many non Jews are Zionist and many Jews and non-Jews alike are anti-Zionist. It truly transcends ethnicity/nationality/religion.

The anti-Zionist Jewish bloggers I hang out with don't require me to be Jewish (or whatever for that matter), only to be anti-racist, anti-Zionist and rational. Preferably also anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist (bit hard to be anti-Zionist without these two).

Sure, there are those who claim every form of anti-Zionism, indeed every form of criticism of Israel, is anti-Semitic. I've long given up trying to convince them. It's politically motivated of course.

Gert said...

FJ:

"So stay out of America's health care debate."

Try and stop me.

Gert said...

Sent:

"[...] and as a result I find myself, bizarrely, back to some justification of why caring about my country doesn’t make me a hate filled monster."

Go complain to those who say that to you. Not to me.

Gert said...

Sent:

" That is what millions of my countrymen really see and think.."

If that was true the BNP and the NF would have been in power a long time ago. Your nightmarish depiction of a decaying Britain with a deathtrap of a health system and systemic assaults by immigrants on the indigenous is a view that most Britons I know would find hilarious. But who am I but a member of the Guardianista chattering classes, eh? ;-)

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye,

"Sentinel: My attacks at DHG's blogs, weren't hurtful. You should admit they were funny. I didn't say anything, that I didn't say at FJ's blog."

I didn't say they was hurtful.

What I said was that you clearly tacitly agreed with the assessment that we are both "infernal cretins" by continuing with the theme and not challenging it.

Seriously, do you not see how grossly hypocritical it is?

hoffman-gill demanding rules against "personal attacks" on your blog, without having any such rules on his own, and then carrying out entirely gratuitous personal attacks on his own blog but crying about what he perceives as personal attacks on him on your blog and demanding that you "enforce the rules."

Can you really not see anything fundamentally wrong here?

The Sentinel said...

Gert,

Whatever mate. Really, whatever. I am not interested. Its a pointless roundabout.

I see as usual in this kind of "debate" an inventioniof "systemic assaults by immigrants on the indigenous" has been chucked- the links I gave related solely to the recent trouble in Birmingham and everything I said about that is true. Unless you can prove differently?

And of course you are not outraged at the story of the English being the only people barred from an English government agency job because you are not English - you could apply for it, whereas me, in my own country could not. Now that's racial discrimination for you and of the most perverted kind.

But as for violent crime - shootings, stabbings and gang rapes - as I have said, and as I have already proved on this blog, the majority of it is carried out by non-indigenous immigrants - afro-carribeans to be precise. That is a fact, pure and simple.

The NHS is now a shambles and I have proved that beyond any doubt.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

The British are a tolerant bunch but I can tell you that most ordinary working class Britons have just about had it; they are rejecting the main contemporary cause of their plight - the Labour Party - and voting elsewhere. Indeed the BNP did poll a million votes in the recent EU elections and the UKIP polled 2.7 million.

I have met many of the type you describe that find people that are concerned about the state of their country "hilarious" - they invariably tend to be patronising idiots, far from the reality that is the lot of the ordinary working class and soon change their minds, quite vehemently so, over even a minor incident.

Anonymous said...

Try and stop me.

Now why would I want to prevent you from continuing to make a fool out of yourself? Please, continue to spread your ignorance around. I may never convince you as to the dangers of homosexual AIDs, but I'm happy that others might enjoy seeing just how ignorant and self-serving the Left's position on the subject really is. And you help me expose that fact to public view every single day.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait for you to help me expose the UNWRA-Palestinian boondogle in the Middle East, where with your help, the West subsidizes terrorism against innocent Jews.

By the above report, I'd say my message is finally getting out.

Gert said...

FJ:

Your comment:

"But then again, putting the heterosexual community at risk is the only way homosexuals can count on their continued funding of research into a cure."

... is one of the grossest I've come across on the Interwebs in a long time. Worthy of framing. Or better, I might just write a spoof on it. I can see the dirty faggots planning to self-harm, in order to redirect as much funds to AIDS research as possible. Now if they could just manage to infect the US military, they would be home and dry, no? 'Don't ask, just sodomise' kind of thing...

"And in my opinion, BOTH of the above programs are currently grossly over-funded in proportion to research into other deadly diseases, due to the political pressures brought to bear by special interest, the homosexual and women's lobbies."

And here was me thinking 'special interest' groups (see also Israel Lobby) are an integral part of American Democracy, no? Evangelicals, for instance, don't lobby at all, do they? . Big Pharma? No lobbyists on their behalf (bar some Palinesque crazies screaming about death panels, 'socialism', Nazis etc)

Just women and poofters...

Gert said...

