Now I know I'm slightly obsessed by The Guardian, but in this piece, the author

[Burney]

blandly asserts that the President of the United States would "happily preside over televised hangings of gay people". There's no 'only kidding' or suggestion that this is satire - let alone factual evidence for this extraordinary assertion. She appears actually to believe this and has written it in an article for a leading newspaper. And what's more, no editor has at any point taken it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/26/ascent-lgbt-right-wing-afd

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Are they so far removed from normal discourse that they can't see how unhinged this sounds to normal people? Are their social circles so rarified that no-one ever challenges them when they come out with this sort of shít?

Let's leave aside all the other horseshít in the article and simply ask how we reached such a pitch of hysteria that people are uncrtitically making this sort of ridiculous, unfounded statement about a democratically elected politician without anyone calling them on it or suggesting they're being hysterical, offensive and mendacious?

[Luis Anaconda]

blandly asserts that the President of the United States would "happily preside over televised hangings of gay people". There's no 'only kidding' or suggestion that this is satire - let alone factual evidence for this extraordinary assertion. She appears actually to believe this and has written it in an article for a leading newspaper. And what's more, no editor has at any point taken it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/26/ascent-lgbt-right-wing-afd

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Are they so far removed from normal discourse that they can't see how unhinged this sounds to normal people? Are their social circles so rarified that no-one ever challenges them when they come out with this sort of shít?

Let's leave aside all the other horseshít in the article and simply ask how we reached such a pitch of hysteria that people are uncrtitically making this sort of ridiculous, unfounded statement about a democratically elected politician without anyone calling them on it or suggesting they're being hysterical, offensive and mendacious?
"One suspects, of course, that not only did Trump say it, but that he himself would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

If you read the whole sentence, it's actually quite different to how you've tried to portray it there

[Peter]

blandly asserts that the President of the United States would "happily preside over televised hangings of gay people". There's no 'only kidding' or suggestion that this is satire - let alone factual evidence for this extraordinary assertion. She appears actually to believe this and has written it in an article for a leading newspaper. And what's more, no editor has at any point taken it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/26/ascent-lgbt-right-wing-afd

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Are they so far removed from normal discourse that they can't see how unhinged this sounds to normal people? Are their social circles so rarified that no-one ever challenges them when they come out with this sort of shít?

Let's leave aside all the other horseshít in the article and simply ask how we reached such a pitch of hysteria that people are uncrtitically making this sort of ridiculous, unfounded statement about a democratically elected politician without anyone calling them on it or suggesting they're being hysterical, offensive and mendacious?

As I understand it, Trump actually has a reasonable record when it comes to benders. Of all the attention-seeking oppressed minority groups I thought this was the one where he had the least trouble.

The article is really about the horrific possibility that some gay people might be right wing, or at least conservative. If I could just put my PC hat on for a moment, I am genuinely horrified that someone would even suggest to somebody that they should vote, feel or act a certain way purely on the basis of their sexuality. That being gay means one simply CANNOT vote conservative, or republican, or UKIP.

What else do you have? Do poofs have to be remainers? Are they pro-life, anti-gun? Must they favour Scottish independence?

THese people sicken me. Leave the bummers alone. They are free to vote how they wish, just like the rest of us normal folk.

[Sir C]

blandly asserts that the President of the United States would "happily preside over televised hangings of gay people". There's no 'only kidding' or suggestion that this is satire - let alone factual evidence for this extraordinary assertion. She appears actually to believe this and has written it in an article for a leading newspaper. And what's more, no editor has at any point taken it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/26/ascent-lgbt-right-wing-afd

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? Are they so far removed from normal discourse that they can't see how unhinged this sounds to normal people? Are their social circles so rarified that no-one ever challenges them when they come out with this sort of shít?

Let's leave aside all the other horseshít in the article and simply ask how we reached such a pitch of hysteria that people are uncrtitically making this sort of ridiculous, unfounded statement about a democratically elected politician without anyone calling them on it or suggesting they're being hysterical, offensive and mendacious?

I think it's important to remember that The Guardian is staffed by members of the lunatic fringe, writing articles for fellow lunatics. The vast majority of the population are still sane enough to see this type of thing as lunacy.

Whay worries me is that the drip feed of this nonsense is starting to make it seem less mad and more mainstream. Like what they did with the transers :cry:

Don't worry, we're almost dead. Your daughter's generation will have to put things right.

[Peter]

"One suspects, of course, that not only did Trump say it, but that he himself would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

If you read the whole sentence, it's actually quite different to how you've tried to portray it there

Its no less pathetic. Apart from anything else, it would get seriously ****ing good ratings and everyone knows it.

Oh, right, they mean his personal ratings.....

[Burney]

"One suspects, of course, that not only did Trump say it, but that he himself would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

If you read the whole sentence, it's actually quite different to how you've tried to portray it there

No, sorry, but that context doesn't alter in the fact that it's a wholly unacceptable, hysterical, irresponsible and idiotic thing to say, being based as it is in absolutely no fact whatsoever. She might as well accuse him of eating babies or having sex with farmyard animals for all the basis in truth what she's written has. It's a baseless slur founded in nothing but her own prejudice.

