What is wrong with America

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

No I read the Guardian articles. I agree I havent listened to your Gary Economics videos becuase they are long and I have actually listened to him talk about economics before. I therefore understand the guys stance and have taken my own independent view on him (not influencd by others)

But there were specific views in those videos...

But that's fine, your prefer to read and try to understand Tommy Robinson's views rather than Gary Stevenson's.

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

But there were specific views in those videos...

But that's fine, your prefer to read and try to understand Tommy Robinson's views rather than Gary Stevenson's.

Yes but I understand Gary Economics views becuase I have watched videos about him. I dont just put my fingers in my ears, call the guy a prick because Dave down the pub told me he is. I dont need to watch every single video of each person to form a view of them.

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is exactly the problem. Why havent you listened to him to form a view? 

I haven't read Mein Kampf, but I hold sn informed opinion about Hitler.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I haven't read Mein Kampf, but I hold sn informed opinion about Hitler.

Becuase you got taught about him extensively in history lessons at school and probably from TV programmes and that he killed 6 million Jews as a fact. You have assessed the true evidence on him which includes videos of Auschwitz, pictures of torture camps, gas chambers, etc and the accounts of hundreds of people who suffered under him. 

They are very different. How have you formed your very strong view of Tommy Robinson? Its a fair question.

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

They are very different. How have you formed your very strong view of Tommy Robinson? Its a fair question.

I used my brain.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I used my brain.

Brilliant. So you havent formed your own view and are therefore ill informed to have such a strong opinion. If I was going to rattle off an opinion that strong about somebody, I would at least have listened to their view on matters. Unfortunately, this is the problem, people having very strong opinions about stuff they dont understand and havent looked into themselves.

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Brilliant. So you havent formed your own view and are therefore ill informed to have such a strong opinion. If I was going to rattle off an opinion that strong about somebody, I would at least have listened to their view on matters. Unfortunately, this is the problem, people having very strong opinions about stuff they dont understand and havent looked into themselves.

It's reasonable to form a view from commentary alone that the bloke is obnoxious and doesn't stand for what I do. If I was interested and/or the bloke was vaguely relevant to me I'd investigate further, but I'm not and he isn't. It's no more complicated than that.

[Turkish]

Katy Hopkins is the one for me, I love the way shes held up by some on here as some sort of symbol as to the unstoppable rise of the far right in Europe when most people had forgotten she even existed. Genuinely the only reason I recognised her a while back because someone on here kept banging on about her. 

[badgerx16]

26 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Brilliant. So you havent formed your own view and are therefore ill informed to have such a strong opinion. If I was going to rattle off an opinion that strong about somebody, I would at least have listened to their view on matters. Unfortunately, this is the problem, people having very strong opinions about stuff they dont understand and havent looked into themselves.

We all form our own opinions based on selected sources, reviewed in the light of education, snd informed by experience. I don't have to explain myself to you. What makes your process of opinion forming superior to mine ? Do you really listen to or read every possible source before forming your opinion on anybody ? 

Edited 5 hours ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

27 minutes ago, egg said:

It's reasonable to form a view from commentary alone that the bloke is obnoxious and doesn't stand for what I do. If I was interested and/or the bloke was vaguely relevant to me I'd investigate further, but I'm not and he isn't. It's no more complicated than that.

If you call someone a c bomb they probably are relevant as you have an opinion. Also, to hold an opinion on somebody like that I would do a bit more than read a single publication or listen to the BBC.

I had a negative view on him as a whole from listening to the BBC and other mainstream media outlets which I trusted at the time. Then I listened to what he said years ago about the BBC's manipulative editing and the rape gang crisis (well before anyone else was talking about these things) and thought, actually maybe the guy has a point on some matters. It transpires he did. I didnt realise that his cousin got hooked on heroin and was used by the rape gangs which is why he started highlighting the issue. The guy got hammered for highlighting the rape gang issues by 'mainstream politicians' and now look. So I would more likely call the mainstream media and 'mainstream politicians' cunts for ignoring what he was saying on that matter and letting hundreds or thousands of kids be groomed and raped. 

