corrupt

[Deutsch Wolf]

The thing is THM, I showed you two, three, maybe four times that the Guardian produces pro-Brexit articles on occasion. Ergo it cannot be propaganda. Propaganda doesn't show both sides of the argument, does it.

You kept repeating the same thing over and over and over again despite all this and it just doesn't aid debate. We've had it before, you say something, people ask questions and then your next few posts are virtual C&Ps of each other, it really is almost word for word sometimes. As if the rest of the discussion isn't happening.

Despite what you might think it is actually helpful for the opposite view to be aired on here, an echo chamber isn't healthy. It's just that all too often, we have pages and pages that don't go anywhere when you're involved. It's that which you need to look at, not your opinions themselves.

 

[Penk Wolf]

I meant his answer to the question is that high immigration has done nothing to improve low paid living standards. Why is that not an acceptable answer?

 

[Penk Wolf]

P.s From what I've seen, you were removed from the sub forum for labouring on the same point and ruining the thread, not for the contents that you were posting.

 

[thehistorymakers]

P.s From what I've seen, you were removed from the sub forum for labouring on the same point and ruining the thread, not for the contents that you were posting.

I made a statement in context of the Mail and Express being Xenophobic and racist that the Guardian too uses subtle propaganda, just that there readers don't see it.
If the subject went on all day, it was because the same 2 or 3 posters as always, went on about producing a link all day. Nobody gets asked to produce a link, when it's something said against the Mail or Express, why should the Guardian be different?
I tried to get off the subject not drag it on.
I did say I was having a nice day in Morpeth enjoying a pint. The people who dragged it on all day are the usual culprits. The ones who can make insults of racist bigot and when I ask them to put a link up, to demonstrate anything I have ever said that is racist, they can't and don't. So yet again, some people can insult and call people racist with out backing it up, but I can't say the Guardian uses propaganda, without incessantly being asked to put up a link and prove it. FFS it's madness and so obvious.
Just a point, at no time on the thread yesterday did I say I was being victimised, or complaining. I wasn't ruining the thread, it was the usual hyenas looking to attack someone, because they can, knowing it will be the person who is being attacked that will get the blame for it. I don't care about that. I can take care of myself on a football forum and in real life, but blaming me for ruining the thread isn't truthful, Penk. Far worse things have happened on here in the last week, again started from a few trying to bully someone because he voted different in the referendum, but absolutely nothing got said or done about it.
Again, under the context that the Mail and Express have repeatedly been demonised on here and nobody has ever had to put up a link to prove they are xenophobic or racist papers after accusing them of being so, why do I have to prove that the Guardian uses subtle propaganda and their readers don't realise it?

Why do I have to, just because it's the fucking Guardian? Nobody else has ever to put up a link when they say something bad against the Mail or Express.!!!

It isn't right, Penk.

 

[Johnny75]

Boo fucking hoo.

 

[visage]

If I said 2+2=4, I wouldnt get asked for proof.

If I said 2+2=5 I would.

See?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Ok THM, this is going to be my last word on this for a while because you keep ignoring it when I post things that quite clearly demonstrate that you're wrong on this one. Which is a bit annoying.

Instead, here are some of your own posts from this thread over the last 30 hours or so.

In 2017 on a football forum, how can a person be banned for saying the Guardian uses propaganda? Nobody was asked to back up the assertions about the criticism against the Mail and Express!

to ban a poster for saying that the Guardian uses propaganda

Being banned for saying the Guardian uses propaganda

I know that people have said the same about the Mail and Express and there was no problem.

To ban someone for saying that they agree the Mail and Express are full of shit, but I just read the headlines and it scares me enough not to read it, then say it is more worrying that the Guardian uses propaganda

I am banned for saying a newspaper uses propaganda and manipulation. People have said much worse about the Mail and Express, but no evidence is required for that

Because I said the Guardian uses propaganda too, relating to the express and Mail.

I have to prove the Guardian uses it, but the people who say the Mail and Express use propaganda and are read by racists and idiots, don't have to prove it.

FFS, the Guardian uses subtle propaganda but their readers don't realise it, is my opinion and like many people think that the Mail and Express are shit newspapers,

I am banned for saying a newspaper uses propaganda and manipulation. People have said much worse about the Mail and Express, but no evidence is required for that

I am banned for saying a newspaper uses subtle propaganda?

How the fuck can it be possible to say a newspaper uses propaganda, but it's readers don't realise it?