[Burney]

As I understand it, Trump actually has a reasonable record when it comes to benders. Of all the attention-seeking oppressed minority groups I thought this was the one where he had the least trouble.

The article is really about the horrific possibility that some gay people might be right wing, or at least conservative. If I could just put my PC hat on for a moment, I am genuinely horrified that someone would even suggest to somebody that they should vote, feel or act a certain way purely on the basis of their sexuality. That being gay means one simply CANNOT vote conservative, or republican, or UKIP.

What else do you have? Do poofs have to be remainers? Are they pro-life, anti-gun? Must they favour Scottish independence?

THese people sicken me. Leave the bummers alone. They are free to vote how they wish, just like the rest of us normal folk.

But this is identity politics in a nutshell, p: every minority's rights are sacrosanct and they are all to be cherished, worshipped and agitated for - right up until they start having their own 'wrong' opinions.

[Burney]

I think it's important to remember that The Guardian is staffed by members of the lunatic fringe, writing articles for fellow lunatics. The vast majority of the population are still sane enough to see this type of thing as lunacy.

Whay worries me is that the drip feed of this nonsense is starting to make it seem less mad and more mainstream. Like what they did with the transers :cry:

Don't worry, we're almost dead. Your daughter's generation will have to put things right.

We need a war. Too much peace drives people insane. Look at the Swedes, ffs!

[Luis Anaconda]

No, sorry, but that context doesn't alter in the fact that it's a wholly unacceptable, hysterical, irresponsible and idiotic thing to say, being based as it is in absolutely no fact whatsoever. She might as well accuse him of eating babies or having sex with farmyard animals for all the basis in truth what she's written has. It's a baseless slur founded in nothing but her own prejudice.
There is a great difference but you chose not to see it.
And what were you saying about the permanently outraged the other day? Pot and kettle springs to mind

[Sir C]

We need a war. Too much peace drives people insane. Look at the Swedes, ffs!

What we need is a civil war. We need to cut the cancer of leftism out from within us. It may be painful, but tumours like Corbyn and polyps like peter must be excised if the body is to survive in a form fit for humanity. (Sorry peter :-( )

[Luis Anaconda]

What we need is a civil war. We need to cut the cancer of leftism out from within us. It may be painful, but tumours like Corbyn and polyps like peter must be excised if the body is to survive in a form fit for humanity. (Sorry peter :-( )

"We don't need your civil war" apparently. Axl Rose said so

[Peter]

What we need is a civil war. We need to cut the cancer of leftism out from within us. It may be painful, but tumours like Corbyn and polyps like peter must be excised if the body is to survive in a form fit for humanity. (Sorry peter :-( )

if what you do to survive kills the things you love.......

Never been more true ;) You couldn't kill me and you know it. I am too lovely :p

[Sir C]

"We don't need your civil war" apparently. Axl Rose said so

We need a civil war to stiffen our sinews and weed out the weak and the treacherous within us, so that, strengthened by the tempering flames of vicious inter-familial conflict, we may turn our attention to the real threat to world peace. The expansionist policies of Fuhrerin Merkel.

[Peter]

"We don't need your civil war" apparently. Axl Rose said so

Indeed, it feeds the rich while it buries the poor.

Ah, I see why Sir C is in favour.

[Sir C]

if what you do to survive kills the things you love.......

Never been more true ;) You couldn't kill me and you know it. I am too lovely :p

Perhaps you could be placed in some sort of camp to keep you from spreading your foul sedition, p.

I'm afraid we're definitely going to have to castrate you, though. We can't have your sort reproducing :-(

[Burney]

There is a great difference but you chose not to see it.
And what were you saying about the permanently outraged the other day? Pot and kettle springs to mind

I'm not outraged, just increasingly astonished by the way in which the left seems to have abandoned all critical faculties and judgement because someone they don't like has been elected President of the USA.

I'm sorry, but if you can honestly look at that sentence and not see anything wrong with it in terms of taste, verity or basic journalistic standards, I can only conclude that you, too, are afflicted with this condition.

[Burney]

What we need is a civil war. We need to cut the cancer of leftism out from within us. It may be painful, but tumours like Corbyn and polyps like peter must be excised if the body is to survive in a form fit for humanity. (Sorry peter :-( )


I reckon most lefties would consider p a closet tory, tbf

[Sir C]

I reckon most lefties would consider p a closet tory, tbf

That's the danger, though. Allow his namby-pamby reasonableness to go unchecked, and within 2 or 3 generations you've got yourself another swathe of Owen Jones / Abi Wilkinsons fúcking everything up :-(

[Burney]

We need a civil war to stiffen our sinews and weed out the weak and the treacherous within us, so that, strengthened by the tempering flames of vicious inter-familial conflict, we may turn our attention to the real threat to world peace. The expansionist policies of Fuhrerin Merkel.