It doesnt mean I agree or support everything he has ever said or done, but at least I formed my own view based on evidence in relation to specific matters. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

14 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

If you call someone a c bomb they probably are relevant as you have an opinion. Also, to hold an opinion on somebody like that I would do a bit more than read a single publication or listen to the BBC.

I had a negative view on him as a whole but then I listened to what he said years ago about the BBC's manipulative editing and the rape gang crisis (well before anyone else was talking about these things) and thought, actually maybe the guy has a point on some matters. It transpires he did. I didnt realise that his cousin got hooked on heroin and was used by the rape gangs which is why he started highlighting the issue. The guy got hammered for highlighting the rape gang issues by 'mainstream politicians' and now look. So I would more likely call the mainstream media and 'mainstream politicians' cunts for ignoring what he was saying on that matter and letting hundreds or thousands of kids be groomed and raped. 

It doesnt mean I agree or support everything he has ever said or done, but at least I formed my own view based on evidence in relation to specific matters.

As I said, if I was interested or the bloke was vaguely relevant to me, I'd investigate further. He's just another bloke, and his life experiences, opinions, family history, etc, is as relevant to me as those of the bloke in front of me in the queue at the petrol station. If you're interested in a nobody, crack on, but don't expect me or others to take an interest just because you do. Utterly pointless discussion tbh. 

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

As I said, if I was interested or the bloke was vaguely relevant to me, I'd investigate further. He's just another bloke, and his life experiences, opinions, family history, etc, is as relevant to me as those of the bloke in front of me in the queue at the petrol station. If you're interested in a nobody, crack on, but don't expect me or others to take an interest just because you do. Utterly pointless discussion tbh. 

I hope you dont call people in front of you at petrol stations cunts then. Next time take a view based on evidence.

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I hope you dont call people in front of you at petrol stations cunts then.

If they jumped the queue I might, but I haven't called him a cunt. 

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, egg said:

If they jumped the queue I might, but I haven't called him a cunt. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I'm not Badger poppet. 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So Egg didn't call him a cunt.

All tyrants through history, whether monstrous, like Hitler and Putin, or petty, like Robinson, find a foundation for their rhetoric in perceived injustice and injury. Having something tangible to anchor to gives them something valid snd justifying to demonstrate to their followers, and to fall back on when challenged.

[Sir Ralph]

 

10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So Egg didn't call him a cunt.

All tyrants through history, whether monstrous, like Hitler and Putin, or petty, like Robinson, find a foundation for their rhetoric in perceived injustice and injury. Having something tangible to anchor to gives them something valid snd justifying to demonstrate to their followers, and to fall back on when challenged.

He agreed with it. Putting aside semantics, its the same.

Your statement is quite unbelievable. Maybe you think people who highlight rape gang issues are cunts. 'Perceived injustice and injury' - seriously fuck off. People that highlight young girls being targeted, hooked on drugs and raped in inexplicable ways have alternative agendas. Evidently another subject you know nothing about or otherwise you wouldnt make such stupid statements. Stop making ill informed statements when (self admittedly) you know nothing about this subject. Bye. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

He agreed with it. Putting aside semantics, its the same.

Your statement is quite unbelievable. Maybe you think people who highlight rape gang issues are cunts. 'Perceived injustice and injury' - seriously fuck off. People that highlight young girls being targeted, hooked on drugs and raped in inexplicable ways have alternative agendas. Stop making ill informed statements when (self admittedly) you know nothing about this subject. Bye. 

Don't let the door hit your arse as you leave.

Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Don't let the door hit yiur arse as you leave.

At least I dont think that grooming gang rape is 'perceived injustice and injury'. Your words. You are well out of your depth on this subject.

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

So it turns out Sir Ralph is a supporter of Tommy Robinson, colour me surprised.

[egg]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

He agreed with it. Putting aside semantics, its the same.

