FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Daily Mail Readers
Daily Mail Readers
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion]" Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive." That argument is so out of field and farcical on its very face. Nothing I said touched on state controlled media or freedom of speech. If anything it was pro freedom of speech. But you have never let the facts stop you attacking what I say, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive. That argument is so out of field and farcical on its very face. Nothing I said touched on state controlled media or freedom of speech. If anything it was pro freedom of speech. But you have never let the facts stop you attacking what I say," Not attacking you the one that posted. Guess you love a state media as long as it falls into your thought process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive. That argument is so out of field and farcical on its very face. Nothing I said touched on state controlled media or freedom of speech. If anything it was pro freedom of speech. But you have never let the facts stop you attacking what I say, Not attacking you the one that posted. Guess you love a state media as long as it falls into your thought process." what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive. That argument is so out of field and farcical on its very face. Nothing I said touched on state controlled media or freedom of speech. If anything it was pro freedom of speech. But you have never let the facts stop you attacking what I say, Not attacking you the one that posted. Guess you love a state media as long as it falls into your thought process." maybe Russian media or Chinese more your speed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive. That argument is so out of field and farcical on its very face. Nothing I said touched on state controlled media or freedom of speech. If anything it was pro freedom of speech. But you have never let the facts stop you attacking what I say, Not attacking you the one that posted. Guess you love a state media as long as it falls into your thought process. maybe Russian media or Chinese more your speed." you are not making sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive. That argument is so out of field and farcical on its very face. Nothing I said touched on state controlled media or freedom of speech. If anything it was pro freedom of speech. But you have never let the facts stop you attacking what I say, Not attacking you the one that posted. Guess you love a state media as long as it falls into your thought process. maybe Russian media or Chinese more your speed. you are not making sense." I am making sense you degrading people for their choices. Instead of a narrative that you do not agree with. It's the second post you made about the " Daily mail". Because you "feel" your expression is more important than others. It's like fox here is it not ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive. That argument is so out of field and farcical on its very face. Nothing I said touched on state controlled media or freedom of speech. If anything it was pro freedom of speech. But you have never let the facts stop you attacking what I say, Not attacking you the one that posted. Guess you love a state media as long as it falls into your thought process. maybe Russian media or Chinese more your speed. you are not making sense. I am making sense you degrading people for their choices. Instead of a narrative that you do not agree with. It's the second post you made about the " Daily mail". Because you "feel" your expression is more important than others. It's like fox here is it not ? " But I thought we were free to say what we wanted? Or is that only for things you agree with? See the hypocrisy? You will also notice I never said they had no right to say it. Just that I disagreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive. That argument is so out of field and farcical on its very face. Nothing I said touched on state controlled media or freedom of speech. If anything it was pro freedom of speech. But you have never let the facts stop you attacking what I say, Not attacking you the one that posted. Guess you love a state media as long as it falls into your thought process. maybe Russian media or Chinese more your speed. you are not making sense. I am making sense you degrading people for their choices. Instead of a narrative that you do not agree with. It's the second post you made about the " Daily mail". Because you "feel" your expression is more important than others. It's like fox here is it not ? But I thought we were free to say what we wanted? Or is that only for things you agree with? See the hypocrisy? You will also notice I never said they had no right to say it. Just that I disagreed." You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive. That argument is so out of field and farcical on its very face. Nothing I said touched on state controlled media or freedom of speech. If anything it was pro freedom of speech. But you have never let the facts stop you attacking what I say, Not attacking you the one that posted. Guess you love a state media as long as it falls into your thought process. maybe Russian media or Chinese more your speed. you are not making sense. I am making sense you degrading people for their choices. Instead of a narrative that you do not agree with. It's the second post you made about the " Daily mail". Because you "feel" your expression is more important than others. It's like fox here is it not ? But I thought we were free to say what we wanted? Or is that only for things you agree with? See the hypocrisy? You will also notice I never said they had no right to say it. Just that I disagreed. You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. " Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? " That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts." Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice......" The funny thing here is you are trying lambast and shut me down because you claim I am trying to shut down right wing talk... When I have literally said they have the right to think that. You are a hypocrite plain and simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice......" I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. " do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? " No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not the most thrilling post. The ‘let’s knock people that read a newspaper that we don’t like’ gets a mention on here every other day. I guess because anonymity on a swingers site is their only outlet. " some people hate others for their opinions and their choices because they read. How lame I am that. . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? " I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Her is a thought .. the left always crying about everything hence the multiple posts over the "daily mail" do you see anything about other left wing news sources that were posted? So who is for people choices and who is not ..." Eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Her is a thought .. the left always crying about everything hence the multiple posts over the "daily mail" do you see anything about other left wing news sources that were posted? So who is for people choices and who is not ..." You are fucking hilarious with how in your feels you are over this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Her is a thought .. the left always crying about everything hence the multiple posts over the "daily mail" do you see anything about other left wing news sources that were posted? So who is for people choices and who is not ..." The UK only really has one left wing new outlet. It isn't well funded, doesn't have very good journalists (mostly), and doesn't have the same circulation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. " yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone..." No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine. "You did why mention right in the first place can't you just say people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine.
You did why mention right in the first place can't you just say people? "I didn't mention "right" at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine.
You did why mention right in the first place can't you just say people? "not that hard.. why do people have a affinity to the daily mail ? Nope you played the left card did you not ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine.
You did why mention right in the first place can't you just say people? not that hard.. why do people have a affinity to the daily mail ? Nope you played the left card did you not ?"You are a walking logical fallacy. This entire thread you have been building strawman after strawman, and making false equivalencies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Her is a thought .. the left always crying about everything hence the multiple posts over the "daily mail" do you see anything about other left wing news sources that were posted? So who is for people choices and who is not ..." Is every one of your posts on every topic quite so incoherent as those here? Maybe you should apply to be a columnist on the Mail? Clearly hard right, doesn't make any sense, entirely lacking facts. You'd fit in perfectly! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine.
You did why mention right in the first place can't you just say people? not that hard.. why do people have a affinity to the daily mail ? Nope you played the left card did you not ?
You are a walking logical fallacy.
This entire thread you have been building strawman after strawman, and making false equivalencies."of course you going to strawman . Yet facts are facts are they not ? It a standard of yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"of course you going to strawman . Yet facts are facts are they not ? It a standard of yours." Do you know what a strawman is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine.
You did why mention right in the first place can't you just say people? not that hard.. why do people have a affinity to the daily mail ? Nope you played the left card did you not ?
You are a walking logical fallacy.
This entire thread you have been building strawman after strawman, and making false equivalencies. of course you going to strawman . Yet facts are facts are they not ? It a standard of yours."people are individuals are they not ? They have the right to make a informed decision according to their standards? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They have the right to make a informed decision according to their standards?" And misinformation and lies do not inform people... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"of course you going to strawman . Yet facts are facts are they not ? It a standard of yours. Do you know what a strawman is?" Worzel Gummidge  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine.
You did why mention right in the first place can't you just say people? not that hard.. why do people have a affinity to the daily mail ? Nope you played the left card did you not ?
You are a walking logical fallacy.
This entire thread you have been building strawman after strawman, and making false equivalencies. of course you going to strawman . Yet facts are facts are they not ? It a standard of yours. people are individuals are they not ? They have the right to make a informed decision according to their standards?"you playing into the state running individual thoughts. Who is the Marxist/ Nazi/ communists again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"of course you going to strawman . Yet facts are facts are they not ? It a standard of yours. Do you know what a strawman is? Worzel Gummidge " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine.
You did why mention right in the first place can't you just say people? not that hard.. why do people have a affinity to the daily mail ? Nope you played the left card did you not ?
You are a walking logical fallacy.
This entire thread you have been building strawman after strawman, and making false equivalencies. of course you going to strawman . Yet facts are facts are they not ? It a standard of yours. people are individuals are they not ? They have the right to make a informed decision according to their standards?"If people have the standards of the daily mail, it's entirely appropriate to poke fun at them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You were literally mad because someone chooses something that does not fall into your train of thought. Why 2 posts again? Here is a hint not everyone agrees to your political views. Personally you try and take your eloquence and try and think you superior.. you are not. People have the right to choose not you. Yes I a redneck girl I don't have the pomp and circumstance you pretend. Yet the majority are us why is that? That isn't what I did though, I made a post about how the term Daily Mail Reader doesn't not have to be literal. The other post was pointing out the paper is globally considered to be unfactual. Two different things, different enough that separate topics is appropriate. You are the one that is getting in their feelings because someone is expressing things that you don't like. I don't claim any pomp and circumstance any perception otherside is a you problem not a me problem. I don't have a problem with where you come from or your socio-economic background. I have a problem with your right-wing authoritarian views and your propensity to claim things based on your feelings and not facts. Are they not a"right" rag news outlets in your eyes yes or no ? You cry foul yet bother the daily and fox news are the biggest in both countries? How strange in your analogy of what people view is a condemnation on your part.yiu literally posted twice...... I think the problem with this paper is not that it's something people disagree with. It prints blatant lies and deliberate misinformation to further the agenda of the owner, as an example, it promoted brexit with a campaign of false stories and information. That and they publish anti Islam, anti trans, anti immigrant stories promoting hate. Which again, is not just an alternative viewpoint. It's vile. I don't know how similar it is to fox news. do people have the right to make a informed decision accordingly? Only way you going to control that "narrative " is how? State runned media is is not ? I don't think anyone should control the narrative. My own opinion is that they need to teach kids in school how to interpret information they receive in the media. At the moment far to many people believe any old horseshit without considering whose publishing it, what effect this might have, is it factual/scientific, what has this publication said about this in the past, does it stack up with statistics on the matter etc. Without being able to do that, they're not making an informed decision. They're making a misinformed decision. yet you complained about the "daily mail" is that their right yes or no ? You falling into your own assumptions about others Your " I am the gospel " attitude.. hint people are different their choices not yours alone... No, I didn't complain that it's on the right. Right wing news is fine. Hate based misinformation isn't fine.