I've been reading a lot about the Wars of the Roses lately. Lord, but that was a mess. Did you know Towton is still the bloodiest battle ever fought on British soil? Possibly as many as 28,000 dead. And the whole thing dragged on for 30 years, slaughtering most of the English nobility along the way. Such was the slaughter that by the end, Henry Tudor (whose claim would normally have been absurdly weak) ended up king simply by virtue of being the last man left standing with any claim at all.

[Sir C]

I've been reading a lot about the Wars of the Roses lately. Lord, but that was a mess. Did you know Towton is still the bloodiest battle ever fought on British soil? Possibly as many as 28,000 dead. And the whole thing dragged on for 30 years, slaughtering most of the English nobility along the way. Such was the slaughter that by the end, Henry Tudor (whose claim would normally have been absurdly weak) ended up king simply by virtue of being the last man left standing with any claim at all.

:cloud9: Bring. It. On.

The more dead, the better. Let only the strong of will and the pure of spirit prevail. We have God and Right with us, b, and, even if we fall on the Field of Glory, our names shall live forever in the hearts of believers everywhere and our example shall give courage to those who continue the struggle.

For God! For England! For decent Claret!

[Burney]

That's the danger, though. Allow his namby-pamby reasonableness to go unchecked, and within 2 or 3 generations you've got yourself another swathe of Owen Jones / Abi Wilkinsons fúcking everything up :-(

I see Owen Jones is complaining that his sister has attracted the attention of the security services by virtue of taking part in the G20 riots in Hamburg. Pleasingly, quite a lot of the comments are congratulating the security services for doing their job properly

As for Abi Wilkinson, she remains terrifyingly thick, she really does.

[Burney]

:cloud9: Bring. It. On.

The more dead, the better. Let only the strong of will and the pure of spirit prevail. We have God and Right with us, b, and, even if we fall on the Field of Glory, our names shall live forever in the hearts of believers everywhere and our example shall give courage to those who continue the struggle.

For God! For England! For decent Claret!

Hmmm. It does sound a bit stabby, though.

[redgunamo]

As I understand it, Trump actually has a reasonable record when it comes to benders. Of all the attention-seeking oppressed minority groups I thought this was the one where he had the least trouble.

The article is really about the horrific possibility that some gay people might be right wing, or at least conservative. If I could just put my PC hat on for a moment, I am genuinely horrified that someone would even suggest to somebody that they should vote, feel or act a certain way purely on the basis of their sexuality. That being gay means one simply CANNOT vote conservative, or republican, or UKIP.

What else do you have? Do poofs have to be remainers? Are they pro-life, anti-gun? Must they favour Scottish independence?

THese people sicken me. Leave the bummers alone. They are free to vote how they wish, just like the rest of us normal folk.

I'm not sure. Can there be such a thing as a pro-establishment pressure, or protest, group?

[redgunamo]

Perhaps you could be placed in some sort of camp to keep you from spreading your foul sedition, p.

I'm afraid we're definitely going to have to castrate you, though. We can't have your sort reproducing :-(

loooooooooooooooool.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I think it's important to remember that The Guardian is staffed by members of the lunatic fringe, writing articles for fellow lunatics.

though c? Are they not simply the other side of your coin so to speak?

[Sir C]

though c? Are they not simply the other side of your coin so to speak?

No. They are dangerous maniacs who wish nothing less than the destruction of every shred of decency left in this God-forsaken world.

If you can't see that, you are a part of the problem.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Perhaps you could be placed in some sort of camp to keep you from spreading your foul sedition, p.

I'm afraid we're definitely going to have to castrate you, though. We can't have your sort reproducing :-(

To be frank c, I can forgive him his most absurd krypto-marxist perversions but what he should be neutered for is his habit of crow-barring the word narrative into his posts. This revolting affectation has spread like a cancer through the pretentious chatterati of the left and must be ruthlessly eradicated ( I'll bet he uptalks too ).

[Peter]

To be frank c, I can forgive him his most absurd krypto-marxist perversions but what he should be neutered for is his habit of crow-barring the word narrative into his posts. This revolting affectation has spread like a cancer through the pretentious chatterati of the left and must be ruthlessly eradicated ( I'll bet he uptalks too ).

He is ****ing here, you know. You bunch of ****s.

And I shall use whatever words I ****ing like thank you very much, Mr ****ing Language Police.

Uptalks.....this is just ****s language for rising intonation and if you ever accuse me of such a thing I shall seek damages, and NOT through the courts.

You have been warned?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Of course I see it you goose stepping dutch oaf. I merely alluded to the fact even Stalin and the little corporal, though they may have been mortal enemies, must have seen a great deal of t'other in themselves.

[Peter]

I'm not sure. Can there be such a thing as a pro-establishment pressure, or protest, group?

