The EU debate - Part III

I'll see once we've seen your links to me quoting Icke, as opposed to a couple of picture hosted on his site.

 

So what job and sector do you do/work in?

The majority of other posters haven't been too embarrassed to share that info, even Kustard.

 

He's denied being a council bod, but he's the kind of beard that I think is nailed on civil service


Albeit given his vintage, he might be an 'ex' civil servant, maybe working in somewhere like B&Q now to top up his pension on a zero hours contract

 

I've not evaded it once, so it can't be again.

As I keep trying to show, and I've tried a few different angles to your stuck record, what you describe as the darker skinned people, not a choice I'd go for but still, visibly ethnic minorities can be categorised according to the CRE and the Police etc as black, which doesn't mean that all non-whites are black, or would characterise themselves as such.

 

That doesn't answer the question.

I referred to non whites and you took that to mean blacks. Why?

What about all the people who consider themselves non white but who also don't consider themselves to be black?

The one thing that's clear is that when you saw the term "non white" you automatically thought "black". That's how your mind works, fair enough, but you shouldn't expect everyone to think as narrow mindedly as you do.

 

Actually @Hull City AFC (DMD) given your ****ish demeanour and your barely hidden agendas, combined with your slipping and sliding posting style - which denotes someone who is conversant with interview techniques...

Are you an ex bizzie?

 

It does answer the question Stan. As an example, all those you mention as in your words "darker skin" are the sort of people that would come under the umbrella of the Black Police Officers Association., even though they perhaps wouldn't as individuals classify themselves as black. Can you see the difference?

 

They're either Caucasian or Black in your former trade love

 

Pete highlighted this sentence in one of my posts


"In my view all fascists are ****s and we should not use them to back up or support our arguments."


He responded with


"You seem to accuse many people of being fascists but you also seem incapable of justifying the label. It's like a child who has learnt a new word and wants to use it as much as possible without any sensible reason."


I responded with


I have accused Le Pen of being a Fascist cos she is one. How the **** does that equate to many people?


He then responded with


"Didn't you call the Nazi's fascists? What do you think I need to retract when I am right?"


So he went from accusing me using the term against many people while being incapable of justifying the claim and throwing the term around like a child with no justifiable reason to, to he was only pointing out that I called Hilters nazis fascists as well as le pen so he was right to say I "call a lot of people fascists withoutbeing able to justify the lable".


Then he seeks to pretend his argument makes sense.

He throws out continuous red herrings to hide his mistakes.

I have every justification in calling Hitlers Nazi's Fascists and as the only people I have labeled fascists are Hitlers Nazi's and Le Pen it would be plainly obvious that it is factually wrong to accuse me of "calling MANY people fascists with without being able to justify the lable"

He accuses me of lying cos I used the word "reason" instead of "being incapable to justifying the lable".
The truth is that Pete made a stupid accusation and refused to back down.
Its not difficult. On Friday i apologised to the Hull bloke for getting the wrong end of the stick ... pretty certain Hull responded with apology accepted.
But Instead Pete played a stupid smart arse game...and refuses to let it drop.
After about an 8 hour break on Saturday night he started up again about me and has done so again today after a similar time span.

If he doesn't think Le Pen is a Nazi that's up to him. If he think Mao and Stalin were worse than the Fascists that's up to him.
What ain't up to him is what I think.

The man comes across has being near obsessive in his need to be right.

 

And black can = non-white in such circumstances, although the Police use different ic codes for different ethnicity. Can you explain it to Stan?

Our local rag regularly described some people as being of "Eastern European appearance", I never quite grasped what that was supposed to be.

 

I didn't mention anyone other than non whites in my initial post.

After your "blacks" generalisation you said I couldn't have meant the Chinese or, incredibly patronisingly, some white bloke off the TV with a tan (ironically you telling me what I meant after you've cried repeatedly about people telling you what you meant in one of your posts). I did later reference Syrians and Iraqis as not being considered black. Given I'm the son of a North African/Middle Eastern immigrant and having lived in that part of the world off and on for 15 years, I can assure you that the Syrians, Omanis, Eqyptians and Iraqis don't consider themselves to be "black" you parochial simpleton

The basis of your entire "defence" seems to be that the BPOA would be prepared to embrace a Syrian and an Iraqi as "black".

You're not only a self confessed moron but also a batshit mental bigot

 

Which "Le Pen" are you talking about?

 

I think you're better qualified to explain the IC codes mate

As for the HDM they were playing to their audience.

 

No wonder you've been labelled a **** on every forum you've ever posted on since the inception of the Internet

Well done for completely proving his point btw

 

You mentioned 'darker skin' and your reply was to a conversation about blacks, with one person listing the countries in question. Your post would make no sense to the discussion if the definition you're trying to claim applied.

Over and above that, the groups tasked with looking out for the interests of those you describe as dark skins, use the umbrella term black in their general description of visibly ethnic minorities.

 

None of which excuses your original post after that bell end Zlatan piped up today with his 'spread of the non whites' bollocks

You chose to highlight Stan's comment about him potentially disliking blacks, as opposed to either picking apart the utter bullshit that idiot posted or even acknowledging that Stan also used the word afraid as the alternative.

Notably you also have an issue with Islam.

Oh and before you post a strawman I'm not making a strawman argument merely posting a dissection of your actions and posts

 

Incorrect. The discussion was about the 80% majority white population having already been diluted and the fear that it will be diluted even more. Only you seem to have focused on it being a "black" issue.

WatfordR posted the following:

"White people aren't in any danger of extinction. Even if they were in slight decline, they would be the majority in the U.K. and Europe for centuries to come. Even if they weren't, what's your issue with a hypotheticalsituation one day long after we are all dead that there are more black or brown faces than white ones?"

By the way, that organisation that you googled and subsequently hung your hat on aren't called the Black Police Officers Association. At least show them the respect of getting their name right if you're going to pathetically use them to try and deflect from your own bigotry!

http://www.nbpa.co.uk

 

I don't have an issue with Islam, that is a strawman despite your denial, and it's Stan that's highlighted his ignorance, I simply asked a question.

Have you forgotten the links to me quoting Icke as you claimed earlier? As an aid to your memory, the couple of pictures that turned out to be from his site have been covered, it was his words quoted that you were proving.

 

I know the right name, I quoted their definition to you earlier, which you agreed with as a definition of what you call "dark skins".

Going right back to the start of this nonsense, the question I asked was "where does he say he dislikes blacks" in response to a claim, if for the sake of peace I ask, where does he say he dislikes "dark skins" would you answer?

 

I've not made an argument that puts words in your mouth, I've made an assertion based on my own opinion and the facts you've provided, you patently don't understand the definition, hardly surprising Searg.

As for the Icke comments, I'm on my iPad I'll humiliate you with those at my leisure