You did why mention right in the first place can't you just say people? not that hard.. why do people have a affinity to the daily mail ? Nope you played the left card did you not ?
You are a walking logical fallacy.
This entire thread you have been building strawman after strawman, and making false equivalencies. of course you going to strawman . Yet facts are facts are they not ? It a standard of yours. people are individuals are they not ? They have the right to make a informed decision according to their standards?
If people have the standards of the daily mail, it's entirely appropriate to poke fun at them. "Freedom of speech innit, the Mail writes some hateful provocative shite, ‘some’ of their readers get angry, we laugh at them . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here comes the usual in defense... Do people have the right to be informed as they choose yes or no ?" yes, people have the right to consume bullshit and lies. That is not being informed though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] Guess freedom of speech does not fit into your narrative no matter how silly it is. Lol guess you are the Marxist/ communist and want the state to control a narrative that you perceive." Freedom of speech is not freedom to be an idiot, remember that. Your forefathers probably thought people would actually use that right in a responsible manner, to enable people to critcally think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right." Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. ROFLMAO | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right." Basically in a layman's terms according to OP people who take information from the daily mail are ignorant and stupid in a eloquent way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. ROFLMAO" I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao " You have all but admitted you choose to believe lies and misinformation. Ignorance is bliss I guess. LMAO | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao " . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right." . Well said. The so called tolerant open minded elite left and only tolerant if you agree with their views. Some of the hatred that they direct against those with whom they disagree is quite disgracefull. Just as well that they are only a very vocal but small minority. They simply so not want anyone to have a different opinion ... They constantly claim to be experts on the Daily Mail yet never even read it. .These people have difficult recognising it's success. To have a readership of one million readers is considerable success. Those constantly criticising the Daily Mail fail to recognise this . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? " so who is the crazy ones.. you want one narrative instead of taking everything into a judgement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ?" I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... " ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues." . Individual rights are inherently justified. Just because some people disagree doesn't override the majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues." That isn't even close to what I said, go back and read the post again. You are deliberately going out of your way to distort my words at this point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues. That isn't even close to what I said, go back and read the post again. You are deliberately going out of your way to distort my words at this point." : I did your arrogance into why people read the daily mail compared to they have a right to is astonishing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues. That isn't even close to what I said, go back and read the post again. You are deliberately going out of your way to distort my words at this point. : I did your arrogance into why people read the daily mail compared to they have a right to is astonishing. " I never commented on why people read the daily mail... you did that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues. That isn't even close to what I said, go back and read the post again. You are deliberately going out of your way to distort my words at this point. : I did your arrogance into why people read the daily mail compared to they have a right to is astonishing. I never commented on why people read the daily mail... you did that" 2posts justify your behavior . You eloquently called out others did you not ?the "uneducated" ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues. That isn't even close to what I said, go back and read the post again. You are deliberately going out of your way to distort my words at this point. : I did your arrogance into why people read the daily mail compared to they have a right to is astonishing. I never commented on why people read the daily mail... you did that 2posts justify your behavior . You eloquently called out others did you not ?the "uneducated" ? " I just did a search of both threads, the only person to have used the word uneducated, is you. You are reading what you want to and filling in the gaps with pure fantasy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues. That isn't even close to what I said, go back and read the post again. You are deliberately going out of your way to distort my words at this point. : I did your arrogance into why people read the daily mail compared to they have a right to is astonishing. I never commented on why people read the daily mail... you did that 2posts justify your behavior . You eloquently called out others did you not ?the "uneducated" ? I just did a search of both threads, the only person to have used the word uneducated, is you. You are reading what you want to and filling in the gaps with pure fantasy" . Lol why post then ? If it wasn't disdain for the others side ? Was it you informed righteousness? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues. That isn't even close to what I said, go back and read the post again. You are deliberately going out of your way to distort my words at this point. : I did your arrogance into why people read the daily mail compared to they have a right to is astonishing. I never commented on why people read the daily mail... you did that 2posts justify your behavior . You eloquently called out others did you not ?the "uneducated" ? I just did a search of both threads, the only person to have used the word uneducated, is you. You are reading what you want to and filling in the gaps with pure fantasy. Lol why post then ? If it wasn't disdain for the others side ? Was it you informed righteousness?" I explained why I posted when I posted, wasn't my fault you didn't understand or read it as something completely different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right. Yup it is an elite left conspiracy that's why no-one has agreed with you. Yet those lies like fox here are what again ? Are you the journalist on the ground? Nope you are. Not. ROFLMAO I don't need your agreement that's how it works. Lmao . Be honest why you be derogatory statement of someone watch the daily mail? They do not fit your thought process ? I don;t care that they are right wing. A person has a right to be a hateful spineless bigot if they choose. I have a problem with something that calls itself a newspaper which people READ not watch. Peddling blatant misinformation, lies and propaganda. If they stuck to the truth I would still disagree but I wouldn't mock their entire existence. Oh and your back to replying inside the quoted text... ok individual rights to choose a choice in your agenda? Like I said who is the Marxists / communist ally. I choose people making their own decisions. You cry Marxist and Communist yet your failure to understand the issues. That isn't even close to what I said, go back and read the post again. You are deliberately going out of your way to distort my words at this point. : I did your arrogance into why people read the daily mail compared to they have a right to is astonishing. I never commented on why people read the daily mail... you did that 2posts justify your behavior . You eloquently called out others did you not ?the "uneducated" ? I just did a search of both threads, the only person to have used the word uneducated, is you. You are reading what you want to and filling in the gaps with pure fantasy. Lol why post then ? If it wasn't disdain for the others side ? Was it you informed righteousness? I explained why I posted when I posted, wasn't my fault you didn't understand or read it as something completely different." So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision." I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true" I score a perfect 10 for irony | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony" You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with?" and you jump him for his decision ...lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol " what decision? to take a pot shot at me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol " here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird " Yeah, that's not irony | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony" you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again?" The Daily mail is a newspaper not a TV network, you read it. as for the other half... WHAT? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again?" individuality just like LGBTQ just like you scream but it literally comes down to individual choices.choose your words wisely. It's a basic understanding of the others not just you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again? individuality just like LGBTQ just like you scream but it literally comes down to individual choices.choose your words wisely. It's a basic understanding of the others not just you." Friendly advice, going after someone for being a lefty in a politics forum is kinda fair game. But to make a rash generalised statement based on a protected class like being LGBTQIA+ in the pejorative is sliding dangerously close to bigotry. Might wanna rethink that in the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again? individuality just like LGBTQ just like you scream but it literally comes down to individual choices.choose your words wisely. It's a basic understanding of the others not just you. Friendly advice, going after someone for being a lefty in a politics forum is kinda fair game. But to make a rash generalised statement based on a protected class like being LGBTQIA+ in the pejorative is sliding dangerously close to bigotry. Might wanna rethink that in the future." not being a bigot it's their choice to love someone indifferent is it not? Unless you can prove me otherwise. They not following a a society norm now are they ? It's is up to their individuality. Is it not ? You the one screaming " bigotry " to my statement .of course you would I expect nothing less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again? individuality just like LGBTQ just like you scream but it literally comes down to individual choices.choose your words wisely. It's a basic understanding of the others not just you. Friendly advice, going after someone for being a lefty in a politics forum is kinda fair game. But to make a rash generalised statement based on a protected class like being LGBTQIA+ in the pejorative is sliding dangerously close to bigotry. Might wanna rethink that in the future. not being a bigot it's their choice to love someone indifferent is it not? Unless you can prove me otherwise. They not following a a society norm now are they ? It's is up to their individuality. Is it not ? You the one screaming " bigotry " to my statement .of course you would I expect nothing less." I never called you a bigot, I pointed out that your words were incredibly close to bigotry, but of course you read what you want, The whole "Societal Norm" is a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG for homophobia. but I am sure that is just coincidence. Normal =/= majority... or are you calling blond people not normal? Don't talk about disparaging, you are just being a hypocrite when you do... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again? individuality just like LGBTQ just like you scream but it literally comes down to individual choices.choose your words wisely. It's a basic understanding of the others not just you. Friendly advice, going after someone for being a lefty in a politics forum is kinda fair game. But to make a rash generalised statement based on a protected class like being LGBTQIA+ in the pejorative is sliding dangerously close to bigotry. Might wanna rethink that in the future. not being a bigot it's their choice to love someone indifferent is it not? Unless you can prove me otherwise. They not following a a society norm now are they ? It's is up to their individuality. Is it not ? You the one screaming " bigotry " to my statement .of course you would I expect nothing less. I never called you a bigot, I pointed out that your words were incredibly close to bigotry, but of course you read what you want, The whole "Societal Norm" is a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG for homophobia. but I am sure that is just coincidence. Normal =/= majority... or are you calling blond people not normal? Don't talk about disparaging, you are just being a hypocrite when you do... " You did it was a reference to benefit yourself because of your misconception . I not a bigot yet you assumed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again? individuality just like LGBTQ just like you scream but it literally comes down to individual choices.choose your words wisely. It's a basic understanding of the others not just you. Friendly advice, going after someone for being a lefty in a politics forum is kinda fair game. But to make a rash generalised statement based on a protected class like being LGBTQIA+ in the pejorative is sliding dangerously close to bigotry. Might wanna rethink that in the future. not being a bigot it's their choice to love someone indifferent is it not? Unless you can prove me otherwise. They not following a a society norm now are they ? It's is up to their individuality. Is it not ? You the one screaming " bigotry " to my statement .of course you would I expect nothing less. I never called you a bigot, I pointed out that your words were incredibly close to bigotry, but of course you read what you want, The whole "Societal Norm" is a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG for homophobia. but I am sure that is just coincidence. Normal =/= majority... or are you calling blond people not normal? Don't talk about disparaging, you are just being a hypocrite when you do... You did it was a reference to benefit yourself because of your misconception . I not a bigot yet you assumed." Again I didn't say you were a bigot. You are reading what you want to read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again? individuality just like LGBTQ just like you scream but it literally comes down to individual choices.choose your words wisely. It's