I neither know nor care. I think my point is that surely we are supposed to reach a stage where one's sexuality means precisely that and nothing more. where being gay is precisely as significant in one's thought processes and beliefs as being straight.

In other words, a personal sexual preference rather than a set of beliefs that puts one automatically, and without freedom of choice, into a lobby/pressure group/political party/football team.

Would they quite so readily criticise black people or asians for voting conservative?

Leave the benders alone.

[Peter]

That's the danger, though. Allow his namby-pamby reasonableness to go unchecked, and within 2 or 3 generations you've got yourself another swathe of Owen Jones / Abi Wilkinsons fúcking everything up :-(

"Dont go mistaking me for some whole other body"

Name the film ;)

[Sir C]

I neither know nor care. I think my point is that surely we are supposed to reach a stage where one's sexuality means precisely that and nothing more. where being gay is precisely as significant in one's thought processes and beliefs as being straight.

In other words, a personal sexual preference rather than a set of beliefs that puts one automatically, and without freedom of choice, into a lobby/pressure group/political party/football team.

Would they quite so readily criticise black people or asians for voting conservative?

Leave the benders alone.

Oh, I've seen articles in The Guardian criticising black people for voting Tory. I think it's perfectly acceptable to consider any kind of 'minority' as owned by the left.

[Sir C]

"Dont go mistaking me for some whole other body"

Name the film ;)

Dunno, you're going to have to help me out here.

[Burney]

Dunno, you're going to have to help me out here.

Mississippi Bumming.

[Sir C]

Of course I see it you goose stepping dutch oaf. I merely alluded to the fact even Stalin and the little corporal, though they may have been mortal enemies, must have seen a great deal of t'other in themselves.

Well, yes, that is because they were both extremists. I simply wish to maintain some decency in society. My point of view is far from extreme.

[Peter]

Dunno, you're going to have to help me out here.

"Down here they say rattlesnakes dont commit suicide"

[Peter]

Mississippi Bumming.

Correct :D

Courtesy of google....

[Sir C]

He is ****ing here, you know. You bunch of ****s.

And I shall use whatever words I ****ing like thank you very much, Mr ****ing Language Police.

Uptalks.....this is just ****s language for rising intonation and if you ever accuse me of such a thing I shall seek damages, and NOT through the courts.

You have been warned?

To be honest, all linguistic bets are off as far as I am concerned since b used the phrase 'it speaks to' without shame.

I thought he was one of the good guys. :-(

[Burney]

Correct :D

Courtesy of google....

Naturally. I like the bit where they threaten to cut the chap's nuts off with a razor blade and put them in a paper cup.

[Peter]

Naturally. I like the bit where they threaten to cut the chap's nuts off with a razor blade and put them in a paper cup.

I like the bit where he beats the crap out of the deputy in the barber shop.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

To be honest, all linguistic bets are off as far as I am concerned since b used the phrase 'it speaks to' without shame.

I thought he was one of the good guys. :-(

And actually called p a poltroon revealing he had entirely misunderstood the meaning of that word :-(

[Peter]

To be honest, all linguistic bets are off as far as I am concerned since b used the phrase 'it speaks to' without shame.

I thought he was one of the good guys. :-(

I dont like 'one of the good guys'.....a ghastly americanism that speaks to their natural tendency to view history as black and white/good and evil/goodies and baddies.

You shouldn't encourage them.

[Burney]

To be honest, all linguistic bets are off as far as I am concerned since b used the phrase 'it speaks to' without shame.

I thought he was one of the good guys. :-(

I used it in the poetic context of a thing 'speaking to' something within the soul of man. Such a usage is timeworn and acceptable.

Had I used the phrase in the sense of 'It speaks to a wider corporate culture' or similar, I would indeed be the Charlie Uniform you describe.

[redgunamo]

I neither know nor care. I think my point is that surely we are supposed to reach a stage where one's sexuality means precisely that and nothing more. where being gay is precisely as significant in one's thought processes and beliefs as being straight.

In other words, a personal sexual preference rather than a set of beliefs that puts one automatically, and without freedom of choice, into a lobby/pressure group/political party/football team.

Would they quite so readily criticise black people or asians for voting conservative?

Leave the benders alone.

We were actually at that point before your sort arrived and ruined it, the separation of public and private selves. Conservatives understand that culture matters. You actually understand this too but can never admit it, and that is the difference.

[Burney]

We were actually at that point before your sort arrived and ruined it, the separation of public and private selves. Conservatives understand that culture matters. You actually understand this too but can never admit it, and that is the difference.

Well you say that, but there was that unfortunate business where we used to lock chaps up because they were fond of cöck. Granted, we've gone far too far in the opposite direction, but that was an unwarranted intrusion into one's private self, I'd say.

[redgunamo]

Well you say that, but there was that unfortunate business where we used to lock chaps up because they were fond of cöck. Granted, we've gone far too far in the opposite direction, but that was an unwarranted intrusion into one's private self, I'd say.

Oh, different matter entirely, being caught being fond of cock.

[Burney]

And actually called p a poltroon revealing he had entirely misunderstood the meaning of that word :-(

It was WES, actually, and in the sense of 'a mean-spirited wretch', it was entirely apt. :vsign:

[Burney]

Oh, different matter entirely, being caught being fond of cock.

You did used to get elderly pooftahs who used to speak wistfully of the good old days when it was illegal. They seemed to feel it made it a more exclusive club and added a certain frisson to things.

I don't think they were as keen on the whole 'hard labour' and 'chemical castration' side of things, though.

[redgunamo]

You did used to get elderly pooftahs who used to speak wistfully of the good old days when it was illegal. They seemed to feel it made it a more exclusive club and added a certain frisson to things.

I don't think they were as keen on the whole 'hard labour' and 'chemical castration' side of things, though.

Yes, and they would never have dreamed of making such a big deal out of it. Many were long-term married and had raised families, so were of the view that what difference did it make where else they put their piece; they'd done their duty by their sort and their species.

Trouble now is being "gay" seems to preclude, prohibit, all that and there's no need for it.

[Burney]

Yes, and they would never have dreamed of making such a big deal out of it. Many were long-term married and had raised families, so were of the view that what difference did it make where else they put their piece; they'd done their duty by their sort and their species.

Trouble now is being "gay" seems to preclude, prohibit, all that and there's no need for it.

Yes. Gore Vidal (a chap for whom I've always had a huge soft spot despite him being a bit of a lefty) used to say that 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' were descriptions of acts, not of people. He had a point, I think. It seems rather a shame that we've lost sight of that in our rush to categorise in order to appease the gods of identity politics.

[redgunamo]

Yes. Gore Vidal (a chap for whom I've always had a huge soft spot despite him being a bit of a lefty) used to say that 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' were descriptions of acts, not of people. He had a point, I think. It seems rather a shame that we've lost sight of that in our rush to categorise in order to appease the gods of identity politics.

Perhaps the Civil Rights movement in America showed everyone else the way?

[Burney]

Perhaps the Civil Rights movement in America showed everyone else the way?

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.

[World's End Stella]

Correct :D

Courtesy of google....

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.

Which explains how, at times, he can appear so knowledgeable. :-)

[redgunamo]

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.

How very dare you :-|

Anyway, I have six children.

[Ash]

"One suspects, of course, that not only did Trump say it, but that he himself would happily preside over televised hangings of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings."

If you read the whole sentence, it's actually quite different to how you've tried to portray it there

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?

[Peter]

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. :judge:

[Ash]

I'm not sure. Can there be such a thing as a pro-establishment pressure, or protest, group?

Of course there can. See also: the term counter-revolutionary.

[Luis Anaconda]

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 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

[Luis Anaconda]

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. :judge:
How does it not add up as it really what she says. (I admit it is clumsily written nonsense on the whole)

[Burney]

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

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.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

It was WES, actually, and in the sense of 'a mean-spirited wretch', it was entirely apt. :vsign:

Begging your pardon b. My feeble grasp of language had led me to believe a poltroon was a coward.

( I am employing socratic irony here incidentally )

[Peter]

How does it not add up as it really what she says. (I admit it is clumsily written nonsense on the whole)

Because she doesnt say he will do anything to get ratings. She says he would happily preside over the hanging of gays to get ratings.

Removing this part is precisely the same as removing the ratings part. If she wants to say he will do anything to get ratings, say that. She doesnt. She says he would happily (happily!) preside over it for ratings. Whatever way you cut it she 'suspects' he would happily hang gays. Why does the motivation for hanging gays matter more than the, you know, hanging of gays?

[Peter]

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.

Its also part of an attempt to convince gay people to oppose him/hate him/vote for the opposition. She 'suspects' he hates gay people enough to be happy about hanging them.

Happy. Not 'reluctant but ratings must the the prioority'. Happy.

[Luis Anaconda]

Because she doesnt say he will do anything to get ratings. She says he would happily preside over the hanging of gays to get ratings.

Removing this part is precisely the same as removing the ratings part. If she wants to say he will do anything to get ratings, say that. She doesnt. She says he would happily (happily!) preside over it for ratings. Whatever way you cut it she 'suspects' he would happily hang gays. Why does the motivation for hanging gays matter more than the, you know, hanging of gays?
No you are completely wrong - the rating part is introduced here, the hanging gays was mentioned up above

[Burney]

Its also part of an attempt to convince gay people to oppose him/hate him/vote for the opposition. She 'suspects' he hates gay people enough to be happy about hanging them.

Happy. Not 'reluctant but ratings must the the prioority'. Happy.

Of course. It's part of the usual old toss, the subtext of which is 'Trump hates gays. I don't have any actual evidence that he hates gays, but we all know he does, right? Because...Trump, yeah? Ooooh, I hate that Trump! Grrrr!'
God knows, there are plenty of actual things for which one can criticise Trump without having to resort to this sort of shít. At best it's pathetic, childish mudslinging and has no place anywhere near a reputable newspaper. If I'd tried to write something like that about anyone as a junior reporter I'd have been - quite rightly - out on my fùcking ear.

[Peter]

No you are completely wrong - the rating part is introduced here, the hanging gays was mentioned up above

What?

"One suspects....that he himself would happily preside over the televised hanging of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings"

Direct quote, one sentence, the two points entirely co-dependent. Would happily do it for good ratings.

I dont really get your point.

[Sir C]

Of course. It's part of the usual old toss, the subtext of which is 'Trump hates gays. I don't have any actual evidence that he hates gays, but we all know he does, right? Because...Trump, yeah? Ooooh, I hate that Trump! Grrrr!'
God knows, there are plenty of actual things for which one can criticise Trump without having to resort to this sort of shít. At best it's pathetic, childish mudslinging and has no place anywhere near a reputable newspaper. If I'd tried to write something like that about anyone as a junior reporter I'd have been - quite rightly - out on my fùcking ear.

:hehe: It's a barely-literate propaganda rag.

No wonder it's going bankrupt. :cloud9:

[Peter]

Of course. It's part of the usual old toss, the subtext of which is 'Trump hates gays. I don't have any actual evidence that he hates gays, but we all know he does, right? Because...Trump, yeah? Ooooh, I hate that Trump! Grrrr!'
God knows, there are plenty of actual things for which one can criticise Trump without having to resort to this sort of shít. At best it's pathetic, childish mudslinging and has no place anywhere near a reputable newspaper. If I'd tried to write something like that about anyone as a junior reporter I'd have been - quite rightly - out on my fùcking ear.

I would suggest it has no place in a reputable newspaper because it is bloody idiotic.

[Luis Anaconda]

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.
No, I don't think it is a massive slight on a man who chose a massive homophobe as his VP and whom she believes, with some justification, openly jokes about the subject. I don't think it a massive slight on a man who openly says in an election campaign he could walk into Times Square and shoot someone without it affecting his ratings. He has set the bar very low and I don't think it does much credit to anyone to sink to his level and I think it is a poorly written piece. ffs awimb now constitutes half the readership of that story I would think

[Luis Anaconda]

What?

"One suspects....that he himself would happily preside over the televised hanging of gay people if he thought it would get him good ratings"

Direct quote, one sentence, the two points entirely co-dependent. Would happily do it for good ratings.

I dont really get your point.
ffs then I can't really explain even though it is quite simple. I have a bottle of 6.8 per cent IPA on my desk and I am buggered (oops sorry Mike and Don) if I am going to ruin my mood with this ****

[Peter]

ffs then I can't really explain even though it is quite simple. I have a bottle of 6.8 per cent IPA on my desk and I am buggered (oops sorry Mike and Don) if I am going to ruin my mood with this ****

You strike me as the sort of chap who would happily murder children just to win an argument.

This is in no way a slight on you, nor do I mean to suggest that you would happily murder children.

[Burney]

:hehe: It's a barely-literate propaganda rag.

No wonder it's going bankrupt. :cloud9:

Yes. Mind you, I was reading about the Bloodhound lot in the Telegraph and they came up with this gem: 'Mr Ayer's interest in planes began as a child during the Blitz, when he would watch Spitfires and Hurricanes flying in the sky.'

I really despair. :-( First of all, they mean the Battle of Britain and second, where else would they be flying? In his ****ing bath?

[Luis Anaconda]

You strike me as the sort of chap who would happily murder children just to win an argument.

This is in no way a slight on you, nor do I mean to suggest that you would happily murder children.

:) I actually take that as a a compliment

[Sir C]

Yes. Mind you, I was reading about the Bloodhound lot in the Telegraph and they came up with this gem: 'Mr Ayer's interest in planes began as a child during the Blitz, when he would watch Spitfires and Hurricanes flying in the sky.'

I really despair. :-( First of all, they mean the Battle of Britain and second, where else would they be flying? In his ****ing bath?

And apart from that, it's ugly. Ugly prose makes me sad.

I can't stop thinking about when The Grauniad finally folds and that little **** Jones is on the dole. Hopefully all his whining about the plight of the poor will turn out to be true and the juvenile commie will starve to death. :cloud9:

Or drown in his own shít. :cloud9:

Or get caught up in a hideous psycho killer scanrio, where the bloke eviscerates his mother in front of his face and then chokes him to death on her steaming guts. :cloud9:

I don't like him much.

[Peter]

:) I actually take that as a a compliment

Oh ffs, pass me a beer :)

[Burney]

No, I don't think it is a massive slight on a man who chose a massive homophobe as his VP and whom she believes, with some justification, openly jokes about the subject. I don't think it a massive slight on a man who openly says in an election campaign he could walk into Times Square and shoot someone without it affecting his ratings. He has set the bar very low and I don't think it does much credit to anyone to sink to his level and I think it is a poorly written piece. ffs awimb now constitutes half the readership of that story I would think

So based on your feelings about his VP, the suspicion that he jokes about the subject (although, if he said that, I read that as him making fun of his VP, tbh) and something entirely unrelated that he said during the election, you're happy with the suggestion that he'd happily preside over the hanging of gay people?

Righto.

[Burney]

And apart from that, it's ugly. Ugly prose makes me sad.

I can't stop thinking about when The Grauniad finally folds and that little **** Jones is on the dole. Hopefully all his whining about the plight of the poor will turn out to be true and the juvenile commie will starve to death. :cloud9:

Or drown in his own shít. :cloud9:

Or get caught up in a hideous psycho killer scanrio, where the bloke eviscerates his mother in front of his face and then chokes him to death on her steaming guts. :cloud9:

I don't like him much.

Sadly, the lefties will always find a slot for him. He'll end up being a Labour spokestw@t and probably an MP or what have you.

I don't know what Abi Wilkinson will do, though. I suspect the poor girl has trouble putting her clothes on the right way round, so god knows what she'll do without the safety net of The Guardian feature pages. :-(

[Sir C]

Sadly, the lefties will always find a slot for him. He'll end up being a Labour spokestw@t and probably an MP or what have you.

I don't know what Abi Wilkinson will do, though. I suspect the poor girl has trouble putting her clothes on the right way round, so god knows what she'll do without the safety net of The Guardian feature pages. :-(

WHAT IF HE GOT RAPED TO DEATH IN THE ÁRSE! BY CRAZED ALLANS! :cloud9:

[Luis Anaconda]

So based on your feelings about his VP, the suspicion that he jokes about the subject (although, if he said that, I read that as him making fun of his VP, tbh) and something entirely unrelated that he said during the election, you're happy with the suggestion that he'd happily preside over the hanging of gay people?

Righto.
I am neither happy or unhappy with it

[Peter]

Sadly, the lefties will always find a slot for him. He'll end up being a Labour spokestw@t and probably an MP or what have you.

I don't know what Abi Wilkinson will do, though. I suspect the poor girl has trouble putting her clothes on the right way round, so god knows what she'll do without the safety net of The Guardian feature pages. :-(

Correct me if I am wrong but was she the one that was suggesting 100% inheritance tax?

I dislike this idea....

[Burney]

WHAT IF HE GOT RAPED TO DEATH IN THE ÁRSE! BY CRAZED ALLANS! :cloud9:

For the sake of consistency, I'd hope that all the while he was being cornholed he'd be shouting loudly that he hoped this didn't lead to an islamophobic backlash. :hehe:

[Peter]

I am neither happy or unhappy with it

Presumably you would be unhappy if he actually had televised hanging of gay people.

Would you watch?

[Luis Anaconda]

Presumably you would be unhappy if he actually had televised hanging of gay people.

Would you watch?
If it was Owen Jones I would probably apply for tickets for the live show

[Burney]

Correct me if I am wrong but was she the one that was suggesting 100% inheritance tax?

I dislike this idea....

That's the badger. And that wasn't even the stupidest thing she's come up with. She actually wrote something a few weeks ago that started 'I'm not defending Stalin, but...'

No sentence that starts like that is going to have a happy ending, is it? :hehe:

To be fair, though, she's quite attractive in a sort of big-eyed 'lights on but no-one's home' sort of way.

[Peter]

If it was Owen Jones I would probably apply for tickets for the live show

That's the point, though. You dont need to. Its on the telly.

Hopefully not pay per view.

[Peter]

That's the badger. And that wasn't even the stupidest thing she's come up with.

To be fair, though, she's quite attractive in a sort of big-eyed 'lights on but no-one's home' sort of way.

Yes, although her picture is intensely irritating. what is that look on her face?

[Burney]

Yes, although her picture is intensely irritating. what is that look on her face?

All Guardian columnists have to look like that. It's so we know they're concerned and angry about tories and stuff.

The only ones who are allowed to smile are the snidey 'humourists' and even they are only allowed to smile in the manner of someone trying to quietly sneak out a fart. Marina Hyde is a prime example of this.

[Burney]

That's the point, though. You dont need to. Its on the telly.

Hopefully not pay per view.

'Gay per view'?

[�ất Xanh Group]

NgoÃ*i yếu tố khan hiếm, chÃ*nh giá trị cảnh quan, khÃ* háº*u vÃ* môi trÆ°á»�ng sống xanh, trong lÃ*nh lÃ* những yếu tố khiến nhÃ* đất cạnh sông luôn có sức hút mạnh mẽ đối vá»›i những khách hÃ*ng có nhu cầu nhÃ* ở thá»±c vÃ* tìm kiếm sá»± khác biệt.

http://saigonriversidecitydatxanh.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Slide2.jpg (http://saigonriversidecitydatxanh.com/can-ho-saigon-riverside-city-thu-duc-thu-hut-hon-1200-nguoi-tham-du/)

