Dame_Ann_Average posted:Saint posted:It's odd how OBESITY in children is rising
Whilst FOOD BANKS are needed to feed the nation
Hmmmm
I can't believe you actually posted that...poor diet, cheap foods...chips?!?
How dare you peddle the myth that chips are cheap
Honestly
Saint posted:How dare you peddle the myth that chips are cheap
Honestly
sorry to throw a little bit of common sense into the debate...honestly
Dame_Ann_Average posted:Saint posted:
Diane Abbott messed up today
She did, she bamboozled herself with the figures which have actually been costed right. What's annoying me is, Theresa May can flounder on every question, hide from the public, refuse to answer press questions and lock press in a room rather than be caught on camera...but what do we get all over the MSM, Diana Abbott making a complete tool of herself over costing. .
Why are MSM not attacking the tories on....
The NHS
Care to the elderly, cut to 15 minutes visits in a lot of case...people have to be in incontinence pads for 12 hours or more.
The Homeless
The Bedroom tax that is contributing to the homelessness
The Food Banks and the massive rise in the use of them 1.2million in fact. How complex is the use of food banks....people can't afford food, it's not that bloody complex
The despicable cuts the dying and chronically ill which cost more to impose than actually pay out.
The underfunding in schools whilst promising millions for grammar schools.
The working class being ÂĢ3.000 worse off than in 2007 whilst giving 70 billion tax breaks to the richest in the country.
The 8 page rape from to prove you're not living with your attacker.
The 30 Tory MP's under investigation for election fraud.
The Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics launching an inquiry into a conflict of interest between Philip May and his job at Capital Group that makes it's money through market sensitive information including Brexit.
The cuts to police, fire, ambulances, libraries,
The list is endless and we can say goodby to the NHS, if they do get back in which is looking likely I hope you all can afford private health insurance. I can't afford it, but the next policy will probably shoot the buggers so it won't really matter.
I truly despair, May won't debate these issues because she can't. Drops mic or in Theresa May's case, drops bomb!
Dame_Ann_Average posted:
oh and now we know why the press are all over Diane Abbott, after given 6 interviews and getting the figures correct she made a cock up on one...in other news...Tory's corrupt to the core, no wonder she's in hiding
It makes me absolutely and totally sick to the core 
And I swear.....if I hear the phrase "strong and stable" once more........
Dame_Ann_Average posted:Saint posted:How dare you peddle the myth that chips are cheap
Honestly
sorry to throw a little bit of common sense into the debate...honestly
x4 Large Big Mac Meals = ÂĢ18
x1 loaf - ÂĢ1.20
x12 eggs = ÂĢ2.25
x1 milk - ÂĢ1.00
x12 bananas - ÂĢ2.00
Scrambled egg for dinner plus banana to finish for around a week = Less than ÂĢ7
Sprout posted:And I swear.....if I hear the phrase "strong and stable" once more........
"Let me make myself absolutely clear"
Saint posted:x4 Large Big Mac Meals = ÂĢ18
x1 loaf - ÂĢ1.20
x12 eggs = ÂĢ2.25
x1 milk - ÂĢ1.00
x12 bananas - ÂĢ2.00
Scrambled egg for dinner plus banana to finish for around a week = Less than ÂĢ7
I really can't be bothered if you can't work out the relevance of being poor and a nutritional diet 
and who mentioned big mac's 
I hope you never are in the situation where you have to use food banks 
Dame_Ann_Average posted:Saint posted:x4 Large Big Mac Meals = ÂĢ18
x1 loaf - ÂĢ1.20
x12 eggs = ÂĢ2.25
x1 milk - ÂĢ1.00
x12 bananas - ÂĢ2.00
Scrambled egg for dinner plus banana to finish for around a week = Less than ÂĢ7
I really can't be bothered if you can't work out the relevance of being poor and a nutritional diet
Thank you Dame 
Saint posted:
If that's a link to her saying that you can forget it. I ain't opening it
Sprout posted:Saint posted:If that's a link to her saying that you can forget it. I ain't opening it
Proves you right though
Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Politics and religion
Humans are silly and never learn
Saint posted:Politics and religion
Humans are silly and never learn
Don't start me off on religion.
velvet donkey posted:The only thick UK voters are those that would vote Corbyn and Labour.
