ukip (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  26 May 14 11.00am |
   |
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 26 May 2014 8.49am
Geert Wilders expects Farage and UKIP to join up with "racist and anti-Semitic" far right groups rather than face isolationism within the EU Parliament even though at this moment Nige says he won't. For political expediency he does have a point does old Geert.
They don't need to 'join' up but rather vote the same on issues they agree on. In a practical sense it has the same effect but without becoming an official block. I kind of resent your implication here that Ukip are ok with racism. Sure the party contains racists but lots of these people voted Labour beforehand....So does that mean that Labour support racism? Of course not...It's a lazy and predictable slur type of commentary. What's more important is a party's comments on racism rather than pointing at elements that you don't like who support it.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Stirlingsays 26 May 14 11.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 7.35am
People are interested because it shows prominent politicans making racial generalisations. It appears to highlight hypocrisy and lefties like you and Gusset trying to sweep it under the carpet also highlights hypocrisy as you have both spent the last few weeks accusing UKIP and it's supporters of racism, facism and xenophobia. I don't believe that Ken is a spent force in politics. I think he will stand for office again before he finally goes to the Red Ribbo care home for deranged aged left wingers.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 26 May 14 11.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 7.35am
People are interested because it shows prominent politicans making racial generalisations. It appears to highlight hypocrisy and lefties like you and Gusset trying to sweep it under the carpet also highlights hypocrisy as you have both spent the last few weeks accusing UKIP and it's supporters of racism, facism and xenophobia. I don't believe that Ken is a spent force in politics. I think he will stand for office again before he finally goes to the Red Ribbo care home for deranged aged left wingers. He's not making "racial generalisations" though, he's simply pointing out that some ethnic groups have varying average wealth/income and that it is this, rather than race per se, what affects voting intention. If he'd said "Jews are greedy" or something, then that's a racial generalisation. But he said that their average economic position has improved, which is demonstrably true compared to early Jewish immigrants. The comments are pretty much verbatim what he said in 2012, so I don't see the merit in rerunning the story.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 26 May 14 11.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 11.13am
Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 7.35am
People are interested because it shows prominent politicans making racial generalisations. It appears to highlight hypocrisy and lefties like you and Gusset trying to sweep it under the carpet also highlights hypocrisy as you have both spent the last few weeks accusing UKIP and it's supporters of racism, facism and xenophobia. I don't believe that Ken is a spent force in politics. I think he will stand for office again before he finally goes to the Red Ribbo care home for deranged aged left wingers. He's not making "racial generalisations" though, he's simply pointing out that some ethnic groups have varying average wealth/income and that it is this, rather than race per se, what affects voting intention. If he'd said "Jews are greedy" or something, then that's a racial generalisation. But he said that their average economic position has improved, which is demonstrably true compared to early Jewish immigrants. The comments are pretty much verbatim what he said in 2012, so I don't see the merit in rerunning the story.
Why is that Horsey? Why is he consistently singling out Jews for apparent criticism?
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 26 May 14 11.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 11.13am
He's not making "racial generalisations" though, he's simply pointing out that some ethnic groups have varying average wealth/income and that it is this, rather than race per se, what affects voting intention. If he'd said "Jews are greedy" or something, then that's a racial generalisation. But he said that their average economic position has improved, which is demonstrably true compared to early Jewish immigrants. The comments are pretty much verbatim what he said in 2012, so I don't see the merit in rerunning the story. Mel Gibson would love all this. So if it's ok to start generalising over 'groups' and their attributes like saying Jews tend to have higher incomes does this means that it's ok to say that Muslims tends to produce extremism in the UK? What's good for the goose and all that. I'm sure there are elements of truth to both statements but personally I don't feel connecting attributes to 'groups' helps the narrative much. It just produces meat for your opponents.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 26 May 14 11.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 26 May 2014 10.17am
Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 8.56am
Quote Kermit8 at 26 May 2014 8.49am
Geert Wilders expects Farage and UKIP to join up with "racist and anti-Semitic" far right groups rather than face isolationism within the EU Parliament even though at this moment Nige says he won't. For political expediency he does have a point does old Geert.
It is a complete non story. It is like me saying 'Gusset and IT teaching assistant Kermit should both embrace reality and drop their childish adherence to unworkable and outdated political ideology'. That is never going to happen. Neither will this.
2) That sentence will be coming back to haunt you should Geert have got this one right. Edited by Kermit8 (26 May 2014 10.17am) 1. The lady doth protest too much, me thinks;
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 26 May 14 11.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 11.37am
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 11.13am
He's not making "racial generalisations" though, he's simply pointing out that some ethnic groups have varying average wealth/income and that it is this, rather than race per se, what affects voting intention. If he'd said "Jews are greedy" or something, then that's a racial generalisation. But he said that their average economic position has improved, which is demonstrably true compared to early Jewish immigrants. The comments are pretty much verbatim what he said in 2012, so I don't see the merit in rerunning the story. Mel Gibson would love all this. So if it's ok to start generalising over 'groups' and their attributes like saying Jews tend to have higher incomes does this means that it's ok to say that Muslims tends to produce extremism in the UK? What's good for the goose and all that. I'm sure there are elements of truth to both statements but personally I don't feel connecting attributes to 'groups' helps the narrative much. It just produces meat for your opponents.
