Things That are Racist

[whelk]

One for you SOG that you will agree with

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/daily-mail-century-long-quest-to-demonise-migrants/

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

One for you SOG that you will agree with

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/daily-mail-century-long-quest-to-demonise-migrants/

To be fair, he'll need to wait until it's on the James O'Brien phone in show before he decides if he agrees with it or not...

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Maybe we need new campaigns for the others, travellers, Irish and ginger’s lives matter?

The mask slips again.

 

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

I am not in anyone’s gang but when you seem to want to find it ‘interesting’ that it has become about Jews that is exactly the sort of thing that Corbyn and his like come out with. They oppose all bigotry yada yada and will never anything clearly openly anti-Semitic but funny how they have such an ‘interest’ in Jewishness which Jews who are quite perceptive on the matter of persecution.
As I said earlier and a Hypo has repeated above worth listening to Baddiel on the subject.

The left seem to think being against the Jews is like being against society and money yet fail to see their clear racism and prejudice

 

I have read some Baddiel on the subject. I have spent much of today trying to find out definitively whether the Jewish people are a race, a religion, an ethnicity,  a heritage…what precisely. Plenty of well written articles but nothing definitive either way. The closest I have come is a legal ruling by an American judge stating that the Jewish people are not a race, but can be subjected to racism (for reasons that are too longwinded to get into here). Make of that what you will!

Back to the infamous letter. Abbott was responding to an article that put it that white people could experience racism too. The way I read her reply was that whilst certain types of white people, Jews, travellers, Irish, redheads experienced discriminatory behaviour, only black people experienced “racism” and seemed to be trying to redefine what we think we know racism to be.

The dictionary definition of antisemitism is “displaying hatred or hostility or prejudice towards Jewish people”. I didn’t read any hatred or hostility towards Jewish people in her reply. Prejudice? Hmmm. She mentioned a number of white groups that have also faced bigotry, persecution, discrimination, but there doesn’t seem to be such a backlash from the Irish,travellers or redheads. She didn’t single out Jewish people she singled out white people. Does that constitute prejudice towards Jewish people or prejudice against white people?

You mention Corbyn. I don’t think being pro Palestinian automatically makes you an anti- Semite and I don’t believe that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I do believe he handle the claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party very poorly though.

We can bat this stuff back and forth all day long, but the main point is that Starmer dealt with it as soon as it kicked off and hopefully this (she) will be one less liability for him in the run up to the next election.

[aintforever]

It’s mental that a fuck up like Diane Abbott is still an MP, the more distance Starmer can put between the likes of her and the other Corbyn cronies the better. Getting rid of her will undoubtedly be a good thing for Labour.

While what she said was wrong, I haven’t read anything I would consider anti-Semitic, as usual she is just looking at everything from perspective of racism against blacks. She’s right in saying there are different types of racism but her comparisons are crass and offensive.

[AlexLaw76]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

 

We can bat this stuff back and forth all day long, but the main point is that Starmer dealt with it as soon as it kicked off and hopefully this (she) will be one less liability for him in the run up to the next election.

It was an opportunity, if anything.

[Weston Super Saint]

21 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I have read some Baddiel on the subject. I have spent much of today trying to find out definitively whether the Jewish people are a race, a religion, an ethnicity,  a heritage…what precisely. Plenty of well written articles but nothing definitive either way. The closest I have come is a legal ruling by an American judge stating that the Jewish people are not a race, but can be subjected to racism (for reasons that are too longwinded to get into here). Make of that what you will!

Back to the infamous letter. Abbott was responding to an article that put it that white people could experience racism too. The way I read her reply was that whilst certain types of white people, Jews, travellers, Irish, redheads experienced discriminatory behaviour, only black people experienced “racism” and seemed to be trying to redefine what we think we know racism to be.

The dictionary definition of antisemitism is “displaying hatred or hostility or prejudice towards Jewish people”. I didn’t read any hatred or hostility towards Jewish people in her reply. Prejudice? Hmmm. She mentioned a number of white groups that have also faced bigotry, persecution, discrimination, but there doesn’t seem to be such a backlash from the Irish,travellers or redheads. She didn’t single out Jewish people she singled out white people. Does that constitute prejudice towards Jewish people or prejudice against white people?

