Consequential

@????. You're quite right. It is indeed 'cencus'. But black people living or born in Europe are not Europeans, no matter how you spell or misspell 'cencus'. And it's 'you're', not "your" if we're going to be pedantic. In any case, you're just butthurt because your accusation of racism was completely and publically tossed out. I bet you weren't expecting that. It's truly tedious arguing with ignorant, petty fools like you.

@Loz. Do you have an opinion to share on the link's content?

Having had accusations of racism levelled at me by another user (or thereabouts), I thought I'd use it as an opportunity to ask a question, and thus a positive and informative outcome. In the link Mr. Ali voices an opinion that many would claim falls within the parameters of racism. I say it doesn't. I say it's freedom of association. What's your opinion?

@Otta. Leaving a statement unsubstantiated followed by abandoning the thread on which you've submitted it leaves it largely invalid and unworthy of consideration. Are you always this reluctant to constructively engage in debates you've shown an interest in, despite the topic?

@Loz. Then why the childish parodies/distractions?

@????. Although Mr. Harewood was born in Birmingham, according to the profiling on the UK consensus, he's not European. I'm neither a troll or a racist. I've submitted what I consider to be a worthy topic of debate, which isn't racist. The official definition of racism is as follows: "1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." My OP reflects none of those conditions. Crys or suggestions of racism is another hallmark of the ignorant and narrow-minded who fall back on the accusation because they're unable to refute the argument by any other means.

@????. Why not? He's European.

@????. Crying troll instead of constructively engaging a controversial topic is the hallmark of the ignorant and narrow-minded. Step off and let those who want to engage it in a civil tone without negative aspersions and attacks on their character being levelled at them. You're behaving like a child.

@ Edcam. I grow tired of that talking point. Perhaps you could explain as to why you cast Farage in such a light. Does the truth make you uncomfortable?

Judging by your dismissive attempts at parody, Loz, I can only assume that you're either Israeli of a pro-Zionist. Israel's a parasitic leech on the American taxpayer and has gone far beyond what it was territorially allocated. Now that the likes of AIPAC have got their claws well and truly stuck into Washington's back through financing both Republican and Democrat election campaigns, their further violations go without sanction.

If you're emotionally affected by or ill-equipped to debate the OP then don't bother replying and leave it for those want to. @Otta. I can understand that some people may take exception to the comparison, but it's still valid, nonetheless. @Loz. You raise a valid point. However, as far as I'm aware, there's no visual/written reference to depict Christ. And like with many things of that nature, his followers and enemies alike will have embodied him in their own image. Let's not forget that much of the early, mainstream writings from when Christ was alive were written by his Roman detractors. The image prevailed.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is the title of a book by John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, published in late August 2007. It was a New York Times Best Seller. The book describes the lobby as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction". The book "focuses primarily on the lobby's influence on U.S. foreign policy and its negative effect on American interests".[4] The authors also argue that "the lobby's impact has been unintentionally harmful to Israel as well." - Wikipedia I strongly oppose the encroachment of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) into US foriegn policy and endore this book to anyone who's interested. Here's an excerpt.

I mentioned in my introductionary thread that I'd be typing some observations/comments on the subject of political correctness. Sorry for the delay. A trend stretching back over the last decade has overseen the distortion through media (mainly audio-visual) of what's a fact, and how you can alter or omit some of the fundamental aspects of that fact in order to appeal (and appease) to the broadest audience possible. Now, some will understandably argue that such a tactic makes perfect economic sense: more bums in seats, crosses boundries, future production potential, etc. But should we continue to sacrifice facts that may not appeal to everyone, but are usually undeniable facts (or in some cases of regional fiction or culture: valid assumptions) regardless, to attract a wider audience? Many of these recurring distortions are broadcasted or circulated by various media outlets and often manifest themselves (among others) in modern renditions of historical and cultural events i.e - Robin Hood. A 2006 release made by Tiger Aspect Productions for the BBC, the legend of Robin Hood, is a recent-ish case in point. Picture Friar Tuck. Most online results deliver the consensus expectation of those familiar with the character. What made the aforementioned production controversial, to a degree, was that the actor cast to play Friar Tuck is black, as opposed to the classical depiction: a white man. As good an actor as David Harewood is, his casting as Tuck was a contradiction of what's widely acknowledged/expected. This is a clear example of the more obvious axioms of political correctness (alongside intimidation): overall, positive appeal. But where does it stop? If we found ourselves somewhere in the future where actors cast to play slaves in the Transatlantic Slave Trade were white, would black people take offense at such a contradiction that's designed to appeal (and appease) to the widest possible audience, regardless of what the facts are? I'm guessing they would.

@ Red Devil. Going by recent developments, euroscepticism seems to have been the wiser bet.

@ ????. I've met Farage in person. His charisma knows no bounds and compared to the handful of Tory politicians who I've met in the past, I truly believe he's more concerned with furthering the country's interests as opposed to his own. He also shares my deep-seated loathing of political correctness, of which I shall comment on in the future.