Nice guy until you scratch the surface and trapped in the eighties. McDonnell would wreck the joint.
How to take a party backwards.
Because selling all the council houses worked so well. Selling all the utilities that are now mostly owned or part own by foreign concerns worked so well. Didn't the Tories mock French socialism, yet now their nationalised network actually has shares in parts of Southern Rail. British people paying through the nose to provide profits for foreign concerns and their shareholders.
Deregulating the banks worked so well. They had to be bailed out by old fashioned state intervention. Not building any new homes worked so well. That war in Iraq, voted for overwhelmingly by the Tories and New Labour's then crypto Tory leader worked out so well!
Actually it's the Tories who are stuck in the 80s, peddling the same failed old rubbish that's crippled the NHS and put working class home ownership into reverse, led to a generation locked out of opportunity their parents had.
Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Sorry, but if you go on the DM website, you will see people approving of things that aren't true but do appear to confirm their prejudices. If I went on the DM and wrote "disgraceful BBC has all female, all black list for head of Midlands Online Media Projects" their readership would approve it because it fits their prejudices. The fact that I made it up wouldn't matter and if someone commented that it was rubbish, they would disapprove of the rebuke because it challenges their bigotry. Seen it time and time again on that website.
So for the record, I've come to my conclusion not by going on the Guardian, The Morning Star, The New Statesman but by visiting popular right wing media sites and seeing how their readership reacts to falsehoods that I know to be absolute rubbish.
Try it for yourself, go on the DM site, make something up like "Corbyn once stamped on a red poppy at a CND demo" and see how many approvals you get. I challenge you on that!
actually I'll do it for you.
I posted this message:
May and the Tories are standing up to EU bullies. But what can we expect from Liebore under Corbyn but capitulation and collaboration with those who gang up against the UK - a man who recently stamped on a red poppy at a CND rally. Vote Tory and make Liebore history.
So far one approval no disapprovals and I just made it up.
2 approvals 1 disapproval
So that's a 2-1 margin for an outright lie so far. I post on that site under the user name "Earl"
9 approvals 1 disapprovals now. A nine to one approval for a LIE!
10-1 now. So put that in your pipe and smoke it Yogi. Proof, and you can do the same test yourself, that Mail readers are pig ignorant, who will approve a lie if it fits their prejudices. So don't arrogantly tell me that I'm patronising or sneering at voters, 11-1 now.
12-1 now at 11:24pm
Hang on now. All that proves is that, of the people who have responded to your LIE post, most are of that frame of mind and is NOT indicating anything in particular about the readership in general. You talk about approving things if it fits their prejudice and you deride them for that, yet you have just done the same thing yourself.
Aren't you, metaphorically, rubbing your hands in glee at the 11-1 because it fits YOUR prejudice about their readers?
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:Hang on now. All that proves is that, of the people who have responded to your LIE post, most are of that frame of mind and is NOT indicating anything in particular about the readership in general. You talk about approving things if it fits their prejudice and you deride them for that, yet you have just done the same thing yourself.
Aren't you, metaphorically, rubbing your hands in glee at the 11-1 because it fits YOUR prejudice about their readers?
I am pleased because it proves my observation that people who visit the Mail's site will approve a lie that fits their prejudices and that is a very dangerous thing for our democracy. I'm not sure how I've done anything equal to applauding a lie. I'd welcome an explanation on that.
It's not a prejudice on their readership, it's an observation on the readershp. And I've tested that observation to see if it was just prejudice.
