BNP on Question Time
- Thread starter baboon2004
- Start date
swears
preppy-kei
I know, I quite like her, but it's a bit wrong to fancy tories, isn't it?
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
The Ice Age thing was mental. Even more mental was Bonnie Greer engaging him in Ice Age discussion.
It's unacceptable to fancy Tories. I fancied one the other night, and cut off one of my fingers in protest at myself. Next time it's my cock. I consider myself duly warned.
It's unacceptable to fancy Tories. I fancied one the other night, and cut off one of my fingers in protest at myself. Next time it's my cock. I consider myself duly warned.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I had to switch off after the Neil/Abbott/Portillo surrealism. My head was too mashed after that (haven't seen that programme in yonks).
Fuck, if it's like that in Bristol, Devon (for eg) would be unthinkable.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
cheers Matt! sounds like good stuff in the classroom.
as per, Jim Denham at Shiraz nails it
i cut off two fingers a while ago Baboon in protest at my fancying Harman and Flint. we'll see if i go easy this time..
as per, Jim Denham at Shiraz nails it
i cut off two fingers a while ago Baboon in protest at my fancying Harman and Flint. we'll see if i go easy this time..
Tories are more of a laugh in bed, though, aren't they? At least you get a bit of kinky thwack action. And there's the pleasure of doing something really sordid.
Whereas Marxists just invite you back to a tent at the weekend workshop, roll over 3 minutes later, and say: "At the most abstract level of analysis, capital is self-expanding value: it goes through a series of forms in the process of self expansion: capital is returned as profit, only to then be re-invested to return more profits. It relies for its accumulation of additional value (profit) on the appropriation of unpaid labour (surplus value or ‘s’) and, as this surplus derives exclusively from living labour and not from machinery or raw materials, the capitalist is obliged to couple the introduction of labour-saving technology to a reduction not of ‘labour’ in the sense of individual average working time or the burden that falls on the working population as a whole, but of his spending on labour, i.e. his labour costs. Accordingly, the net effect of the rising productivity of labour under capitalism is the expulsion of living labour from the labour process, but in a manner that intensifies the exploitation of the workers rather than abolishing it."
Whereas Marxists just invite you back to a tent at the weekend workshop, roll over 3 minutes later, and say: "At the most abstract level of analysis, capital is self-expanding value: it goes through a series of forms in the process of self expansion: capital is returned as profit, only to then be re-invested to return more profits. It relies for its accumulation of additional value (profit) on the appropriation of unpaid labour (surplus value or ‘s’) and, as this surplus derives exclusively from living labour and not from machinery or raw materials, the capitalist is obliged to couple the introduction of labour-saving technology to a reduction not of ‘labour’ in the sense of individual average working time or the burden that falls on the working population as a whole, but of his spending on labour, i.e. his labour costs. Accordingly, the net effect of the rising productivity of labour under capitalism is the expulsion of living labour from the labour process, but in a manner that intensifies the exploitation of the workers rather than abolishing it."
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
dont' go easy on yourself. you don't deserve it.
this leads me to contemplate who the most ethically appalling person I have ever fancied is.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
i can say from personal experience that this is untrue. Marxists are very kinky...or maybe I was just lucky.
tories can be too, the difference being that with marxists i don't feel physically sick afterwards. i count that as a bonus.
the worst are New Labour.
Oh God, yeah..."can I move my hand there now? are you OK with that? oh...I actually put my willy there instead...but I didn't mean to do that...is it still OK? Because, if you feel uncomfortable, we can always...hang on...oh, sorry, it just came out, I didn't know that was going to happen". Worse than with a Jehovah's Witness.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
^ hah, nice one you pair! Martin the kink and Baboon the hair-shirt, a brutal combo 
interesting op-ed from Andrew Coates, and am fascinated w his Le Pen thoughts, not sure about his Greer views mind, when your opponent is that sinister/ridiculous i see nowt wrong w a little lowest-common-denominator
interesting op-ed from Andrew Coates, and am fascinated w his Le Pen thoughts, not sure about his Greer views mind, when your opponent is that sinister/ridiculous i see nowt wrong w a little lowest-common-denominator
A good friend of mine openly admits to fancying Saddam Hussein
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
PLus there's always the danger they might scream out "Tony!!" at some point.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I suppose some people might say that was a bit off. I always thought Stalin had a cheeky grin.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Griffin began badly and only came into his stride when most of the other panelists began to outbid each other on being tough on immigration. He was still a fairly poor, pedestrian, speaker. In this he was a big contrast with Le Pen (whose telly appearance in France is said to have marked his serious entrance into politics). Le Pen (I saw this broadcast in the early 1980s) is a true demagogue: he mixes very classical French with moments of extremely brutal vulgarity (and still does). Griffin was only capable of a few coherent bursts of populism when others came out on the theme of controlling immigration. He came across as utterly confusing in his explanations about the BNP’s turn to the model of the European electoralist far-right. That he had ‘changed’ about sums it up, with little more explanation.