a basic understanding of the others not just you. Friendly advice, going after someone for being a lefty in a politics forum is kinda fair game. But to make a rash generalised statement based on a protected class like being LGBTQIA+ in the pejorative is sliding dangerously close to bigotry. Might wanna rethink that in the future. not being a bigot it's their choice to love someone indifferent is it not? Unless you can prove me otherwise. They not following a a society norm now are they ? It's is up to their individuality. Is it not ? You the one screaming " bigotry " to my statement .of course you would I expect nothing less. I never called you a bigot, I pointed out that your words were incredibly close to bigotry, but of course you read what you want, The whole "Societal Norm" is a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG for homophobia. but I am sure that is just coincidence. Normal =/= majority... or are you calling blond people not normal? Don't talk about disparaging, you are just being a hypocrite when you do... You did it was a reference to benefit yourself because of your misconception . I not a bigot yet you assumed." now you know why people choose to read the "Daily mail" right left and in between. It's the utter assumptions of people like you that they try and differentiate their own actions. You answered your own question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"now you know why people choose to read the "Daily mail" right left and in between. It's the utter assumptions of people like you that they try and differentiate their own actions. You answered your own question." That makes absolutely no sense. by any stretch | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"now you know why people choose to read the "Daily mail" right left and in between. It's the utter assumptions of people like you that they try and differentiate their own actions. You answered your own question. That makes absolutely no sense. by any stretch" it did when you assumed someone a bigot by your standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"now you know why people choose to read the "Daily mail" right left and in between. It's the utter assumptions of people like you that they try and differentiate their own actions. You answered your own question. That makes absolutely no sense. by any stretch it did when you assumed someone a bigot by your standards. " It made no sense, even with that lie. For a third time, I never called you a bigot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes." That is an extra level of audacity to tell me to have more understanding and not assume when that is ALL you have done in this thread. You have misread what is there, made up things to fill in the gaps. Then taken those fantasies and used them to back up your completely unrelated arguments. Why are you so adamant on making everything binary, yes/no left/right the world is more complicated than that. I never called you a bigot because I cannot with certainty make that claim. You are the one struggling in this "debate" if we can call it that, you are floundering and that is why you have to shift the goal posts so much, construct strawmen and use ad hominem. If you cannot form an actual argument, bow out. “It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” - Mark Twain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion]" So all newspapers should be left wing mouthpieces? Can't wait to read about the 5 year plan and the 50% increase in tractor production. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] So all newspapers should be left wing mouthpieces? Can't wait to read about the 5 year plan and the 50% increase in tractor production." Electric tractors I hope? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes." The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting when discussing "Daily Mail Readers" that the assumption is the term is being used literally. When I say "Daily Mail Readers" I fully contend some of those I am thinking of have NEVER read the mail in their life. Also people who read the mail aren't necessarily included. For me it is a catch all description of the elements of society that are right wing and always on the lookout for the next thing to be angry about, which will not impact their lives the slightest bit. Why "Daily Mail Readers" because the Daily Mail specialises in farming the rage of people like this. And most who do not fall into the category have a good idea what you mean when you say it. Similar (but not quite the same, given the strawman aspect of it) to how the right talks about "communists/marxists" when very few of the people they are talking about are ACTUALLY communist/marxist. [this has been an opinion] So all newspapers should be left wing mouthpieces? Can't wait to read about the 5 year plan and the 50% increase in tractor production. Electric tractors I hope? " NaH! Give the lefties a few years and they will powered like Fred Flintstone's car. Yabba Dabba Dooo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So? Nothing new about that! The son of one of my neighbours is half French, Gay, right-wing and voted for Brexit. So you don’t have to be a lefty to be a dickhead do you "But, is he a good shag though? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So? Nothing new about that! The son of one of my neighbours is half French, Gay, right-wing and voted for Brexit. So you don’t have to be a lefty to be a dickhead do you
But, is he a good shag though? "I wouldn’t know about that as it’s not my bag….chicken is not on my menu | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. " Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. " Only word I would deny is the word "High", of course LGBTQIA+ read the Daily Heil. The LGBTQIA+ is not a monolith. I object to high because it is both a subjective word, what is "high"? and also until the LGBTQIA+ is a "High" percentage of society as a whole, that would imply a disproportionate amount of them read the mail. That I find hard to believe. Really would love for you to cite something that proves me wrong though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. " likely that th It looks like the Daily Mail appeals to balanced successful people . If the average age of a reader is sixty , it is likely that more readers are working than retired . There will of course be those in society who sneer at the Daily Mail . Their opinions become irrelevant when we consider its vast circulation . The average age of the readership probably indicates that its readers ar better informed than most and use life experience to make decisions . TRAVEL 60% more likely to spend £2,500 or more on holidays in the last 12 months Daily Mail readers are 19% more likely to have visited a long haul travel destination in the last year AT HOME Daily Mail readers have an average of £47,902 in savings and investments Reader have over £22k more in savings and investments than the UK average 83% of Daily Mail readers are homeowners, so spending quality time indoors is important MOTORING In the next two years, 24% of Daily Mail readers intend to buy a brand new car 83% of Daily Mail readers say that they own a car Meanwhile a total of 28% of readers own two vehicles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. likely that th It looks like the Daily Mail appeals to balanced successful people . If the average age of a reader is sixty , it is likely that more readers are working than retired . There will of course be those in society who sneer at the Daily Mail . Their opinions become irrelevant when we consider its vast circulation . The average age of the readership probably indicates that its readers ar better informed than most and use life experience to make decisions . TRAVEL 60% more likely to spend £2,500 or more on holidays in the last 12 months Daily Mail readers are 19% more likely to have visited a long haul travel destination in the last year AT HOME Daily Mail readers have an average of £47,902 in savings and investments Reader have over £22k more in savings and investments than the UK average 83% of Daily Mail readers are homeowners, so spending quality time indoors is important MOTORING In the next two years, 24% of Daily Mail readers intend to buy a brand new car 83% of Daily Mail readers say that they own a car Meanwhile a total of 28% of readers own two vehicles. " You missed the most important stat. What percentage of the readers believe the utter bollocks published in this horrendous newspaper? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You missed the most important stat. What percentage of the readers believe the utter bollocks published in this horrendous newspaper?" I don't think Hurt Media's web page had that statistic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You missed the most important stat. What percentage of the readers believe the utter bollocks published in this horrendous newspaper? I don't think Hurt Media's web page had that statistic." No, much better to focus on some other unrelated nonsense. And people say that DM readers aren't easily distracted! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You missed the most important stat. What percentage of the readers believe the utter bollocks published in this horrendous newspaper? I don't think Hurt Media's web page had that statistic. No, much better to focus on some other unrelated nonsense. And people say that DM readers aren't easily distracted! "That's because the DM told them they aren't easily distracted! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. likely that th It looks like the Daily Mail appeals to balanced successful people . If the average age of a reader is sixty , it is likely that more readers are working than retired . There will of course be those in society who sneer at the Daily Mail . Their opinions become irrelevant when we consider its vast circulation . The average age of the readership probably indicates that its readers ar better informed than most and use life experience to make decisions . TRAVEL 60% more likely to spend £2,500 or more on holidays in the last 12 months Daily Mail readers are 19% more likely to have visited a long haul travel destination in the last year AT HOME Daily Mail readers have an average of £47,902 in savings and investments Reader have over £22k more in savings and investments than the UK average 83% of Daily Mail readers are homeowners, so spending quality time indoors is important MOTORING In the next two years, 24% of Daily Mail readers intend to buy a brand new car 83% of Daily Mail readers say that they own a car Meanwhile a total of 28% of readers own two vehicles. " all I take from that is if you are a 60yo with saving of 50k, you probably shouldn't be spunking too much on holidays and cars. No wonder they are protective of the state pension. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. likely that th It looks like the Daily Mail appeals to balanced successful people . If the average age of a reader is sixty , it is likely that more readers are working than retired . There will of course be those in society who sneer at the Daily Mail . Their opinions become irrelevant when we consider its vast circulation . The average age of the readership probably indicates that its readers ar better informed than most and use life experience to make decisions . TRAVEL 60% more likely to spend £2,500 or more on holidays in the last 12 months Daily Mail readers are 19% more likely to have visited a long haul travel destination in the last year AT HOME Daily Mail readers have an average of £47,902 in savings and investments Reader have over £22k more in savings and investments than the UK average 83% of Daily Mail readers are homeowners, so spending quality time indoors is important MOTORING In the next two years, 24% of Daily Mail readers intend to buy a brand new car 83% of Daily Mail readers say that they own a car Meanwhile a total of 28% of readers own two vehicles. all I take from that is if you are a 60yo with saving of 50k, you probably shouldn't be spunking too much on holidays and cars. No wonder they are protective of the state pension. " And that DM readers are easily confused and distracted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right.. Well said. The so called tolerant open minded elite left and only tolerant if you agree with their views. Some of the hatred that they direct against those with whom they disagree is quite disgracefull. Just as well that they are only a very vocal but small minority. They simply so not want anyone to have a different opinion ... They constantly claim to be experts on the Daily Mail yet never even read it. .These people have difficult recognising it's success. To have a readership of one million readers is considerable success. Those constantly criticising the Daily Mail fail to recognise this . " Actually you’d be suprised, some people actually read the rag to laugh at their rabid stupidity. Its a considerable success because it allows haters to hate, little englanders to be little and hypochondriacs to be hyper, all with a smattering of gossip for extra measure. I once spoke to an actual daily Mail reader, all they went on was about immigration and foreigners taking over the UK, and stuff about how cancer is due to drinking filtered water from A Brita jug. I do suspect the person also went to a few UKIP meetings also, but that was because the person had in his car window a “I support Nige!” sticker. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you saying the "Daily mail " is a individual choice?,Simple semantics yes or no ? Not that hard.. a simple yes or no not a but...I accepted Biden you can't accept a news to source. Here let me explain .. people choose you do not according to the majority.yoy can discuss but do not think your arrogance is the only decision. I already answered this, yes people can choose to read the daily mail. That doesn't change whether or not it is filled with lies and misinformation. You are trying to take the answer to a question and make it mean something completely different, that is not the way the world works. Someone choosing a lie does not make it true I score a perfect 10 for irony You do? what lies have you been chewing down? or did you mean "You score a perfect 10" even then it wouldn't be irony, but rather hypocrisy. Did you read the thread or just jump in on something you could try and bash me with? and you jump him for his decision ...lol here is the irony he explained .. you degrade people as a whole not the individual. Weird Yeah, that's not irony you the one with the hive mentality are you not? Why do the watch the daily mail again?" We read the daily Mail in the UK, I think the Daily Fail has a channel in the States, mainly due to the fact that they couldn’t get a license here, but could change with Paul Dacre becoming a Lord. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. " It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. " There's so much irony in that last point Pat, the Fab irony meter has just melted..
