THE Election - Made your mind up yet ??

[angry cat]

by Thailand:

My comments, again!, are nothing to do with that and I echo a previous comment (Bookie, I think) that said something along the lines of 'his homosexuality is no excuse' it certainly is not.

 

Probably, not. However, a person of my age group can perhaps, understand his reasoning; reluctance about being judged/labelled by some...

 

As I said prior, pity he hadn't checked the rules Re: claiming, prior.

[Bookworm]

Or maybe he DID know the rules very well and just decided to stick his nose in the trough too.

[Fred Bassett]

Oooohhh, inference inference - ignoramus.

 

Oh, hark at you again. I know you'll get away with excuses, but I got you pinned.

 

Just WTF do you mean by this (as if I don't know). Some gay people just get on with their lives? Smacks a little of your pathetic assertions aimed at me, what with you being a clever little sausage. You make sweeping general assumptions about people and you are UNAWARE of it. You infer, deny it or not, that the gays YOU like don't do such things - but you are talking out of your behind. Are you an expert or what? Are YOU gay? Oh, no, probably not, you just know best.

 

I can smell where you are coming from and it sucks....know nothing/big opinion. 'Ooohh I've got gay friends, so I'm clued up' jesus - I bet you don't really know them. The whole gay thing is irrelevant, so stop making parallels. You should you're clearly wrong. It is ALMOST as bad as AC's disgusting '16 is too young' embarrassing post (another that knows best).

 

Eejits.

 

You need to understand why you say 'some gay people'. Yes, that's fine in itself, why not, but you have personally given me the whole 'holier than thou' rubbish in defining your ill-conceived assumptions about me, and you are at it again miss knownufink. You know nothing about it, so keep your rubbish to yourself - free speech - ok, but I won't see that go unnoticed.

 

Say a prayer for me, lmFAO.

 

Now - I need 15 million so I have an athiest parrrrtaayyyyy, AC will allow it (avoidance of question taken as gospel) can I have it??

 

Off topic, I know, but fun all the same. I'm thinking we need est. cira 5 Billion to make sure we all get to celebrate stuff...cough up!

 

Assuming you are a taxpayer of course, otherwise I'll have to seek my permissions elswhere.

 

Having read this extraordinary rant I would advise anyone not to get into any discussion with anyone they know to be gay about gay matters. You can't win. If you don't sympathise with whatever real or perceived injustices gays have suffered because they are gay, you're a gay basher. If you do sympathise because you think you have some idea, you're being patronising, your words 'infer' something (that you were completely unaware of) and therefore, you're a gay basher. Ergo, if you're not gay, you're a gay basher, so keep schtum.

 

Whatever you say will be twisted and turned, no matter what you meant, so my advice is simply don't get into any discussion about the gay subject whatsoever. If you think you understand, you don't, simple as. If you think you are being fair-minded, you're not, simple as. Just accept that because you are not gay, you are wrong, simple as.

 

If you wonder why there is still prejudice against gay people in this country then read Thailand's post above.

[Fred Bassett]

Or maybe he DID know the rules very well and just decided to stick his nose in the trough too.

 

He MUST have know the rules. This has been going on for years and also during the period when we've had the biggest parliamentary scandal in our history. The fact that he didn't want people to know is a smoke screen because a) they were bound to find out and b) it doesn't matter anyway. Also, he could well afford it, so why claim the expenses?.

 

For once Bookie, I agree with you completely.

[angry cat]

But then I am, again, guessing because I didn't want to read it. I'm human. The same way Catholics, like yourself, don't read the Irish reports of child rape/torture because the truth potentially hurts. You know, criminal abuse in the name of religion (It's lost on you...don't fret)

 

I'm not sure there is a parallel there, but I didn't read it for some reason...guessing really.

 

Please do not bring the 'Pope' back into this debate!

 

Although and perhaps, the fact that David Laws was educated at 'Roman Catholic' schools, does have some bearing on the matter;

his reluctance about all and sundry knowing about his personal life;

his sexuality!

[angry cat]

Or maybe he DID know the rules very well and just decided to stick his nose in the trough too.

 

Perhaps, he did?

 

Rest assured that, I am not defending what he did Re: claiming.

Rathermore, feeling sad for the man, if (yes, Booky I use the word, as it's meaning is of uncertanty) he was indeed attempting to hide the fact, of being gay.

 

In reality, who cares?

Isn't it about being able to do the job or, not?

[Thailand]

You and DD/AC should marry, Fred. I know, I know... Mrs Bassett would be let down and we'd live in a scary world, but whatever.

 

I think you'll find it is you that is ranting.

