Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

1111112114116117135

Comments

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Footballers retire young. Mr Rashford has plenty of time to become Prime Minister.
    Can you name another one ?

    The current President of Liberia is a former professional footballer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weah

    Far enough but telling the government to spend more on school dinners does not make you a great politician.

    It might make you a person who cares about hungry children. I can't see many caring people in the *government*.

    Come to think of it, there aren't many great politicians, either.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I dunno. I think the Food Is A Human Right party has legs.
  • Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 15
    O dear. Here we go again...
    *sigh*

    Which feckless parents? How many? Proof in the form of figures and graphs, please.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    Where's the clue-by-four when I need it?
  • I'm not even going to bother trying to find it - no use attempting to answer posts that are as useless, and as meaningless, as the buzzing of mosquitoes, or the howling of hyenas...
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate

    Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    Where's the clue-by-four when I need it?
    What on earth are you on about ?

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    Where's the clue-by-four when I need it?
    What on earth are you on about ?

    That's the second time recently someone's response to a post has illustrated that post's point perfectly.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    Where's the clue-by-four when I need it?
    What on earth are you on about ?

    This may help:
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/clue-by-four

    You're welcome.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    That is an unbelievably offensive comment.

    That is an unbelievably stupid comment.

    AFZ
  • Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    That is an unbelievably offensive comment.

    That is an unbelievably stupid comment.

    AFZ

    Unless, of course, you were specifically referring to Mr Johnson? There may be some justification for that viewpoint.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited January 15
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    Where's the clue-by-four when I need it?
    What on earth are you on about ?

    This may help:
    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/clue-by-four

    You're welcome.
    But how was it relevant ?
    Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    That is an unbelievably offensive comment.

    That is an unbelievably stupid comment.

    AFZ
    Are you duggesting that parents who do not make their children a priority are not shameless?

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 15
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
  • @Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:

    A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.

    My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
    @Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:

    A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.

    My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.

    I read it and it was totally offensive.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 15
    Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    Moral opinion from someone who doesn't regret voting for Enoch Powell, is of no more use than the time read from a stopped clock.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 15
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.

    No, you utter cock-end, as anyone with a functioning synapse would be able to deduce, I do not think priority or otherwise given by parents to children is actually the problem here.

    What's offensive around here is your blaming the poor for their poverty, and only ignorance can excuse you for that.

    The poorest have taken the biggest financial hit from Covid. Here you are kicking them in the bollocks when they're down. Just like a Tory. Morally bankrupt.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless
    The fact that many parents work every hour they can on what the government call a "living wage" and still don't earn enough to put food on the table for the whole family is even more shameful.
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
    No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.

    The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.

  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
    @Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:

    A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.

    My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.

    I read it and it was totally offensive.

    Good. At least you understood its purport.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless

    Moral opinion from someone who doesn't regret voting for Enoch Powell, is of no more use than the time read from a stopped clock.
    When I was 22 I voted for Enocuh Powell. Unforgiveable in your eyes
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.

    No, you utter cock-end, as anyone with a functioning synapse would be able to deduce, I do not think priority or otherwise given by parents to children is actually the problem here.

    What's offensive around here is your blaming the poor for their poverty, and only ignorance can excuse you for that.

    The poorest have taken the biggest financial hit from Covid. Here you are kicking them in the bollocks when they're down. Just like a Tory. Morally bankrupt.

    You do not appear to be able to make a comment without being nasty. Why on earth should I take any notice of the likes of you
    Telford wrote: »
    Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?

    If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.

    The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless
    The fact that many parents work every hour they can on what the government call a "living wage" and still don't earn enough to put food on the table for the whole family is even more shameful.
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
    No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.

    The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
    I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
    @Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:

    A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.

    My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.

    I read it and it was totally offensive.

    Good. At least you understood its purport.
    Quite. The purpose is to be nasty to others

  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    No. That is not your problem. It never was. Your problem is simply that you are at odds with the late, great Senator D. Patrick Moynihan. You are fully entitled to your own opinion. What you keep demanding is a right to your own facts.

    Alan has spelt it out for you. Your statement is demonstrably false for the vast majority of parents and thus a gross slur.

