Guest pelmetman Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 747 - 2019-09-17 1:14 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 12:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? And what exactly are you doing to help 'the homeless dying in the street'? I'm sure that a caring, sharing chap like yourself will be out there every night to give help and support to the needy and helpless. I am confident you will be doing so, in light of your caring for Jeremy and Co. :D John 52 has proved how caring he is by leaving his house empty for months on end >:-) ........ Ruddy hypocrite *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted September 17, 2019 Author Share Posted September 17, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-09-17 8:38 AM John52 - 2019-09-17 8:31 AM Especially when our 'democracy' that people have given their lives for is at stake today 8-) We'll discover today who runs the country :-| ..........Politicians or Lawyers ;-) ........ If its the Judiciary..... then voting will become pointless and democracy will be dead 8-) ........ No politician is above the law despite Johnson apparently believing he is though his petulant boast to break the law was just that, a childish boast but extremely irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-09-17 5:36 PM pelmetman - 2019-09-17 8:38 AM John52 - 2019-09-17 8:31 AM Especially when our 'democracy' that people have given their lives for is at stake today 8-) We'll discover today who runs the country :-| ..........Politicians or Lawyers ;-) ........ If its the Judiciary..... then voting will become pointless and democracy will be dead 8-) ........ No politician is above the law despite Johnson apparently believing he is though his petulant boast to break the law was just that, a childish boast but extremely irresponsible. I can vote out a politician ;-) ...........I cant vote out a Judge :-| ......... You Losers really don't like democracy do you? *-) .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-09-17 5:58 PM Bulletguy - 2019-09-17 5:36 PM pelmetman - 2019-09-17 8:38 AM John52 - 2019-09-17 8:31 AM Especially when our 'democracy' that people have given their lives for is at stake today 8-) We'll discover today who runs the country :-| ..........Politicians or Lawyers ;-) ........ If its the Judiciary..... then voting will become pointless and democracy will be dead 8-) ........ No politician is above the law despite Johnson apparently believing he is though his petulant boast to break the law was just that, a childish boast but extremely irresponsible. I can vote out a politician ;-) ...........I cant vote out a Judge :-| ......... You Losers really don't like democracy do you? *-) .............. So why are you complaining about law being exercised? Once again we are back to where you want to cherry pick laws which you 'like' but discard and ignore those you don't. It seems you're the one not liking democracy and preferring autocratic rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:09 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... When did you last start a thread supporting the homeless *-) I said you show more support for those with power and wealth Is that because of what they can do for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 John52 - 2019-09-18 6:56 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:09 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... When did you last start a thread supporting the homeless *-) I said you show more support for those with power and wealth Is that because of what they can do for you? Your squirming is embarrassing. The Guardian writes a leader stating that, because someone is rich, the pain of their child dying is somehow less than the pain suffered by the less privileged. I point out that this is a disgusting thing to do for a so-called quality newspaper. You haven't condemned it and have even implied that because the Guardian was forced to apologise it doesn't really count. Your hatred of anyone you consider privileged is exemplified by this thread. And to answer your question, no I have never started a thread about supporting the homeless. Have you ever started a thread about the perils of global warming? Have you ever started a thread about modern day slavery? Have you ever started a thread about illegal dog breeding? None of these are relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. Homeless people are not relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. And what right do you have to decide that I don't care about homeless people? How dare you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being as hateful as you are? You're doing yourself no favours in this discussion. You are exemplifying the the cruelty and bullying which, where anyone who is privileged and wealthy is concerned, is your true nature and stock in trade. Stop embarrassing yourself and stop refusing to condemn a vile attack on a father and his dying child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-09-17 8:18 PM pelmetman - 2019-09-17 5:58 PM Bulletguy - 2019-09-17 5:36 PM pelmetman - 2019-09-17 8:38 AM John52 - 2019-09-17 8:31 AM Especially when our 'democracy' that people have given their lives for is at stake today 8-) We'll discover today who runs the country :-| ..........Politicians or Lawyers ;-) ........ If its the Judiciary..... then voting will become pointless and democracy will be dead 8-) ........ No politician is above the law despite Johnson apparently believing he is though his petulant boast to break the law was just that, a childish boast but extremely irresponsible. I can vote out a politician ;-) ...........I cant vote out a Judge :-| ......... You Losers really don't like democracy do you? *-) .............. So why are you complaining about law being exercised? Once again we are back to where you want to cherry pick laws which you 'like' but discard and ignore those you don't. It seems you're the one not liking democracy and preferring autocratic rule. The Loser Brigade should never have been allowed to take the case to court in the first place *-) ....... But it is indicative of how the "Establishment" is infested with Remoaners :-| ........ You may want to be ruled by a unelected out of touch Judiciary 8-) ......... I don't >:-( ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soarer Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Unelected eh ? What about boris 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 soarer - 2019-09-18 9:48 AM Unelected eh ? What about boris 8-) I helped elect him B-) .......... Along with 92,152 others ;-) .......... How many of those 11 judges have been elected? *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-09-18 8:56 AM Bulletguy - 2019-09-17 8:18 PM pelmetman - 2019-09-17 5:58 PM Bulletguy - 2019-09-17 5:36 PM pelmetman - 2019-09-17 8:38 AM John52 - 2019-09-17 8:31 AM Especially when our 'democracy' that people have given their lives for is at stake today 8-) We'll discover today who runs the country :-| ..........Politicians or Lawyers ;-) ........ If its the Judiciary..... then voting will become pointless and democracy will be dead 8-) ........ No politician is above the law despite Johnson apparently believing he is though his petulant boast to break the law was just that, a childish boast but extremely irresponsible. I can vote out a politician ;-) ...........I cant vote out a Judge :-| ......... You Losers really don't like democracy do you? *-) .............. So why are you complaining about law being exercised? Once again we are back to where you want to cherry pick laws which you 'like' but discard and ignore those you don't. It seems you're the one not liking democracy and preferring autocratic rule. The Loser Brigade should never have been allowed to take the case to court in the first place *-) ....... But you lot crowed about wanting British justice being heard in British courts. But it is indicative of how the "Establishment" is infested with Remoaners :-| ........ There's never been a place for far right extremism in UK. British won't tolerate it. You may want to be ruled by a unelected out of touch Judiciary 8-) .........I don't >:-( ....... Then why don't you hurry up and move to China or DPRK? Not much point linking as i know you never read information, but you can't say you weren't told. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_judge_(England_and_Wales) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 soarer - 2019-09-18 9:48 AM Unelected eh ? What about boris 8-) A staggering 0.13% of the population....by a group of people roughly the size of a decent football crowd. :-| https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/07/just-013-cent-population-voted-boris-johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 7:35 AM John52 - 2019-09-18 6:56 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:09 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... When did you last start a thread supporting the homeless *-) I said you show more support for those with power and wealth Is that because of what they can do for you? Your squirming is embarrassing. The Guardian writes a leader stating that, because someone is rich, the pain of their child dying is somehow less than the pain suffered by the less privileged. I point out that this is a disgusting thing to do for a so-called quality newspaper. You haven't condemned it and have even implied that because the Guardian was forced to apologise it doesn't really count. Your hatred of anyone you consider privileged is exemplified by this thread. And to answer your question, no I have never started a thread about supporting the homeless. Have you ever started a thread about the perils of global warming? Have you ever started a thread about modern day slavery? Have you ever started a thread about illegal dog breeding? None of these are relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. Homeless people are not relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. And what right do you have to decide that I don't care about homeless people? How dare you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being as hateful as you are? You're doing yourself no favours in this discussion. You are exemplifying the the cruelty and bullying which, where anyone who is privileged and wealthy is concerned, is your true nature and stock in trade. Stop embarrassing yourself and stop refusing to condemn a vile attack on a father and his dying child. When someone has withdrawn their comment and apologised within a couple of hours (and in the middle of the night despite your ridiculous assertions about how much they had to be forced) that would sensibly be the end of the matter, and move on to more pressing and unresolved matters. How much more mileage are you hoping to get out of this *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 John52 - 2019-09-18 4:13 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 7:35 AM John52 - 2019-09-18 6:56 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:09 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... When did you last start a thread supporting the homeless *-) I said you show more support for those with power and wealth Is that because of what they can do for you? Your squirming is embarrassing. The Guardian writes a leader stating that, because someone is rich, the pain of their child dying is somehow less than the pain suffered by the less privileged. I