I think I've proven beyond doubt that sneering at people like me who question many voters' ability to make to make a rational choice based on evidence, is just not facing the actual real world where voters DO make decisions based on crappy perceptions that aren't true.
Surely it's a bad thing, regardless of whether it's representative of the Mail's print readership in general, that its internet readership will approve a lie if it's a right wing lie. After all, internet people are still real people with votes, just the same as people who buy the print version!
I said I would test my hypothesis, and my assumption was true. Sorry, no one can argue against that. You are welcome to do the same on the Mail's website or an equally popular left wing website (that excludes the New Statesman and Morning Star etc) - make something up that sounds reasonably plausible to right wingers (or left wingers), and see the results!
Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Sorry, but if you go on the DM website, you will see people approving of things that aren't true but do appear to confirm their prejudices. If I went on the DM and wrote "disgraceful BBC has all female, all black list for head of Midlands Online Media Projects" their readership would approve it because it fits their prejudices. The fact that I made it up wouldn't matter and if someone commented that it was rubbish, they would disapprove of the rebuke because it challenges their bigotry. Seen it time and time again on that website.
So for the record, I've come to my conclusion not by going on the Guardian, The Morning Star, The New Statesman but by visiting popular right wing media sites and seeing how their readership reacts to falsehoods that I know to be absolute rubbish.
Try it for yourself, go on the DM site, make something up like "Corbyn once stamped on a red poppy at a CND demo" and see how many approvals you get. I challenge you on that!
Seriously?! You want me to go onto the website of a newspaper I don't read and make up a downright lie, so that you can prove the lie will get "likes"?
I see you decided to do it by yourself. When you have stopped patting yourself on the back for getting the response you hoped for, I hope you take a step back and see how your "challenge" appears to others.
BTW, I hope the lie isn't something you can be sued for.
I was playing yesterday with my 4 year old granddaughter and she set me a challenge - to build a volcano made of sand. Guess whose challenge was the more mature and better use of my time? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't yours!
To save multi quoting, I am not the one who has been arrogant and sneering, that has been your role.
I don't have a pipe and have never smoked. If you have one, feel free to puff on it as long as you like.
Anyway, I can't take you seriously any more, so feel free to rant away to your hearts content.
Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Sorry, but if you go on the DM website, you will see people approving of things that aren't true but do appear to confirm their prejudices. If I went on the DM and wrote "disgraceful BBC has all female, all black list for head of Midlands Online Media Projects" their readership would approve it because it fits their prejudices. The fact that I made it up wouldn't matter and if someone commented that it was rubbish, they would disapprove of the rebuke because it challenges their bigotry. Seen it time and time again on that website.
So for the record, I've come to my conclusion not by going on the Guardian, The Morning Star, The New Statesman but by visiting popular right wing media sites and seeing how their readership reacts to falsehoods that I know to be absolute rubbish.
Try it for yourself, go on the DM site, make something up like "Corbyn once stamped on a red poppy at a CND demo" and see how many approvals you get. I challenge you on that!
Seriously?! You want me to go onto the website of a newspaper I don't read and make up a downright lie, so that you can prove you the lie will get "likes"?
I see you decided to do it by yourself. When you have stopped patting yourself on the back for getting the response you hoped for, I hope you take a step back and see how your "challenge" appears to others.
BTW, I hope the lie isn't something you can be sued for.
I was playing yesterday with my 4 year old granddaughter and she set me a challenge - to build a volcano made of sand. Guess whose challenge was the more mature and better use of my time? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't yours!
To save multi quoting, I am not the one who has been arrogant and sneering, that has been your role.
I don't have a pipe and have never smoked. If you have one, feel free to puff on it as long as you like.
Anyway, I can't take you seriously any more, so feel free to rant away to your hearts content.
