Oh, of course that makes it fine, then. They're just another bunch of shysters - but you agree with them so that's A-ok. I know everything's a big game of football to you with "the left" playing "the right", but you really don't seem as well-versed in this issue as you think. Traditionally, "the left" (you know that homologous blob of humanity which comprises people who think exactly the same thing) provided the anti-EU voice of Britain whereas being traditionally right wing meant being pro-EU due to the markets and cheap labour it provided. As for "suspecting I know sweet FA" about UKIP's policies - again, you'd be wrong. I've discussed dozens of them on the Politics board.
You seem to think I'm some naive teenager.
I've been around long enough to remember when indeed, the opposition to the EU was from the Left, and it was the Conservatives (and Liberal Party) who were the pro Common Market force. For in those days, that is what it was.
It's hardly surprising that in the meantime, whilst the Common Market became the EC, then the EU, and slowly developed into the hideous monster it has become, that the political tables have turned. Of course Labour loves it now - it represents the very epitome of over regulation, micro management, principle over pragmatism that the Party loves. And the Tories hate. It is the entity that has changed, not the politicians.
You really don't see the irony in your own posts, do you? You try and parody the belief that the Left is one homogenous lump, whilst branding anyone who dislikes the number of foreigners in the country as "racist". You need to check the dictionary definition of the word. In reality, very few people actually fit it.
I've been around long enough to remember when indeed, the opposition to the EU was from the Left, and it was the Conservatives (and Liberal Party) who were the pro Common Market force. For in those days, that is what it was.
It's hardly surprising that in the meantime, when the Common Market became the EC, then the EU, and slowly developed into the hideous monster it has become, that the political tables have turned. Of course Labour loves it - it represents the very epitome of over regulation, micro management, principle over pragmatism that the Party loves. And the Tories hate. It is the entity that has changed, not the politicians.
You really don't see the irony in your own posts, do you? You try and parody the belief that the Left is one homogenous lump, whilst branding anyone who dislikes the number of foreigners in the country as "racist". You need to check the dictionary definition of the word. In reality, very few people actually fit it.
And you accuse others of irony! You're lying, by the way. I didn't brand anyone who dislikes the number of foreigners in the country a "racist". That's demonstrably untrue when I have repeatedly said that some racists use this concern as a fig leaf and give those who are not racist but have genuine concerns a bad name. If you want to be taken seriously, do try actually reading what people write rather than what you want them to have written. Your determination to be branded a racist is most curious. Having concerns about immigration does not make you one (and I never said it did) so why the victim complex?
As "a" gay, I have already explained that the fact they have the odd few nutcases and homophobes does not concern me in the context of the Euro election. If you believe 100% of the members and elected representitves of Labour, LibDem and Conservative parties are all warm and cuddly to homosexuals, then you are totally deluded. What's more, this UKIP fellow (who I have denounced several times as a fruitcake) is not "their MP". He is merely a councillor, and now a suspended one.
I doubt I would trust UKIP sufficiently to vote for them in a General Election, as I have also said. They can't do any harm in the EU parliament, but could in the country. That leaves me no other party to vote for, however, which pains me greatly.
Many on the left make the mistake of assuming gay people act like political sheep. They all have to be left inclined, and embrace immigration and multiculturalism. Some do, but a lot do not. Most are fully aware that a very high proportion of those who have been let into the country in the recent past are very religious, and not at all liberal. Gay people above all else, should be very concerned at the number of folk here who do not embrace the move to secularism and liberalism the country has made in my lifetime.
You're confusing me. I do understand that not all political parties are full of rainbow wearing cuddlies. Could you explain to me please the UKips opinion on gays? I'm sure they must have something on their website thing is I've looked and can't find anything. Apart of course from their own mps and party members saying gays cause the weather and other nonsense.
Yes you did but that doesn't excuse the accusation that is often made against supporters here, mind you haven't been here long so you wouldn't have noticed that.
But I didn't make it so why waste your time pointing the finger at me? Address those that do it, I didn't.
Your determination to be branded a racist is most curious. Having concerns about immigration does not make you one (and I never said it did) so why the victim complex?
I just had this very conversion with exlordlucan. Neither you or I have branded anyone racist. We have both said not all the UKIP are racists and it is a shame it blurs their political lines. So no idea what they are going on about. Victim complex indeed.