FJ:

The Asian Times piece you link to reads in itself like a spoof. Its main argument seems to have been taken straight out of Gabriel Ashe's satirical How to make the case for Israel and win guide to successful Hasbara, in particular the 'Everything sucks' section.

Since 1948, Zionism has done everything it can to minimise the plight of the Palestinians (all the while maximising the fate of Zionists, of course). Hell, up to relatively recently the 'Palestinians don't exist' argument still won some over. See Beakerkin and his clique.

They won't stop now either, rather there's a final push going on.

Zionists will have you believe that if the Palestinians simply surrender there will be peace. But the history of the conflict shows that it hardly matters what the latter do: with the balance of power, thanks to the US and the Europoodles, being so overwhelmingly in favour of Israel, why on Earth would the latter give an inch? If I was them I wouldn't either. Someone (like you) who understands 'will to power' should be able to see that.

As regards 'teggogism', I hope you're aware of the massive amounts of early Zionist terror directed at both the Brits and the Arabs. Begin, in modern day parlance, was a terrorist. A very effective one too...

Anyone who, after 40 years of brutal occupation, still believes that Israel doesn't intend to fully colonise all of Palestine, lives in cloud Cuckoo land...

Israel has, hellishly cleverly, now managed to get everything bogged down in 'settlement freeze' talks. Expect months and months wasted on this non-issue, to determine whether the freeze should last 6 months, 9 months, a year or longer...

The Sentinel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Sentinel said...

Oh I love it!

Back over at the censorship ranch and personal attack shack, we have yet more from the world of fantasy and the perpetuation of it.

"REN to DHG: It was a good time to withdraw, the points were made."

And then they were thoroughly demolished, one by one and with irrefutable evidence.


"DHG: Yes, I spotted that at Tony's it is just that it takes a lot of discipline to withdraw and to leave them posting lies and offensive ones at that..."

What a crock! You withdrew because every absurd contention you had put up was resoundingly smashed; and now you try to claim some sort of victory for not being to be able to counter it!! How typically twisted and absurd.


"DHG: I mean wouldn't you class the denial of AIDS/HIV as homophobia?"

And it wouldn't be complete with the obligatory attempt to "invoke the rules" and get censorship rolling - even when it relates to his own hateful lie that AIDS is the responsibility of heterosexuals and spread by them that he repeated again and again without a shred of evdience and against all of the voluminous evidence to the contray.

Now that is "hetrophobia" - just as hatefull do you not agree?

And then there is the friend of the blog Darren in the same comment thread with another of his great stories peppered with racial pejoratives such as "jungle bunny" "Darkies" and "wog" - but, hey its OK because he use speech marks when he make his racial jibes and the self-appointed master of PC ceremonies finds himself qualified to absolves him of his racism.

What an alice-in-wonderland twisted world of fantasy.

Gert said...

Sent:

It'd be more 'effective' if you made your last comments over there.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Sentinel-

"Now that is "hetrophobia" - just as hatefull do you not agree?"

I do, and I think it is far more prevalent among the homosexual community than homophobia is among the straight community. Gays only seem to tolerate straights either when they think they might "convert" them (either sexually or as political allies) or if they think they can gain something, such as a promotion or some sort of social standing, by being "friends" with straights. Otherwise, to the gay community at large, most straight people are "worthless breeders".

As for the nonsense about how gays are so hated, sorry, I refuse to believe it. Oh sure, that might well have been true back in the day when most straight people weren't that aware or educated about homosexuality, but that's understandable, up to a point. It would be like walking down the street one day and seeing some kind of mutant whose dick is growing where his nose ought to be. It is only naturally that such an unexpected and unusual sight would elicit a negative response of some sort, be it derision, disgust, discomfort, embarrassment, pity, fear, and loathing.

But as enough time went by and more and more people began to appear with penises hanging down over their mouths, they would get more and more used to the idea, and while there would always be a vocal segment who would be hateful towards them, and discriminatory, and perhaps suggest they not be allowed in "polite company", people would gradually come to accept it that there are after all people who are just born this way and we should try to get along with them.

There would always be the awkward moments when a good looking woman would go walking by and a "nose penis" would go shooting up into the air, but life would go on.

And so it would be with the gay community, but they seem to want to go out of their way to make themselves hated, in my opinion. They are spiteful people, and I think they actually subconsciously blame straight people for their condition in some way.

I am speaking in generalities, of course, not of every single individual who is gay. On the other hand, when you see the antics and the hateful rhetoric of those gay activists who purport to represent the overall community, what is one to think?

Gert said...