You mention Corbyn. I don’t think being pro Palestinian automatically makes you an anti- Semite and I don’t believe that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I do believe he handle the claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party very poorly though.

We can bat this stuff back and forth all day long, but the main point is that Starmer dealt with it as soon as it kicked off and hopefully this (she) will be one less liability for him in the run up to the next election.

Wow. That's a lot of mental gymnastics to justify an article written by a racist.

Good on you though for going to such great lengths to defend her.

[The Kraken]

I see Andrew Bridgen has been formally booted out of his party for his tweeted comments on covid / the holocaust. Looking forward to a good old robust defence of him from SWF’s moral guardian. Although likely not as Bridgen was a Tory (he was also a fucking idiot).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-65402195

 

Edited 26 April, 2023 by The Kraken

[saint1977]

Both Abbott and Bridgen are like half-volleys from a despised opposing bowler in the Ashes for Starmer and Sunak respectively, happily pushed down the ground for a boundary with minimal effort. Disturbing that they were ever seen fit to be MPs in the first place, reassuring that they both have have had whip withdrawn/expelled, which is inevitable with Dianne Abbott as well. Hopefully some sort of common sense is slowly (very slowly returning).

Braverman next hopefully after she has an outburst post Cabinet (with her potty mouth, only a matter of time) to join Bridgen, Abbott and Corbyn in the political wilderness. 

 

Edited 26 April, 2023 by saint1977

[Holmes_and_Watson]

 Having numerous people point out the massive flaws in Abbot’s reasoning and why this came as no surprise to anyone considering Abbott’s history of not too dissimilar racism and apologies…

…The day unfolded with…

Justifying racism through semantics – “An article explaining the semantics in this case.”

Bravely, if laughably, popping head above the parapet with no “I wonder”  - “I do believe that she knew that the contents of this letter would cause a stir”

Mistaking being in a court of law dealing with only a current offence, with wilful ignorance of not checking patterns of behaviour of someone you’re desperately defending – “My points were directed at the contents of this letter and this letter alone”

Failure to understand why people would consider the letter anti-semitic, despite having it clearly pointed out – “*some* have discerned this letter as anti/Semitic in itself.”

Scarily jumping on the band wagon of a rather insidious anti-semitic trope – “Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice.”

Dismissiveness towards other minority groups – “Maybe we need new campaigns for the others, travellers, Irish and ginger’s lives matter.”

Venturing into mentioning the Holocaust as part of arguments for the *second* day in a row, while defending someone who minimises Jewish people in her structure of racism. – “Do you think that Jewish, Romany, Slavs, Black, communist, homosexual, disabled etc people herded into the gas chambers at Auschwitz were wondering if they were there because of racism or bigotry or discrimination?” 

Defending Abbott’s hierarchy of racism (despite repeatedly having the flaws of this pointed out) – “If you believe that there is no hierarchy when it comes to bigotry, prejudice and discrimination and that Diane Abbott was wrong…”

Deflection to another group as if this justifies Abbott’s actions or that we should stray from discussing the matter at had. (A well-worn, and pretty feeble tactic) – “Hopefully the focus will turn towards the appalling rhetoric used by Braverman and Jenrick against migrants.”

Spending much of a day trying to find out something! – “but can be subjected to racism”

But despite typing that, in the same paragraph – “nothing definitive either way.”

Defends Abbott’s self-imposed task to tell the world what racism is – “seemed to be trying to redefine what we think we know racism to be.”

Failure to read the posts of others here (in fairness, possibly due to time studying the issue or listening for a steer form radio phone ins) – “Prejudice? Hmmm.”

That Abbott’s views must be okay because none of the other groups have made it into the sources he reads / Scarily trying to minimise the reaction from Jewish people/ other critics of Abbott  – “but there doesn’t seem to be such a backlash from the Irish, travellers or redheads.”

Oddly admitting Abbott is rightfully on her way, despite defending her and not being sure of what was wrong - “hopefully this (she) will be one less liability for him in the run up to the next election.”

You have had quite a day SOG. Quite a day. Pretty much any one of that list would be a massive red flag. Combined?

