You forgot the apart where they either initiate such banter, and take part in it jovially.
Everyday racism
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
You forgot the apart where they either initiate such banter, and take part in it jovially.No, I didn't.
paddoboy
The pile on won't stop, in their many arenas of activity, until a two word greeting becomes a long winded explanation to ensure no misunderstanding as per
Lord knows what will become of 'allo luv
The pile on won't stop, in their many arenas of activity, until a two word greeting becomes a long winded explanation to ensure no misunderstanding as per
Lord knows what will become of 'allo luv
To some men it is, yes. It would not be to me. But I do not represent all men, any more than any one woman represents all women.
I would not call a man that. Would you?
Some are, some aren't. As with many other characteristics.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Kinda was flattered by that.......
Last edited:
paddoboy
The pile on won't stop, in their many arenas of activity, until a two word greeting becomes a long winded explanation to ensure no misunderstanding as per
Lord knows what will become of 'allo luv
remember the Dawn Lake and Bobby Limb show?
or.....
Last edited:
Completely and utterly unforgivable despicable slur and not to be tolerated
Loved it
Perfect from an old bastard
Wake up, paddoboy!
What do you think "black lives matter" is all about? If racism has been all but eliminated in western society, what are all those people complaining about? Are they just trouble makers, in your opinion?
Why is their youth and beauty such a focus for you? Why did you feel the need to bring that up? Are you trying to make the point that young, beautiful women enjoy joking around with you? Is that supposed to prove your virility, or something?
Your use of the phrase "keeping us lubricated" there is sleazy, too, just so you know.
They were young beautiful women who did there jobs well James, and looked after 9 old buggers with plenty of interactive joviality and fun. So much so, that I commended them to the club Secretary...but I told you that before James.
And yes they kept us lubricated...you know James, plenty of piss to drink...why would you think anything else?
Why didn't they vote for President? Didn't want Hillary or Trump, or any other candidate?
Yes, I know exactly where that came from, what it means and what it implies and what the innuendo of it is. You do too, of course.
Especially when most of the violence is instigated by the police and/or various white supremacist gangs (groups? cabals?).
It highlights the reasons for the protests, which should no longer be mysterious to anyone who has seen how the BLM protestors have been treated.
It's an old Aussie saying for keeping one's throat lubricated. Of course someone with a dirty mind may apply something else.
The 2 minute mark and what follows is hilarious! Wonder what Charly thought?Completely and utterly unforgivable despicable slur and not to be tolerated
Loved it
Perfect from an old bastard
Nobody knows.
Nobody audited those votes. Nobody surveyed those voters. No oversight bureau checked the hardware or software, exit polled, compared with absentee or other mail in votes, or in any other way vetted that vote count.
The recurrent statistical anomalies in key States of US national elections (of which that was merely one example) are discovered not by official or standard oversight procedures, not by investigative journalists from major media news outlets, but by political activists willing to do the work and bear the expense of overcoming the various legal and practical obstacles thrown in their way.
The voting machines and counting software were not third party audited in advance either - most of the corporations who provided them over the past few election cycles are owned and managed by large donors to the Republican Party, which in turn has legislatively blocked such security and transparency measures - citing the proprietary nature and protected market advantage of those corporate creations, and also the expense involved in vetting them.
In States with more thorough vetting practices - such as Minnesota, where I live, which mandates hand marked paper ballots which are kept after counting (a "paper trail", good for backup in the event of problems), audits a random sample of voting districts automatically, and so forth - those kinds of statistical anomalies are less common, smaller, and show no Party or demographic bias.
Meanwhile, such things are difficult to report on specifically - in terms of actual events - from a "bothsides" perspective, so the major media news coverage has been by necessity vague and largely focused on evaluating the Republican accusations of Democratic Party fraud, which being fictional can be fitted more easily into a bothsides narrative by balancing them against Dem denials: favorably toward the denials, which are more plausible, in more reality based and never-Trumper employing outlets such as CNN or MSNBC or the larger newspapers, favorably toward the Rep accusations in the more rightwing media such as talk radio and Fox and the propaganda feeds into Facebook.
Last edited:
Yes. And someone with a dirty mind mind use that term deliberately (or unconsciously) as innuendo. Like I said.
So why do you immediately jump to that conclusion?