Pagan:

"I do, and I think it is far more prevalent among the homosexual community than homophobia is among the straight community. Gays only seem to tolerate straights either when they think they might "convert" them (either sexually or as political allies) or if they think they can gain something, such as a promotion or some sort of social standing, by being "friends" with straights. Otherwise, to the gay community at large, most straight people are "worthless breeders"."

Man, please, stop making me PISS MYSELF.

"And so it would be with the gay community, but they seem to want to go out of their way to make themselves hated, in my opinion. They are spiteful people, and I think they actually subconsciously blame straight people for their condition in some way."

Pagan, it says 'No ad hominem' on this thread but to your statement(s) I can only respond as follows: you are an imbecile of unprecedented proportions. You've just managed to call an entire group 'spiteful people' who suffer from a 'condition' and 'blame straight people' for that. Who exactly is being spiteful here?

I don't know if you've noticed but there's little point for a minority to be hateful against a majority: it's a fight the minority can only lose.

The Sentinel said...

Gert,

"It'd be more 'effective' if you made your last comments over there."

Whilst that's not really your concern, the whole point is that I couldn't do that as he practises strict censorship; and you see he not so silly to have the same rules that he demanded here for himself; Oh no, he quite likes to personally attack people and talk about them behind their backs and perpetuate total fantasy knowing that the targets are complete unable to defend themselves or counter it.

But I am the bad one for pointing out this gross hypocrisy and twisted absurdity, am I?

Again, the truth isnt a welcome sight for some.

And by the way, here is another story from friend of the blog Darren - without speech marks this time - on a post about US gun laws:


"If the laws of America had been applied to this fair isle just for ten minutes at 3.15am on 19th October 2008, there would have been two dead coons (your parlance, not mine) at my feet and a smoking gun. The police would have patted me on my head and thanked me for doing my civil duty for taking these ne'er-do-wells out of circulation."


But he's not a racist is he?

We know that because the master of PC ceremonies, the sith lord of PC arbitration, who is entirely qualified to make absolutions of racism based on his own infallible assessment - just as he is entirely qualified to decide guilt of racism on his own infallible assessment- has cleared him of such monstrous evil.

Like I said, I sometimes wonder if this is what it would be like if you were banged up in the nut house and trying to prove your sanity to a board of inmates...


Pagan Temple,

Couldn't agree more.

Many of the offices I contract in have lots of openly gay people in them and I have lost count of the amount of times I have heard the derogatory term "fish" for woman and "breeders" and "worthless breeders" for hetros, and "twinks" and "chickens" for young boys.

On a few occasions I have had some very inappropriate questions from said people asked about my sexuality in a bar or even at work (office socialising is good for future contracts) - questions that if I asked them or women I would be out of the door and maybe in jail - and when I have answered that I am heterosexual I have had taunts about it. I remember one asking me how could I go any near that "dirty stinky fish hole."

But when they use such terms and language its funny, apparently, not 'hetrophobic.'

SecondComingOfBast said...

Like I said, I was speaking in generalities, and did not intend to attribute what I said to every single gay person. I would even go so far as to say that perhaps, just maybe, they are the minority. They sure are a loud and vocal minority, however, if that is the case.

Sentinel-What you said about your experiences with them does not surprise me in the least. I have heard it all. I actually used to support them in their quest for their so-called rights every bit as much as anyone here, believe it or not. Now I'm just sick of them and their antics and hypocrisy, and their self-serving tactics, and pretty much their attitude on a plethora of issues.

I have my own personal views as to what causes a person to turn gay, as well as what causes a certain percentage of the animal kingdom to turn gay. I am sure you have heard that canard as well.

Unfortunately, I can't share those views here, nor pretty much anywhere, for if I did, I would be damned as a homophobe and a hateful bigot. Yet, the ones who would do so of course will insist there is "no such thing" as political correctness. Be that as it may, I'll just keep my views to myself. For now.

It just amazes me how one segment of the population can get away with reacting towards any criticism or not even a criticism really, even a simple observation or a personal theory, as though by giving voice to such relatively innocuous views you have just participated in or somehow support the lynching of Matthew Shepherd.

Yes, it is fine for them to act hysterically and engage in histrionics, or to engage in offensive speech and behaviors, but it you don't agree with them or condone and rationalize their actions-on any matter-you'd best keep your mouth shut.

Gert said...

Pagan:

"Unfortunately, I can't share those views here, nor pretty much anywhere, for if I did, I would be damned as a homophobe and a hateful bigot. Yet, the ones who would do so of course will insist there is "no such thing" as political correctness. Be that as it may, I'll just keep my views to myself. For now."

Yeah, thanks for not sharing, I've had my fill of homophobic bigotry for one thread.