 

Did you realise your first sentence made sense! It isn't rocket science. I hold, as you do, that discussing gays is not fit for the layman. Bigoted laymen. 'Twisted and turned' dream on, and I called no-one a gay basher (I realise it sort of seems that way - but it is not my intention, rather it is what has been said historically that winds me up)

 

Do you really think I'm that way out? Rights for gays etc? NO. I just don't see the reason for bringing it up - pure and simple. As for refering to my post - you crack me up. sarcasm being your tool - oh, maybe not...but what other excuse have you got?

 

It may have escaped YOUR attention, Fred, but there has been rather large displays of all factions of bigotry on this thread, and yes, I'm sensitive to the gay nonsense spouted on here and on threads that preceeded it.

 

Stuff your gay suffering, fool, that's just YOUR take on it.

[Fred Bassett]

Perhaps, he did?

 

Rest assured that, I am not defending what he did Re: claiming.

Rathermore, feeling sad for the man, if (yes, Booky I use the word, as it's meaning is of uncertanty) he was indeed attempting to hide the fact, of being gay.

 

In reality, who cares?

Isn't it about being able to do the job or, not?

 

I would suggest that in this day and age, of 24-hour news coverage, it would be quite impossible to hide your sexuality for such a high-profile member of the government. Also, since when has it mattered anyway?. Other LibDems - Mark Oaten and Simon Hughes, both "outed" themselves - has it mattered to them? Maybe it has I don't know, but certainly in the case of Simon Hughes it didn't stop him getting re-elected, where once in his constituency it might have done (see my earlier post on this).

 

On the other hand, Charles Kennedy admitted he has a drink problem which did hurt him politically although, again, I'm not so sure it was such a problem with the general public.

 

People in general are more fair-minded than some give them credit for. I'm sure that in Thailand's mind this could be twisted into an argument that everybody who voted for a gay candidate was themselves anti gay.

 

Some people just need to stop fighting 30-year battles and accept modern life the way it is. If you shag sheep or you're a kiddie fiddler then that might be frowned upon, but otherwise, who bloody cares?

[Fred Bassett]

You and DD/AC should marry, Fred. I know, I know... Mrs Bassett would be let down and we'd live in a scary world, but whatever.

 

I think you'll find it is you that is ranting.

 

Did you realise your first sentence made sense! It isn't rocket science. I hold, as you do, that discussing gays is not fit for the layman. Bigoted laymen. 'Twisted and turned' dream on, and I called no-one a gay basher (I realise it sort of seems that way - but it is not my intention, rather it is what has been said historically that winds me up)

 

Do you really think I'm that way out? Rights for gays etc? NO. I just don't see the reason for bringing it up - pure and simple. As for refering to my post - you crack me up. sarcasm being your tool - oh, maybe not...but what other excuse have you got?

 

It may have escaped YOUR attention, Fred, but there has been rather large displays of all factions of bigotry on this thread, and yes, I'm sensitive to the gay nonsense spouted on here and on threads that preceeded it.

 

Stuff your gay suffering, fool, that's just YOUR take on it.

 

I'd like you to point out to me ANY reference I've made to gays on this or any other thread. To be honest, I've followed my own advice and kept well away from this subject entirely, until I read your post.

 

"all factions of bigotry" - I take to mean that these are things that you disagree with. Don't forget that one person's opinion is just that, an opinion. It's neither right nor wrong. You might disagree with me, but that doesn't make you right.

 

If you want to go through your life looking for evidence that you are a victim then carry on, be my guest - but I think you'll find that the world has moved on and nobody cares any more.

[Thailand]

I'd like you to point out to me ANY reference I've made to gays on this or any other thread. To be honest, I've followed my own advice and kept well away from this subject entirely, until I read your post.

 

I've done the same Fred, more than you know. My point was aimed at your agreeance with AC/DD...it never stops and I understand that.

 

Look, I don't disrespect you Fred, so we must agree to disagree. My posts aren't quite clear, in fairness, and you should know I don't have any 'gay agenda' I just know, in my heart, what displays of bigotry I have witnessed, Now and prior.

 

What irks me most, tbh, is AC's disgraceful comment about young homosexuals, yes, it was that bad. I can't even think as to how I might address that ridiculous comment. So, my back is up and I may have wandered off one one a touch. That is why.

 

Still waiting for your approval of large scale expenditure in austere times. Sauce for the goose. (AC)

 

And I do not see myself as a victim!! If you knew me better you'd also laugh at that! I also agree with your last sentence (since I was not thinking that way).

 

In any case, I think my earlier comment was a touch rude - therefore I apologise, but I don't think you know where I am coming from. I also appreciate people's comments, but we, as a race, don't always agree, innit.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Thailand

[Fred Bassett]

I've done the same Fred, more than you know. My point was aimed at your agreeance with AC/DD...it never stops and I understand that.