point out that this is a disgusting thing to do for a so-called quality newspaper. You haven't condemned it and have even implied that because the Guardian was forced to apologise it doesn't really count. Your hatred of anyone you consider privileged is exemplified by this thread. And to answer your question, no I have never started a thread about supporting the homeless. Have you ever started a thread about the perils of global warming? Have you ever started a thread about modern day slavery? Have you ever started a thread about illegal dog breeding? None of these are relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. Homeless people are not relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. And what right do you have to decide that I don't care about homeless people? How dare you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being as hateful as you are? You're doing yourself no favours in this discussion. You are exemplifying the the cruelty and bullying which, where anyone who is privileged and wealthy is concerned, is your true nature and stock in trade. Stop embarrassing yourself and stop refusing to condemn a vile attack on a father and his dying child. When someone has withdrawn their comment and apologised within a couple of hours (and in the middle of the night despite your ridiculous assertions about how much they had to be forced) that would sensibly be the end of the matter, and move on to more pressing and unresolved matters. How much more mileage are you hoping to get out of this *-) I'm going to get as much mileage as you keep giving me the opportunity to get. I'm going to remind people that the Guardian, which was forced to apologise, is so cruel that it believes that rich people don't suffer as much as poor people when their child dies. I'm going to keep reminding people that this is typical of socialists whose entire political position is based on hatred and envy. I'm going to keep reminding people that you have never condemned this disgusting and hurtful attack and, on the contrary, have sought to excuse it and joined the Guardian in the sewer of human behaviour. I hope that's clear enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 3:47 PM John52 - 2019-09-18 4:13 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 7:35 AM John52 - 2019-09-18 6:56 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:09 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... When did you last start a thread supporting the homeless *-) I said you show more support for those with power and wealth Is that because of what they can do for you? Your squirming is embarrassing. The Guardian writes a leader stating that, because someone is rich, the pain of their child dying is somehow less than the pain suffered by the less privileged. I point out that this is a disgusting thing to do for a so-called quality newspaper. You haven't condemned it and have even implied that because the Guardian was forced to apologise it doesn't really count. Your hatred of anyone you consider privileged is exemplified by this thread. And to answer your question, no I have never started a thread about supporting the homeless. Have you ever started a thread about the perils of global warming? Have you ever started a thread about modern day slavery? Have you ever started a thread about illegal dog breeding? None of these are relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. Homeless people are not relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. And what right do you have to decide that I don't care about homeless people? How dare you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being as hateful as you are? You're doing yourself no favours in this discussion. You are exemplifying the the cruelty and bullying which, where anyone who is privileged and wealthy is concerned, is your true nature and stock in trade. Stop embarrassing yourself and stop refusing to condemn a vile attack on a father and his dying child. When someone has withdrawn their comment and apologised within a couple of hours (and in the middle of the night despite your ridiculous assertions about how much they had to be forced) that would sensibly be the end of the matter, and move on to more pressing and unresolved matters. How much more mileage are you hoping to get out of this *-) I'm going to get as much mileage as you keep giving me the opportunity to get. I'm going to remind people that the Guardian, which was forced to apologise, is so cruel that it believes that rich people don't suffer as much as poor people when their child dies. I'm going to keep reminding people that this is typical of socialists whose entire political position is based on hatred and envy. I'm going to keep reminding people that you have never condemned this disgusting and hurtful attack and, on the contrary, have sought to excuse it and joined the Guardian in the sewer of human behaviour. I hope that's clear enough. Says the OAP who wants a bumper sticker that abuses a child who is fighting climate change. Thats what I call disgusting. You talk about socialists having hatred and envy. you should take a look in the mirror. I'm not a socialist by the way but certainly all the socialists I come across are not full of the kind of hate and bile you seem to be. Quite the opposite in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 Barryd999 - 2019-09-18 4:54 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 3:47 PM John52 - 2019-09-18 4:13 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 7:35 AM John52 - 2019-09-18 6:56 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:09 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... When did you last start a thread supporting the homeless *-) I said you show