There is such thing as political correctness and there is even such a thing as "political correctness gone mad". But Farmer, Sent and you invoke PC far, far, too often and try and blame your own bigoted views on those who expose them.

"[...] as though by giving voice to such relatively innocuous views you have just participated in or somehow support the lynching of Matthew Shepherd."

Here's what you wrote:

I do, and I think it is far more prevalent among the black community than racism is among the white community. Blacks only seem to tolerate whites either when they think they might "convert" them (as political allies) or if they think they can gain something, such as a promotion or some sort of social standing, by being "friends" with whites.

and

And so it would be with the black community, but they seem to want to go out of their way to make themselves hated, in my opinion. They are spiteful people, and I think they actually subconsciously blame white people for their condition in some way.


Recognise it?

Don't spout nonsense and you won't get shouted down: you're personally insulting my friends.

Gert said...

Here's my theory on gays and the origins of gayness: God keeps making them because He's a spiteful bastard Who loves nothing more than to give atheists some ammunition!

The Sentinel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Sentinel said...

Gertrude,

“Yeah, thanks for not sharing, I've had my fill of homophobic bigotry for one thread.”

Not from me you haven’t - so dont include me in that; unless relaying my experience of the derogatory terms and behavior of some of the gay crowd I have come across (no pun intended) now constitutes a hate crime.

Most likely it does. I should march myself straight to the gulag or asylum for even having an experience that is counter to the PC version of one sided ‘phobia’ let alone allowing it back into my brain to process it for typing and sullying delicate PC flowers with it at large.

How very, very wicked of me. How monstrously phobic. HATE CRIME!!!

But I do notice that you couldn’t give a toss about those experience at all - nothing to say; but if it were the flip side to the coin then, my God, wouldn’t the almighty PC label hell break lose…


“There is such thing as political correctness and there is even such a thing as "political correctness gone mad". But Farmer, Sent and you invoke PC far, far, too often and try and blame your own bigoted views on those who expose them.”

And what do you blame for your bigoted views then?

Challenging ‘hetrophobic’ lies constitutes bigotry now does it?!!

Amazing.


“Don't spout nonsense and you won't get shouted down: you're personally insulting my friends.”

????


“Here's my theory on gays and the origins of gayness: God keeps making them because He's a spiteful bastard Who loves nothing more than to give atheists some ammunition!”

Now that is “homophobic” and blasphemous too– homosexuals are the spiteful product of a nasty god.

You can get off your PC soapbox now and hang your head in shame. Or march yourself off to the gulag...

SecondComingOfBast said...

Sentinel-

Note how in one fell swoop he excuses homosexuality as "natural" by asserting that "God" made them, while denigrating that same God as a nasty, hateful, spiteful creature at the same time. Interesting. Methinks the creature doeth protest too much.

Of course, we all know by now how homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but the result of some gay gene or some such rot. Oh wait a minute though, bisexuality is indeed a lifestyle choice-according to gay activists. They are just confused, and trying to fit in with society, so they choose to have hetero-sexual leanings from time to time, the cads. They are really homosexuals, you see, they are just choosing to fool us all, or perhaps they are simply deluding themselves-by choice, you see.

Dom DeLuise couldn't ask for better material.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who, after 40 years of brutal occupation, still believes that Israel doesn't intend to fully colonise all of Palestine, lives in cloud Cuckoo land...

And why shouldn't they? They fought for and conquered more and more of it after each successive Arab attack. The Arabs are sore losers. It's time they got over it.

Gert said...

Sentinel:

Sheesh, Sent, now you're taking offence at posts that aren't even directed at you.


"Not from me you haven’t - so dont include me in that; unless relaying my experience of the derogatory terms and behavior of some of the gay crowd I have come across (no pun intended) now constitutes a hate crime.



Most likely it does."


You're over-reaching. I've no idea under what law you could be prosecuted for that, I doubt very if there exists one. Even for the direct use of derogatory language directed at gays I don't think there is such a law. If it does, it's likely to be similar to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which is extremely difficult to put into practice (obtain successful prosecutions) because of the multiple safeguards of freedom of speech.

Your nightmarish view on the 'PC brigade' and its mystical powers is mostly that: a bad dream but not reality. Your fight is Quixotic.

Gert said...

Pagan:

"Note how in one fell swoop he excuses homosexuality as "natural" by asserting that "God" made them, while denigrating that same God as a nasty, hateful, spiteful creature at the same time. Interesting. Methinks the creature doeth protest too much."

G-d, you're dense: you can't even recognise three lines of satire. You're living proof that G-d doesn't exist: why would the Omniscient One create something as obtuse as you?