Empty vessels Yogi ....empty vessels 
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:Hang on now. All that proves is that, of the people who have responded to your LIE post, most are of that frame of mind and is NOT indicating anything in particular about the readership in general. You talk about approving things if it fits their prejudice and you deride them for that, yet you have just done the same thing yourself.
Aren't you, metaphorically, rubbing your hands in glee at the 11-1 because it fits YOUR prejudice about their readers?
Baz posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Sorry, but if you go on the DM website, you will see people approving of things that aren't true but do appear to confirm their prejudices. If I went on the DM and wrote "disgraceful BBC has all female, all black list for head of Midlands Online Media Projects" their readership would approve it because it fits their prejudices. The fact that I made it up wouldn't matter and if someone commented that it was rubbish, they would disapprove of the rebuke because it challenges their bigotry. Seen it time and time again on that website.
So for the record, I've come to my conclusion not by going on the Guardian, The Morning Star, The New Statesman but by visiting popular right wing media sites and seeing how their readership reacts to falsehoods that I know to be absolute rubbish.
Try it for yourself, go on the DM site, make something up like "Corbyn once stamped on a red poppy at a CND demo" and see how many approvals you get. I challenge you on that!
Seriously?! You want me to go onto the website of a newspaper I don't read and make up a downright lie, so that you can prove you the lie will get "likes"?
I see you decided to do it by yourself. When you have stopped patting yourself on the back for getting the response you hoped for, I hope you take a step back and see how your "challenge" appears to others.
BTW, I hope the lie isn't something you can be sued for.
I was playing yesterday with my 4 year old granddaughter and she set me a challenge - to build a volcano made of sand. Guess whose challenge was the more mature and better use of my time? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't yours!
To save multi quoting, I am not the one who has been arrogant and sneering, that has been your role.
I don't have a pipe and have never smoked. If you have one, feel free to puff on it as long as you like.
Anyway, I can't take you seriously any more, so feel free to rant away to your hearts content.
Baz posted:Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:Hang on now. All that proves is that, of the people who have responded to your LIE post, most are of that frame of mind and is NOT indicating anything in particular about the readership in general. You talk about approving things if it fits their prejudice and you deride them for that, yet you have just done the same thing yourself.
Aren't you, metaphorically, rubbing your hands in glee at the 11-1 because it fits YOUR prejudice about their readers?
It wasn't prejudice - it was observation! FGS! Observation that's been proven as a fact. Obviously you two aren't bothered that there's a load of voters who are bigoted idiots, who'll approve of a lie if it fits their perceptions, but it does bother me and it directly impacts on how we elect our government and how we're governered.
So can you give me one good reason why people who approve of lies should be given an ounce of respect for their decision making?
Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Sorry, but if you go on the DM website, you will see people approving of things that aren't true but do appear to confirm their prejudices. If I went on the DM and wrote "disgraceful BBC has all female, all black list for head of Midlands Online Media Projects" their readership would approve it because it fits their prejudices. The fact that I made it up wouldn't matter and if someone commented that it was rubbish, they would disapprove of the rebuke because it challenges their bigotry. Seen it time and time again on that website.
So for the record, I've come to my conclusion not by going on the Guardian, The Morning Star, The New Statesman but by visiting popular right wing media sites and seeing how their readership reacts to falsehoods that I know to be absolute rubbish.
Try it for yourself, go on the DM site, make something up like "Corbyn once stamped on a red poppy at a CND demo" and see how many approvals you get. I challenge you on that!
Seriously?! You want me to go onto the website of a newspaper I don't read and make up a downright lie, so that you can prove the lie will get "likes"?
I see you decided to do it by yourself. When you have stopped patting yourself on the back for getting the response you hoped for, I hope you take a step back and see how your "challenge" appears to others.
BTW, I hope the lie isn't something you can be sued for.
I was playing yesterday with my 4 year old granddaughter and she set me a challenge - to build a volcano made of sand. Guess whose challenge was the more mature and better use of my time? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't yours!
