Page 2 of 6

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 22:40
by Goat Boy
The Prof wrote:
The Modernist wrote:
The Prof wrote:Pretty much. The Haavara Agreement of 1933. Although both sides had different reasons for wanting the relocation of Jews to Palestine they agreed on the basic aim. Livingstone said, perhaps clumsily, that the Nazis were "supporting Zionism". They supported the aim of this plan.


Careful John, you're straying a bit too close to a rational viewpoint, you're meant to rant about what a cunt he is.


I don't mind Goatboy in small doses.
He's OK but I kinda guessed what David Baddiel might have to say.
Still, it's nice to know at the end that his play is on at the playhouse till 3rd June.



Why? Cos he's jewish?

And I think you're an unfunny, tedious cunt.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 22:48
by The Modernist
Goat Boy wrote:And you could start with not being such a condescending twat or dismissing people as "far right" when they aren't just because they give an alternative view on Kens weasly statement.

I should know better by now I guess but there you go.


Douglas Murray is considered to be pretty far right isn't he?

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 22:51
by The Modernist
Seriously what's with calling everyone cunts like this? I'm genuinely a bit perplexed by your behaviour. You seem to have developed some rabid hatred of the left.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 22:57
by Goat Boy
The Modernist wrote:Seriously what's with calling everyone cunts like this? I'm genuinely a bit perplexed by your behaviour. You seem to have developed some rabid hatred of the left.


Perplexed? First of all you posted a really self righteous comment in reply to something I said on the Grenfell thread - I said at the time you had pissed me off and that was a warning. You then post that comment tonight which I find condescending as hell frankly so I told you to fuck off.

Prof then patronises me with his "I don't mind Goat Boy....in small doses" comment so I called him a cunt.

I hope that's clear.

If you want to discuss this by PM then go ahead but I think I'm done here.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 23:02
by The Prof
It was meant to be a joke for goodness sake

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 23:04
by Goat Boy
Well I apologise then but such things are sometimes lost on screen.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 23:04
by The Modernist
I think giving out warnings just because you don't like an opinion is a bit rich frankly. And I don't know what to say about your over-reactions, because whatever I say will be called patronising.
I still think of you as absolutely one of BCB's good guys and a favourite poster, so I'm happy to leave it too.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 23:05
by Hugh
It was fairly obviously a joke. Although obviously since Prof posted it, it wasn't a funny one.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 23:07
by Goat Boy
The Modernist wrote:I think giving out warnings just because you don't like an opinion is a bit rich frankly. And I don't know what to say about your over-reactions, because whatever I say will be called patronising.
I still think of you as absolutely one of BCB's good guys and a favourite poster, so I'm happy to leave it too.


It wasn't an opinion, G. I will clarify by PM.

I apologise for calling you a cunt but you were patronising.

I am happy to leave it too.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 23:08
by The Prof
Hugh wrote:It was fairly obviously a joke. Although obviously since Prof posted it, it wasn't a funny one.

Glad that's cleared that up.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 03 Aug 2017, 23:11
by echolalia
I like Ken Livingstone. I like his political views and that he keeps newts.

And as for Venezuela his analysis seems reasonable. It’s a grievously fucked-up situation for sure but the arrogance and entitlement of the Venezuelan reactionary class cannot be overstated. No-one is innocent.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 04 Aug 2017, 00:54
by Copehead
Goat Boy wrote:And you could start with not being such a condescending twat or dismissing people as "far right" when they aren't just because they give an alternative view on Kens weasly statement.

I should know better by now I guess but there you go.


"Alternative view" as in did not understand in this case it seems.

Still you are not alone David Baddiel didn't seem to understand it either and he went to Oxford so he hasn't got being a thick cunt to fall back on.

Venezuela has a few major problems: Maduro is a useless, feckless idiot compared to Chavez let alone anyone else, the price of oil (especially Venezuelan oil which is heavy oil and cheaper than WTI or Brent) has more than halved, the country is hopelessly split down the middle for and against Maduro, the opposition is in the hands of your typical South American Fascist Junta types rather than some appealing democrats and the USA is on their side obviously.

All in all it is difficult seeing civil war being avoided especially with Trump in the White House.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 04 Aug 2017, 08:54
by Goat Boy
Copehead wrote:
Goat Boy wrote:And you could start with not being such a condescending twat or dismissing people as "far right" when they aren't just because they give an alternative view on Kens weasly statement.

I should know better by now I guess but there you go.


"Alternative view" as in did not understand in this case it seems.

Still you are not alone David Baddiel didn't seem to understand it either and he went to Oxford so he hasn't got being a thick cunt to fall back on.


I guess Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder didn't either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36165298?SThisFB%3FSThisFB

Worth reading for Yehuda Bauers comments:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/top-historians-take-down-livingstons-claim-that-hitler-supported-zionism/

Venezuela has a few major problems: Maduro is a useless, feckless idiot compared to Chavez let alone anyone else, the price of oil (especially Venezuelan oil which is heavy oil and cheaper than WTI or Brent) has more than halved, the country is hopelessly split down the middle for and against Maduro, the opposition is in the hands of your typical South American Fascist Junta types rather than some appealing democrats and the USA is on their side obviously.

All in all it is difficult seeing civil war being avoided especially with Trump in the White House.


Well let's just hope that the left learns a lesson from this and kills all oligarchs prior to attempting socialism. Maybe Primal Scream could write a song about just to remind us.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 04 Aug 2017, 09:31
by Nick
The Prof wrote:Pretty much. The Haavara Agreement of 1933. Although both sides had different reasons for wanting the relocation of Jews to Palestine they agreed on the basic aim. Livingstone said, perhaps clumsily, that the Nazis were "supporting Zionism". They supported the aim of this plan.


I don't buy the line about it being 'clumsy' wording. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Livingstone has form for baiting Jews.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 04 Aug 2017, 09:37
by Nick
The Modernist wrote:Douglas Murray is considered to be pretty far right isn't he?


I wouldn't say so.

He has strong views on Islam and on the immigration of Muslims (and I can understand why), but I wouldn't use the phrase 'far right'. That implies fascism and neo-Nazism, and I don't think he's said or done anything to merit being tarred with those brushes. He tends to term himself a neoconservative, which I think is probably about right.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 04 Aug 2017, 09:43
by Diamond Dog
How far right do you need to be to be considered 'far right' these days? Does neoconservative not cut the ice anymore?

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 04 Aug 2017, 09:45
by Nick
Tactful Cactus wrote:He's said worse. But its the cavalier attitude to killing people as a political solution thats offensive.


Yes. Of course he's backtracked now, saying that he's 'not in favour' of killing people.

But he has a habit of making provocative statements that are open to interpretation. I'm not sure whether it's deliberate and malign, or he's actually mentally unbalanced now.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 04 Aug 2017, 09:46
by Nick
Diamond Dog wrote:How far right do you need to be to be considered 'far right' these days? Does neoconservative not cut the ice anymore?


No, it doesn't. Just as democratic socialism is left wing, but not far left.

Fascism is far right. Conservative is not.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 04 Aug 2017, 09:54
by Diamond Dog
Okay. Thanks for the 'clarification' there.

Re: Livingstone being slightly offensive again.

Posted: 04 Aug 2017, 10:03
by Nick
Diamond Dog wrote:Okay. Thanks for the 'clarification' there.


You're welcome.