    I point you also to a quote from John Wesley from 1753:
    So wickedly, devilishly false is that common objection, ‘They are poor, only because they are idle’.

    To blame the poor for their own poverty is demonstrably false. Wesley thought it particularly wicked to do so.

    I agree.

    When you stop and listen and get some facts on your side, you will find the Ship a very friendly place. When you persist with false premises people will object. When your statements are offensively wrong, people will say so.

    No one cares that you have different opinions, but you are not going to make any progress here so long as you insist on your own 'facts.'

    In this particular case it takes you to what Wesley felt was a devilishly, wickedly false position. That is your problem. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?

    AFZ
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 15
    No - the noun *purport * means the meaning or sense of something, typically a document or speech.

    The purpose of the link was to explain to you what was meant by the expression *clue-by-four*. If you choose to take it personally, well, that's up to you.

    Wake up, pay attention, and read with comprehension.
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
    @Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:

    A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.

    My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.

    I read it and it was totally offensive.

    It's less offensive that your previous statement. You're attempting to justify starving children because their parents struggle to cope with too much work or too little work, too little money, too many bills, uncertain or unsafe housing, and the mental and physical health issues that stem from all that. You are heartless.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
    @Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:

    A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.

    My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.

    I read it and it was totally offensive.

    It's less offensive that your previous statement. You're attempting to justify starving children because their parents struggle to cope with too much work or too little work, too little money, too many bills, uncertain or unsafe housing, and the mental and physical health issues that stem from all that. You are heartless.
    You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
    How am I justifying starving children? Children should not starve. Their parents should feed them.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 15
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
    @Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:

    A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.

    My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.

    I read it and it was totally offensive.

    It's less offensive that your previous statement. You're attempting to justify starving children because their parents struggle to cope with too much work or too little work, too little money, too many bills, uncertain or unsafe housing, and the mental and physical health issues that stem from all that. You are heartless.
    You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
    How am I justifying starving children? Children should not starve. Their parents should feed them.

    1. PEOPLE CAN'T BECAUSE COVID HAS TAKEN THEIR JOBS AND THEY HAVE NO MONEY

    2. AND ANYWAY NO-ONE IN A CIVILISED WESTERN COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE TO GO HUNGRY TO FEED ANOTHER PERSON.

    How hard is it to get these simple concepts through your thick skull?

    Either you do understand them but prefer to kick people when they're down, or you're too stupid to comprehend them.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited January 15
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.

    Here; cash this in somewhere:

    ************************************
    CLUE VOUCHER

    This voucher entitles the bearer to:

    1 (one) Free Clue

    No substitutes or cash alternative

    ************************************

    My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.

    Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
    Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
    @Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:

    A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.

    My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.

    I read it and it was totally offensive.

    It's less offensive that your previous statement. You're attempting to justify starving children because their parents struggle to cope with too much work or too little work, too little money, too many bills, uncertain or unsafe housing, and the mental and physical health issues that stem from all that. You are heartless.
    You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
    How am I justifying starving children? Children should not starve. Their parents should feed them.

    1. PEOPLE CAN'T BECAUSE COVID HAS TAKEN THEIR JOBS AND THEY HAVE NO MONEY

    2. AND ANYWAY NO-ONE IN A CIVILISED WESTERN COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE TO GO HUNGRY TO FEED ANOTHER PERSON.

    How hard is it to get these simple concepts through your thick skull?

    Either you do understand them but prefer to kick people when they're down, or you're too stupid to comprehend them.
    I haven't kicked anyone. That's your jon.

  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    edited January 15

    Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?

    AFZ

    Apparently I do.

    You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty. That is heartless. It is also wicked (as per John Wesley). You wanna argue with that, try some facts and evidence first.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate

    Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?

    AFZ

    Apparently I do.

    You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty. That is heartless. It is also wicked (as per John Wesley). You wanna argue with that, try some facts and evidence first.
    BIB...Totally false. That's my facts
  • People, time is being wasted here.

    I'm off to do something far more interesting than read Telford's ramblings, which are to me as meaningless as the buzzing of insects, or the howling of hyenas.

    I'm going to have a bacon sandwich.
    :yum:
  • Telford wrote: »

    Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?

    AFZ

    Apparently I do.