Ps, thought you don't believe data from sources preferring to carry out your own research?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. There's so much irony in that last point Pat, the Fab irony meter has just melted..
Ps, thought you don't believe data from sources preferring to carry out your own research?
"Maybe it was a corrective text thing changing it to "retired" from "retarded"? I doubt it very much - but anything's possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right.. Well said. The so called tolerant open minded elite left and only tolerant if you agree with their views. Some of the hatred that they direct against those with whom they disagree is quite disgracefull. Just as well that they are only a very vocal but small minority. They simply so not want anyone to have a different opinion ... They constantly claim to be experts on the Daily Mail yet never even read it. .These people have difficult recognising it's success. To have a readership of one million readers is considerable success. Those constantly criticising the Daily Mail fail to recognise this . Actually you’d be suprised, some people actually read the rag to laugh at their rabid stupidity. Its a considerable success because it allows haters to hate, little englanders to be little and hypochondriacs to be hyper, all with a smattering of gossip for extra measure. I once spoke to an actual daily Mail reader, all they went on was about immigration and foreigners taking over the UK, and stuff about how cancer is due to drinking filtered water from A Brita jug. I do suspect the person also went to a few UKIP meetings also, but that was because the person had in his car window a “I support Nige!” sticker." So you are basing all your offensive assumptions on one conversation? Dear God, do people not have anything better to focus on. By the way, I am not a Mail reader. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is defending the right for gullible people to be lied to really freedom of speech? Sounds like a great way to manipulate democracy to me." . Do you actually read the paper or just make assumptions . ? Most people usually require evidence to back up facts . Maybe you need to buy a copy , read every article and then advise if you can find any information which you believe to be in any way inaccurate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. " Oh Pat we can all do a google search and click on one of the top results ie Hurst Media. You need to dig deeper. The readership skews higher to female and older demographics. These are generally (not exclusively) not working. So I should have said retired or left employment/not working (but that could be misconstrued as claiming benefits - they aren’t as also massively skews to ABC1). What is interesting is the stats you bother to quote paint a sorry picture. These are the nearly haves. The squeezed middle. Those who don’t quite have enough for a comfortable retirement that they have either started or are soon to start. They are angry that retirement won’t be what they had hoped for. They are fertile ground to exploit that anger and find someone to point the finger of blame at. The people they should be angry at are the super rich who have hoovered up all the wealth, through tax evasion and Tory enabled Govt policy to protect their interests BUT the Faily Heil is an excellent bit of distractive propaganda that points the finger at the poor, the needy, the helpless and says “these people are the reason you will not have as good a retirement as you had hoped for”. It is just the same technique used by the Nazis to create an environment that accepts the persecution of certain sectors in society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is defending the right for gullible people to be lied to really freedom of speech? Sounds like a great way to manipulate democracy to me.. Do you actually read the paper or just make assumptions . ? Most people usually require evidence to back up facts . Maybe you need to buy a copy , read every article and then advise if you can find any information which you believe to be in any way inaccurate " Pmsl I especially enjoy your juxtaposition of using eloquent language to say the most bizarre ridiculous things you can think of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right.. Well said. The so called tolerant open minded elite left and only tolerant if you agree with their views. Some of the hatred that they direct against those with whom they disagree is quite disgracefull. Just as well that they are only a very vocal but small minority. They simply so not want anyone to have a different opinion ... They constantly claim to be experts on the Daily Mail yet never even read it. .These people have difficult recognising it's success. To have a readership of one million readers is considerable success. Those constantly criticising the Daily Mail fail to recognise this . Actually you’d be suprised, some people actually read the rag to laugh at their rabid stupidity. Its a considerable success because it allows haters to hate, little englanders to be little and hypochondriacs to be hyper, all with a smattering of gossip for extra measure. I once spoke to an actual daily Mail reader, all they went on was about immigration and foreigners taking over the UK, and stuff about how cancer is due to drinking filtered water from A Brita jug. I do suspect the person also went to a few UKIP meetings also, but that was because the person had in his car window a “I support Nige!” sticker. So you are basing all your offensive assumptions on one conversation? Dear God, do people not have anything better to focus on. By the way, I am not a Mail reader." Hitting too close to home, if there is all that rage coming out? You seem more like a daily express reader, for those detached from reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. Oh Pat we can all do a google search and click on one of the top results ie Hurst Media. You need to dig deeper. The readership skews higher to female and older demographics. These are generally (not exclusively) not working. So I should have said retired or left employment/not working (but that could be misconstrued as claiming benefits - they aren’t as also massively skews to ABC1). What is interesting is the stats you bother to quote paint a sorry picture. These are the nearly haves. The squeezed middle. Those who don’t quite have enough for a comfortable retirement that they have either started or are soon to start. They are angry that retirement won’t be what they had hoped for. They are fertile ground to exploit that anger and find someone to point the finger of blame at. The people they should be angry at are the super rich who have hoovered up all the wealth, through tax evasion and Tory enabled Govt policy to protect their interests BUT the Faily Heil is an excellent bit of distractive propaganda that points the finger at the poor, the needy, the helpless and says “these people are the reason you will not have as good a retirement as you had hoped for”. It is just the same technique used by the Nazis to create an environment that accepts the persecution of certain sectors in society." . Or maybe nor everyone is obsessed with money or status. On one occasion you took the opportunity to reveal that you consider yourself to the in the top 1% of people by wealth in the country. Some people on here appear to have difficulty accepting that there is more to life than money. To most people health and family are far more important plus a degree of financial security. Most people simply accept that they will never be super wealthy and are happy with a comfortable lifestyle .They are not obsessed with how much tax the superrich pay or non dom status . They probably have enough common sense to realise that increasing tax on the super rich would simply lead to them taking their investment to another county and the UK would lose whatever tax it already collects . Maybe the Daily Mail readers are contented and the exact opposite of what you portray. They are not obsessed with money , just need a comfortable life style. Health comes first , not wealth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. Oh Pat we can all do a google search and click on one of the top results ie Hurst Media. You need to dig deeper. The readership skews higher to female and older demographics. These are generally (not exclusively) not working. So I should have said retired or left employment/not working (but that could be misconstrued as claiming benefits - they aren’t as also massively skews to ABC1). What is interesting is the stats you bother to quote paint a sorry picture. These are the nearly haves. The squeezed middle. Those who don’t quite have enough for a comfortable retirement that they have either started or are soon to start. They are angry that retirement won’t be what they had hoped for. They are fertile ground to exploit that anger and find someone to point the finger of blame at. The people they should be angry at are the super rich who have hoovered up all the wealth, through tax evasion and Tory enabled Govt policy to protect their interests BUT the Faily Heil is an excellent bit of distractive propaganda that points the finger at the poor, the needy, the helpless and says “these people are the reason you will not have as good a retirement as you had hoped for”. It is just the same technique used by the Nazis to create an environment that accepts the persecution of certain sectors in society.. Or maybe nor everyone is obsessed with money or status. On one occasion you took the opportunity to reveal that you consider yourself to the in the top 1% of people by wealth in the country. Some people on here appear to have difficulty accepting that there is more to life than money. To most people health and family are far more important plus a degree of financial security. Most people simply accept that they will never be super wealthy and are happy with a comfortable lifestyle .They are not obsessed with how much tax the superrich pay or non dom status . They probably have enough common sense to realise that increasing tax on the super rich would simply lead to them taking their investment to another county and the UK would lose whatever tax it already collects . Maybe the Daily Mail readers are contented and the exact opposite of what you portray. They are not obsessed with money , just need a comfortable life style. Health comes first , not wealth. " Lolz Earlier on you were bragging about DM readers being more wealthy. Which is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right.. Well said. The so called tolerant open minded elite left and only tolerant if you agree with their views. Some of the hatred that they direct against those with whom they disagree is quite disgracefull. Just as well that they are only a very vocal but small minority. They simply so not want anyone to have a different opinion ... They constantly claim to be experts on the Daily Mail yet never even read it. .These people have difficult recognising it's success. To have a readership of one million readers is considerable success. Those constantly criticising the Daily Mail fail to recognise this . Actually you’d be suprised, some people actually read the rag to laugh at their rabid stupidity. Its a considerable success because it allows haters to hate, little englanders to be little and hypochondriacs to be hyper, all with a smattering of gossip for extra measure. I once spoke to an actual daily Mail reader, all they went on was about immigration and foreigners taking over the UK, and stuff about how cancer is due to drinking filtered water from A Brita jug. I do suspect the person also went to a few UKIP meetings also, but that was because the person had in his car window a “I support Nige!” sticker. So you are basing all your offensive assumptions on one conversation? Dear God, do people not have anything better to focus on. By the way, I am not a Mail reader. Hitting too close to home, if there is all that rage coming out? You seem more like a daily express reader, for those detached from reality. " Yet another incorrect assumption | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right.. Well said. The