Your statement is quite unbelievable. Maybe you think people who highlight rape gang issues are cunts. 'Perceived injustice and injury' - seriously fuck off. People that highlight young girls being targeted, hooked on drugs and raped in inexplicable ways have alternative agendas. Evidently another subject you know nothing about or otherwise you wouldnt make such stupid statements. Stop making ill informed statements when (self admittedly) you know nothing about this subject. Bye. 

Semantics, behave. If you agree with something Robinson says it's not you saying it. Jesus wept.

When you're not ignoring questions you're either posting nonsense, making stuff up, or passing one person's comment off as anothers.

Debate sensibly or stop wasting people's time.

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

So it turns out Sir Ralph is a supporter of Tommy Robinson, colour me surprised.

I said I agreed with some of what he said. So what. Do you think things like the grooming gangs scandal should be highlighted?  If you dont agree with that I would say that is very, very worrying. Do you agree with him on this point?

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I said I agreed with some of what he said. So what. Do you think things like the grooming gangs scandal should be highlighted? If I agree with that I assume I'm some far right supporter. If you dont agree with that I would say that is very, very worrying. Do you agree with him on this point?

 

Semantics mate. In your world, that's the same is saying it. 

Silly isn't it. 

An apology would be gracious. 

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I said I agreed with some of what he said. So what. Do you think things like the grooming gangs scandal should be highlighted?  If you dont agree with that I would say that is very, very worrying. Do you agree with him on this point?

 

I wonder how many of those girls were classed as being in poverty, or had "fallen through the gaps"?

[Sir Ralph]

16 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I wonder how many of those girls were classed as being in poverty, or had "fallen through the gaps"?

Thats pretty disgusting to make a point about this. Gang rape and the two child cap removal are very different things. If you think otherwise your judgement is shit.

Even more worryingly you also ignored my point about whether the grooming gang issue should be highlighted.

I'll leave the ill informed gang to talk shit amongst themselves. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thats pretty disgusting to make a point about this. Gang rape and the two child cap removal are very different things. If you think otherwise your judgement is shit. I'll leave the ill informed gang to take shit amongst themselves. 

Don't forget my apology mate. 

Thank you. 

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thats pretty disgusting to make a point about this. Gang rape and the two child cap removal are very different things. If you think otherwise your judgement is shit. I'll leave the ill informed gang to talk shit amongst themselves. 

Exactly. You can't speak out both sides of your mouth mate.

Love your mock outrage though, especially as last week you said you'd be happy to see children die as collateral to not having some people cheat benefits.

[badgerx16]

29 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

At least I dont think that grooming gang rape is 'perceived injustice and injury'. Your words. You are well out of your depth on this subject.

Where did I mention the grooming gangs ? All I said was "find a foundation for their rhetoric in perceived injustice and injury.". You then put words in my mouth.

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Exactly. You can't speak out both sides of your mouth mate.

Love your mock outrage though, especially as last week you said you'd be happy to see children die as collateral to not having some people cheat benefits.

I didnt say I would be happy to see them die. Point to where I said it. Its not mock outrage. I defy you to read about the grooming gangs and think that comparing that to the two child cap removal is ok.

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Where did I mention the grooming gangs ? All I said was "find a foundation for their rhetoric in perceived injustice and injury.". You then put words in my mouth.

The context was I talked about the rape gangs and that being his position.  So you werent saying the grooming gang impact was 'perceived injury and injustice'?If thats not what you were referring to then fine.

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I didnt say I would be happy to see them die. Point to where I said it.

I posted a link showing the number of children dying from poverty in the UK and you said that you would be happy to see some children suffer, so what does that suffering look like? Be raped? Malnourished? Suffer from disease?

Fucking children, not adults who make their own mistakes and decisions, children. You said it, you own it.

I'm done with speaking to you now, you're just a fucking nasty TR supporter.

Edited 4 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I didnt say I would be happy to see them die. Point to where I said it. Its not mock outrage. I defy you to read about the grooming gangs and think that comparing that to the two child cap removal is ok.

You wrongly attribute comments to people, so cut the mock outrage. 