Yes it does. The hypocrisy is funny.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 26 May 14 11.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 11.30am
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 11.13am
Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 7.35am
People are interested because it shows prominent politicans making racial generalisations. It appears to highlight hypocrisy and lefties like you and Gusset trying to sweep it under the carpet also highlights hypocrisy as you have both spent the last few weeks accusing UKIP and it's supporters of racism, facism and xenophobia. I don't believe that Ken is a spent force in politics. I think he will stand for office again before he finally goes to the Red Ribbo care home for deranged aged left wingers. He's not making "racial generalisations" though, he's simply pointing out that some ethnic groups have varying average wealth/income and that it is this, rather than race per se, what affects voting intention. If he'd said "Jews are greedy" or something, then that's a racial generalisation. But he said that their average economic position has improved, which is demonstrably true compared to early Jewish immigrants. The comments are pretty much verbatim what he said in 2012, so I don't see the merit in rerunning the story. Interesting that you continue to sweep this under the carpet. Ken appears to single out Jews for criticism. He could have said Indians, South East Asians or Russians but he continues to criticise Jews. Why is that Horsey? Why is he consistently singling out Jews for apparent criticism? Where's the criticism? I can't see that he's saying anything bad about Jewish people here. He was asked why ethnic minorities vote for Labour in far higher number than the Tories. You'd think, given his politics, he'd have pointed towards the Tories proud history of alleged racism; Enoch Powell, if you want a n*gger for a neighbour vote liberal or Labour, etc. etc. But instead, he made what I'd say is a fairly reasonable point about the factor being income/wealth, rather than race per se. I would say he might have picked a less controversial racial group to make this point, but seemingly he did by also mentioning Irish Catholics. Obviously I can see why you're keen to point out the "lefty hypocrisy in defending left-wing racial generalisations" but I don't think is anything close to racism. Amusingly, it adds to the idiotic notion that "you can't say anything nowadays without being called a racist".
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 26 May 14 11.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 11.37am
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 11.13am
He's not making "racial generalisations" though, he's simply pointing out that some ethnic groups have varying average wealth/income and that it is this, rather than race per se, what affects voting intention. If he'd said "Jews are greedy" or something, then that's a racial generalisation. But he said that their average economic position has improved, which is demonstrably true compared to early Jewish immigrants. The comments are pretty much verbatim what he said in 2012, so I don't see the merit in rerunning the story. Mel Gibson would love all this. So if it's ok to start generalising over 'groups' and their attributes like saying Jews tend to have higher incomes does this means that it's ok to say that Muslims tends to produce extremism in the UK? What's good for the goose and all that. I'm sure there are elements of truth to both statements but personally I don't feel connecting attributes to 'groups' helps the narrative much. It just produces meat for your opponents.
Just limit immigration and have quality rather than quantity. Raise the London living wage and get British unemployed picking fruit & veg without being financially worse off for doing it. Sounds easy. Or just do what Labour propose and 'listen.'
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 26 May 14 11.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 11.37am
Mel Gibson would love all this. So if it's ok to start generalising over 'groups' and their attributes like saying Jews tend to have higher incomes does this means that it's ok to say that Muslims tends to produce extremism in the UK? What's good for the goose and all that. I'm sure there are elements of truth to both statements but personally I don't feel connecting attributes to 'groups' helps the narrative much. It just produces meat for your opponents. I think there's a difference between generalising about something morally neutral (being richer) and generalising about something widely held to be wrong (producing extremism). Livingstone isn't trying to denigrate jews for improving their general economic position, he's just positing this as proof that money makes more difference to voting intention than race. He's saying Catholics are generally poor too, but nobody seems to be worried about that because it's obviously not an attempt to denigrate.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 26 May 14 12.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 11.47am
Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 11.30am
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 11.13am
Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 7.35am
People are interested because it shows prominent politicans making racial generalisations. It appears to highlight hypocrisy and lefties like you and Gusset trying to sweep it under the carpet also highlights hypocrisy as you have both spent the last few weeks accusing UKIP and it's supporters of racism, facism and xenophobia. I don't believe that Ken is a spent force in politics. I think he will stand for office again before he finally goes to the Red Ribbo care home for deranged aged left wingers. He's not making "racial generalisations" though, he's simply pointing out that some ethnic groups have varying average wealth/income and that it is this, rather than race per se, what affects voting intention. If he'd said "Jews are greedy" or something, then that's a racial generalisation. But he said that their average economic position has improved, which is demonstrably true compared to early Jewish immigrants. The comments are pretty much verbatim what he said in 2012, so I don't see the merit in rerunning the story. Interesting that you continue to sweep this under the carpet. Ken appears to single out Jews for criticism. He could have said Indians, South East Asians or Russians but he continues to criticise Jews. Why is that Horsey? Why is he consistently singling out Jews for apparent criticism? Where's the criticism? I can't see that he's saying anything bad about Jewish people here. He was asked why ethnic minorities vote for Labour in far higher number than the Tories. You'd think, given his politics, he'd have pointed towards the Tories proud history of alleged racism; Enoch Powell, if you want a n*gger for a neighbour vote liberal or Labour, etc. etc. But instead, he made what I'd say is a fairly reasonable point about the factor being income/wealth, rather than race per se. I would say he might have picked a less controversial racial group to make this point, but seemingly he did by also mentioning Irish Catholics. Obviously I can see why you're keen to point out the "lefty hypocrisy in defending left-wing racial generalisations" but I don't think is anything close to racism. Amusingly, it adds to the idiotic notion that "you can't say anything nowadays without being called a racist".
Interesting perspective Horsey.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 26 May 14 12.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Exactly. The point being made by the generalisation is what is relevant.A generalisation (to use an extreme example to make the point) like "Japanese people come from Japan" or "Americans are wealthier than Ukrainians" is not racist. A generalisation like "Romanian people are dodgy scroungers" is.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.