Because many of those who are relishing the barbequeing of the confused UKIP councillor are the very same who will be shouting from the rooftops in defence of others who hold similarly ridiculous views.
I just had this very conversion with exlordlucan. Neither you or I have branded anyone racist. We have both said not all the UKIP are racists and it is a shame it blurs their political lines. So no idea what they are going on about. Victim complex indeed.
Indeed - whenever the issue of immigration comes up (which is every bloody day on DS) you will invariably find posters making the following claims:
"You can't discuss this without being branded a racist!"
"Anyone who shows the slightest concern over immigration is branded a racist!"
"Liberal/leftie/bleeding heart do-gooders brand anyone who questions immigration a racist to try and shut down debate!"
Apparently the above scripts cannot be deviated from even when it is plainly and clearly stated that "No, not everyone who questions immigration is a racist, but some racists hide behind those concerns and give genuine, non-racist folk that have concerns a bad name". There is such a desire to be called "racist" (in order to trot out the usual lines) that even when they aren't, they'll just pretend they have been!
But I didn't make it so why waste your time pointing the finger at me? Address those that do it, I didn't.
I didn't say you did and it wasn't in reply to anybody either, it was for the benefit of those who often make the accusation and they know who they are.
You're confusing me. I do understand that not all political parties are full of rainbow wearing cuddlies. Could you explain to me please the UKips opinion on gays? I'm sure they must have something on their website thing is I've looked and can't find anything. Apart of course from their own mps and party members saying gays cause the weather and other nonsense.
They don't have any MPs. Only MEPs, none of whom I have heard make any homophobic comments. The man in question is a maverick councillor - how many times does it need to be said.
What does UKIP say about gays? Not a lot. It's not mad on gay marriage (and neither, believe it or not, are many gay men) but is pefectly happy with civil partnership, and wouldn't attempt to wind the clock back. Are there a bunch of homophobes in the party that would? Quite possibly. Are the majority quite happy with the status quo and believe there are more important subjects to worry about? Most probably.
There is little left for gay people to push for in this country. What label is put on our legal partnerships. More action on bullying in schools. A few other bits and pieces, but broadly speaking, it's been mainly achieved and has a cross party consensus. An excellent place to be, and what I hoped for in the darker days of the past. UKIP does not worry me in this regard. If it looked on the verge of a Westminster landslide, I may be more concerned.
"No, not everyone who questions immigration is a racist, but some racists hide behind those concerns and give genuine, non-racist folk that have concerns a bad name".
Yes, you accused some UKIP supporters of doing just that.
Kindly provide evidence of racists who have used UKIP as a "respectable cover".
I didn't say you did and it wasn't in reply to anybody either.
Why even raise it ? No one was calling anyone a racist (well apart from you and Trevgo thinking you were being accused when no one had). It's almost like you both want that to be shouted about so you can go to town on people. Like you're just lying in wait for them. Bit ridiculous really.
Yes, you accused some UKIP supporters of doing just that.
Kindly provide evidence of racists who have used UKIP as a "respectable cover".
And I don't mean the odd one or two.
Oh come on, are you seriously suggesting there aren't quite a few in the party who are in reality just a bit racist and just think UKIP membership gives them an air of respectability? It's not that hard to fathom surely?
Yes, you accused some UKIP supporters of doing just that.
Kindly provide evidence of racists who have used UKIP as a "respectable cover".
And I don't mean the odd one or two.
Now you are being ridiculous. Did you take lessons from the other bloke?
Woot didn't say anything like you are suggesting. Both Woot and i said it is a shame the UKIP have had links to the BNP/EDL/NF as it unfairly blankets people as racist when they are not.
Yet you are both persisting with this utter rubbish. No idea why perhaps some people are just super argumentative, even when others are in agreement. Maybe yet more are far too confrontational in the hopes of getting people removed from threads when they bite? I don't know but it should stop. Making up complete nonsense no one has said. Ridiculous.
Why even raise it ? No one was calling anyone a racist (well apart from you and Trevgo thinking you were being accused when no one had). It's almost like you both want that to be shouted about so you can go to town on people. Like you're just lying in wait for them. Bit ridiculous really.
Why? because I did and there are a few here who have thrown the accusation before and the post was for their benefit.
Yes, you accused some UKIP supporters of doing just that.
Kindly provide evidence of racists who have used UKIP as a "respectable cover".