    You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty. That is heartless. It is also wicked (as per John Wesley). You wanna argue with that, try some facts and evidence first.
    BIB...Totally false. That's my facts

    Wow.

    Look, you want people to stop treating like and arsehole? That's fair. Then stop behaving like one.

  • @Telford actually it’s the lack of regret I have an issue with - given you’ve have had half a century to reflect.
  • Telford wrote: »
    No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.

    The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
    I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right
    Well, boo-hoo aren't you a poor boy because you never once had a holiday with your family. Probably that would have been true for the rest of your friends and others at school too. The world has changed and moved on. How would you feel like going into school in September and everyone was talking about their holidays - camping in the Lake District, a week spent with grand parents who live the other side of the country, or whatever and all you can say is that you spent the whole time at home? Poverty is fundamentally not being able to participate in those things that society deems normal - and a week or two away from home during the school holidays is one of those things that are currently expected to be normal.

    Not that it makes a blind difference to the argument. If parents are going without food so their children can eat, then going on a holiday isn't going to happen either. Ignore the holidays and having clothing. Do you consider that people who work a full time job, cut every cost they can (including feeding themselves properly), and still can't afford to buy enough food for their children to be bad parents? Because that's how what you've said comes across. Your words reflect the vile fascism of the right-wing press (and some of our government ministers) that the poor are lazy scroungers. Views that would be consistent with your refusal to recognise the racism of Enoch Powell and repent of voting for him. One would almost think you're a fascist yourself; you can correct that impression, or continue spouting vile nonsense that just reinforces that impression.
  • Telford wrote: »

    Children should not starve. Their parents should feed them.

    Compare and contrast:
    Telford wrote: »
    You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty.
    BIB...Totally false. That's my facts

    :confused:

  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited January 15
    A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.[/b]

    Technically, a 2x4 doesn't measure 2" x 4", for long and twisty reasons to do with the way that lumber was historically described and marketed. A 2x4 you find at your local lumber yard will actually measure 1.5" x 3.5".
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right.

    Yes, it sounds like your family did correctly prioritize feeding you over holidays. But you seem to be making a leap of logic from "I was poor growing up, but there was always food on the table" to "any current poor person who doesn't manage to put food on the table must be irresponsibly frittering away their money". And the latter statement isn't supported by data.

  • Haven't we done this to death last year??

    On the topic of MPs having changed career, Ms Glenda Jackson became one after a successful acting career that she has now returned to.
  • (a) Yes.
    (b) So she did.
    :wink:

  • Telford wrote: »
    You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.

    I know what you write here, because I have to read it all. If what you write is a true reflection of what you think, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are heartless.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.

    I know what you write here, because I have to read it all. If what you write is a true reflection of what you think, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are heartless.

    The alternative, of course, is trolling.
  • Trolling by insulting the poor who struggle to make ends meet is a heartless thing to do.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »

    Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?

    AFZ

    Apparently I do.

    You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty. That is heartless. It is also wicked (as per John Wesley). You wanna argue with that, try some facts and evidence first.
    BIB...Totally false. That's my facts

    Wow.

    Look, you want people to stop treating like and arsehole? That's fair. Then stop behaving like one.
    Your words not mine. I have my opinions and you don't accept them. All I ask is that you try and reject them without being offensive. I understand that the rules of Hell allow tou to be offensive but it's not obligatory.
    @Telford actually it’s the lack of regret I have an issue with - given you’ve have had half a century to reflect.
    He was a very good local MP. Why would I regret voting for him?

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.

    The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
    I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right
    Well, boo-hoo aren't you a poor boy because you never once had a holiday with your family. Probably that would have been true for the rest of your friends and others at school too. The world has changed and moved on. How would you feel like going into school in September and everyone was talking about their holidays - camping in the Lake District, a week spent with grand parents who live the other side of the country, or whatever and all you can say is that you spent the whole time at home? Poverty is fundamentally not being able to participate in those things that society deems normal - and a week or two away from home during the school holidays is one of those things that are currently expected to be normal.