It was obvious that 1) Everyone used up their ammunition about Griffin’s Nazi background far too early, and then echoed it far too often. 2) Same for the references to the zig-zags of the BNP. 3) The BNP acts as a force to draw politics further to the right on the issue of hostility to foreigners. It achieved this aim last night.
The UAF Demo was confused. If it was to protest against the BNP’s politics, then this became submerged in the issue of Banning the BNP from the BBC, or indeed any platform. Instead of attacking the issue of the BNP’s racialism, or its wider politics, this turned into a debate (or rather, a call for a non-debate) about letting them speak.
Bonnie Greer, who has British nationality, was terrible, smug and unable to relate to the debate. I say this with some sadness since I really admire the woman and thought she would deal a mortal blow to Griffin. Frankly telling everyone that we all originally come from Africa and stuff about the Neanderthals was irrelevant
Thanks for this. Agree totally wrt the difference between Le Pen and Griffin. Not all fascists are as clumsy as Griffin, obv.
The whole Churchill thing that went on for 15 minutes was fist-in-mouth stuff, now I come to remember it. If our arguments centre around deifying that man, we are well and truly screwed. Thatcher was a good war leader too, y'know.
UAF demo - agree about the confusion of the message. We were hoping for one clear message, which was against the BBC decision (so I disagree with Coates on that point). The Einstein quote that everyone knows was totalyl on point - "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything", but the slogans shouted did not always reflect this.
Re Bonnie Greer - she did stray into irrelevance, but as said upthread, you could see she was fuming (being sat next to Griffin), and that sometimes makes it difficult to rein passion in to reasonsed argument, and understandably so.
It was obvious that 1) Everyone used up their ammunition about Griffin’s Nazi background far too early, and then echoed it far too often. 2) Same for the references to the zig-zags of the BNP. 3) The BNP acts as a force to draw politics further to the right on the issue of hostility to foreigners. It achieved this aim last night.
The UAF Demo was confused. If it was to protest against the BNP’s politics, then this became submerged in the issue of Banning the BNP from the BBC, or indeed any platform. Instead of attacking the issue of the BNP’s racialism, or its wider politics, this turned into a debate (or rather, a call for a non-debate) about letting them speak.
Bonnie Greer, who has British nationality, was terrible, smug and unable to relate to the debate. I say this with some sadness since I really admire the woman and thought she would deal a mortal blow to Griffin. Frankly telling everyone that we all originally come from Africa and stuff about the Neanderthals was irrelevant
Thanks for this. Agree totally wrt the difference between Le Pen and Griffin. Not all fascists are as clumsy as Griffin, obv.
The whole Churchill thing that went on for 15 minutes was fist-in-mouth stuff, now I come to remember it. If our arguments centre around deifying that man, we are well and truly screwed. Thatcher was a good war leader too, y'know.
UAF demo - agree about the confusion of the message. We were hoping for one clear message, which was against the BBC decision (so I disagree with Coates on that point). The Einstein quote that everyone knows was totalyl on point - "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything", but the slogans shouted did not always reflect this.
Re Bonnie Greer - she did stray into irrelevance, but as said upthread, you could see she was fuming (being sat next to Griffin), and that sometimes makes it difficult to rein passion in to reasonsed argument, and understandably so.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
one more thing: i was grateful to Warsi for picking him up on his obscene usage of genocide - that was the most disgusting thing all night by a country mile
Raffia makes a good point as my middle-aged dad said the same thing. i told him what was our British cousin doing being in a senior faculty position at an American uni, in that case..
(in fairness to my old man i should point out he is very anti-BNP but only in that Old Labour for my economics, Tory for some of my social views-type way)
Raffia makes a good point as my middle-aged dad said the same thing. i told him what was our British cousin doing being in a senior faculty position at an American uni, in that case..
(in fairness to my old man i should point out he is very anti-BNP but only in that Old Labour for my economics, Tory for some of my social views-type way)
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
No contest - it's got to be the sexy Nazi bint in Last Crusade, right?
These things seem to follow a pattern:
1) Someone with an obsession for either 'diversity' or helf'n'safety makes a suggestion or comment that is, in fairness, pretty daft;
2) The suggestion is roundly derided, ignored, outvoted, quickly reversed or scaled back to something sensible;
3) The Tory press and people like Griffin pick up on 1), ignore 2) entirely and then wail about "loony Britain", "PCGM", "Can't say 'blackboard' anymore" or whatever the case may be.
Last edited: