Perhaps the Civil Rights movement in America showed everyone else the way?Originally Posted by Burney
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
The trouble is that, in order to right actual wrongs on behalf of certain groups, you invariably end up ring-fencing those groups within rigid definitions. Thus, a married father of four who likes a spot of cock now and again has to be categorised as gay or bisexual. This is ultimately an unhelpful way of looking at things.
Yes, of course. And assuming you know Berni's profession, I expect that being a google master would be one of the main requirements for success.Correct
Courtesy of google....
Which explains how, at times, he can appear so knowledgeable.
How very dare you
Anyway, I have six children.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Here's my understanding:
She doesn't assert, as Burney said, she suspects.
What does she suspect? First of all she suspects that Trump did say that Pence "wanted to hang them all". This is her opinion (not a fact). If Trump did say that then all it says is that Trump is more liberal about gays than Pence.
Secondly (removing the sub-clause) she "suspects ... that he (Trump) would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."
So she's gone from using a rumour about Trump either joking or believing that Pence is highly illiberal about gays to suspecting that Trump is basically ok with hanging gay people.
That's only a notch or two down from assert, isn't it?
I assumed the point LA was making was that the author wasnt necessarily saying that Trump wants to hang gays- she is suggesting he would be willing to do pretty much anything for the sake of good ratings.
This doesnt really add up, particularly as she says it immediately after suggesting he did say that his VP wants to hang them.
My judgement- she is saying he wants to hang gays. Case closed.
Of course there can. See also: the term counter-revolutionary.
I think what she actually says he will do anything to get ratings - hardly a massive slight on a man so obsessed with his own image - which is why removing that phrase completely changes the meaning
How does it not add up as it really what she says. (I admit it is clumsily written nonsense on the whole)I assumed the point LA was making was that the author wasnt necessarily saying that Trump wants to hang gays- she is suggesting he would be willing to do pretty much anything for the sake of good ratings.
This doesnt really add up, particularly as she says it immediately after suggesting he did say that his VP wants to hang them.
My judgement- she is saying he wants to hang gays. Case closed.
Right. So you don't think that saying that the President of the United States "would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people" (for whatever bullshīt reason) is a massive slight? Only I'd say it's a bit more than a slight. I'd say it's a gross and tasteless calumny with no substance whatsoever and if you're defending it, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