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I have read some Baddiel on the subject. I have spent much of today trying to find out definitively whether the Jewish people are a race, a religion, an ethnicity,  a heritage…what precisely. Plenty of well written articles but nothing definitive either way. The closest I have come is a legal ruling by an American judge stating that the Jewish people are not a race, but can be subjected to racism (for reasons that are too longwinded to get into here). Make of that what you will!

Back to the infamous letter. Abbott was responding to an article that put it that white people could experience racism too. The way I read her reply was that whilst certain types of white people, Jews, travellers, Irish, redheads experienced discriminatory behaviour, only black people experienced “racism” and seemed to be trying to redefine what we think we know racism to be.

The dictionary definition of antisemitism is “displaying hatred or hostility or prejudice towards Jewish people”. I didn’t read any hatred or hostility towards Jewish people in her reply. Prejudice? Hmmm. She mentioned a number of white groups that have also faced bigotry, persecution, discrimination, but there doesn’t seem to be such a backlash from the Irish,travellers or redheads. She didn’t single out Jewish people she singled out white people. Does that constitute prejudice towards Jewish people or prejudice against white people?

You mention Corbyn. I don’t think being pro Palestinian automatically makes you an anti- Semite and I don’t believe that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. I do believe he handle the claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party very poorly though.

We can bat this stuff back and forth all day long, but the main point is that Starmer dealt with it as soon as it kicked off and hopefully this (she) will be one less liability for him in the run up to the next election.

Sounds like you’re using your twilight years well Sog. 

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Sounds like you’re using your twilight years well Sog. 

ChatGPT can do this shit in seconds 

[Lord Duckhunter]

16 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I have read some Baddiel on the subject. I have spent much of today trying to find out definitively whether the Jewish people are a race, a religion, an ethnicity,  a heritage…what precisely. Plenty of well written articles but nothing definitive either way. The closest I have come is a legal ruling by an American judge stating that the Jewish people are not a race, but can be subjected to racism (for reasons that are too longwinded to get into here). Make of that what you will!

 

Most normal people are disgusted with what Abbott wrote, she’s been kicked out of the party and has herself said she was wrong (and has previously said anti-semitism is racism). However,  you’ve spent “much”  of your time trawling books  to try and prove otherwise. I can only conclude this is because you fully agree with her, why else would you bother.  if you were in the decent folks camp, you wouldn’t spend valuable time doing so. 
 

In the past you’ve made comments (coconuts, calling Priti an immigrant) that hinted at the poisonous side of your personality , but some posters fell for your bumbling leftie act and tried to stick up for you. I notice the lack of support and excuses for you this time, because there are none. Anyone who spends so much time researching and sticking up for anti semitism is clearly one themselves. Take the sheet off your face, it’s a brand new day……

Edited 27 April, 2023 by Lord Duckhunter

[sadoldgit]

Good afternoon to you H&W. I am flattered that you have taken so much time and effort to read and respond to my humble posts. I am, however, totally baffled as to how and why you have come to some of your conclusions. Let us have a walk through your latest response in the hope that we can find ourselves on the same page.

The “numerous people” you mention are probably the small group of posters who feel the need to follow me around an internet forum and, for reasons I will not bore you with, I don’t bother to read their posts. I think I made it very clear as to why I was only dealing with that one particular letter and it’s consequences on this occasion. The action taken against her comes from the content of this letter, not from previous statements.

I believe that she knew exactly what she was doing for the reasons suggested earlier. It is just an opinion and as such, could be wrong. The reason I was dealing with her comments in this letter alone was due a) to its timing and likely reaction in the media and b) the response taken by the Leader of the Labour Party to the publication of this particular letter.

I (and others) didn’t find the contents of this particular letter to be anti-Semitic. Others did. People read text and come to different opinions shocker.

How many people did you hear going in to bat for the Irish, travellers and redheads against those who called out her letter for its comments about Jewish people? This has nothing to do with anything other than an observation about which minority group was affected by her comments the most. You seem to be insinuating that this has something to do with discrimination against Jewish people when it is just a reflection to the fallout from the letter.

The so called “dismissiveness” towards other minority groups was exactly the opposite and was such a tongue in cheek comment I thought people would see the meaning behind it without the use of an emoji. My bad.