more support for those with power and wealth Is that because of what they can do for you? Your squirming is embarrassing. The Guardian writes a leader stating that, because someone is rich, the pain of their child dying is somehow less than the pain suffered by the less privileged. I point out that this is a disgusting thing to do for a so-called quality newspaper. You haven't condemned it and have even implied that because the Guardian was forced to apologise it doesn't really count. Your hatred of anyone you consider privileged is exemplified by this thread. And to answer your question, no I have never started a thread about supporting the homeless. Have you ever started a thread about the perils of global warming? Have you ever started a thread about modern day slavery? Have you ever started a thread about illegal dog breeding? None of these are relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. Homeless people are not relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. And what right do you have to decide that I don't care about homeless people? How dare you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being as hateful as you are? You're doing yourself no favours in this discussion. You are exemplifying the the cruelty and bullying which, where anyone who is privileged and wealthy is concerned, is your true nature and stock in trade. Stop embarrassing yourself and stop refusing to condemn a vile attack on a father and his dying child. When someone has withdrawn their comment and apologised within a couple of hours (and in the middle of the night despite your ridiculous assertions about how much they had to be forced) that would sensibly be the end of the matter, and move on to more pressing and unresolved matters. How much more mileage are you hoping to get out of this *-) I'm going to get as much mileage as you keep giving me the opportunity to get. I'm going to remind people that the Guardian, which was forced to apologise, is so cruel that it believes that rich people don't suffer as much as poor people when their child dies. I'm going to keep reminding people that this is typical of socialists whose entire political position is based on hatred and envy. I'm going to keep reminding people that you have never condemned this disgusting and hurtful attack and, on the contrary, have sought to excuse it and joined the Guardian in the sewer of human behaviour. I hope that's clear enough. Says the OAP who wants a bumper sticker that abuses a child who is fighting climate change. Thats what I call disgusting. You talk about socialists having hatred and envy. you should take a look in the mirror. I'm not a socialist by the way but certainly all the socialists I come across are not full of the kind of hate and bile you seem to be. Quite the opposite in fact. You've just joined John52 and the Guardian in the sewer. 'The OAP'? What a disgraceful comment. Does someone's age make their opinion void? Even worse is your disgraceful slur that I would be complicit in abusing a child. The number stickers read 'Eff Greta' but if you really thinks that is a literal statement it proves that your mind is sick and perverted. You spend half your life on here saying the Eff word and if you said 'Eff Farage' only the most twisted mind would assume that you want to sodomise him. Apart from which she's no child. She's 16, an age that many countries deem mature and marriageable. If she wants to take part in grown-up activities she should be prepared to take the criticism. Your post was a disgusting slur. But from your previous appalling, ageist and sexist behaviour on here it doesn't surprise me. I also note that you have nothing to say on the Guardian's disgusting article and would ask you to imagine your response if Farage had said something so cruel and disgraceful. If you've an honest bone in your body you'll admit that you'd be disgusted and complaining about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 4:21 PM Apart from which she's no child. She's 16, an age that many countries deem mature and marriageable. If she wants to take part in grown-up activities she should be prepared to take the criticism. Rubbish. Age of majority defines adulthood in law making Greta Thunberg legally a minor until 18 in her own country, just as she would if British in UK. You've had this pointed out to you before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-09-18 6:06 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 4:21 PM Apart from which she's no child. She's 16, an age that many countries deem mature and marriageable. If she wants to take part in grown-up activities she should be prepared to take the criticism. Rubbish. Age of majority defines adulthood in law making Greta Thunberg legally a minor until 18 in her own country, just as she would if British in UK. You've had this pointed out to you before. And I said 'Some countries'. However in many countries you can vote at 16. In Scotland 16-year-olds were allowed to vote in the independence referendum. In 2015 the Labour Party said that, if elected, it would reduce the voting age to 16. So people are judged old enough by Labour to make important decisions on our country's future, but according to you not old enough to be criticised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 4:21 PM Barryd999 - 2019-09-18 4:54 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 3:47 PM John52 - 2019-09-18 4:13 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 7:35 AM John52 - 2019-09-18 6:56 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:09 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... When did you last start a thread supporting the homeless *-) I said you show more support for those with power and wealth Is