To save multi quoting, I am not the one who has been arrogant and sneering, that has been your role.
I don't have a pipe and have never smoked. If you have one, feel free to puff on it as long as you like.
Anyway, I can't take you seriously any more, so feel free to rant away to your hearts content.
Oh aren't we all superior. If people approve of made up stuff, they don't deserve respect, the deserve to be sneered at. What an arrogant attitude you have. I can't take anyone seriously who defends people who approve of made up stuff because it fits their prejudices.
Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Sorry, but if you go on the DM website, you will see people approving of things that aren't true but do appear to confirm their prejudices. If I went on the DM and wrote "disgraceful BBC has all female, all black list for head of Midlands Online Media Projects" their readership would approve it because it fits their prejudices. The fact that I made it up wouldn't matter and if someone commented that it was rubbish, they would disapprove of the rebuke because it challenges their bigotry. Seen it time and time again on that website.
So for the record, I've come to my conclusion not by going on the Guardian, The Morning Star, The New Statesman but by visiting popular right wing media sites and seeing how their readership reacts to falsehoods that I know to be absolute rubbish.
Try it for yourself, go on the DM site, make something up like "Corbyn once stamped on a red poppy at a CND demo" and see how many approvals you get. I challenge you on that!
Seriously?! You want me to go onto the website of a newspaper I don't read and make up a downright lie, so that you can prove the lie will get "likes"?
I see you decided to do it by yourself. When you have stopped patting yourself on the back for getting the response you hoped for, I hope you take a step back and see how your "challenge" appears to others.
BTW, I hope the lie isn't something you can be sued for.
I was playing yesterday with my 4 year old granddaughter and she set me a challenge - to build a volcano made of sand. Guess whose challenge was the more mature and better use of my time? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't yours!
To save multi quoting, I am not the one who has been arrogant and sneering, that has been your role.
I don't have a pipe and have never smoked. If you have one, feel free to puff on it as long as you like.
Anyway, I can't take you seriously any more, so feel free to rant away to your hearts content.
Oh aren't we all superior. If people approve of made up stuff, they don't deserve respect, the deserve to be sneered at. What an arrogant attitude you have. I can't take anyone seriously who defends people who approve of made up stuff because it fits their prejudices.
BiB: You now accept you were the person doing the sneering?
I'm not the one who thinks that people who don't vote for the same party as me are idiots. So, arrogant and superior? - Time to take a good hard look at yourself.
Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Sorry, but if you go on the DM website, you will see people approving of things that aren't true but do appear to confirm their prejudices. If I went on the DM and wrote "disgraceful BBC has all female, all black list for head of Midlands Online Media Projects" their readership would approve it because it fits their prejudices. The fact that I made it up wouldn't matter and if someone commented that it was rubbish, they would disapprove of the rebuke because it challenges their bigotry. Seen it time and time again on that website.
So for the record, I've come to my conclusion not by going on the Guardian, The Morning Star, The New Statesman but by visiting popular right wing media sites and seeing how their readership reacts to falsehoods that I know to be absolute rubbish.
Try it for yourself, go on the DM site, make something up like "Corbyn once stamped on a red poppy at a CND demo" and see how many approvals you get. I challenge you on that!
Seriously?! You want me to go onto the website of a newspaper I don't read and make up a downright lie, so that you can prove the lie will get "likes"?
I see you decided to do it by yourself. When you have stopped patting yourself on the back for getting the response you hoped for, I hope you take a step back and see how your "challenge" appears to others.
BTW, I hope the lie isn't something you can be sued for.
I was playing yesterday with my 4 year old granddaughter and she set me a challenge - to build a volcano made of sand. Guess whose challenge was the more mature and better use of my time? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't yours!
To save multi quoting, I am not the one who has been arrogant and sneering, that has been your role.
I don't have a pipe and have never smoked. If you have one, feel free to puff on it as long as you like.