so called tolerant open minded elite left and only tolerant if you agree with their views. Some of the hatred that they direct against those with whom they disagree is quite disgracefull. Just as well that they are only a very vocal but small minority. They simply so not want anyone to have a different opinion ... They constantly claim to be experts on the Daily Mail yet never even read it. .These people have difficult recognising it's success. To have a readership of one million readers is considerable success. Those constantly criticising the Daily Mail fail to recognise this . Actually you’d be suprised, some people actually read the rag to laugh at their rabid stupidity. Its a considerable success because it allows haters to hate, little englanders to be little and hypochondriacs to be hyper, all with a smattering of gossip for extra measure. I once spoke to an actual daily Mail reader, all they went on was about immigration and foreigners taking over the UK, and stuff about how cancer is due to drinking filtered water from A Brita jug. I do suspect the person also went to a few UKIP meetings also, but that was because the person had in his car window a “I support Nige!” sticker. So you are basing all your offensive assumptions on one conversation? Dear God, do people not have anything better to focus on. By the way, I am not a Mail reader. Hitting too close to home, if there is all that rage coming out? You seem more like a daily express reader, for those detached from reality. " Yet another incorrect assumption | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think I’ve identified the problem. It’s people that rely on a newspaper of choice to form any opinion on anything. They assume that everyone else does the same." I rely on Fab. Tom and Hay specifically However while one may not use the newspaper to form an opinion, often it's the newspapers that (in part) determine what we think about. The other bit, imo, is we focus on subjects we feel can offer an opinion on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. Oh Pat we can all do a google search and click on one of the top results ie Hurst Media. You need to dig deeper. The readership skews higher to female and older demographics. These are generally (not exclusively) not working. So I should have said retired or left employment/not working (but that could be misconstrued as claiming benefits - they aren’t as also massively skews to ABC1). What is interesting is the stats you bother to quote paint a sorry picture. These are the nearly haves. The squeezed middle. Those who don’t quite have enough for a comfortable retirement that they have either started or are soon to start. They are angry that retirement won’t be what they had hoped for. They are fertile ground to exploit that anger and find someone to point the finger of blame at. The people they should be angry at are the super rich who have hoovered up all the wealth, through tax evasion and Tory enabled Govt policy to protect their interests BUT the Faily Heil is an excellent bit of distractive propaganda that points the finger at the poor, the needy, the helpless and says “these people are the reason you will not have as good a retirement as you had hoped for”. It is just the same technique used by the Nazis to create an environment that accepts the persecution of certain sectors in society.. Or maybe nor everyone is obsessed with money or status. On one occasion you took the opportunity to reveal that you consider yourself to the in the top 1% of people by wealth in the country. Some people on here appear to have difficulty accepting that there is more to life than money. To most people health and family are far more important plus a degree of financial security. Most people simply accept that they will never be super wealthy and are happy with a comfortable lifestyle .They are not obsessed with how much tax the superrich pay or non dom status . They probably have enough common sense to realise that increasing tax on the super rich would simply lead to them taking their investment to another county and the UK would lose whatever tax it already collects . Maybe the Daily Mail readers are contented and the exact opposite of what you portray. They are not obsessed with money , just need a comfortable life style. Health comes first , not wealth. " The word “maybe” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there! Be honest, you don’t actually know do you? The stats you quoted are very clearly in “squeezed middle” territory. Many of those people are rightly pi55sed off. They are seeing the promise of a comfortable retirement bring eroded. The problem is many of them are complicit in creating the environment we now live in. But it is really hard to admit much of what you thought to be true or how you have voted may actually be at the root cause of your problems. It is hard to admit you have been duped into supporting things that will ultimately harm you and yours. So they double down and focus that anger outwards and towards others (helpfully steered by years of DM editorial). I suppose I should be flattered you remember a single post by me! Yep I have done alright. I wish more people could have done alright too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think I’ve identified the problem. It’s people that rely on a newspaper of choice to form any opinion on anything. They assume that everyone else does the same." There is correlation between people who believe bollocks. IE Boris has British interests at heart, Brexit is a good idea, Trump is a good guy, climate change isn't happening, aliens built the pyramids etc. And the people who copy and paste or link to the Daily Mail. It's a strong correlation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. Oh Pat we can all do a google search and click on one of the top results ie Hurst Media. You need to dig deeper. The readership skews higher to female and older demographics. These are generally (not exclusively) not working. So I should have said retired or left employment/not working (but that could be misconstrued as claiming benefits - they aren’t as also massively skews to ABC1). What is interesting is the stats you bother to quote paint a sorry picture. These are the nearly haves. The squeezed middle. Those who don’t quite have enough for a comfortable retirement that they have either started or are soon to start. They are angry that retirement won’t be what they had hoped for. They are fertile ground to exploit that anger and find someone to point the finger of blame at. The people they should be angry at are the super rich who have hoovered up all the wealth, through tax evasion and Tory enabled Govt policy to protect their interests BUT the Faily Heil is an excellent bit of distractive propaganda that points the finger at the poor, the needy, the helpless and says “these people are the reason you will not have as good a retirement as you had hoped for”. It is just the same technique used by the Nazis to create an environment that accepts the persecution of certain sectors in society.. Or maybe nor everyone is obsessed with money or status. On one occasion you took the opportunity to reveal that you consider yourself to the in the top 1% of people by wealth in the country. Some people on here appear to have difficulty accepting that there is more to life than money. To most people health and family are far more important plus a degree of financial security. Most people simply accept that they will never be super wealthy and are happy with a comfortable lifestyle .They are not obsessed with how much tax the superrich pay or non dom status . They probably have enough common sense to realise that increasing tax on the super rich would simply lead to them taking their investment to another county and the UK would lose whatever tax it already collects . Maybe the Daily Mail readers are contented and the exact opposite of what you portray. They are not obsessed with money , just need a comfortable life style. Health comes first , not wealth. The word “maybe” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there! Be honest, you don’t actually know do you? The stats you quoted are very clearly in “squeezed middle” territory. Many of those people are rightly pi55sed off. They are seeing the promise of a comfortable retirement bring eroded. The problem is many of them are complicit in creating the environment we now live in. But it is really hard to admit much of what you thought to be true or how you have voted may actually be at the root cause of your problems. It is hard to admit you have been duped into supporting things that will ultimately harm you and yours. So they double down and focus that anger outwards and towards others (helpfully steered by years of DM editorial). I suppose I should be flattered you remember a single post by me! Yep I have done alright. I wish more people could have done alright too." . Who said anything about people being duped? Most rational people simply accept that there are certain issues over which the government has no control in the short term. We cannot blame the government for the world energy crisis . On which issues do you believe people were duped . Are you trying to suggest that members of the public are incapable of undertaking their own research and should simply accept your opinion ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think I’ve identified the problem. It’s people that rely on a newspaper of choice to form any opinion on anything. They assume that everyone else does the same. There is correlation between people who believe bollocks. IE Boris has British interests at heart, Brexit is a good idea, Trump is a good guy, climate change isn't happening, aliens built the pyramids etc. And the people who copy and paste or link to the Daily Mail. It's a strong correlation." . Maybe you need to rationalise things. You seem obsessed with the Daily Mail. Maybe consider the fact that the papers readers will obtain information from lots of different sources. Work colleagues , employer websites , TV news , local and national radio, and various other local sources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think I’ve identified the problem. It’s people that rely on a newspaper of choice to form any opinion on anything. They assume that everyone else does the same. There is correlation between people who believe bollocks. IE Boris has British interests at heart, Brexit is a good idea, Trump is a good guy, climate change isn't happening, aliens built the pyramids etc. And the people who copy and paste or link to the Daily Mail. It's a strong correlation.. Maybe you need to rationalise things. You seem obsessed with the Daily Mail. Maybe consider the fact that the papers readers will obtain information from lots of different sources. Work colleagues , employer websites , TV news , local and national radio, and various other local sources. " it's chicken and egg.... But if newspapers and opinions didn't have correlation you'd expect all papers to have about a 52/48 split across its readership ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. Oh Pat we can all do a google search and click on one of the top results ie Hurst Media. You need to dig deeper. The readership skews higher to female and older demographics. These are generally (not exclusively) not working. So I should have said retired or left employment/not working (but that could be misconstrued as claiming benefits - they aren’t as also massively skews to ABC1). What is interesting is the stats you bother to quote paint a sorry picture. These are the nearly haves. The squeezed middle. Those who don’t quite have enough for a comfortable retirement that they have either started or are soon to start. They are angry that retirement won’t be what they had hoped for. They are fertile ground to exploit that anger and find someone to point the finger of blame at. The people they should be angry at are the super rich who have hoovered up all the wealth, through tax evasion and Tory enabled Govt policy to protect their interests BUT the Faily Heil is an excellent bit of distractive propaganda that points the finger at the poor, the needy, the helpless and says “these people are the reason