Why can’t I or anybody else use the Holocaust to make a point, especially when we are discussing this subject? It is a know fact that many people from lots of different minority groups were persecuted during that period of history and I think they were probably more concerned with staying alive than fussing over the correct word to use when discribing what they were facing. We are getting tied up with words, no one more than Abbott herself if you read her text. Perhaps I am making this point badly, or perhaps people are trying to find a way to make her text wholly discriminatory against one specific group of white people.

In no way was I defending Abbott or her hierarchy of racism, quite the opposite. Keir Starmer made the point that their is no hierarchy of racism and I agreed with him.

Deflection? Throughout I have made it clear that I thought that her letter was out of order and that there needed to be consequences. Why would I want to deflect from that? She is rightly being dealt with and I praised Starmer from my first post on the subject for dealing with it quickly. My concern was that the right wing media would use this for deflection themselves (which some did). There were two more appalling statements from senior governments ministers that need unpacking but we are still talking about Abbott! Abbott is an unfortunate sideshow, when the Home Secretary talks about “illegal immigrants” when it is not illegal to land on our shores and seek asylum. I shan’t dignify her and Jenrick’s other comments here and now.

”Spending the day trying to find out something”. The argument had been made (not by me) that Kewish people could not be subject to racism because they are not a race and therefore cannot be subjected to racism. I was curious to know if this was correct to did some digging. Why would that be an issue for you? It was my time and surely we should be posting from a position of fact where possible? As it was there were plenty of articles claiming it is and also claiming that it isn’t. If there is a definitive position it affects the original argument doesn’t it? 

I was not defending “Abbott’s position on racism and do not agree with it and said as such. 
 

Again, I have said from the beginning that her letter is out of order and that there were consequences, which there have been and probably will attract further action. Rightly so. I don’t know how you have come to the conclusion that I am defending her when the only thing I have said that could be construed as positive is that I dont believe these remarks are anti/Semitic. That, in no way, constitutes support for her letter.

Red flags? The only problem I have in this particular issue is whether her choice of words and use of language in this letter actually constitute anti-Semitism as this is the letter and these are the comments that she has been suspended for. Whether it is anti-Semitic or not, the letter still warrants suspension in my view. Have I made that clear enough??🙏

If you still feel that I am an Abbott apologist, there is no more I can say.

Have a lovely day and let’s hope for 3 points tonight 🥳🤞
 

 

 

 

[sadoldgit]

Yesterday both Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman gave statements that, apart from being factually wrong or unsubstantiated, if they had been made by the likes of Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, Katie Hopkins, Britain First, The National Front etc, no one would have been surprised.

Words, statements that would have rightly been called out as racist are now being used normally on an almost daily basis by senior Government figures.

We have the most right wing Government in decades (despite what Ducky would have us believe) who are shamelessly race baiting and trying to whip up the voters against migrants (along with Left Lawyers, Remoaners, trans people etc) because their record in Government is so bad they have to defer to Trump’s tactics. 
 

Sadly we have another 18 months of this b/s and it is only going to get worse.
 

 

[AlexLaw76]

Going big on turning the conversation to the 'far right', rather than the bigot that is Diane Abbott

like Lord D said, take the hood off and get in this century.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Soggy continuing to defend The Racist Abbott.

 

 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Yesterday both Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman gave statements that, apart from being factually wrong or unsubstantiated, if they had been made by the likes of Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, Katie Hopkins, Britain First, The National Front etc, no one would have been surprised.

Words, statements that would have rightly been called out as racist are now being used normally on an almost daily basis by senior Government figures.

We have the most right wing Government in decades (despite what Ducky would have us believe) who are shamelessly race baiting and trying to whip up the voters against migrants (along with Left Lawyers, Remoaners, trans people etc) because their record in Government is so bad they have to defer to Trump’s tactics. 
 

Sadly we have another 18 months of this b/s and it is only going to get worse.
 

 

Too bad you missed out Tommy Robinson and we'd have another house.

[Weston Super Saint]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Too bad you missed out Tommy Robinson and we'd have another house.

You can probably take 'The National Front' as Tommy Robinson in that post.

Good to see Soggy's working on his post brevity as well.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Yesterday both Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman gave statements that, apart from being factually wrong or unsubstantiated, if they had been made by the likes of Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, Katie Hopkins, Britain First, The National Front etc, no one would have been surprised.