Anyway, I can't take you seriously any more, so feel free to rant away to your hearts content.
Oh aren't we all superior. If people approve of made up stuff, they don't deserve respect, the deserve to be sneered at. What an arrogant attitude you have. I can't take anyone seriously who defends people who approve of made up stuff because it fits their prejudices.
Oh FGS Carnelian , do you really have nothing better to do than constantly gripe , gripe , gripe !! How about just accepting the fact that not everyone agrees with your view of the world. That does not make them thick, moronic or any other insulting epithet .....it just means they have a different viewpoint , which they are totally entitled to have !! And if you can't carry an argument without resulting to insults maybe it's better to just bow out !!
FGS, stop your line of poor reasoning! We are posting on a Big Brother forum! Let's remind ourselves that BB has among its wanton intention to titillate viewers with salaciousness and contrived personality clashes, also an agenda to look at the human condition and group dynamics. That was the pull of BB for me originally and why I got so into the show. Sadly the show's just degenerated into a cliched bore under C5's ownership.
You haughtily dismissed my test as being worse than building a sand castle but my experiment was testing an assumption on group dynamics and seeing the outcome.
It's not about rubbishing people who don't agree with my politics, it's about people who will applaud a falsehood when it agrees with their own prejudices! Why are you struggling so hard to understand this?
Isn't that a bad thing? Why are you defending bigots? Only a bigot would defend bigots!
I don't apologise for venting over voters who will applaud a lie and I don't really understand why you are so hostile to that sentiment. Left, centre or right, bigotry is bigotry.
Let me make this clear, I get that not every Tory voter is some DM nutter who will applaud a lie, but it's greatly disconcerting that any voters are After all, don't we all want voters to make informed decisions based on actual facts?
Those Mail readers could have commented "Corbyn is a dangerous idiot but where is your evidence for that claim?" they didn't and I've since put up a post saying that the event I described didn't happen.
Now, in my view, the Mail should do due diligence on the statements of its contributors. It doesn't - it allows bullshit to remain on its site and influence the perceptions of visitors.
Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Sorry, but if you go on the DM website, you will see people approving of things that aren't true but do appear to confirm their prejudices. If I went on the DM and wrote "disgraceful BBC has all female, all black list for head of Midlands Online Media Projects" their readership would approve it because it fits their prejudices. The fact that I made it up wouldn't matter and if someone commented that it was rubbish, they would disapprove of the rebuke because it challenges their bigotry. Seen it time and time again on that website.
So for the record, I've come to my conclusion not by going on the Guardian, The Morning Star, The New Statesman but by visiting popular right wing media sites and seeing how their readership reacts to falsehoods that I know to be absolute rubbish.
Try it for yourself, go on the DM site, make something up like "Corbyn once stamped on a red poppy at a CND demo" and see how many approvals you get. I challenge you on that!
Seriously?! You want me to go onto the website of a newspaper I don't read and make up a downright lie, so that you can prove the lie will get "likes"?
I see you decided to do it by yourself. When you have stopped patting yourself on the back for getting the response you hoped for, I hope you take a step back and see how your "challenge" appears to others.
BTW, I hope the lie isn't something you can be sued for.
I was playing yesterday with my 4 year old granddaughter and she set me a challenge - to build a volcano made of sand. Guess whose challenge was the more mature and better use of my time? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't yours!
To save multi quoting, I am not the one who has been arrogant and sneering, that has been your role.
I don't have a pipe and have never smoked. If you have one, feel free to puff on it as long as you like.
Anyway, I can't take you seriously any more, so feel free to rant away to your hearts content.
Oh aren't we all superior. If people approve of made up stuff, they don't deserve respect, the deserve to be sneered at. What an arrogant attitude you have. I can't take anyone seriously who defends people who approve of made up stuff because it fits their prejudices.
BiB: You now accept you were the person doing the sneering?
