Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@terry wrote:
. . . . . . ](*,) Give me ****ing strength! :evil:
Having been on the receiving end of several of your limp-wristed insults I wonder how you have the nerve to write this rubbish (without blushing).
You really are a sad excuse for somebody who gives the impression of knowing it all, but who actually (in reality) knows very little. You may fool a few dimwits on these boards, but you don’t fool everyone.
Praising George W Bush and Gordon Brown for saving the world was the moment of epiphany for me – the realisation there was a screw missing in that tiny warped mind of yours. How on earth could anyone (apart from you) find anything positive to say about Bush or Brown?
I’m not going to accuse you of being a racist or a bigot – there seems to be a lot of that rubbish going on already on these boards. Only cowards stoop so low that they accuse others of racism. And, as far as I’m concerned, I can’t think of a better word than “coward” to best describe you. But there again “loser” is a pretty apt word too.
Terry Kinesis is right!
Everyone needs ****ing strength since that bloomin’ 50 Shades of Grey plus viagra turned ****ing into an olympic event with points for speed, stamina and artistic expression!
Stiff wristed insults are the only kind that should be tolerated!
Scep should stop being sad and start being a happy excuse for a person!
(As he’s already started referring to Blair as an example, I’ll gloss over the Bush and Brown references for now, he might turn for them)
Loser is such an apt word, everyone’s lost something at least once in their life, ergo scep must be a loser. But then, referencing the earlier principle about calling someone a racist, isn’t someone who calls another a loser as bad as the losers. . . . . . ?
(Look, I only have the one joke, but I can keep it up for ages, phnar, phnar)
@terry wrote:
@sceptical guy wrote:
The same goes for UKIP. I find their xenophobia indefensible, but that in itself doesn’t disqualify members from being foster-parents. It depends on the individuals.
You can join the UKIP for any number of reasons. One is that you’re a racist, or alternatively an old-fashioned jingo – immigration is the key. Another is that you’r a loony. A third is that you simply hate the EU – this inludes a good number of people.
Your logic and beliefs are laughable, but they always have been (regardless of the subject matter). And they’re quite scary too, because you’re promoting a lynch mob mentality of perceived good versus evil. It isn’t like that, but I do worry about your state of mind which seems to have the same amount of venom and hatred as the most extreme BNP supporter.
You’re entitled to your opinions of course (however ridiculous and insidious they are..and they ARE), but essentially you are wrong and deluded. And, by the looks of it, you always will be.
Terry Curtains is right!
The idea that UKIP members should not be disqualified from being foster parents even if scep himself disapproves of the party’s ethos is laughable!
And any fule no that there simply cannot be more than one reason for joining UKIP.
There can be only one!
Laughable! Scary! Venom! Hatred! Ridiculous! Insidious! Wrong! Deluded!
Hold on, that’s one dwarf too many . . . . .
@sceptical guy wrote:
. . . . As Panda argued, they could have taken the kids just for the money. Perhaps, though they seem to be very good at their job. . . .
Just how good a job did they do? Full credit to all parents, foster, step, biological or whatever for surviving, let alone doing a good job.
That they kept the kids unharmed and well is a good thing, but anything further . . .
What I understand so far is that the parents let the kids teach them a song, (I refer to my earlier story about the BNP jazz fan) proves nothing really) and that the younger kids call the woman ‘mummy’ – I’ve been called ‘daddy’ by a little girl who looked even less like me than does Prince Harry. It only took about 5 minutes from entering the family home and the only interaction up til then was an exchange of names. Little kids do that.
I hope they did an excellent job, because if those kids get the memory of even a fortnight of excellent parenting, it might make a positive difference to their lives.
But does the evidence in the media so far show that this particular couple were ‘very good’?
@terry wrote:
@kent f OBE wrote:
Lord Terry asked the question a few pages ago:
What if the parents were members of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party?
What if the parents were members of the BNP Party?
I didn’t mention the BNP, but there again you do tend to mix fact with fiction, don’t you?
You even managed to call me a racist on these boards which just goes to show how disgracefully low you sink. People who point the finger and accuse someone of being a racist are as bad as racists themselves.
Oh and the “BNP Party”? Seriously Kent, what does the “P” in BNP stand for? huh?
You are totally clueless. And you disgust me…
Terry Vision is right!
Adding your own comments to another without closing the quote is unforgiveable! Inconceivable! Redolent with fictionalising of the order of Jane Austen and her irredeemable ilk!!!
And if someone is racist then they should remain undisclosed. How disgraceful to describe someone as racist even when they are. The logic is unassailable! I’m going to go find a plumber, say “you’re a plumber” and then come home and fix my central heating!!!
And Kenty’s linguistic redundancy fully deseves the kind of revulsion Terry usually reserves for people who correct his grammar!!
Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry! Go Terry!
@kent f OBE wrote:
…words are flat and have no feeling to them sometimes . . . .
Ah, Kenty the undulations in your clauses are exceeded only by the undulations in your . . . . . (slaps himself)
I dunno, the subject of sex comes up and the only person Terry thinks of is me.
I’m flattered and terrified all at once.
If I wasn’t straight I’d be wondering if he looks like his photo and wishing apples didn’t make me sick . . . . . .
@terry wrote:
I’m not getting involved in any serious discussions about politics.
@terry wrote:
. . . . Hmm..who exactly is “we”? Do you speak for yourself or do you see yourself as a spokesperson for a ground-breaking new group of “loonie lefties” who will change the world with their superior brand of intellect? I hate it when people are looking to grab a bit of attention for themselves, because they invariably get it wrong just as Joyce Thacker (an ultimate attention-seeker) has – and who on earth would defend her when her views have been described as “indefensible”?
Just a point of interest: political commentators have said that Labour’s “views on immigration” (the more immigrants we have, the better) cost them the last election (a view supported by Labour MP Chris Bryant).
So whose immigration policy is the best? and why should it matter in this particular case? Were the children at risk of being harmed because they are Polish? Clearly not.
UKIP’s “views on immigration” are actually reflected by the majority of British citizens. Nobody “hates” the east Europeans – they just question the need for them to be allowed to continue to live, work and claim benefits over here. That isn’t a racist policy – it’s a sound, economic one that is opposed by people (like Tony Blair, today) who know that being in the EU costs us a fortune, but couldn’t care less.
Terry Pie is right, even if he is only joking. If the world is going to be changed it should be done by people people of superior intellect rather than inferior.
Joyce Thacker has shown herself to be the ultimate attention seeker, as shown by the degree to which we had all heard of her before, her prematurely-published kiss and tell autobiography, her myriad appearances on ‘reality’ shows, her hit single, celebrity affairs and her scantily-clad photographs on the internet.
If Michael Gove says the decision is indefensible, then he’s got to be right. As can be shown by Terry’s previous record for supporting Gove.
Labour’s view that ‘the more immigrants we have the better’ can be seen by the speed with which they repealed all immigration controls, compared to Tory government’s record for never letting anyone in at all.
The foster parents’ attitude to immigration shouldn’t matter. After all, the children wouldn’t be the first to be reared by parents who wished they were in another time zone.
And yes, the ultimate truth, the support which the majority of British Citizens have for UKIP can be seen in their resounding victory at the general election. I, for one, welcome our UKIP overlords.
On the other hand . . . . . .
It seems “Mr Cameron has previously said that Ukip members are mostly “closet racists” . . . . . “, albeit a good few years ago. Now I’m not impressed by UKIP’s public representatives that I have seen, but that doesn’t mean that racism typifies the party.
By instinct, Cameron’s statement about UKIP means that despite Panda’s conviction, it will be almost impossible to convince me that UKIP is typically racist.
Personally I only know of one person who speaks/writes of being a UKIP supporter, and at times I suspect he/she’s actually a supporter one of the other political parties, seeking to bring UKIP into disrepute.
As far as this case is concerned, I still think the real picture is a bigger one, although it’s far more convenient for the media-led to have individuals to demonise. I wonder what led to them being the subject of emergency fostering in the first place and whether that had anything to do with it.
The assertions in the article are contradicted by the queues of older women on flights to tourist destinations all over the world where they rekindle their acquaintances with their holiday or internet romances; the resulting marriages, some successful, some not and the women who date or marry ‘unsuitable’ men of all ages.
The attractiveness of some older men to some younger women is helped by the numptiness of some younger men, which can make us look like gods by comparison.
As for money, sometimes a woman will see something in a man which is hard to value financially, but which offers long term emotional security, which is as (maybe more) important.
Some people really aren’t motivated by money and are attracted to someone they can respect, whose company they can enjoy, and whose dreams and goals they can share.
@terry wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
I haven’t seen anything of this story in any news media that I have been watching, if I had I would have known that there was definitely absolutely nothing more to the story than is presented here.
I do wonder about you sometimes.
@terry wrote:
. . . . . Wordsworth . . . sits on his imaginary stool in front of an imaginary log fire and looks at the clay pipe he’s taken from the mantelpiece. Putting it in his mouth, he gazes at the disciples sitting at his feet.
“Lord wordsworth..please tell us how we can be like you and achieve your righteousness”
The followers gathered there gaze up in wondrous admiration at their learned leader….
Quite vividly it seems . . . . . . . .