Words, statements that would have rightly been called out as racist are now being used normally on an almost daily basis by senior Government figures.

We have the most right wing Government in decades (despite what Ducky would have us believe) who are shamelessly race baiting and trying to whip up the voters against migrants (along with Left Lawyers, Remoaners, trans people etc) because their record in Government is so bad they have to defer to Trump’s tactics. 
 

Sadly we have another 18 months of this b/s and it is only going to get worse.
 

 

Interesting that you'd bring this up considering that's exactly what James obrien has been tweeting about. 

Edited 27 April, 2023 by hypochondriac

[whelk]

Why does SOG hate gingers so much?

 

Ps I don’t want to join anyone’s gang 

Edited 27 April, 2023 by whelk

[whelk]

We are getting close to the terrorism thread where SOG thought he was crusading against everyone else who thought all and only Muslims were terrorists

[sadoldgit]

On 27/04/2023 at 15:50, whelk said:

We are getting close to the terrorism thread where SOG thought he was crusading against everyone else who thought all and only Muslims were terrorists

Would that be the thread where hypochondriac insisted that all Muslims were responsible for terrorised activities in this country because they weren’t informing the police of what they knew….even if the knew nothing?

That was around the same time he provided us with this quote, “Thank God my wife isn’t a Muslim”.

This is the same person who played down the problems of racism faced by footballers as  not as bad as the 70’s, as if that made it ok now. The pile on group are also the same people who got themselves all worked up when the decision was made to take the knee as a part of raising the issue of dealing with racism in football. 

Looking for why Starmer thought Abbott’s post was anti/Semitic. The best I can find so far  is that he has a “gut feeling”. 
 

Having read her comments again what I failed to mention before is that she said various white factions do not experience racism “all their lives”. She could well be right, but then not all black people necessarily experience racism all of their lives either. 

 

 

Edited 28 April, 2023 by sadoldgit
Added text

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Would that be the thread where hypochondriac insisted that all Muslims were responsible for terrorised activities in this country because they weren’t informing the police of what they knew….even if the knew nothing?

That was around the same time he provided us with this quote, “Thank God my wife isn’t a Muslim”.

Looking for why Starmer thought Abbott’s post was anti/Semitic. The best I can find so far  is that he has a “gut feeling”. 
 

Having read her comments again what I failed to mention before is that she said various white factions do not experience racism “all their lives”. She could well be right, but then not all black people necessarily experience racism all of their lives either. 

 

 

You've serious spent two days trying to defend Dianne Abbot? Fuck me you're more weird than i thought. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

 

Looking for why Starmer thought Abbott’s post was anti/Semitic. The best I can find so far  is that he has a “gut feeling”. 

He probably doesn't, it's just something he has to say to appear to be strong on dealing with this sort of thing.

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, aintforever said:

He probably doesn't, it's just something he has to say to appear to be strong on dealing with this sort of thing.

So you're saying Starmer is just doing it to appear to be doing the right thing, he doesn't really believe it himself. Interesting.......

[aintforever]

Just now, Turkish said:

So you're saying Starmer is just doing it to appear to be doing the right thing, he doesn't really believe it himself. Interesting.......

Probably. He's a politician, that's what they do.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Probably. He's a politician, that's what they do.

all as bad as each other then, glad we agree. 👍

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

all as bad as each other then, glad we agree. 👍

no

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

Probably. He's a politician, that's what they do.

 

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

no

so not what they all do then?

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 

so not what they all do then?

Yes, but some do a lot worse.

[Turkish]

Just now, aintforever said:

Yes, but some do a lot worse.

Pretending you find a colleagues comments racist/anti-sematic which cost them their job just to look like a nice guy isn't pretty vulgar then?

[aintforever]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Pretending you find a colleagues comments racist/anti-sematic which cost them their job just to look like a nice guy isn't pretty vulgar then?

No he's just playing the game. If he said they were not anti-semitic the papers would just blow it up out of proportion, say he's defending an anti-semite etc. The same shit they did with Corbyn.

It's all about optics, he has to appear to be strong on anti-semitism because of what went on before.

[Turkish]

Just now, aintforever said:

No he's just playing the game. If he said they were not anti-semitic the papers would just blow it up out of proportion, say he's defending an anti-semite etc. The same shit they did with Corbyn.