I am banned for saying the Guardian uses subtle propaganda

I get a fucking 24 hour ban for saying the Guardian uses subtle propaganda

FFS, I said the Guardian uses subtle propaganda

I said the Guardian uses a more subtle form of propaganda, I never saw anyone get asked to substantiate anything about the Express or Mail.

Now for writing my opinion that the Guardian uses propaganda as do other papers.

At the end of the day, what I said about the Guardian using subtle propaganda is my opinion

I made a statement in context of the Mail and Express being Xenophobic and racist that the Guardian too uses subtle propaganda

I can't say the Guardian uses propaganda

why do I have to prove that the Guardian uses subtle propaganda

This is what I literally just said to you:

You kept repeating the same thing over and over and over again despite all this and it just doesn't aid debate. We've had it before, you say something, people ask questions and then your next few posts are virtual C&Ps of each other, it really is almost word for word sometimes. As if the rest of the discussion isn't happening.

If you can't see what the problem is then I don't know what to say.

 

[Quirkafleeg]

What a attention seeking monstrous carbuncle of a person...

 

[thehistorymakers]

You don't get it Deutsch, that is the problem. All of those posts have been posted after I was banned, before I was banned I obviously wasn't the one keeping on about links.
You missed the point completly.

The real crazy thing is, you haven't answered the question I was asking.

WHY DO WE HAVE TO PUT UP A LINK, WHEN SOMEONE CRITICISES THE GUARDIAN ( REMAIN) BUT YOU CAN SAY THE MAIL AND EXPRESS ( BREXIT, ARE RACIST AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE LINKS.

THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY, NO FAIRNESS AND NO LOGIC.

Nobody is prepared to answer those questions. But they are the important ones. Turn your back Deutsch, ignore it. Plenty of people aren't and can see the unfairness.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

STFU and GTFO

Amended.

 

[thehistorymakers]

If I said 2+2=4, I wouldnt get asked for proof.

If I said 2+2=5 I would.

See?

You have made no secret of your Vendetta. Why don't you ask people to put up links when they accuse the Mail and Express of being Xenophobic? To substantiate their claims.

 

[thehistorymakers]

Vis your logic says you believe the Mail and Express are racist ( your opinion) so a poster doesn't have to put up proof, but because you like the Guardian and believe what it says, if a poster says it uses subtle propganda, he has to demonstrate it with links.

Can't you see the problem with your biased logic and what problems that causes?

 

[thehistorymakers]

Amended.

Hahaha

 

[visage]

Vis your logic says you believe the Mail and Express are racist ( your opinion) so a poster doesn't have to put up proof, but because you like the Guardian and believe what it says, if a poster says it uses subtle propganda, he has to demonstrate it with links.

Can't you see the problem with your biased logic and what problems that causes?

You cited GuarduanWarPropaganda. FFS. No one is obliged to take you seriously.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Do you want me to put up links of the Mail and Express being xenophobic? I'll happily do it and it'll take less than three minutes of my time.

This really is the last time I'm going to try explaining this because I've pretty much had enough now.

That up there, that tirade of saying the exact same thing over and over and over again - that is why you get flak and that is exactly the way you post on the politics threads. Forget the subject matter this time, that is the way it ALWAYS goes. "I think XYZ" "Well, I'm not so sure about that, this link kind of proves you wrong" "I think YXZ" "Are you going to answer the point?" "I think XZY". It gets really, really, really wearing.

What was stopping you actually changing tack on this thread, debating your position properly, explaining yourself fully, answering the question when asked? Nothing. But as you can see, it's just hours and hours of the exact same thing, slightly rephrased. Do you really think that's effective debate? Really?

You aren't persecuted for your opinions, you weren't banned because this is a cabal of Guardian readers who won't have their precious paper criticised. You were banned - as a very short-term measure, from a sub-forum, because you made a controversial statement (an inaccurate one as it happens), wouldn't back down despite evidence you were wrong, then wouldn't produce anything to back your own statement up and just kept repeating yourself.

That is it, I mean it this time. My last word on the subject. Don't PM me, don't WhatsApp me about it. Just have a read of my post on the last page. Your TWENTY ONE posts saying the exact same thing and me saying why there is a problem with how you post. It isn't that difficult.