The endless speculation about whether gayness is genetically determined, a "life-style choice" or the result of some hitherto secret mechanism recently unraveled by Pagan is something the vast majority of non-homophobic folks aren't kept awake at night by. Homophobia, on the other hand, requires also a certain degree of obsessiveness with its subject of disapproval/dislike/hatred, resulting in Farmers brilliant conspiracy theory ('dirty fagolets infecting to the heteros to drive funds to AIDS research') and Pagan fog brain's theory on the origins of gayness, a theory we we're told that is simply too homophobic to let loose in this world.

Pagan, you really are priceless imbecile.

Gert said...

Farmer:

"The Arabs are sore losers. It's time they got over it."

Dream on: they won't.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Oh, I'm obsessed with gay issues huh? That's really hilarious coming from you, Gert. All anybody has to do is mention the subject, just once, however slightly, and both you and Danny go off the rails foaming mad frothing at the mouth with insults, sarcasm, and obvious hate for anybody that even hints of a disapproval towards gay issues.

Just in case your wrists are even more limp than usual, let me save you the trouble of scrolling back up to the title of this post by pointing that the tile is "Thoughts On The Town Hall Disruptions".

Somehow, a post about which homosexuality has very little to do, got hijacked by you and a lesser extent Danny into a thread revolving almost completely around the issue of homosexuals.

Yet, I'm the one who is "obsessed"? God, what a fucking joke. I made two comments out of the first two hundred of this thread My third comment on this thread was number 201. By that time I thought I should say something and risk Ren's wrath by daring to offend the offensive.

Finally, let me remind you of one simple fact. My objections to homosexuals by and large has very little to do with the sexual practice of homosexuality. You can take it up the ass all day, Gert, it's seriously none of my business. You can take a dick up the ass and then suck your own shit off your lover's dick for all I care. Why should I care if you don't?

But when you and other homosexuals-who seem to disapprove of the term homosexual and in your delusional states opt to adopt the name "gay" in what I consider to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal what miserable creatures the majority of you really are-make unreasonable demands and act hatefully and spitefully towards any who oppose you on any matter, and then brand as a homophobe any such as myself who have the temerity to dispute you, then you have crossed a line you never really should have crossed, haven't you?

I am tolerant and accepting of any individual on a personal level, so long as they respect me and treat me in kind. Unfortunately, far too many homosexuals are like you, and as such, deserve no respect, either as individuals or as part of a group. That's just the way it is.

The Sentinel said...

Gert,

"Sheesh, Sent, now you're taking offence at posts that aren't even directed at you."

You have already called me 'homophobic' and then later lump me into what you call "bigoted" opinions.

As I said, all I did was argue against a 'hetrophobic' lie and relay an experiance. An experience that you refuse on to comment clearly because it goes counter to the PC line.


"You're over-reaching. I've no idea under what law you could be prosecuted for that, I doubt very if there exists one. Even for the direct use of derogatory language directed at gays I don't think there is such a law. If it does, it's likely to be similar to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which is extremely difficult to put into practice (obtain successful prosecutions) because of the multiple safeguards of freedom of speech."


As usual you are way, way off the mark: Making comments that criticise gays, or can even be perceived to criticise is a criminal offence in the UK and few choice of the application of this law from the PC Gestapo include a young student slightly worse for drink wear arrested and threatened with prosecution for calling a police mans horse "gay."

Source


Or how about a Tory couniler who started a meeting with this:
'Let's start with an easy question to get us going.

'Press A if you're male or B if you're female.'

But it seems nothing is ever that simple. Someone asked: 'What if you're transgendered?'

'You could press A and B together,' quipped Conservative councillor Jonathan Yardley...

A complaint was made - and as a result, he was spoken to by police for his ' homophobic' remark.


Yesterday, the 48-year-old councillor said: 'I went to meet a sergeant and an inspector who told me what I said could be homophobic and started giving me advice on what sort of humour I should engage in.

'They put me through the mill and asked me to confirm what I'd said and told me that a complaint had been made and I could be prosecuted."

Source

Or maybe this:

The Blair mindset saw Sir Iqbal and the author Lynette Burrowes investigated by the Met for allegedly 'homophobic' remarks while elsewhere the elderly Christian couple Joe and Helen Roberts were grilled by police for daring to object to their local council's policy on gays.

Source

And then also at work we have the 2003 Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations specifically for the purpose.

"Your nightmarish view on the 'PC brigade' and its mystical powers is mostly that: a bad dream but not reality. Your fight is Quixotic."

Hardly.

Read the above and tell me that is not the work of PC and the sign of a sick society.

And if you want more examples of PC craziness and its insidious erosion of normality and free speech, I'd be happy to oblige. I have lots.