you will not have as good a retirement as you had hoped for”. It is just the same technique used by the Nazis to create an environment that accepts the persecution of certain sectors in society.. Or maybe nor everyone is obsessed with money or status. On one occasion you took the opportunity to reveal that you consider yourself to the in the top 1% of people by wealth in the country. Some people on here appear to have difficulty accepting that there is more to life than money. To most people health and family are far more important plus a degree of financial security. Most people simply accept that they will never be super wealthy and are happy with a comfortable lifestyle .They are not obsessed with how much tax the superrich pay or non dom status . They probably have enough common sense to realise that increasing tax on the super rich would simply lead to them taking their investment to another county and the UK would lose whatever tax it already collects . Maybe the Daily Mail readers are contented and the exact opposite of what you portray. They are not obsessed with money , just need a comfortable life style. Health comes first , not wealth. The word “maybe” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there! Be honest, you don’t actually know do you? The stats you quoted are very clearly in “squeezed middle” territory. Many of those people are rightly pi55sed off. They are seeing the promise of a comfortable retirement bring eroded. The problem is many of them are complicit in creating the environment we now live in. But it is really hard to admit much of what you thought to be true or how you have voted may actually be at the root cause of your problems. It is hard to admit you have been duped into supporting things that will ultimately harm you and yours. So they double down and focus that anger outwards and towards others (helpfully steered by years of DM editorial). I suppose I should be flattered you remember a single post by me! Yep I have done alright. I wish more people could have done alright too.. Who said anything about people being duped? Most rational people simply accept that there are certain issues over which the government has no control in the short term. We cannot blame the government for the world energy crisis . On which issues do you believe people were duped . Are you trying to suggest that members of the public are incapable of undertaking their own research and should simply accept your opinion ? " The negative economic impacts of Brexit combined with Quantitative Easing has caused the devaluation of the £ against both the $ and € meaning it is costing the UK even more to buy energy. So that is UK Govt policy. The pandemic (not the Govt fault) compounded that along with the mostly abysmal handling resulting in a huge waste of £ and the largest transfer of state assets into private hands in history (all the fault of this Govt). Yeah duped! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany." Interesting for certain, not surprising though given their coverage at the time! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think I’ve identified the problem. It’s people that rely on a newspaper of choice to form any opinion on anything. They assume that everyone else does the same. There is correlation between people who believe bollocks. IE Boris has British interests at heart, Brexit is a good idea, Trump is a good guy, climate change isn't happening, aliens built the pyramids etc. And the people who copy and paste or link to the Daily Mail. It's a strong correlation.. Maybe you need to rationalise things. You seem obsessed with the Daily Mail. Maybe consider the fact that the papers readers will obtain information from lots of different sources. Work colleagues , employer websites , TV news , local and national radio, and various other local sources. " Hold on, you're the one who is constantly copying/pasting from the Daily Mail, why am I the one obsessed when I point out that it's a shit news paper that prints deliberately misleading articles? Bizarre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. Oh Pat we can all do a google search and click on one of the top results ie Hurst Media. You need to dig deeper. The readership skews higher to female and older demographics. These are generally (not exclusively) not working. So I should have said retired or left employment/not working (but that could be misconstrued as claiming benefits - they aren’t as also massively skews to ABC1). What is interesting is the stats you bother to quote paint a sorry picture. These are the nearly haves. The squeezed middle. Those who don’t quite have enough for a comfortable retirement that they have either started or are soon to start. They are angry that retirement won’t be what they had hoped for. They are fertile ground to exploit that anger and find someone to point the finger of blame at. The people they should be angry at are the super rich who have hoovered up all the wealth, through tax evasion and Tory enabled Govt policy to protect their interests BUT the Faily Heil is an excellent bit of distractive propaganda that points the finger at the poor, the needy, the helpless and says “these people are the reason you will not have as good a retirement as you had hoped for”. It is just the same technique used by the Nazis to create an environment that accepts the persecution of certain sectors in society.. Or maybe nor everyone is obsessed with money or status. On one occasion you took the opportunity to reveal that you consider yourself to the in the top 1% of people by wealth in the country. Some people on here appear to have difficulty accepting that there is more to life than money. To most people health and family are far more important plus a degree of financial security. Most people simply accept that they will never be super wealthy and are happy with a comfortable lifestyle .They are not obsessed with how much tax the superrich pay or non dom status . They probably have enough common sense to realise that increasing tax on the super rich would simply lead to them taking their investment to another county and the UK would lose whatever tax it already collects . Maybe the Daily Mail readers are contented and the exact opposite of what you portray. They are not obsessed with money , just need a comfortable life style. Health comes first , not wealth. The word “maybe” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there! Be honest, you don’t actually know do you? The stats you quoted are very clearly in “squeezed middle” territory. Many of those people are rightly pi55sed off. They are seeing the promise of a comfortable retirement bring eroded. The problem is many of them are complicit in creating the environment we now live in. But it is really hard to admit much of what you thought to be true or how you have voted may actually be at the root cause of your problems. It is hard to admit you have been duped into supporting things that will ultimately harm you and yours. So they double down and focus that anger outwards and towards others (helpfully steered by years of DM editorial). I suppose I should be flattered you remember a single post by me! Yep I have done alright. I wish more people could have done alright too.. Who said anything about people being duped? Most rational people simply accept that there are certain issues over which the government has no control in the short term. We cannot blame the government for the world energy crisis . On which issues do you believe people were duped . Are you trying to suggest that members of the public are incapable of undertaking their own research and should simply accept your opinion ? The negative economic impacts of Brexit combined with Quantitative Easing has caused the devaluation of the £ against both the $ and € meaning it is costing the UK even more to buy energy. So that is UK Govt policy. The pandemic (not the Govt fault) compounded that along with the mostly abysmal handling resulting in a huge waste of £ and the largest transfer of state assets into private hands in history (all the fault of this Govt). Yeah duped!" . The devaluation of the pound is simply a case of swings and roundabouts. Companies exporting abroad are hardly going to be complainin nor are pension funds with money invested abroad or for that matter anyone bringing money into the UK. It is hardly a question of being duped, you simply have to face economic reality | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany." . I think you will find that the Daily Mail has a wide variety of journalists and events that happened a very long time ago are of no relevance to current times | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail has a wide variety of journalists and events that happened a very long time ago are of no relevance to current times" I think you'll find not much has changed... See how that works when you just make claims without providing evidence? you can just say anything... like the DM | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany." Hang on, wasn’t N Germany defeated and Mussolini thrown out and killed at the end of WW2? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So was how I was close to being a bigot again? In any of my statements ? You stated that did you not ? Try being more understanding of others and not assume . You did and then try and deflect to fit your agenda. Ok am I a bigot or not make your mind up in that assumption. You have a habit of deflection. SIMPLE YES OR NO? A. Blue is a bigot B. She is not. Or shall I do a yes or no multiple choice. What do you prefer? Individualism clearly has no rights in your eyes. The Daily Mail has a high percentage of readers / supporters who are members of the LGBTQ community. Shock horror! Who would imagine that? It will be denied of course. Are you sure? How do you know? On the other thread Mr Hayturners was claiming nurses and care workers read The Faily Heil but again, how does he know? Of course there may be some but I can assure you both that they will be a tiny minority of the readership. How do I know? Because I have spent a significant chunk of my career in advertising and every media outlet has to provide detailed breakdowns of their audience to be able to justify their advertising charges. The vast majority of Faily Heil readers are retired. End of. It might be that the information which you are supplied is not as accurate as you think. If the average age of a Daily Mail reader is 60 it would tend to imply that more are working than are retired. Can you breakdown your statistic in more detail as to how you came to the conclusion than the majority of Daily Mail readers are retired. It appears that your source is inaccurate. Oh Pat we can all do a google search and click on one of the top results ie Hurst Media. You need to dig deeper. The readership skews higher to female and older demographics. These are generally (not exclusively) not working. So I should have said retired or left employment/not working (but that could be misconstrued as claiming benefits - they aren’t as also massively skews to ABC1). What is interesting is the stats you bother to quote paint a sorry picture. These are the nearly haves. The squeezed middle. Those who don’t quite have enough for a comfortable retirement that they have either started or are soon to start. They are angry that retirement won’t be what they had hoped for. They are fertile ground to exploit that anger and find someone to point the finger of blame at. The people they should be angry at are the super rich who have hoovered up all the wealth, through tax evasion and Tory enabled Govt policy to protect their interests BUT the Faily Heil is an excellent bit of distractive propaganda that points the finger at the poor, the needy, the helpless and says “these people are the reason you will not have as good a retirement as you had hoped for”. It is just the same technique used by the Nazis to create an environment that accepts the persecution of certain sectors in society.. Or maybe nor everyone is obsessed with money or status. On one occasion you took the opportunity to reveal that you consider yourself to the in the top 1% of people by wealth in the country. Some people on