Normally (if it was to include you) the phrase would be "you and people like you....."vonhelmet said:Fair enough, it's just a curious way of phrasing the generalisation to cite me without including me.
Surely that is not a curious phrase?
Normally (if it was to include you) the phrase would be "you and people like you....."vonhelmet said:Fair enough, it's just a curious way of phrasing the generalisation to cite me without including me.
I guess if your only experience of a group of people was them pushing excrement through your letter box you'd not be enamoured of them or keen to rent them a room.i know nothing said:That maybe the case, but one part of his speech leapt out to me;
"PC" is nothing new then.
But you are not ignoring me. DOn't you understand the concept of ignoring? In the last five days you've claimed to be ignoring me on numerous occassions. Yet you keep responding....... is pressing the ignore button complicated or something?Spawn said:To be an utter **** as per usual, he does it with Visage as well..cant handle being ignored i think.
CBS i think your cool too....xenophobically cool really..
Sorry i heard my ears burning and had to come and check out what the fuss was all about.
That's not was I was getting at. I was interested to read that in 1968 people were running about being "PC" about racism, another excerpt from his speech;VIRII said:I guess if your only experience of a group of people was them pushing excrement through your letter box you'd not be enamoured of them or keen to rent them a room.
Enoch Powell said:They cannot speak English, but one word they know. 'Racialist', they chant.
Say it out loud then:vonhelmet said:Fair enough, it's just a curious way of phrasing the generalisation to cite me without including me.
Although in fact, given that you put "you and" at the start of it, your defence actually makes no sense.
Is there a link to his speech?i know nothing said:That's not was I was getting at. I was interested to read that in 1968 people were running about being "PC" about racism, another excerpt from his speech;
Enoch said:Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: 'if only', they love to think, 'if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen'. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
cleanbluesky said:Given that the OP merely addresses the potential accuracy of historical events I suggest you examine your own feelings if you feel that it condemns black people
Royality said:I think you should acknowledge that the last comment could have been misconstrued negatively. That said, I see where I went wrong in interpretting it.
'The central political issue addressed by the speech was not, however, immigration as such. It was the introduction by the then Labour government of anti-discrimination legislation which would effectively criminalise the expression of racial prejudice in certain areas of British life — particularly housing. Powell found this legislation offensive and immoral.'
Seeing as you agree with Enoch, what do you think of this?
Rich_L said:What an absolutely awful thread. Not for the initial content, which was probably worth replying too, but the vomit-inducing mix of mutual ego-masturbation and total bitchiness which seems to be characterising GD of late.
Such as what exactly? I notice you did not make the same comments about the Spawn Raz Dark Shadow Visage circle jerking.Rich_L said:What an absolutely awful thread. Not for the initial content, which was probably worth replying too, but the vomit-inducing mix of mutual ego-masturbation and total bitchiness which seems to be characterising GD of late.
VIRII said:It does indeed seem in GD that attacking posters is far more important than attacking the arguments presented.
Rather than tired cliches and rhetoric and unbased opinion why don't you actually provide a quote or two, a little evidence, some proof?Rich_L said:I'm referring to them as well, the behaviour in this thread is pathetic, and seems to be the culmination of the recent Muslim-fest of threads which has raised antagonism to a point which hasn't been seen in a while and it's ridiculous.
crystaline said:Why all the hate. Are you all that excited?
cleanbluesky said:Was that addressed to someone?