that because of what they can do for you? Your squirming is embarrassing. The Guardian writes a leader stating that, because someone is rich, the pain of their child dying is somehow less than the pain suffered by the less privileged. I point out that this is a disgusting thing to do for a so-called quality newspaper. You haven't condemned it and have even implied that because the Guardian was forced to apologise it doesn't really count. Your hatred of anyone you consider privileged is exemplified by this thread. And to answer your question, no I have never started a thread about supporting the homeless. Have you ever started a thread about the perils of global warming? Have you ever started a thread about modern day slavery? Have you ever started a thread about illegal dog breeding? None of these are relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. Homeless people are not relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. And what right do you have to decide that I don't care about homeless people? How dare you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being as hateful as you are? You're doing yourself no favours in this discussion. You are exemplifying the the cruelty and bullying which, where anyone who is privileged and wealthy is concerned, is your true nature and stock in trade. Stop embarrassing yourself and stop refusing to condemn a vile attack on a father and his dying child. When someone has withdrawn their comment and apologised within a couple of hours (and in the middle of the night despite your ridiculous assertions about how much they had to be forced) that would sensibly be the end of the matter, and move on to more pressing and unresolved matters. How much more mileage are you hoping to get out of this *-) I'm going to get as much mileage as you keep giving me the opportunity to get. I'm going to remind people that the Guardian, which was forced to apologise, is so cruel that it believes that rich people don't suffer as much as poor people when their child dies. I'm going to keep reminding people that this is typical of socialists whose entire political position is based on hatred and envy. I'm going to keep reminding people that you have never condemned this disgusting and hurtful attack and, on the contrary, have sought to excuse it and joined the Guardian in the sewer of human behaviour. I hope that's clear enough. Says the OAP who wants a bumper sticker that abuses a child who is fighting climate change. Thats what I call disgusting. You talk about socialists having hatred and envy. you should take a look in the mirror. I'm not a socialist by the way but certainly all the socialists I come across are not full of the kind of hate and bile you seem to be. Quite the opposite in fact. You've just joined John52 and the Guardian in the sewer. 'The OAP'? What a disgraceful comment. Does someone's age make their opinion void? Even worse is your disgraceful slur that I would be complicit in abusing a child. The number stickers read 'Eff Greta' but if you really thinks that is a literal statement it proves that your mind is sick and perverted. You spend half your life on here saying the Eff word and if you said 'Eff Farage' only the most twisted mind would assume that you want to sodomise him. Apart from which she's no child. She's 16, an age that many countries deem mature and marriageable. If she wants to take part in grown-up activities she should be prepared to take the criticism. Your post was a disgusting slur. But from your previous appalling, ageist and sexist behaviour on here it doesn't surprise me. I also note that you have nothing to say on the Guardian's disgusting article and would ask you to imagine your response if Farage had said something so cruel and disgraceful. If you've an honest bone in your body you'll admit that you'd be disgusted and complaining about it. I just find it abhorrent that a man of "mature years" would have such an idea and she is a child as has been pointed out to you. Yes the Guardian article was out of order but as has been pointed out to you, quickly withdrawn so it warranted no further comment as far as I was concerned. I dont remember saying Fcuk Farage but maybe I did, I almost certainly have said a lot worse about him I am sure. Difference is Farage deserves to be told to fcuk off, Greta does not. As for being a pervert. Well you would have to define what you mean. I do have a broad mind. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 Barryd999 - 2019-09-18 6:43 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 4:21 PM Barryd999 - 2019-09-18 4:54 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 3:47 PM John52 - 2019-09-18 4:13 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 7:35 AM John52 - 2019-09-18 6:56 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:09 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... When did you last start a thread supporting the homeless *-) I said you show more support for those with power and wealth Is that because of what they can do for you? Your squirming is embarrassing. The Guardian writes a leader stating that, because someone is rich, the pain of their child dying is somehow less than the pain suffered by the less privileged. I point out that this is a disgusting thing to do for a so-called quality newspaper. You haven't condemned it and have even implied that because the Guardian was forced to apologise it doesn't really count. Your hatred of anyone you consider privileged is exemplified by this thread. And to answer your question, no I have never started a thread about supporting the homeless. Have you ever started a thread about the perils of global warming? Have you ever started a thread about modern day slavery? Have you ever