    Not that it makes a blind difference to the argument. If parents are going without food so their children can eat, then going on a holiday isn't going to happen either. Ignore the holidays and having clothing. Do you consider that people who work a full time job, cut every cost they can (including feeding themselves properly), and still can't afford to buy enough food for their children to be bad parents? Because that's how what you've said comes across. Your words reflect the vile fascism of the right-wing press (and some of our government ministers) that the poor are lazy scroungers. Views that would be consistent with your refusal to recognise the racism of Enoch Powell and repent of voting for him. One would almost think you're a fascist yourself; you can correct that impression, or continue spouting vile nonsense that just reinforces that impression.
    Nice post but I don't agree with most of it.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.

    I know what you write here, because I have to read it all. If what you write is a true reflection of what you think, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are heartless.
    If that's what you think, it would be a waste of time trying to prove otherwise.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.

    I know what you write here, because I have to read it all. If what you write is a true reflection of what you think, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are heartless.

    The alternative, of course, is trolling.
    Trolling by insulting the poor who struggle to make ends meet is a heartless thing to do.
    When you run out of nasty things to say you resort to calling me a troll.

  • @Telford
    Tell you what, I'll stop being offensive when you do.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 15
    @Telford actually it’s the lack of regret I have an issue with - given you’ve have had half a century to reflect.
    He was a very good local MP. Why would I regret voting for him?


    Would you have supported Oswold Moseley on that basis, or do you think there might be other relevant issues to consider ?
  • @Telford actually it’s the lack of regret I have an issue with - given you’ve have had half a century to reflect.
    He was a very good local MP. Why would I regret voting for him?


    Would you have supported Oswold Moseley on that basis, or do you think there might be other relevant issues to consider ?

    Now you've got me thinking Not the Nine O'Clock News again:
    https://youtu.be/LPCZvYu0QBA
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    @Telford actually it’s the lack of regret I have an issue with - given you’ve have had half a century to reflect.
    He was a very good local MP. Why would I regret voting for him?


    Would you have supported Oswold Moseley on that basis, or do you think there might be other relevant issues to consider ?

    Oswold Moseley, who was locked upo during WW2 was a traitor.
    @Telford
    Tell you what, I'll stop being offensive when you do.
    Confession noted.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 15
    So would that moral failing matter more than whether he was a good mp ?
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.

    The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
    I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right
    Well, boo-hoo aren't you a poor boy because you never once had a holiday with your family. Probably that would have been true for the rest of your friends and others at school too. The world has changed and moved on. How would you feel like going into school in September and everyone was talking about their holidays - camping in the Lake District, a week spent with grand parents who live the other side of the country, or whatever and all you can say is that you spent the whole time at home? Poverty is fundamentally not being able to participate in those things that society deems normal - and a week or two away from home during the school holidays is one of those things that are currently expected to be normal.

    Not that it makes a blind difference to the argument. If parents are going without food so their children can eat, then going on a holiday isn't going to happen either. Ignore the holidays and having clothing. Do you consider that people who work a full time job, cut every cost they can (including feeding themselves properly), and still can't afford to buy enough food for their children to be bad parents? Because that's how what you've said comes across. Your words reflect the vile fascism of the right-wing press (and some of our government ministers) that the poor are lazy scroungers. Views that would be consistent with your refusal to recognise the racism of Enoch Powell and repent of voting for him. One would almost think you're a fascist yourself; you can correct that impression, or continue spouting vile nonsense that just reinforces that impression.
    Nice post but I don't agree with most of it.
    Well, that's not much use in a discussion. What don't you agree with and why? What do you find 'nice'? Is that because you agree with me, or is it just appreciation of the grammar? Your modus operandi is to avoid getting into details, you make short statements that skim over or totally ignore what people say. This means we don't know what you agree with, or disagree with, in posts you respond to. It means we don't know what you believe. And, much of what you say leaves the worst possible interpretation wide open. You don't agree with most of the post above. You can't disagree that your posts come across as saying parents who go without food to feed their children are bad parents because their kids don't get proper meals, because how you are perceived is upto others and you can't deny what we perceive. Likewise that you appear to support the racism of Powell, or the fascist views of the right wing media. If those perceptions are incorrect then the only person able to set the record straight is you. By actually answering questions and telling us what you think rather than drop hints that make you look like a fascist.
Sign In or Register to comment.