Gert said...

Pagan:

"Finally, let me remind you of one simple fact. My objections to homosexuals by and large has very little to do with the sexual practice of homosexuality. You can take it up the ass all day, Gert, it's seriously none of my business. You can take a dick up the ass and then suck your own shit off your lover's dick for all I care. Why should I care if you don't?

But when you and other homosexuals-who seem to disapprove of the term homosexual and in your delusional states opt to adopt the name "gay" in what I consider to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal what miserable creatures the majority of you really are-make unreasonable demands and act hatefully and spitefully towards any who oppose you on any matter, and then brand as a homophobe any such as myself who have the temerity to dispute you, then you have crossed a line you never really should have crossed, haven't you?"


Sooner or later imbecilic homophobe like you start calling their opponents... homosexual (I'm totally straight but don't let that bother you, the truth never seems to).

In their imbecility they can't see that using that term as in insult is further proof of their deep prejudices, i.e. in this case homophobia.

BTW, no one that I know, gay or straight, objects to the term 'homosexual'. Gay is a slightly more modern synonym. It rolls of the palette easier than the clunky 'homosexual' and has a slightly more positive ring to it. That's all.

And yeah, I know, you only object to them because they're such a spiteful people. You moron...

Gert said...

Sent:

First case you quote: no prosecution

Second case you quote: no prosecution

Third case you quote: so far no prosecution

I rest my case.

IIRW, the number of successful prosecutions pursued under the Race and Religious Hate Act (linked above) is about 1 per year. The original precursor to the 2006 Act was brought in by Thatcher, BTW...

SecondComingOfBast said...

I object to the ones that are assholes and I object to the PC climate that exists in the US more and more everyday as it already exists in the UK, as Sentinel has pointed out to great effect, and which I shall do my utmost to oppose as long as I have a breath.

But that's beside the point. Homosexual radical PC bullshit is but one of many issues that I oppose. There are many others that I equally oppose and many other issues which I wholeheartedly support.

The point was that I am not the one who is obsessed with homosexual issues and go off the charts foaming at the mouth insane over the subject. You are the one who does that. All it would take is a brief glance through the comments section of this post-and a good many others-for any reasonable person with eyes and a brain capable of general thought and information processing capabilities to discern just how obsessed with the subject you really are.

If it weren't for homosexuals and Palestinians, you would not have a reason to continue your miserable existence.

And if anybody here seriously believes you are a heterosexual, I have something I want to sell them. It's called the Louvre.

Gert said...

Pagan:

If I defended blacks, would you assume I was black too?

That would at least make me a gay black Jew! AND Palestinian TOO!

Anyway, my wife and daughter will have a field day with this! Thanks for that! Honest!

Anonymous said...

Farmers brilliant conspiracy theory ('dirty fagolets infecting to the heteros to drive funds to AIDS research')

I never said any such thing. Divining false motives is the liberal way of assigning good/bad, not mine. That was one of your strawmen. If it sounds silly to you, it's only because it is.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Gert, the man who spends all day engaging in rabid, frothing at the mouth diatribes at anyone who gives him the slightest reason to believe he is, or for that matter might just possibly be homophobic. Quite understandable why anyone would think he's gay. I have an idea your wife wouldn't have quite the reaction you assume she would, Gert.

Oh, she might laugh all right. Be sure and let us all know how red her face gets. That might be a sign of anger, or embarrassment. Or both.

By the way, you ARE aware, are you not, that having a wife and daughter proves nothing, right? It might in fact be a method of self-delusion, hiding the facts from yourself while engaging in vitriolic anger against "homophobes" in your support for gays in order to quell that sick feeling and let off the pressure in a way that will help you feel better about yourself by pretending that you are an enlightened soul.

Yeah, you're enlightened all right. A little light in the loafers is more fucking like it.

The Sentinel said...

Gert,

"I rest my case"

Prettty odd when your case was "Even for the direct use of derogatory language directed at gays I don't think there is such a law" and I then proved that there is.

And in case 1, the guy was arrested, held in cells and charged for saying "Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?" It was only after massive public outrcy and the intervention of his MP that the CPS decided to drop the charges.

In case number 2 an elected offical was ordered to the police station and given a politcal lecture on what the police deem acceptable jokes and language. And threatened with prosecution. But that normal, right?

The last case in case number 3 was an elderly christian couple who wrote a letter to their elected officials of the local council and objected on religious grounds to the policy of giving children that had been taken away from their parents to gay couples. The next day they were visited by an Inspector and a sergeant from CID and told that their letter was (politically) unacceptable; illegal and not to do it again or to even contact the council again. But again, that find isnt it? Perfectly normal.