here appear to have difficulty accepting that there is more to life than money. To most people health and family are far more important plus a degree of financial security. Most people simply accept that they will never be super wealthy and are happy with a comfortable lifestyle .They are not obsessed with how much tax the superrich pay or non dom status . They probably have enough common sense to realise that increasing tax on the super rich would simply lead to them taking their investment to another county and the UK would lose whatever tax it already collects . Maybe the Daily Mail readers are contented and the exact opposite of what you portray. They are not obsessed with money , just need a comfortable life style. Health comes first , not wealth. The word “maybe” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there! Be honest, you don’t actually know do you? The stats you quoted are very clearly in “squeezed middle” territory. Many of those people are rightly pi55sed off. They are seeing the promise of a comfortable retirement bring eroded. The problem is many of them are complicit in creating the environment we now live in. But it is really hard to admit much of what you thought to be true or how you have voted may actually be at the root cause of your problems. It is hard to admit you have been duped into supporting things that will ultimately harm you and yours. So they double down and focus that anger outwards and towards others (helpfully steered by years of DM editorial). I suppose I should be flattered you remember a single post by me! Yep I have done alright. I wish more people could have done alright too.. Who said anything about people being duped? Most rational people simply accept that there are certain issues over which the government has no control in the short term. We cannot blame the government for the world energy crisis . On which issues do you believe people were duped . Are you trying to suggest that members of the public are incapable of undertaking their own research and should simply accept your opinion ? The negative economic impacts of Brexit combined with Quantitative Easing has caused the devaluation of the £ against both the $ and € meaning it is costing the UK even more to buy energy. So that is UK Govt policy. The pandemic (not the Govt fault) compounded that along with the mostly abysmal handling resulting in a huge waste of £ and the largest transfer of state assets into private hands in history (all the fault of this Govt). Yeah duped!. The devaluation of the pound is simply a case of swings and roundabouts. Companies exporting abroad are hardly going to be complainin nor are pension funds with money invested abroad or for that matter anyone bringing money into the UK. It is hardly a question of being duped, you simply have to face economic reality " Oh dear. Swings and roundabouts! Oh dearie me. Stick to the parody and satire Pat, economics not so. Constantly moving goalposts. Simple question...has a devalued £ made it more expensive for the UK to buy oil and gas which trade in $? Everyone is paying more but the UK is paying even more. You’d understand that if you didn’t rely on the Faily Heil | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail has a wide variety of journalists and events that happened a very long time ago are of no relevance to current times I think you'll find not much has changed... See how that works when you just make claims without providing evidence? you can just say anything... like the DM" . Maybe you need to start reading it and go through the backgrounds of the various journalists. The evidence is all there in black and white should you wish to check . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail has a wide variety of journalists and events that happened a very long time ago are of no relevance to current times I think you'll find not much has changed... See how that works when you just make claims without providing evidence? you can just say anything... like the DM. Maybe you need to start reading it and go through the backgrounds of the various journalists. The evidence is all there in black and white should you wish to check ." Ha ha ha ha ha you’re now trying to claim the journalists have editorial freedom! Nobody of any intelligence goes to work for the Faily Heil without first knowing the editorial restrictions they will work under or already agreeing with the political bias. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail has a wide variety of journalists and events that happened a very long time ago are of no relevance to current times I think you'll find not much has changed... See how that works when you just make claims without providing evidence? you can just say anything... like the DM. Maybe you need to start reading it and go through the backgrounds of the various journalists. The evidence is all there in black and white should you wish to check ." You know I have stated before that I do read it when I have to in order to check where the misinformation is. I read multiple sources and check the reliability ratings of those sources and also look into what external factors and agendas are attached. The DM fails spectacularly, regularly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail has a wide variety of journalists and events that happened a very long time ago are of no relevance to current times I think you'll find not much has changed... See how that works when you just make claims without providing evidence? you can just say anything... like the DM. Maybe you need to start reading it and go through the backgrounds of the various journalists. The evidence is all there in black and white should you wish to check ." We're all well aware of the quality of the journalism and the bias of the DM. Hence why "Daily Mail Reader" is a common insult used in Britain. (As some have pointed out here it's offensive, so isn't something I will use again). But the point is, being a DM reader has certain connotations. Just like being a FT reader or Guardian reader does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail has a wide variety of journalists and events that happened a very long time ago are of no relevance to current times I think you'll find not much has changed... See how that works when you just make claims without providing evidence? you can just say anything... like the DM. Maybe you need to start reading it and go through the backgrounds of the various journalists. The evidence is all there in black and white should you wish to check . Ha ha ha ha ha you’re now trying to claim the journalists have editorial freedom! Nobody of any intelligence goes to work for the Faily Heil without first knowing the editorial restrictions they will work under or already agreeing with the political bias." . I think you will find that the Daily Mail would refuse to employ you if you had no intelligence. ( to quote your term ). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail has a wide variety of journalists and events that happened a very long time ago are of no relevance to current times I think you'll find not much has changed... See how that works when you just make claims without providing evidence? you can just say anything... like the DM. Maybe you need to start reading it and go through the backgrounds of the various journalists. The evidence is all there in black and white should you wish to check . Ha ha ha ha ha you’re now trying to claim the journalists have editorial freedom! Nobody of any intelligence goes to work for the Faily Heil without first knowing the editorial restrictions they will work under or already agreeing with the political bias.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail would refuse to employ you if you had no intelligence. ( to quote your term ). " No-one claimed they had no intelligence.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting fact about the Daily Mail: The chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who inherited the media empire founded by his great-grandfather Harold and his brother Alfred a century earlier. Harold Sidney Harmsworth is also known to be an admirer of Mussolini and a supporter of N*zi Germany.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail has a wide variety of journalists and events that happened a very long time ago are of no relevance to current times I think you'll find not much has changed... See how that works when you just make claims without providing evidence? you can just say anything... like the DM. Maybe you need to start reading it and go through the backgrounds of the various journalists. The evidence is all there in black and white should you wish to check . Ha ha ha ha ha you’re now trying to claim the journalists have editorial freedom! Nobody of any intelligence goes to work for the Faily Heil without first knowing the editorial restrictions they will work under or already agreeing with the political bias.. I think you will find that the Daily Mail would refuse to employ you if you had no intelligence. ( to quote your term ). " I’m sure they would. It takes a lot of intelligence to know how to manipulate your readership over prolonged periods of time with enough subtlety that they cannot see it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m sure they would. It takes a lot of intelligence to know how to manipulate your readership over prolonged periods of time with enough subtlety that they cannot see it. " The morals though... yikes... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m sure they would. It takes a lot of intelligence to know how to manipulate your readership over prolonged periods of time with enough subtlety that they cannot see it. The morals though... yikes..." ie. none! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right.. Well said. The so called tolerant open minded elite left and only tolerant if you agree with their views. Some of the hatred that they direct against those with whom they disagree is quite disgracefull. Just as well that they are only a very vocal but small minority. They simply so not want anyone to have a different opinion ... They constantly claim to be experts on the Daily Mail yet never even read it. .These people have difficult recognising it's success. To have a readership of one million readers is considerable success. Those constantly criticising the Daily Mail fail to recognise this . Actually you’d be suprised, some people actually read the rag to laugh at their rabid stupidity. Its a considerable success because it allows haters to hate, little englanders to be little and hypochondriacs to be hyper, all with a smattering of gossip for extra measure. I once spoke to an actual daily Mail reader, all they went on was about immigration and foreigners taking over the UK, and stuff about how cancer is due to drinking filtered water from A Brita jug. I do suspect the person also went to a few UKIP meetings also, but that was because the person had in his car window a “I support Nige!” sticker. So you are basing all your offensive assumptions on one conversation? Dear God, do people not have anything better to focus on. By the way, I am not a Mail reader. Hitting too close to home, if there is all that rage coming out? You seem more like a daily express reader, for those detached from reality. Yet another incorrect assumption " The rage or Your reading preferences? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems people forget " freedom of the press" unless it falls into a narrative they don't agree with. " Who said anything about that? We have the right the call out shit reporting from a shit rag. Besides ain’t you guys always harping on about the Mainstream Media and attacking journalist’s at your “rallies”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the "elite left" thinks that people can't make their own decisions. OP posted twice over the same issues. To try and gain some semblance of they are right.. Well said. The so called tolerant open minded elite left and only tolerant if you agree with their views. Some of the hatred that they direct against those with whom they disagree is quite disgracefull. Just as well that they are only a very vocal but small minority. They simply so not want anyone to have a different opinion ... They constantly claim to be experts on the Daily Mail yet never even read it. .These people have difficult recognising it's success. To have a readership of one million readers is considerable success. Those constantly criticising the Daily Mail fail to recognise this . Actually you’d be suprised, some people actually read the rag to laugh at their rabid stupidity. Its a considerable success because it allows haters to hate, little englanders to be little and hypochondriacs to be hyper, all with a smattering of gossip for extra measure. I once spoke to an actual daily Mail reader, all they went on was about immigration and foreigners taking over the UK, and stuff about how cancer is due to drinking filtered water from A Brita jug. I do suspect the person also went to a few UKIP meetings also, but that was because the person had in his car window a “I support Nige!” sticker. So you are basing all your offensive assumptions on one conversation? Dear God, do people not have anything better to focus on. By the way, I am not a Mail reader. Hitting too close to home, if there is all that rage coming out? You seem more like a daily express reader, for those detached from reality. Yet another incorrect assumption The rage or Your reading preferences? " Both | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All national papers have a bias towards something on both the right and the left. I won’t buy the Daily Mail because it’s a conservative supporting paper, plus some of its writers are pretty unpalatable. " My criticism isn't the right wing bias. It is the unreliability and detachment from the truth. I dislike the right wing Bias, I condemn the Lies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All national papers have a bias towards something on both the right and the left. I won’t buy the Daily Mail because it’s a conservative supporting paper, plus some of its writers are pretty unpalatable. My criticism isn't the right wing bias. It is the unreliability and detachment from the truth. I dislike the right wing Bias, I condemn the Lies." Yes, but it’s not just the Daily Mail that has done stuff that is disgusting, There are other tabloids that have done stuff that is frankly revolting and has no place in society. We shouldn’t just focus on one paper we should focus on every paper that brings decency into dispute. The only way these papers learn is to hit them on the bottom line, which is sales or revenue from advertising. I won’t buy any tabloid and that includes the Mail. I don’t know if it was because they were more high profile In 80’s because they sold more passers than any other but I remember the vile articles in other tabloids wrote about gay people and the inference around HIV and AIDS. That sort of stuff was part of the reason some gay and bisexual teenagers like me hid their sexuality because it wasn’t safe to be open as gay in a lot of towns and cities in the 80’s. I don’t like any tabloid because they are reactionary and diverse. But I guess we live in a democracy and it’s allowed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All national papers have a bias towards something on both the right and the left. I won’t buy the Daily Mail because it’s a conservative supporting paper, plus some of its writers are pretty unpalatable. My criticism isn't the right wing bias. It is the unreliability and detachment from the truth. I dislike the right wing Bias, I condemn the Lies." I agree with you. But even if you are left leaning (like I am) I can’t leave out criticism of the Daily Mirror. They have found to lie and publish mistruths. That’s why I’ve said all tabloids because it’s more than right or left, although the vast majority of papers that publish mistruths are on the right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All national papers have a bias towards something on both the right and the left. I won’t buy the Daily Mail because it’s a conservative supporting paper, plus some of its writers are pretty unpalatable. My criticism isn't the right wing bias. It is the unreliability and detachment from the truth. I dislike the right wing Bias, I condemn the Lies. I agree with you. But even if you are left leaning (like I am) I can’t leave out criticism of the Daily Mirror. They have found to lie and publish mistruths. That’s why I’ve said all tabloids because it’s more than right or left, although the vast majority of papers that publish mistruths are on the right. " I agree, all newspapers tell ‘untruths’ to pander to their audiences but the Mail, Sun and lateral the New of the World are by far the worst | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The idea that newspapers in the UK are all the same isn't exactly accurate Of the Daily National papers in the UK only one is scored as Low Factual Reporting and Low Credibility by Media Bias Fact Check. Most have mixed/medium ratings with only the Times and Financial Times scoring High. This may be rough to follow because formatting is not easy in these posts: Daily Mail Bias: Right Factual Reporting: Low Credibility: Low The Sun Bias: Right Factual Reporting: Mixed Credibility: Medium Daily Express Bias: Right Factual Reporting: Mixed Credibility: Medium The Independent Bias: Left-Center Factual Reporting: Mixed Credibility: Medium The Guardian Bias: Left-Center Factual Reporting: Mixed Credibility: Medium The Mirror Bias: Left-Center Factual Reporting: Mixed Credibility: Medium The Telegraph Bias: Right Factual Reporting: Mixed Credibility: Medium The Observer Bias: Left-Center Factual Reporting: Mixed The Daily Star Bias: Right-Center Factual Reporting: Mixed The Times Bias: Right-Center Factual Reporting: High Credibility: High The Financial Times Bias: Least Biased Factual Reporting: High Credibility: High Yeah most the papers have the same level of reliability and accuracy... but the Daily Mail is demonstrably worse than the rest, that is why it gets singled out" Ok point taken. I wasn’t disagreeing that it’s a awful paper and that it publishes mistruths. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing" Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best." So tedious. Move on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. " Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. " Is it just a British thing or do you have this kind of ‘slight leftie, we are more intelligent than you plebs due to the grubby newspaper (grubby as it’s not our views) that you read’ snobbishness in America? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. " I don't think it's even close to being the most popular in the world. And even if it was, how is this related to people believing the wildly inaccurate, misleading articles? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. Is it just a British thing or do you have this kind of ‘slight leftie, we are more intelligent than you plebs due to the grubby newspaper (grubby as it’s not our views) that you read’ snobbishness in America?" I think it is a right wing inferior complex | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. " I guess this may depend on what's included and how you measure it, but the sun has typically always beaten DM. And the metro seems to top teh charts atm. So maybe we can get it as far as one the most popular in the UK ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. I guess this may depend on what's included and how you measure it, but the sun has typically always beaten DM. And the metro seems to top teh charts atm. So maybe we can get it as far as one the most popular in the UK ..." I going global DM always in the top 10. Just like fox news the number 1 news outlets here. It's just entertainment. So if you think news effects alot of the "Uneducated". Biden shouldn't have won in that retrospect. It's purely entertainment. Both sides of the Atlantic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. I guess this may depend on what's included and how you measure it, but the sun has typically always beaten DM. And the metro seems to top teh charts atm. So maybe we can get it as far as one the most popular in the UK ... I going global DM always in the top 10. Just like fox news the number 1 news outlets here. It's just entertainment. So if you think news effects alot of the "Uneducated". Biden shouldn't have won in that retrospect. It's purely entertainment. Both sides of the Atlantic." Daily Mail readers mostly voted for brexit. Case closed. Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. I don't think it's even close to being the most popular in the world. And even if it was, how is this related to people believing the wildly inaccurate, misleading articles? " Currently the Mail sells circa one million copies and has a readership of circa two million so it is the UKs most popular paid for newspaper . My guess is that those who describe the articles as being inaccurate never actually read or buy the newspaper and are simply repeating often repeated cliches . Publish inaccurate information and you are in danger of being sued . To make an objective review of its content , you would need to read at least every page of one thousand copies and identify any information which you believed to be inaccurate . You would probably struggle to find any inaccurate information | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. I guess this may depend on what's included and how you measure it, but the sun has typically always beaten DM. And the metro seems to top teh charts atm. So maybe we can get it as far as one the most popular in the UK ... I going global DM always in the top 10. Just like fox news the number 1 news outlets here. It's just entertainment. So if you think news effects alot of the "Uneducated". Biden shouldn't have won in that retrospect. It's purely entertainment. Both sides of the Atlantic. Daily Mail readers mostly voted for brexit. Case closed. Lol" Fox news viewership voted for biden then right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. I don't think it's even close to being the most popular in the world. And even if it was, how is this related to people believing the wildly inaccurate, misleading articles? Currently the Mail sells circa one million copies and has a readership of circa two million so it is the UKs most popular paid for newspaper . My guess is that those who describe the articles as being inaccurate never actually read or buy the newspaper and are simply repeating often repeated cliches . Publish inaccurate information and you are in danger of being sued . To make an objective review of its content , you would need to read at least every page of one thousand copies and identify any information which you believed to be inaccurate . You would probably struggle to find any inaccurate information " Or, we just look at the information above that suggests the DM is the least accurate, and most biased newspaper in the UK. The number of people buying it, is unrelated to how inaccurate the articles are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s not called the ‘daily fail’ for nothing Prefer the Faily Heil as that really sums them up best. So tedious. Move on. Lol DM one of the most popular news sources in the world. Yet I guess according to this post people are to uneducated to make their own decisions. I guess this may depend on what's included and how you measure it, but the sun has typically always beaten DM. And the metro seems to top teh charts atm. So maybe we can get it as far as one the most popular in the UK ... I going global DM always in the top 10. Just like fox news the number 1 news outlets here. It's just entertainment. So if you think news effects alot of the "Uneducated". Biden shouldn't have won in that retrospect. It's purely entertainment. Both sides of the Atlantic. Daily Mail readers mostly voted for brexit. Case closed. Lol" I don't get the argument that more popular = better. By that argument Justin Beiber is more important to music than the Bruce Springsteet, U2, Aerosmith, ABBA, Phil Collins, Metallica, Lady gaga, Adel or Rod Stweart. Or Jeffrey Archer is more relevant to literature than JRR Tolkein, Roald Dahl, C.S. Lewis or Ian Fleming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