[Sir Ralph]

19 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I posted a link showing the number of children dying from poverty in the UK and you said that you would be happy to see some children suffer, so what does that suffering look like? Be raped? Malnourished? Suffer from disease?

Fucking children, not adults who make their own mistakes and decisions, children. You said it, you own it.

You didnt show the post becuase it isnt there. Where did I say I would be 'happy' for this. Good attempt at trying to twist your warped statement back onto me. your suggestion that reinstating the two child cap means I support the death of children is absolutely ludicrous, as highlighted by a few posters on here who took the piss out of you. If someone said that in normal society they would be laughed at. It may sound ok in your own little echo chamber but its BS. 

Can you send me another photo of your bookshelf?😆

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Katy Hopkins is the one for me, I love the way shes held up by some on here as some sort of symbol as to the unstoppable rise of the far right in Europe when most people had forgotten she even existed. Genuinely the only reason I recognised her a while back because someone on here kept banging on about her. 

If the pictures of her at Robinson’s rally hadn’t been published recently I wouldn’t even have known it was her. The Jack Monroe court case she lost cleaned her out financially, mentally, physically and in every other sense. 

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Who?

You want me to give you a list of decent journalists?

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'm not sure I get your point? Is it that commentators are using far right and far left to describe people that aren't to create further divide, because I think that is correct, and is the point that is being made by Kraken.

If you look at the definition above it says that the definition has changed in recent. The degrees from centre right to extreme right have been redefined to meet today’s ideologies rather than those of the 1930’s.

[sadoldgit]

Katie Hopkins’ official YouTube channel has had over 160 million views. I wouldn’t call that disappearing from view. She might not be as visible as she was before she was suspended from Twitter/X but her name is still synonymous with far right views.

[tdmickey3]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I hope you dont call people in front of you at petrol stations cunts then. Next time take a view based on evidence.

I bet he would if he knew it was you.

Poor you Ralfy, really getting shown up for what you are

Edited 3 hours ago by tdmickey3

[Farmer Saint]

28 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You want me to give you a list of decent journalists?

Who refer to them as far right, yes.

[Farmer Saint]

30 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If you look at the definition above it says that the definition has changed in recent. The degrees from centre right to extreme right have been redefined to meet today’s ideologies rather than those of the 1930’s.

What would those from the 30's be classed as now?

[Sir Ralph]

33 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

I bet he would if he knew it was you.

Poor you Ralfy, really getting shown up for what you are

Getting personal again. Have you managed to structure a real point yet or are you still hanging onto the coat tails of your Forum 'friends'? 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

42 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Getting personal again. Have you managed to structure a real point yet or are you still hanging onto the coat tails of your Forum 'friends'? 

Cry me a river

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Who refer to them as far right, yes.

Not sure where to start. Most of them to be honest, hence why the AI search refers to the definition of “far right” as it does. As I have said before, I refer to certain people and views as being “far right” because the media do.

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Katie Hopkins’ official YouTube channel has had over 160 million views. I wouldn’t call that disappearing from view. She might not be as visible as she was before she was suspended from Twitter/X but her name is still synonymous with far right views.

 I expect most of those views are you, watching it though. . Just because you're obsessed with her doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

 

 

Edited 36 minutes ago by Turkish

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

What would those from the 30's be classed as now?

I don’t know what constitutes a moderate Tory in the 1930’s but there was clearly a big gap between the main Tory Party and people like Mosley and his black shirts. Obviously we didn’t have the immigrant issue in the 30’s to the extent that we do now, although Jewish communities faced discrimination.

My point is that the Tory Party became more divided over Brexit with the party generally moving further to the right. You mentioned being a one nation Tory yourself, those moderates vanished after Johnson came to power. There is now an area of politics that is between a moderate Tory and the extreme right (which you could label fascistic). This area covers people with the type of views that have been mentioned about and are labelled now as “far right” and “alt-right.” 
What you would call “right” the media calls “far right” now to differentiate between moderates and more hardliners.

From what you post I don’t think that you could be classed as “far right” so it differentiates between your views and those with harder views. I think we all know what we are talking about, we just use different labels.