Verbal

This really isn't the case. The economy has been sustained, if that's the word, by series of bubbles, most of the recent ones orchestrated by Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. After the dotcom bubble came the property bubble - both of them encouraging vast amounts of private debt, and precisely none of it government-funded.

Most of this debt is private-sector debt. And the idea that the Tea Party exists merely as a sort of taxpayers' alliance is missing the mark by quite a bit.

From the godfather of the world's most notorious mafia state.

You were posting as Natasha, and everyone knew it. Deppo was posting as stain and everyone knew it - and in any case, it was pointed out by dune, aka the banned Stanley, ensuring that Deppo, unlike you/'Natasha' and dune/Stanley, remains banned. Bath Saint has a point. Apart from St Chalet, who wrongly claimed dune was banned from a previous incarnation of the site, and promised but failed to review the situation, no one has explained what on the face of it is another hypo - hypocrisy.

Admittedly these things are measured in tiny increments, but you seem a tad more compos mentis than the other two. If that's true, I'd suggest you paddle slowly away from the advocate of violent racism (with his reproduction of the criminal-led EDL's manifesto) and the advocate of violent sexism (with his plea for help in planning the assault and criminal damage to property of a woman). Do you really need to be so closely identified with either? And perhaps the mods and admin might like to reflect on the way their site continues to be used for such plainly illegal purposes.

I wouldn't let the Scumbag Three get to you. They can barely muster the contents of a single human brain between them and try unsuccessfully to camouflage that with behind-the-bikesheds netbullying. Recently the threads on here, and the curious lack of moderating, have allowed them to give full vent to their nasty little racist and misogynistic 'minds' (for serious want of a better word). In real life, the threats of violence towards women, for example, won't amount to anything - and are merely a window onto ugly, banal personal lives. They are hopeless - and the only interest to be had in them is as zoological specimens of the worst that can happen to you if let yourself sink into a cretinous abyss. They are, in this sense, a form of guilty-pleasure entertainment: like the contents of a Victorian freak show. So don't stop posting because of them, of all people. You're just feeding their desperate egos by doing so - it gives them the illusion of power, that their netbullying has worked.

In the words of Voltaire: Anything that is too stupid to be spoken is sung.

Pirated then. I take it the italicised bought means that? Go down to the shops and buy yourself a nice new Macbook Air. You'll wonder why you ever had such a silly prejudice, and you will feel better about yourself and the world in general. Or nick one.

Dear god. I hadn't realised this was just another of your threads imagining violence against women.

Well done. I hesitate to say this, but I can detect some small signs of improvement there.

My 'usual tactic' is adopted out of kindness and consideration to your limitations. And my definition fits precisely you and your avatar. It's all about the relationship between 'impulse' (see above) and another not so subtle distinction between reasons and rationalisations. You may THINK that you chose that avatar out of the goodness of your heart, or as an homage to your favourite comedians, but a psychologist dissecting the Turkish mind would have called those reasons into question. The impulse to put up a man in blackface as your avatar has deeper (I know, it hardly seems possible), darker sources, and your 'reasons' were in fact rationalisations, or justifications. Feel better now?

So you've now joined the Turkish school of sulking too. Instead of jumping up and down squeaking 'bollix, it's bollix!!' Why don't you at least try and enlighten us as to why.

It's not. It would be if you were able to claim successfully that racism has some kind of respectable intellectual history - that the racist psychological profile has some element of reason in it, rather than the irrational fear and loathing of 'the other'.

What you're highlighting is your bizarre misreading and coming up with 'impulsive behaviour.'

Joined the Turkish school of reading?

Still so far away. I'm beginning to lose all hope with you. Racism is the impulse to abuse, violently attack, torture or murder people because of perceived, usually ethnic differences. It is the same impulse, whether the people being abused, etc., represent a different race, ethnic group or whatever. In other words, the racist doesn't think: 'You know what, I have to be really scientific about this - I have to work out whether the bloke whose head I'm smashing in, because I hate his kind, really is of a different race, or merely of a different ethnic group. If the latter - brilliant! I'm not a racist!' Or if he does think that, he probably posts on here. You understand that, don't you? Probably not. As for protections under the Act, it does not, contrary to your flight of paranoic fancy, privilege minority groups, but merely confers the same rights on them as apply to you or me.

Try again - this time, think about each word carefully and try and connect them all together. The truth is out there.

I'm going to assume you're not as stupid as your posts make you sound. So here goes, very slowly: Race is a biological category, while ethnicity is socially mediated. Ethnic groupings have to do with a range factors, including shared culture and customs, outward physical differences (which may be imperceptible to outsiders - eg hutus and tutsis - and have no biological significance or), etc. So: black or East Asian peoples are a race, for example. Gypsies, travellers, Celtic people, etc., are ethnic groupings. They are not a race. Only an utter dimwit - or someone who reserves the right to be a racist scumbag rather than be called one - would say that they are. One of the difficulties of the English language is that it is too fluid and subtle for some people. Racism includes violent action against ethnic groupings - hutus killing tutsis for example. To be racist is not only to be violently sick at the sight of a black or East man, for example (you see where I'm going with this?), but to use difference per se as a means of discrimination and subjugation.

Nowhere in that report - not by the CRE, by the way, which ceased to exist years ago - is there any claim that gypsies or travellers are a race. If you actually read it, you'll also see that it discusses the tensions that arise when they encamp among local communities, and it does not (as I expect you think it does) criticise local communities for reacting against the disruption. You do read the material you link to, do you? If so, what happens in that process between mouthing the words and processing what they mean?

It would be if this were the 1950s. Don't get out much t?

I would if I could, but how do you ask for this without sounding like a 12 year old?

I take it this is you, so yes, go and commit some criminal damage and/or violently assault someone. It makes perfect sense.

Sounds like the start of a Tarantino movie

Even worse, you're from Norwich.

Well done!