started a thread about illegal dog breeding? None of these are relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. Homeless people are not relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. And what right do you have to decide that I don't care about homeless people? How dare you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being as hateful as you are? You're doing yourself no favours in this discussion. You are exemplifying the the cruelty and bullying which, where anyone who is privileged and wealthy is concerned, is your true nature and stock in trade. Stop embarrassing yourself and stop refusing to condemn a vile attack on a father and his dying child. When someone has withdrawn their comment and apologised within a couple of hours (and in the middle of the night despite your ridiculous assertions about how much they had to be forced) that would sensibly be the end of the matter, and move on to more pressing and unresolved matters. How much more mileage are you hoping to get out of this *-) I'm going to get as much mileage as you keep giving me the opportunity to get. I'm going to remind people that the Guardian, which was forced to apologise, is so cruel that it believes that rich people don't suffer as much as poor people when their child dies. I'm going to keep reminding people that this is typical of socialists whose entire political position is based on hatred and envy. I'm going to keep reminding people that you have never condemned this disgusting and hurtful attack and, on the contrary, have sought to excuse it and joined the Guardian in the sewer of human behaviour. I hope that's clear enough. Says the OAP who wants a bumper sticker that abuses a child who is fighting climate change. Thats what I call disgusting. You talk about socialists having hatred and envy. you should take a look in the mirror. I'm not a socialist by the way but certainly all the socialists I come across are not full of the kind of hate and bile you seem to be. Quite the opposite in fact. You've just joined John52 and the Guardian in the sewer. 'The OAP'? What a disgraceful comment. Does someone's age make their opinion void? Even worse is your disgraceful slur that I would be complicit in abusing a child. The number stickers read 'Eff Greta' but if you really thinks that is a literal statement it proves that your mind is sick and perverted. You spend half your life on here saying the Eff word and if you said 'Eff Farage' only the most twisted mind would assume that you want to sodomise him. Apart from which she's no child. She's 16, an age that many countries deem mature and marriageable. If she wants to take part in grown-up activities she should be prepared to take the criticism. Your post was a disgusting slur. But from your previous appalling, ageist and sexist behaviour on here it doesn't surprise me. I also note that you have nothing to say on the Guardian's disgusting article and would ask you to imagine your response if Farage had said something so cruel and disgraceful. If you've an honest bone in your body you'll admit that you'd be disgusted and complaining about it. I just find it abhorrent that a man of "mature years" would have such an idea and she is a child as has been pointed out to you. Yes the Guardian article was out of order but as has been pointed out to you, quickly withdrawn so it warranted no further comment as far as I was concerned. I dont remember saying Fcuk Farage but maybe I did, I almost certainly have said a lot worse about him I am sure. Difference is Farage deserves to be told to fcuk off, Greta does not. As for being a pervert. Well you would have to define what you mean. I do have a broad mind. (lol) Please spell out for me what 'idea' I'm supposed to have had. And I've just pointed out that your emotive word 'child' is subjective. Children aren't allowed to vote as they do in many European countries. She's a young adult. Young people of 16 were allowed to be married in this country and many others until recently. But what I find appalling is your attempt to put a sexual slant on this. You know what that bumper sticker was saying and you should be ashamed of yourself for ascribing to me what you are suggesting is a paedophile inclination. So please tell me exactly what you are suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soarer Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 I think he’ is suggesting your a bit of a wamker And need to spend what time you have left Being less angry there may be a care home Wiling to take you on then .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted September 18, 2019 Author Share Posted September 18, 2019 soarer - 2019-09-18 7:18 PM I think he’ is suggesting your a bit of a wamker And need to spend what time you have left Being less angry there may be a care home Wiling to take you on then .. Actually, most reasonably intelligent people will know that he's suggesting something very different. However, your semi-literate post suggests to me that you're not one of those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 5:33 PM Bulletguy - 2019-09-18 6:06 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 4:21 PM Apart from which she's no child. She's 16, an age that many countries deem mature and marriageable. If she wants to take part in grown-up activities she should be prepared to take the criticism. Rubbish. Age of majority defines adulthood in law making Greta Thunberg legally a minor until 18 in her own country, just as she would if British in UK. You've had this pointed out to you before. And I said 'Some countries'. However in many countries you can vote at 16. In Scotland 16-year-olds were allowed to vote in the independence referendum. In 2015 the Labour Party said that, if