And I don't mean the odd one or two.
Why is one or two not good enough proof that racists and dodgy figures have, in fact, been UKIP supporters? Perhaps because you will just continue to move the goalposts in their defence?
People who have given UKIP a bad name* in the press (and therefore the people you should be railing against instead of lying that you're being called a racist yourself) include:
Kim Gandy
Mario Borghezio (allied with UKIP)
Christopher Monckton (who allegedly claimed to want breakaway BNP members to join the fold)
Julia Gaspar (an alleged homophobe rather than a racist)
Maggie Chapman (who allegedly cracked jokes that Muslims have sex with camels and others that I can't even repeat here)
*For the purposes of libel laws, note that I am not accusing these folk of anything, but rather just reporting the names of people that have, for whatever reason, been reported as having brought the party into public disrepute.
These bad apples do not make you or any other UKIPer a racist. They do, however, show that people can and have used the party (and its well publicised concerns about immigration) to spout some pretty nasty and ignorant stuff. You will of course note that a few bad apples do not necessarily spoil the bushel, and so no one is claiming that because these rather unpleasant individuals have courted controversy/infamy, that means that you are a racist. I would suggest that you get over the desire to be called a racist (so that you can rail against the label, which no one has even given you) and recognise that the actual racists are the ones deserving of criticism.
Why is one or two not good enough proof that racists and dodgy figures have, in fact, been UKIP supporters? Perhaps because you will just continue to move the goalposts in their defence?
People who have given UKIP a bad name* (and therefore the people you should be railing against instead of lying that you're being called a racist yourself) include:
Kim Gandy
Mario Borghezio (allied with UKIP)
Christopher Monckton (who claimed to want breakaway BNP members to join the fold)
Julia Gaspar (an alleged homophobe rather than a racist)
Maggie Chapman (who cracked jokes that Muslims have sex with camels and others that I can't even repeat here)
*For the purposes of libel laws, note that I am simply reporting the names of people that have, for whatever reason, been reported as having brought the party into public disrepute.
Absolutely nothing "alleged" about that one. She sees us as sheepshaggers and/or kiddie-fiddlers and is happy to shout her opinions from the rooftops.
I wondered how long it would be before someone brought her up again. Every time there is a thread on UKIP someone wheels her out, as if to say look that's UKIP that is. It just proves perfectly what I had stated earlier in the thread about people trying to make out that a few loons are representative of the whole of UKIP.
I wondered how long it would be before someone brought her up again. Every time there is a thread on UKIP someone wheels her out, as if to say look that's UKIP that is. It just proves perfectly what I had stated earlier in the thread about people trying to make out that a few loons are representative of the whole of UKIP.
Comments
You seem to think I'm some naive teenager.
I've been around long enough to remember when indeed, the opposition to the EU was from the Left, and it was the Conservatives (and Liberal Party) who were the pro Common Market force. For in those days, that is what it was.
It's hardly surprising that in the meantime, whilst the Common Market became the EC, then the EU, and slowly developed into the hideous monster it has become, that the political tables have turned. Of course Labour loves it now - it represents the very epitome of over regulation, micro management, principle over pragmatism that the Party loves. And the Tories hate. It is the entity that has changed, not the politicians.
You really don't see the irony in your own posts, do you? You try and parody the belief that the Left is one homogenous lump, whilst branding anyone who dislikes the number of foreigners in the country as "racist". You need to check the dictionary definition of the word. In reality, very few people actually fit it.
And you accuse others of irony!
You're confusing me. I do understand that not all political parties are full of rainbow wearing cuddlies. Could you explain to me please the UKips opinion on gays? I'm sure they must have something on their website thing is I've looked and can't find anything. Apart of course from their own mps and party members saying gays cause the weather and other nonsense.
But I didn't make it so why waste your time pointing the finger at me? Address those that do it, I didn't.
I just had this very conversion with exlordlucan. Neither you or I have branded anyone racist. We have both said not all the UKIP are racists and it is a shame it blurs their political lines. So no idea what they are going on about. Victim complex indeed.
Indeed - whenever the issue of immigration comes up (which is every bloody day on DS) you will invariably find posters making the following claims:
"You can't discuss this without being branded a racist!"
"Anyone who shows the slightest concern over immigration is branded a racist!"
"Liberal/leftie/bleeding heart do-gooders brand anyone who questions immigration a racist to try and shut down debate!"