BÙNG Ná»” Háº* TẦNG, KHU Ä�ÔNG DUY TRÃŒ Ä�À PHÃ�T TRIỂN

Khu Ä�ông SÃ*i Gòn bao gồm Quáº*n 2, Quáº*n 9 vÃ* Thủ Ä�ức luôn có tiá»�m năng phát triển lá»›n vá»›i các trục giao thông liên vùng lá»›n nhÆ° đại lá»™ Phạm Văn Ä�ồng, Quốc lá»™ 13, đại lá»™ Mai ChÃ* Thá»�, xa lá»™ HÃ* Ná»™i… Giai Ä‘oạn 2012-2020, quanh các trục giao thông chiến lược nÃ*y có 11 dá»± án hạ tầng lá»›n nhá»�, tổng kinh phÃ* chiếm gần 70% tổng nguồn vốn đầu tÆ°, trong đó có thể kể đến các công trình nổi báº*t nhÆ°: Cao tốc TP.HCM-Long ThÃ*nh-Dầu Giây, đại lá»™ Mai ChÃ* Thá»�, hầm Thủ Thiêm, tuyến Metro số 1….



ChÃ*nh vì lẽ đó, chung cÆ° Saigon Riverside City (https://giaodichnha.com/saigon-riverside-city-dat-xanh/) vá»›i vị thế vÃ*ng mặt tiá»�n sông SÃ*i Gòn vÃ* kết nối đại lá»™ Phạm Văn Ä�ồng, được xem lÃ* má»™t trong những dá»± án khá hiếm hoi trong bối cảnh những quỹ đất trung tâm vÃ* cạnh sông SÃ*i Gòn ngÃ*y cÃ*ng khan hiếm.

TRIỂN VỌNG �ẦU TƯ

Saigon Riverside City (https://giaodichnha.com/saigon-riverside-city-dat-xanh/) hưởng trá»�n lợi thế mặt tiá»�n sông SÃ*i Gòn, mang phong cách thiết kế của má»™t resort sinh thái ven sông vá»›i gần 100% căn há»™ Ä‘á»�u có hÆ°á»›ng nhìn đẹp vá»� sông SÃ*i Gòn, hồ sinh thái vÃ* hệ thống công viên bên trong dá»± án, tất cả sẽ mang đến cho cÆ° dân những giá trị sống hoÃ*n mỹ vÃ* riêng biệt.

Vá»›i quy mô 24,644 m2, bên trong dá»± án Saigon Riverside City được quy hoạch hoÃ*n chỉnh vá»›i nhiá»�u tiện Ã*ch nhÆ°: bến du thuyá»�n, Ä‘Æ°á»�ng tản bá»™ vÃ* công viên cạnh bá»� sông, quảng trÆ°á»�ng trung tâm, phố ánh sáng, phố mua sắm, hồ cảnh quan, khu thể thao trong nhÃ* vÃ* ngoÃ*i trá»�i, vÆ°á»�n BBQ, hồ sinh thái… Ä�ặc biệt lÃ* yếu tố đô thị thông minh được ứng dụng vÃ*o bên trong dá»± án cÃ*ng lÃ*m tăng giá trị vÃ* thể hiện sá»± quan tâm đặc biệt đến cÆ° dân.

http://saigonriversidecitydatxanh.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/map.gif (http://saigonriversidecitydatxanh.com/diem-nhan-co-ha-tang-khu-dong-sai-gon/)



KẾT N�I �ỒNG BỘ
Saigon Riverside City Ä�ất Xanh (https://giaodichnha.com/saigon-riverside-city-dat-xanh/) vá»›i vị trÃ* tá»�a lạc tại mặt tiá»�n Ä‘Æ°á»�ng Xô Viết Nghệ TÄ©nh – Quốc lá»™ 13 quy hoạch lá»™ giá»›i 60m, nối liá»�n đại lá»™ Phạm Văn Ä�ồng, từ Saigon Riverside City, bạn có thể di chuyển nhanh đến sân bay Tân SÆ¡n Nhất qua đại lá»™ Phạm Văn Ä�ồng, cÅ©ng nhÆ° di chuyển đến trung tâm Quáº*n 1 chỉ khoảng 15 phút. Cùng lợi thế hạ tầng, dân cÆ° hiện hữu, chỉ trong bán kÃ*nh 2km, bạn có thể táº*n hưởng Ä‘a dạng dịch vụ hiện hữu nhÆ°: Bệnh viện quốc tế Hạnh Phúc, Coopmart Bình Triệu, Chợ Bình triệu, Vincom Mall, Ä�ại há»�c Luáº*t, trÆ°á»�ng há»�c các cấp… đồng thá»�i kết nối vá»›i khu đô thị Vạn Phúc quy mô 198ha đã hình thÃ*nh vá»›i các dịch vụ cao cấp: công viên giải trÃ* lá»›n nhất Ä�ông Nam Ã� rá»™ng 21,5ha, bệnh viện quốc tế quy mô 500 giÆ°á»�ng…