Get it now? I doubt it...


"IIRW, the number of successful prosecutions pursued under the Race and Religious Hate Act (linked above) is about 1 per year."

That is because it is a piece of purely political venom aimed at curtailing freedom and free speech and the CPS know that British juries treat such fascism with the contempt it deserves. Hence the Labour obsession of moving away from trial by jury.

But people are regularly convicted of racially motivated violence on the other hand. Well, just white people anyway.

I will repeat my experience again and see if you can find it in you to comment on it:

"Many of the offices I contract in have lots of openly gay people in them and I have lost count of the amount of times I have heard the derogatory term "fish" for woman and "breeders" and "worthless breeders" for hetros, and "twinks" and "chickens" for young boys.

On a few occasions I have had some very inappropriate questions from said people asked about my sexuality in a bar or even at work (office socialising is good for future contracts) - questions that if I asked them or women I would be out of the door and maybe in jail - and when I have answered that I am heterosexual I have had taunts about it. I remember one asking me how could I go any near that "dirty stinky fish hole."

But when they use such terms and language its funny, apparently, not 'hetrophobic."

SecondComingOfBast said...

Sentinel-

I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that such conduct here in the US would leave any gay person that engaged in it open to a charge of sexual harassment. PC is unbearable here in the US at that, it must be really bad in the UK for that kind of stuff to be the officially accepted norm. I have no doubt it would be like that here were the political PC elites to have their way.

Not too many years ago, there was the case of a couple of grown men who were arrested and eventually convicted of the rape and murder of a young boy of about the age of eight. You never heard about it on the news. If not for the internet, I would not know about it yet. Of course, there have been cases of a far less heinous nature that are reported every day, in many cases nationally, and in not a few of them, they are reported until you are sick of hearing about them.

Yet you never heard of this case I have mentioned on the national news, nor will you ever, as it involves two homosexual perpetrators. Were the perpetrators to have been two straight men, and their victim an eight year old girl, I am sure I would be able to give you their names, as we would have all been deluged with the information by now.

In the meantime, the parents of the young murdered boy sued the organization called NAMBLA (an activist organization which promotes the "rights" of grown men to have sexual relations with young male minors). The lawsuit stemmed from certain published materials the organization distributed which found its way into the hands of the perpetrators. The published material allegedly confided how adult males could go about picking up and "seducing" underage boys without being caught in the act and prosecuted. In other words, it advised on the safest way to go about breaking the law against pedophilia.

The ACLU defended the organization, which I don't have a problem with so much as I do have a problem with the fact that this story was never, to my knowledge, ever aired on the national news. Which is amazing, considering that this was a case with national implications should the ruling come down one way or another.

Rest assured though, that Gert and other homosexual activists and apologists will insist that these men were not homosexuals. Neither of course are pedophile Catholic priests who have been convicted of raping young underage minor boys in their parishes. They are pedophiles, but they are not homosexuals.

And the PC nonsense just goes on-and on-and on-and fucking on, just like the god damned Energizer Bunny, which as we speak might well be hopping around somewhere up inside Gert's ass.

Gert said...

Pagan:

"By the way, you ARE aware, are you not, that having a wife and daughter proves nothing, right?"

... says the blogger who bases his assertion of my alleged gayness on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, apart from my stating that many of your statements are deeply homophobic?

Tell me numpty, how does it feel to get what's possibly the only objectively verifiable truth on this thread, that of my sexual orientation, WRONG? Most of what we've been discussing here can be considered 'matter of opinion', hard to prove and certainly prone to personal bias. Yet the one thing that is an objective, verifiable truth you manage to get wrong. Why? Because in your utterly bizarre world, 'gay' and 'homosexual' are swearwords, so you thought you could offend me this way. You can't. But you're not speaking the truth. I'm not gay. Not offended but not gay either.

In the past Sentinel claimed I was Jewish. Why? Because he's not too keen on Jews and I'm against anti-Semitism. Against anti-Semitism: MUST be Jewish.

You're a real pair of plonkers.

But hey, if it pleases you, I'll be the gay black Jewish secular Muslim Palestinian wife-cheater for you, no problemo...

Gert said...

Sent:

"That is because it is a piece of purely political venom aimed at curtailing freedom and free speech and the CPS know that British juries treat such fascism with the contempt it deserves. Hence the Labour obsession of moving away from trial by jury."

Read the bill. It's jam packed with caveats to protect freedom of speech, as it should. That and that only makes this a law that's hard to use for prosecution purposes.

" "Many of the offices I contract in have lots of openly gay people in them and I have lost count of the amount of times I have heard the derogatory term "fish" for woman and "breeders" and "worthless breeders" for hetros, and "twinks" and "chickens" for young boys.