I'm not the one who thinks that people who don't vote for the same party as me are idiots. So, arrogant and superior? - Time to take a good hard look at yourself.
So you would applaud or defend voters who approve of lies? You are quite an Orwellian character, trying to chastise someone who'd condemn someone who'd sneer at a voter who voted in a way because they believed a lie.
Seriously, Orwell's 1984 was written about people with your mentality.
Orwell's 1984, wasn't a rebuke of communism or Stalinism, it was comment on a state's potential control of its citizens through subtle propaganda and the inherent human ability to agree with two opposing things at the same time.
I see this in the right wing. Many of those who will state that the EU is a French/German stitch up will also applaud Marine Le Pen's view that France has been greatly wronged by the EU. France can't be wronged while being privileged at the same time, yet the rightist media will promote those two contradictory points.
Carnelian, someone who says they do not agree with ALL aspects of YOUR argument is not automatically saying they agree with ANY OR ALL aspect of the views of those you argue against. If you cannot see this then you are as blinkered as (allegedly) those you rail against.
Nobody is defending said bigots or bigotry. What people are saying is that you cannot leap in and trash a whole group of people on the basis of what a smaller sub-group of these people are doing/saying. This may not have been your intention, exactly, but the language and hostility that comes across from your postings gives that impression.
Carnelian posted:FGS, stop your line of poor reasoning! We are posting on a Big Brother forum! Let's remind ourselves that BB has among its wanton intention to titillate viewers with salaciousness and contrived personality clashes, also an agenda to look at the human condition and group dynamics. That was the pull of BB for me originally and why I got so into the show. Sadly the show's just degenerated into a cliched bore under C5's ownership.
You haughtily dismissed my test as being worse than building a sand castle but my experiment was testing an assumption on group dynamics and seeing the outcome.
It's not about rubbishing people who don't agree with my politics, it's about people who will applaud a falsehood when it agrees with their own prejudices! Why are you struggling so hard to understand this?
Isn't that a bad thing? Why are you defending bigots? Only a bigot would defend bigots!
I don't apologise for venting over voters who will applaud a lie and I don't really understand why you are so hostile to that sentiment. Left, centre or right, bigotry is bigotry.
Let me make this clear, I get that not every Tory voter is some DM nutter who will applaud a lie, but it's greatly disconcerting that any voters are After all, don't we all want voters to make informed decisions based on actual facts?
Those Mail readers could have commented "Corbyn is a dangerous idiot but where is your evidence for that claim?" they didn't and I've since put up a post saying that the event I described didn't happen.
Now, in my view, the Mail should do due diligence on the statements of its contributors. It doesn't - it allows bullshit to remain on its site and influence the perceptions of visitors.
Carnelian, I was not defending the people who replied to your lie on the DM site.
The only right I defend, is the right to hold a different opinion from you - and that is something you struggle to accept.
So far in this thread, you have suggested I am an idiot and now a bigot - I am neither, however, you seem totally intolerant to anyone who doesn't see things your way and FYI that is the definition of a bigot.
Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:Carnelian posted:Yogi19 posted:IMO, insulting the electorate and calling them thick, is highly unlikely to be a vote winner.
If you really want people to vote Labour, you might consider changing tactics.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Voters have a duty to gather as much facts as they can and process those facts before they vote. I go on the Daily Mail website and read the comments of their readers and they will happily applaud a right wing perceive truth and red arrow the truth, because it doesn't match their prejudices.
If voters are bone idle and lazy and are happy to be spoon fed propaganda by the popularist propaganda rags. They deserve all the scorn coming to them. The popularist right wing rags will tickle their useful idiots under the chin and defend their gullibility as a rational logical considered opinion. The right wing rags will always defend their useful idiots. You're right that useful idiots get offended whey their idiocy is exposed and would prefer to be flatted as coming to a conclusion through their own observation, but if you read a rag like the Sun, Mail, Star or Daily Mail, you're a useful idiot.