elected, it would reduce the voting age to 16. So people are judged old enough by Labour to make important decisions on our country's future, but according to you not old enough to be criticised? Not "a child" in the sense of maturity and intellect for sure, but in the eyes of the law she is a minor until 18. Reducing the voting age to 16 isn't something new and had first been proposed by a LibDem MP back in 1999. MP's make important decisions on our countrys future, not the electorate who votes them in or out for that purpose. Criticise? I seem to recall you found Arron Banks sick tweet hilarious about "freak yachting accidents" in regards to Greta Thunberg sailing the Atlantic. That wasn't 'criticising'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 6:04 PM Barryd999 - 2019-09-18 6:43 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 4:21 PM Barryd999 - 2019-09-18 4:54 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 3:47 PM John52 - 2019-09-18 4:13 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-18 7:35 AM John52 - 2019-09-18 6:56 AM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:09 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 2:10 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:57 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 12:50 PM John52 - 2019-09-17 1:33 PM FunsterJohn - 2019-09-17 11:55 AM I'm showing that, after huge protests from both sides of the political divide, it originally altered the wording . All of which took place in a couple of hours *-) .... What do you call someone who shows more concern for those with power and wealth than they do for the homeless? A sycophant? I'll try to explain it simply for you. If someone says something cruel and vile, it doesn't matter how long it is before it's removed. Two hours or two months. The point is that he said it and in saying it as a leader writer he highlighted what a nasty hateful newspaper he works for. It would have been seen by editors or sub-editors before publication. If a Tory said something so vile and it was taken down in two minutes the left would be all over it because, now concentrate here, he said it. And your pathetic diversion about those with power and wealth illustrates that your nonsensical argument about the Guardian, is just that. You can't justify this nasty journalism so let's introduce another topic. Thank you though for prolonging this and allowing me to keep reminding people how a once respectable newspaper has descended into the hard-left gutter. You are evading the point again :-D Your so called 'huge protests from both sides of the political divide' took place in a couple of hours in the middle of the night :-D More importantly: You show more concern for the rich and powerful than the homeless dying in the street. Does David Cameron need your support than them? Or do you support the rich and powerful for what they can do for you? Please show me where I've not shown support for the homeless. I don't recollect ever mentioning poor people. Because I support a vile attack on a rich man's pain over his dying son, in your mad world that means that I don't have sympathy for poorer people? I'm beginning to doubt your sanity. You've always been odd but you're descending to a whole new level of stupidity. What point am I evading? Was this not written? Did it not happen? The Guardian has slipped into the sewer. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to hammer this home. You're not very bright are you? Just before anyone is petty enough to jump on it my second sentence should read : Because I don't support......... When did you last start a thread supporting the homeless *-) I said you show more support for those with power and wealth Is that because of what they can do for you? Your squirming is embarrassing. The Guardian writes a leader stating that, because someone is rich, the pain of their child dying is somehow less than the pain suffered by the less privileged. I point out that this is a disgusting thing to do for a so-called quality newspaper. You haven't condemned it and have even implied that because the Guardian was forced to apologise it doesn't really count. Your hatred of anyone you consider privileged is exemplified by this thread. And to answer your question, no I have never started a thread about supporting the homeless. Have you ever started a thread about the perils of global warming? Have you ever started a thread about modern day slavery? Have you ever started a thread about illegal dog breeding? None of these are relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. Homeless people are not relevant to my complaint about the Guardian. And what right do you have to decide that I don't care about homeless people? How dare you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being as hateful as you are? You're doing yourself no favours in this discussion. You are exemplifying the the cruelty and bullying which, where anyone who is privileged and wealthy is concerned, is your true nature and stock in trade. Stop embarrassing yourself and stop refusing to condemn a vile attack on a father and his dying child. When someone has withdrawn their comment and apologised within a couple of hours (and in the middle of the night despite your ridiculous assertions about how much they had to be forced) that would sensibly be the end of the matter, and move on to more pressing and unresolved matters. How much more mileage are you hoping to get out of this *-) I'm going to get as much mileage as you keep giving me the opportunity to get. I'm going to remind people that the Guardian, which was forced to apologise, is so cruel that it believes that rich people don't suffer as much as poor people when their child dies. I'm going to keep reminding people that this is typical of socialists whose entire political position is based on hatred and envy. I'm going to keep reminding people that you have never condemned this disgusting and hurtful attack and, on the contrary, have sought to excuse it and joined the Guardian in the sewer of human behaviour. I hope that's clear enough. Says the OAP who wants a bumper sticker that abuses a child who is fighting climate change. Thats what I call disgusting. You talk about socialists having hatred and envy. you should take a look in the mirror. I'm not a socialist by the way but certainly all the socialists I come across are not full of the kind of hate and bile you seem to be. Quite the opposite in fact. You've just joined John52 and the Guardian in the sewer. 