 

Look, I don't disrespect you Fred, so we must agree to disagree. My posts aren't quite clear, in fairness, and you should know I don't have any 'gay agenda' I just know, in my heart, what displays of bigotry I have witnessed, Now and prior.

 

What irks me most, tbh, is AC's disgraceful comment about young homosexuals, yes, it was that bad. I can't even think as to how I might address that ridiculous comment. So, my back is up and I may have wandered off one one a touch. That is why.

 

Still waiting for your approval of large scale expenditure in austere times. Sauce for the goose.

 

And I do not see myself as a victim!! If you knew me better you'd also laugh at that! I also agree with your last sentence (since I was not thinking that way).

 

In any case, I think my earlier comment was a touch rude - therefore I apologise, but I don't think you know where I am coming from. I also appreciate people's comments, but we, as a race, don't always agree, innit.

 

Fair enough.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Bookworm]

Having read this extraordinary rant I would advise anyone not to get into any discussion with anyone they know to be gay about gay matters. You can't win. If you don't sympathise with whatever real or perceived injustices gays have suffered because they are gay, you're a gay basher. If you do sympathise because you think you have some idea, you're being patronising, your words 'infer' something (that you were completely unaware of) and therefore, you're a gay basher. Ergo, if you're not gay, you're a gay basher, so keep schtum.

 

Whatever you say will be twisted and turned, no matter what you meant, so my advice is simply don't get into any discussion about the gay subject whatsoever. If you think you understand, you don't, simple as. If you think you are being fair-minded, you're not, simple as. Just accept that because you are not gay, you are wrong, simple as.

 

If you wonder why there is still prejudice against gay people in this country then read Thailand's post above.

That's quite an extraordinary statement to make.

 

I'm not gay (last I checked, and Mr Bookie would have something to say about it I think, lol), but have never ever been called either a gay basher, or patronising.

 

But then, maybe it's quite simply the fact that I treat people as people, not because or despite their sexuality. And because of that, the people who are kind enough to be my friends despite or because of my sexuality respect my point of view the way I respect theirs.

[Fred Bassett]

That's quite an extraordinary statement to make.

 

That's a matter of opinion. I don't think it is.

 

I'm not gay (last I checked, and Mr Bookie would have something to say about it I think, lol), but have never ever been called either a gay basher, or patronising.

 

Nor am I, nor have I - mainly because I don't usually get involved in the gay debate because it's a lose-lose argument if you're not gay. Also, in my experience, it's rare for a woman to be accused of being anti-gay - this honour nearly always falls to men - who usually have 'something to fear' or are 'afraid of their own true feelings'.

 

But then, maybe it's quite simply the fact that I treat people as people, not because or despite their sexuality. And because of that, the people who are kind enough to be my friends despite or because of my sexuality respect my point of view the way I respect theirs.

 

Likewise.

 

So what's the problem? That's a rhetorical question really, because I think the the problem is that I posted it.

[Thailand]

Fred, I know from where you commeth. Know that religion is even more 'lose-lose'

 

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed - it's all hot air and excuses pandering around offence - this is why I don't mind people disliking gays (yep, I still have an opinion about it but I really understand people's fears*)

 

* N.b...I have no fear of religion.

 

*bites tongue with the religious bit*

[angry cat]

Thailand, I note that you did not post on this thread until, page #24 post#464.

Presumably, that post was provoked by my post or, Bookworm's, which precipitated mine?

 

My post, which did include, other matters:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2926937.html

 

Firstly, I must apologise to you. Because, at that time, I was unaware that the age of consent had already been changed from 18 down to 16 years.

 

Secondly, I was speaking as a 'Mother', when agreeing with Theresa May's view but not considering the the obvious right of a, consenting adult, aged 16.

 

The law allows, a young man/woman to marry and or, have sexual relationship(s) at the age of 16 years; the same (should be) is applicable to gay relationship(s).

 

I apologise, if my previous post caused any offence, realising now that my wording was not clear:(

 

No doubt, I have got myself into even deeper waters, now!

[Desperate Daniella]

Thailand,

 

Nothing was aimed at you. I feel very, very sorry for you that you feel like that.

 

You are also bloody rude.

 

I am not going to comment further because I can't actually work out most of what you are on about, apart from saying that it appears that you know what every other gay person in the world thinks or does far better than their friends or families, simply because you are gay.

 

I agree with Fred. If you aren't gay you clearly aren't allowed to make any comment at all about anyone gay because whatever you say you are going to be wrong and it will upset you. Clearly if a gay politician is ever mentioned again only gay people should be allowed to comment on their behaviour on this thread.

 

And bookie, like you, I have never, ever been called a gay basher, or patronising by anyone in my life - other than by Thailand, that is.

[angry cat]

by Bookworm:

That's quite an extraordinary statement to make.