That smacks of "read the same newspapers as me/come to the same conclusions as me/think the same as me/vote the same as me - otherwise you're an idiot"
FYI, I don't read any of the newspapers you mentioned and I'd be very interested to know which newspapers are on Carnelian's approved reading list.
IMO, there is a huge difference between someone who is passionate about their political beliefs and a political zealot who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.
Sorry, but if you go on the DM website, you will see people approving of things that aren't true but do appear to confirm their prejudices. If I went on the DM and wrote "disgraceful BBC has all female, all black list for head of Midlands Online Media Projects" their readership would approve it because it fits their prejudices. The fact that I made it up wouldn't matter and if someone commented that it was rubbish, they would disapprove of the rebuke because it challenges their bigotry. Seen it time and time again on that website.
So for the record, I've come to my conclusion not by going on the Guardian, The Morning Star, The New Statesman but by visiting popular right wing media sites and seeing how their readership reacts to falsehoods that I know to be absolute rubbish.
Try it for yourself, go on the DM site, make something up like "Corbyn once stamped on a red poppy at a CND demo" and see how many approvals you get. I challenge you on that!
Seriously?! You want me to go onto the website of a newspaper I don't read and make up a downright lie, so that you can prove the lie will get "likes"?
I see you decided to do it by yourself. When you have stopped patting yourself on the back for getting the response you hoped for, I hope you take a step back and see how your "challenge" appears to others.
BTW, I hope the lie isn't something you can be sued for.
I was playing yesterday with my 4 year old granddaughter and she set me a challenge - to build a volcano made of sand. Guess whose challenge was the more mature and better use of my time? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't yours!
To save multi quoting, I am not the one who has been arrogant and sneering, that has been your role.
I don't have a pipe and have never smoked. If you have one, feel free to puff on it as long as you like.
Anyway, I can't take you seriously any more, so feel free to rant away to your hearts content.
Oh aren't we all superior. If people approve of made up stuff, they don't deserve respect, the deserve to be sneered at. What an arrogant attitude you have. I can't take anyone seriously who defends people who approve of made up stuff because it fits their prejudices.
BiB: You now accept you were the person doing the sneering?
I'm not the one who thinks that people who don't vote for the same party as me are idiots. So, arrogant and superior? - Time to take a good hard look at yourself.
So you would applaud or defend voters who approve of lies? You are quite an Orwellian character, trying to chastise someone who'd condemn someone who'd sneer at a voter who voted in a way because they believed a lie.
Seriously, Orwell's 1984 was written about people with your mentality.
I have never applauded or defended anyone who approves of lies. Stop trying to twist things and put words into my mouth.
You are the one doing the sneering at anyone who doesn't see things your way.
Your default position is to resort to name calling and insulting anyone who disagrees with you, it's the stuff of school playgrounds. So carry on with your nasty ranting, I have wasted enough time on this.
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:Carnelian, someone who says they do not agree with ALL aspects of YOUR argument is not automatically saying they agree with ANY OR ALL aspect of the views of those you argue against. If you cannot see this then you are as blinkered as (allegedly) those you rail against.
Nobody is defending said bigots or bigotry. What people are saying is that you cannot leap in and trash a whole group of people on the basis of what a smaller sub-group of these people are doing/saying. This may not have been your intention, exactly, but the language and hostility that comes across from your postings gives that impression.
Carnelian I can't decide whether you are a WUM , or whether you actually believe all the stuff you spout . If it is the former , then congratulations , you got us good 
If, as I suspect , it is the latter, then all I can say is that it must get very lonely up there in your ivory tower looking down on all us fallible mortals ! But for the record , by your own admission , the only one lying around here appears to be you . As for who is coming across as a bigot in all this , I'll let you work that out for yourself !
Plus , I can't help but wonder , if Labour get into power in the local and general elections , will you be miraculously revising your views on the ignorant (insert your own swear word) electorate