 

[SLA]

Fucking hell, THM. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

 

[Stan Hullis]

https://www.indy100.com/article/the...oon-that-depicts-refugees-as-rats--bkJRYorPYe

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.in...crime-speech-uk-ecri-report-a7351856.html?amp

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/...ic-pseudo-journalism-fueling-alt-right/215542

There is a 30 second Google

 

[thehistorymakers]

Do you want me to put up links of the Mail and Express being xenophobic? I'll happily do it and it'll take less than three minutes of my time.

This really is the last time I'm going to try explaining this because I've pretty much had enough now.

That up there, that tirade of saying the exact same thing over and over and over again - that is why you get flak and that is exactly the way you post on the politics threads. Forget the subject matter this time, that is the way it ALWAYS goes. "I think XYZ" "Well, I'm not so sure about that, this link kind of proves you wrong" "I think YXZ" "Are you going to answer the point?" "I think XZY". It gets really, really, really wearing.

What was stopping you actually changing tack on this thread, debating your position properly, explaining yourself fully, answering the question when asked? Nothing. But as you can see, it's just hours and hours of the exact same thing, slightly rephrased. Do you really think that's effective debate? Really?

You aren't persecuted for your opinions, you weren't banned because this is a cabal of Guardian readers who won't have their precious paper criticised. You were banned - as a very short-term measure, from a sub-forum, because you made a controversial statement (an inaccurate one as it happens), wouldn't back down despite evidence you were wrong, then wouldn't produce anything to back your own statement up and just kept repeating yourself.

That is it, I mean it this time. My last word on the subject. Don't PM me, don't WhatsApp me about it. Just have a read of my post on the last page. Your TWENTY ONE posts saying the exact same thing and me saying why there is a problem with how you post. It isn't that difficult.

I explained I was in Morpeth having a pint (not a lot of Internet coverage and didn't realise the It would mean the the Gestapo would be called out)

My posts on this page have nothing to do with my political views, but the way that people are treated differently for the same things.
For example you agreeing to meet someone on the forum and you can give a 100 times more back.

It was a stupid argument of course, but don't you see the irony of me being banned for not putting up a link about saying the Guardian uses propganda.

I haven't phoned you about this, I haven't what sapped you about it and I wouldn't bother. I was nor the person being monotonous yesterday on the thread, but I am defending myself here.
Massive difference.

 

[thehistorymakers]

https://www.indy100.com/article/the...oon-that-depicts-refugees-as-rats--bkJRYorPYe

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.in...crime-speech-uk-ecri-report-a7351856.html?amp

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/...ic-pseudo-journalism-fueling-alt-right/215542

There is a 30 second Google

Yes exactly, but nobody gets banned for not putting up links about the Mail or Express. They don't get asked it. They are opinions.

 

[thehistorymakers]

From the link below.

Conservative ministers Lord Gardiner and Eurosceptic George Eustice, who work in Defra, also receive subsidies.


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....-prince-among-recipients-of-eu-farm-subsidies


From the link below.

While speaking on a panel as chair of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, Osborne was asked whether his paid work outside the House of Commons, including BlackRock, represented a conflict of interest. He said: “I was chancellor of the exchequer, working seven days a week, and now I’m a backbench MP I made a decision to remain in politics and public life because I wanted to go on contributing to the discussion about helping to improve our country.

“This week is not a bad snapshot of my life. On Monday, I was in New York accepting a Kissinger fellowship at the McCain Institute, then on Wednesday I was speaking in the House of Commons about Europe, and here I am with my colleagues promoting the north of England and later you can come and join me in Knutsford in my constituency. That seems to me a pretty varied and interesting way to spend my time and hopefully make a contribution to our national life through things like the Northern Powerhouse Partnership.”

When the job was announced, BlackRock said their new recruit would “provide perspectives on European politics and policy, Chinese economic reform, and trends such as low yields and longevity and their impact on retirement planning”.






https://www.theguardian.com/politic...0-for-working-one-day-a-week-blackrock-salary




Here we have 2 articles by the Guardian. The first one they mention he is a Eurosceptic and the second link is about George Osborne. Where does it mention he was a leading remain campaigner. About half the article let's Osborne defend himself as some fantastic hard worker. For me, the Guardian rightly points out that the first gentleman voted Brexit, but by the same token leaves out any mention of Osborne being a big remain campaigners. It is subtle, but it happens all the time. Putting one link up with another media outlets saying the Guardian or Mail use propganda doesn't prove anything. I was trying to get over the subtle way that the Guardian does it compared to the blatant way that the Mail and Express do it.
Again my opinion, but I believe it and because it is my opinion, couldn't see the point in putting link after link to try to prove something which is just an opinion.