'The OAP'? What a disgraceful comment. Does someone's age make their opinion void? Even worse is your disgraceful slur that I would be complicit in abusing a child. The number stickers read 'Eff Greta' but if you really thinks that is a literal statement it proves that your mind is sick and perverted. You spend half your life on here saying the Eff word and if you said 'Eff Farage' only the most twisted mind would assume that you want to sodomise him. Apart from which she's no child. She's 16, an age that many countries deem mature and marriageable. If she wants to take part in grown-up activities she should be prepared to take the criticism. Your post was a disgusting slur. But from your previous appalling, ageist and sexist behaviour on here it doesn't surprise me. I also note that you have nothing to say on the Guardian's disgusting article and would ask you to imagine your response if Farage had said something so cruel and disgraceful. If you've an honest bone in your body you'll admit that you'd be disgusted and complaining about it. I just find it abhorrent that a man of "mature years" would have such an idea and she is a child as has been pointed out to you. Yes the Guardian article was out of order but as has been pointed out to you, quickly withdrawn so it warranted no further comment as far as I was concerned. I dont remember saying Fcuk Farage but maybe I did, I almost certainly have said a lot worse about him I am sure. Difference is Farage deserves to be told to fcuk off, Greta does not. As for being a pervert. Well you would have to define what you mean. I do have a broad mind. (lol) Please spell out for me what 'idea' I'm supposed to have had. And I've just pointed out that your emotive word 'child' is subjective. Children aren't allowed to vote as they do in many European countries. She's a young adult. Young people of 16 were allowed to be married in this country and many others until recently. But what I find appalling is your attempt to put a sexual slant on this. You know what that bumper sticker was saying and you should be ashamed of yourself for ascribing to me what you are suggesting is a paedophile inclination. So please tell me exactly what you are suggesting. WTF! 8-) Where did I suggest that your abuse towards the child trying to save the planet was sexual? I said I find it abhorrent that a man of mature years would actively want to purchase a bumper sticker saying "Fcuk you Greta" which is a pretty sickening and abusive statement towards an inspirational young girl who is reaching out to people young and old across the globe in order to tackle the biggest single issue the human race has ever faced. Bit odd that you thinking its sexual that then you are a bit odd. Bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted September 19, 2019 Author Share Posted September 19, 2019 Barryd999 WTF! 8-) Where did I suggest that your abuse towards the child trying to save the planet was sexual? I said I find it abhorrent that a man of mature years would actively want to purchase a bumper sticker saying "Fcuk you Greta" which is a pretty sickening and abusive statement towards an inspirational young girl who is reaching out to people young and old across the globe in order to tackle the biggest single issue the human race has ever faced. Bit odd that you thinking its sexual that then you are a bit odd. Bizarre. Oh come on! If you saw a headline saying 'OAP abuses child' what do you think the subject of that article would be? If it wasn't a deliberate bullying slur it was a thoughtless and brainless comment. Apart from which disagreeing with someone, you saying Eff Farage for instance, isn't abuse. I think she's a preachy, self-righteous, single-issue fanatic and I reserve my right to disagree with her methods. The irony is that if she had her way you wouldn't be motorhoming. How anyone driving around Europe in an old, polluting banger of a gas guzzling motorhome can seriously claim to be concerned about climate change is beyond hilarious, not to mention hypocritical. And she isn't a child for God's sake. If you were mugged by two seventeen-year-old thugs would you tell the police you'd been attacked by some children? Childhood ends at about 13 and then they're adolescents or young adults. If you, like many on here started work at 16 did your parents make you do child labour? In the UK not that long ago you could marry at 16 but not vote at 20. Is a strapping lad of seventeen an adult in one country but a child when he walks over a border? Labour want to let 16-year-olds vote. They obviously don't think that at 16 you're still a child. Your use of 'child' was another cheap tactic to suggest that criticism of this very aware and articulate young woman is a form of abuse. Finally, you also know that my comment about that bumper sticker was not literal. It was my way of showing support for those Germans who are sick of her telling them how to run their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.