LeMaquis Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 He may have joined UKIP because of their policy on gay marriage, as he is entitled to do. So are you going to admit you lied when you said "UKIP took him on board simply because of his opposition to gay marriage". I didn't lie. He left the Tories over gay marriage. He wouldn't have joined UKIP otherwise. It was the only issue he was interested in and the one that has got him into trouble. Obvious really. As you think it's normal to believe floods are due to god's wrath over gay marriage then your critical faculties need new batteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I didn't lie. He left the Tories over gay marriage. He wouldn't have joined UKIP otherwise. It was the only issue he was interested in and the one that has got him into trouble. Obvious really. As you think it's normal to believe floods are due to god's wrath over gay marriage then your critical faculties need new batteries. You're claim is that UKIP admitted him because of his views on gay marriage. That is a lie. Anybody can go on the UKIP webiste, fill in their details with a credit card, and join the party. To claim UKIP have somehow admitted him as a member on the basis of a view he has expressed, is a lie. The rest of your post was predictable, as trolls generally are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I'll remember the erudition in this post when we're tempted to stereotype members of other groups and communities You will probably find that you stereotype more on here than I ever will, then laugh it off with your usual attempt at humour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 You're claim is that UKIP admitted him because of his views on gay marriage. He doesn't seem to have views on anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I was pointing out your hypocrisy in complaining that euthanasia was not available to some but was to others. Then when it was a question of something you didn't want to be available you weren't complaining. Nothing I have said is hypocrisy, nor have I complained, just pointed out that equality isn't possible. You appear to think I have said something that I haven't said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 You will probably find that you stereotype more on here than I ever will, then laugh it off with your usual attempt at humour Is that supposed to be a showstopping comeback?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Nothing I have said is hypocrisy, nor have I complained, just pointed out that equality isn't possible. You appear to think I have said something that I haven't said. He's wheeling out his guillotine and arranging a crowd of hags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Is that supposed to be a showstopping comeback?! Another one who seems to have the measure of you Mr Friday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Another one who seems to have the measure of you Mr Friday I'm not sure what there is to disagree about in my original post, perhaps some posters don't have the measure of coherent thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 But UKIP took him on board simply because of his opposition to gay marriage and then failed to suspend him when he made his original comments about the floods being caused by god's wrath over gay marriage. UKIP seemed happy enough to have him as a councillor then. They only suspended him when he went on the radio after being told not to. They didn't suspend him for his views. Their immigration policy is the only one they have. Do you think they should have and why? Why do you think he shouldn't have the right to think what he wants? ---------- Post added 20-01-2014 at 12:23 ---------- The kind of response I'd expect from an adept twister of words such as yourself I can't decide if it is intentional or they just lack a basic understanding of English. ---------- Post added 20-01-2014 at 12:27 ---------- Because you're response to my post wasn't responding to what I posted, you responded to what you thought you read but didn't. I've also noticed this pattern of responding to things that were not said. ---------- Post added 20-01-2014 at 12:33 ---------- So why do we legislation protecting us from discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, disability etc? Because life isn't fair nor equal for all, legislation helps to balance out this inequality, but it doesn't and never will give everyone equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.