Apparently the above scripts cannot be deviated from even when it is plainly and clearly stated that "No, not everyone who questions immigration is a racist, but some racists hide behind those concerns and give genuine, non-racist folk that have concerns a bad name". There is such a desire to be called "racist" (in order to trot out the usual lines) that even when they aren't, they'll just pretend they have been!
I didn't say you did and it wasn't in reply to anybody either, it was for the benefit of those who often make the accusation and they know who they are.
They don't have any MPs. Only MEPs, none of whom I have heard make any homophobic comments. The man in question is a maverick councillor - how many times does it need to be said.
What does UKIP say about gays? Not a lot. It's not mad on gay marriage (and neither, believe it or not, are many gay men) but is pefectly happy with civil partnership, and wouldn't attempt to wind the clock back. Are there a bunch of homophobes in the party that would? Quite possibly. Are the majority quite happy with the status quo and believe there are more important subjects to worry about? Most probably.
There is little left for gay people to push for in this country. What label is put on our legal partnerships. More action on bullying in schools. A few other bits and pieces, but broadly speaking, it's been mainly achieved and has a cross party consensus. An excellent place to be, and what I hoped for in the darker days of the past. UKIP does not worry me in this regard. If it looked on the verge of a Westminster landslide, I may be more concerned.
Yes, you accused some UKIP supporters of doing just that.
Kindly provide evidence of racists who have used UKIP as a "respectable cover".
And I don't mean the odd one or two.
Why even raise it ? No one was calling anyone a racist (well apart from you and Trevgo thinking you were being accused when no one had). It's almost like you both want that to be shouted about so you can go to town on people. Like you're just lying in wait for them. Bit ridiculous really.
Oh come on, are you seriously suggesting there aren't quite a few in the party who are in reality just a bit racist and just think UKIP membership gives them an air of respectability? It's not that hard to fathom surely?
Now you are being ridiculous. Did you take lessons from the other bloke?
Woot didn't say anything like you are suggesting. Both Woot and i said it is a shame the UKIP have had links to the BNP/EDL/NF as it unfairly blankets people as racist when they are not.
Yet you are both persisting with this utter rubbish. No idea why perhaps some people are just super argumentative, even when others are in agreement. Maybe yet more are far too confrontational in the hopes of getting people removed from threads when they bite? I don't know but it should stop. Making up complete nonsense no one has said. Ridiculous.
Why? because I did and there are a few here who have thrown the accusation before and the post was for their benefit.
You can rest easy now.
Cool. I needed a break I want to eat. Oh and then watch Hayley die that should be fun. I'm sure I'll be back later. Don't miss me to much
Why is one or two not good enough proof that racists and dodgy figures have, in fact, been UKIP supporters? Perhaps because you will just continue to move the goalposts in their defence?
People who have given UKIP a bad name* in the press (and therefore the people you should be railing against instead of lying that you're being called a racist yourself) include:
Kim Gandy
Mario Borghezio (allied with UKIP)
Christopher Monckton (who allegedly claimed to want breakaway BNP members to join the fold)
Julia Gaspar (an alleged homophobe rather than a racist)
Maggie Chapman (who allegedly cracked jokes that Muslims have sex with camels and others that I can't even repeat here)
*For the purposes of libel laws, note that I am not accusing these folk of anything, but rather just reporting the names of people that have, for whatever reason, been reported as having brought the party into public disrepute.
These bad apples do not make you or any other UKIPer a racist. They do, however, show that people can and have used the party (and its well publicised concerns about immigration) to spout some pretty nasty and ignorant stuff. You will of course note that a few bad apples do not necessarily spoil the bushel, and so no one is claiming that because these rather unpleasant individuals have courted controversy/infamy, that means that you are a racist. I would suggest that you get over the desire to be called a racist (so that you can rail against the label, which no one has even given you) and recognise that the actual racists are the ones deserving of criticism.
Don't forget Godfrey ;-)
I wondered how long it would be before someone brought her up again. Every time there is a thread on UKIP someone wheels her out, as if to say look that's UKIP that is. It just proves perfectly what I had stated earlier in the thread about people trying to make out that a few loons are representative of the whole of UKIP.
How many people would hear of anything if it wasn;t reported in some way?
and that insult is getting old too, along with 'fruit cakes and loonies' and ' little Englander's'....