It's all about optics, he has to appear to be strong on anti-semitism because of what went on before.

by throwing a long serving MP under the bus so he can be seen to do the right thing. What a great guy. I'm sure you were very critical of certain other politicians when they acted similarly to save their own skin.....

[aintforever]

Just now, Turkish said:

by throwing a long serving MP under the bus so he can be seen to do the right thing. What a great guy. I'm sure you were very critical of certain other politicians when they acted similarly to save their own skin.....

Abbot threw herself under the bus. We can all read what she said and draw our own conclusions, you don't need Starmer to tell you what to think.

If you read the article you will see that Starmer was pushed three times to say wether it was anti-semitic or not. They were desperate for him to say she was not so they can carry on with the 'Labour is anti-semitic' headlines. Luckily Starmer is not as dumb as Corbyn.

[Turkish]

Just now, aintforever said:

Abbot threw herself under the bus. We can all read what she said and draw our own conclusions, you don't need Starmer to tell you what to think.

If you read the article you will see that Starmer was pushed three times to say wether it was anti-semitic or not. They were desperate for him to say she was not so they can carry on with the 'Labour is anti-semitic' headlines. Luckily Starmer is not as dumb as Corbyn.

So Starmer lets himself be bullied by the interviewers into saying things he doesn't really believe which cost people their jobs. This guy is going to make a terrible PM, very, very weak.

[aintforever]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

So Starmer lets himself be bullied by the interviewers into saying things he doesn't really believe which cost people their jobs. This guy is going to make a terrible PM, very, very weak.

Not at all, getting shot of Abbot is a good move for Labour and the country.

[Weston Super Saint]

42 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Yes, but some do a lot worse.

Is there a quantifiable scale for lies that are better than others?

[Turkish]

34 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Not at all, getting shot of Abbot is a good move for Labour and the country.

This is true, but it’s still a pretty shocking way for a leader to behave. 
 

and if he was pushed three times and is only saying it to appear to be a good guy not what he believes for his own popularity or votes (I guess you know all about that) then he is weak and does get bullied, which isn’t a great sign for a leader of the country. 

Edited 28 April, 2023 by Turkish

[Turkish]

20 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is there a quantifiable scale for lies that are better than others?

It appears if the tories do something they are scum if labour do the same thing they’re playing the game and doing the country a favour.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is there a quantifiable scale for lies that are better than others?

How do you know he lied?

[Weston Super Saint]

5 hours ago, Turkish said:

So you're saying Starmer is just doing it to appear to be doing the right thing, he doesn't really believe it himself. Interesting.......

 

5 hours ago, aintforever said:

Probably. He's a politician, that's what they do.

 

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

How do you know he lied?

I'm using your assumption that because he's a politician "that's what they do", when they say something they don't really believe....

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

How do you know he lied?

 

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

 

 

I'm using your assumption that because he's a politician "that's what they do", when they say something they don't really believe....

Indeed. You seem to be a bit confused here, not for the first time. If he just said he thought it was anti-semantic as that’s something he ought to to do, because you know that’s what politicians do, then you think he lied. Not sure why you’re asking others how they know, how do you know is more pertinent.

[aintforever]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

 

 

I'm using your assumption that because he's a politician "that's what they do", when they say something they don't really believe....

Who doesn’t lie?

[Weston Super Saint]

29 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Who doesn’t lie?

Are you saying he did lie (again)?

[aintforever]

13 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Are you saying he did lie (again)?

No I asked a question, the clue was in the question mark.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

No I asked a question, the clue was in the question mark.

You asked a completely irrelevant question to deflect from your previous inconsistencies.

[Turkish]

23 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You asked a completely irrelevant question to deflect from your previous inconsistencies.

Once again our little friend has appeared to have tied himself up in knots 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You asked a completely irrelevant question to deflect from your previous inconsistencies.

Just trying to point out that everyone lies. Thought someone of you are would have figured that out by now.

[AlexLaw76]

4 hours ago, aintforever said:

Just trying to point out that everyone lies. Thought someone of you are would have figured that out by now.

That's alright then...... Unless it is a Tory, or even worse,, Boris Johnson

Anyway. For sadoldgit, thought this might be a good idea for a present to buy yourself....