The EU debate - Part III

Define genuinely

 

Define define.

 

You could just post the links and definition, admit you were talking ****e, or just drop it and move on.

As it is, you're attempts to spin are just highlighting the bollocks of your claim.

 

I already did. You just ignore it, deflect and refuse to engage.
You're an utter embarrassment and an utter coward. Shh.

 

Did you ****.

You tried to fudge it with a separate discussion in the hope nobody noticed you were dodging.

You're just highlighting that you were spouting ****e you can't support.

 

Wrong.

 

Here's your claim. It's the one you're supposed to be supporting, not some other nonsense.

Links when you're ready, and the definition of 'racist' you're applying.

"You just get annoyed when someone says something that's blatantly racist and they're correctly called a racist."

 

I've already asked you why you need a definition of the word racist, but you've refused to explain why.
I've given you examples, but you've ignored them.
Stop clogging up the thread with dishonest spam and deflection.

 

I explained why.

It's because I want to see which definition you're applying. You've yet to post it.

Explain how the link you posted supports your claim, "You just get annoyed when someone says something that's blatantly racist and they're correctly called a racist."

What's racist on the link?
Where am I getting annoyed?
If I just get annoyed with only those things as you claim, why do you ignore posts that conflict with that claim and where others of your ilk are in agreement with me?

 

How many definitions of racism are there?

 

None from you so far.

 

You can't even answer that.

 

You quoted my answer.

You've wriggled away, but still avoided supporting your claim. "You just get annoyed when someone says something that's blatantly racist and they're correctly called a racist."

 

Have you just pulled that out of your arse?

I've just been looking again at the link you provided to 'support' your claim "You just get annoyed when someone says something that's blatantly racist and they're correctly called a racist."

Your link is a discussion on the background to the Democrat Party, and a comment on 'crisis actors' being used.

You seem very confused on what 'annoyance' and 'racism' are.

 

Quite funny.

Like I said, you expect people to spend however long trawling through this thread to find something which you'll only try and deflect away from and claim you were merely putting it out there for discussion. Like when you were bleating (or annoyed if you like) that people should attack the content rather than the poster when they criticised a load of right wing guff a week or two ago.

Honestly why would so many with little to nothing in common come to the same conclusion on your posts?

 

Lots of words, and nothing backing the claims. I'm not deflecting, for example I even keep posting the actual claim to get it back on track to get the discussion on the issue rather than anything else.

You've made a claim about me and posts on here, it's not unreasonable to ask you to show which posts you're referring to.

"So many" people on here, is a piss poor argument you keep trying, and keeps getting shown to be bollocks, and also, I couldn't give a ****.

 

You're avoiding the point in the hope of trying to twist the debate into a discussion about other religions.

The point is simple, she claimed her faith would help ensure she made the right decisions on Brexit, which is a bizarre statement given what's at stake. The supposed guiding hand of a fairytale character is not what I'd like to hear our PM relying on personally.

 

History would suggest I could spend the whole evening copying and pasting links to the posts and you'd deny they prove anything so it really would be pointless.