On a few occasions I have had some very inappropriate questions from said people asked about my sexuality in a bar or even at work (office socialising is good for future contracts) - questions that if I asked them or women I would be out of the door and maybe in jail - and when I have answered that I am heterosexual I have had taunts about it. I remember one asking me how could I go any near that "dirty stinky fish hole.""


I don't believe you. I've never experienced anything like that. Never. You're making this up or grossly exaggerating it.

Gert said...

Pagan:

"Rest assured though, that Gert and other homosexual activists and apologists will insist that these men were not homosexuals. Neither of course are pedophile Catholic priests who have been convicted of raping young underage minor boys in their parishes. They are pedophiles, but they are not homosexuals."

There are gay pedophiles and there are non-gay pedophiles. Simple really... Obviously not to you... Is child abuse any more serious when it is committed by a gay person? Less serious when it's committed by a straight person?

You're the one making ridiculous distinctions here.

The Sentinel said...

Gert,

"Read the bill. It's jam packed with caveats to protect freedom of speech, as it should. That and that only makes this a law that's hard to use for prosecution purposes."

Then why do British juries - and ultimately the British people reject it then?


"I don't believe you. I've never experienced anything like that. Never. You're making this up or grossly exaggerating it."

I thought as much. It goes against every PC piece of bullshit you believe in and you say you have never experienced it and so no one else could have and so you have to call me a liar instead. You warped delusional twat. You low life warped delusional twat. No wonder everyone abandons you. Not a single word you say will have any credibility with me now. You need to get out into the real world, sunshine, and stop your irrational myopia.

At the very least, tell me, in all reality that you know that these terms exist? Or do you really need to look more of twat by me proving it is in common gay slang usage?

The Sentinel said...

Pagan Temple,


In regards to what you describe in the US, I think this pretty much says it all for the UK:

The first male homosexual couple to be approved for foster care in the UK were convicted for sexually abusing the young boys placed in their care, aged from just 8 years to 14 years in 4 sample charges. They had fostered a total of 18 boys.

It emerged during the trial that the authorities suspected that they were abusing the boys and were even warned by parents but did nothing for fear of being branded 'homophobic.'

"Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men's explanations and did nothing"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html

The Sentinel said...

"In the past Sentinel claimed I was Jewish. Why? Because he's not too keen on Jews and I'm against anti-Semitism. Against anti-Semitism: MUST be Jewish."

And yet you are frequently accused of anti-Semitism yourself.

Gert said...

Sentinel:

"Then why do British juries - and ultimately the British people reject it then?"

They don't: it's the CPS who decides what's worth prosecuting and what's not, on the basis of the probability of a successful prosecution ending in conviction. In the case of 'hate speech', in most cases the caveats of the Law provide cover for the defendant, so much so that prosecuting would be pointless.

Juries have little to do with that.

"At the very least, tell me, in all reality that you know that these terms exist? Or do you really need to look more of twat by me proving it is in common gay slang usage?"

As so often my point is not that you're wrong but that you hopelessly exaggerate the seriousness and frequency of these occurrences.

Pissed out of their mind pub goers on a Friday and Saturday night pose a far greater problem. Their low level vandalism and violence affects a lot of people and costs a lot of police time to try and maintain some order.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Sentinel-

"I don't believe you. I've never experienced anything like that. Never. You're making this up or grossly exaggerating it."

"I thought as much. It goes against every PC piece of bullshit you believe in and you say you have never experienced it"

See here's the deal Sentinel. I believe both of you here. Simply put, they are trying a tactic on you that they know they don't have to engage in with Gert. With Gert, in all likelihood all they have to say is "let's go, bitch."

And no Gert, I am not calling you gay as a means of insulting you. I am saying you are probably gay because no straight man would get so worked up over gay issues as you do. Just as simple as that. You take it too personally, so much so that it goes beyond the bounds of honest, sincere empathy and support. It's personal to the point that you get enraged by the topic. One might well assert that the topic of homosexuality gets you aroused.

As for why you get so worked up over Palestinians and their problems with Israel, hell, for all I know you could have had your heart broken by a cute Israeli soldier boy. Who knows? Who really gives a fuck?

Frank Partisan said...

Gert has insight into the Middle East situation. His solutions are outside the box. As a Jew, I never felt Gert doesn't know the difference between Zionism and Jews.

What's ironic is gay demands are conservative; bourgeoise marriage and the right to be in the military.

Why cure AIDS, if pharmaceutical companies can get $20,000 a yr per person?

I'm shutting off comments. It's gotten away from the topic too far.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 277 of 277   Newer› Newest»