 

I'm not gay (last I checked, and Mr Bookie would have something to say about it I think, lol), but have never ever been called either a gay basher, or patronising.

 

But then, maybe it's quite simply the fact that I treat people as people, not because or despite their sexuality. And because of that, the people who are kind enough to be my friends despite or because of my sexuality respect my point of view the way I respect theirs.

 

The point is though, that you clearly do NOT respect others view's; you want to argue with them, prove them wrong?

 

by Thailand:

Fred, I know from where you commeth. Know that religion is even more 'lose-lose'

 

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed - it's all hot air and excuses pandering around offence - this is why I don't mind people disliking gays (yep, I still have an opinion about it but I really understand people's fears*)

 

* N.b...I have no fear of religion.

 

*bites tongue with the religious bit*{Quote]

 

As does, Thailand!

 

One cannot have their cake and EAT IT!

[Thailand]

Yes, that was the post that wound me up so (and your comments thereafter). Why are you apologising? Do you think that your misgivings over statute excuse you? The point is, law or no law, you shouldn't think that way. Fine, we're all human - but my word did your post lack any merit. Yes, I have to say that I am gay to show my understanding - but this was taken out of context and it was also inferred I was on some kind of gay mission. No matter, thank you for your apology.

 

Theresa May is a w*nker - end of that discussion, and don't compare yourself to her.

 

Yes, Monx's post was spot on! keyword 'parity' added to one's dictionary.

[Thailand]

I hope Locutus posts up his helpful guide to quoting...here's hoping.

 

However, I grabbed a line out of it. I agree that my potential failing is that of religion (and my intolerance to it) But then I speak of humans and not of flying spaghetti monsters who float in the sky (or kill or rape).

[angry cat]

Thailand,

 

Nothing was aimed at you. I feel very, very sorry for you that you feel like that.

 

You are also bloody rude.

 

I am not going to comment further because I can't actually work out most of what you are on about, apart from saying that it appears that you know what every other gay person in the world thinks or does far better than their friends or families, simply because you are gay.

 

I agree with Fred. If you aren't gay you clearly aren't allowed to make any comment at all about anyone gay because whatever you say you are going to be wrong and it will upset you. Clearly if a gay politician is ever mentioned again only gay people should be allowed to comment on their behaviour on this thread.

 

And bookie, like you, I have never, ever been called a gay basher, or patronising by anyone in my life - other than by Thailand, that is.

 

Well said, DD!

 

I have personally made a record of the fact, that one cannot write freely on this thread about other matters, especially IVF ect..!

Wasn't it that subject matter that started this; alleged and imagined gay bashing off?

[Bookworm]

The point is though, that you clearly do NOT respect others view's; you want to argue with them, prove them wrong?

No dear, I like to have a healthy debate. I don't need to prove anyone wrong, either they ARE wrong (IMO, of course) and I know from experience that they are unlikely to be willing to be educated, or they're right, and they don't need to be educated. Quite simple really.

 

What I do like is try to get people to expand their often limited horizon, trying to get them to see things from the other person's point of view, play devil's advocate. That alas often fails too, but that's the way it goes.

 

I'll say it gain, just to be clear: I don't want to prove people wrong, there's absolutely no interest in that (except in court, but that's a different matter). What I like is try to get them to work out for themselves that they are mistaken and maybe just maybe be willing to learn to go beyond their own limitations.

[Thailand]

Nonsense.

 

An age old excuse.

 

Now, can I have my athiest party or not.

[Bookworm]

Nonsense.

 

An age old excuse.

 

Now, can I have my athiest party or not.

No you big puff, go back to your boudoir and don't forget your handbag on the way, your 5 o'clock shadow needs seeing to. Besides, you're going to burn in hell, so there.

[angry cat]

Yes, that was the post that wound me up so (and your comments thereafter). Why are you apologising? Do you think that your misgivings over statute excuse you? The point is, law or no law, you shouldn't think that way. Fine, we're all human - but my word did your post lack any merit. Yes, I have to say that I am gay to show my understanding - but this was taken out of context and it was also inferred I was on some kind of gay mission. No matter, thank you for your apology.

 

Theresa May is a w*nker - end of that discussion, and don't compare yourself to her.

 

Yes, Monx's post was spot on! keyword 'parity' added to one's dictionary.

 

Thailand, I apologised because it would appear that, you had misconstrued my 'REAL'and underlining concern!

 

Did my post lack any merit?

 

by AC:

There are so many, women who either by disease/cancer or, biological problems that are unable to give birth to a child biologically! These women go through tortuous screening to obtain IVF; it is a nightmare for them and their families...

 

The problem is that, you (Thailand) only focused on one point?

[Thailand]

Beatch. You are sacked as my official fag-hag.

 

Oh no...hell!! Boo hiss!