Huguenot

Start a new thread son.

Ah, okay son. It may be that you haven't watched the video. The chap was making a point about engineered victimisation. I didn't think that lying about blacks being welfare scroungers fell into that bracket. I thought that fell into general purpose racially motivated abuse. My mistake.

Yes saleem sugarplum, because that's exactly what I'm doing here is it? You think that highlighting that your bullshit claim about black people being welfare scroungers is invented is somehow patronising the black community and making them victims? What would you like to make up next? Can we consider a rebuttal of any other monumental bullshit to be patronsing? I reckon that you're an inspired social commentator, but I'm sure that you wouldn't describe anyone who defended you from that unreasonable baseless insult to be patronising, no?

Quite right saleem, because where you said... "African American [traditional attitudes were] overridden by the opportunity to get more for less (at the expense of hard-working Americans, regardless of colour or creed)" Wasn't a comment on genetics at all? Or is African American not a genetic observation? I've possibly made a terrible terrible mistake there, and what you meant was something completely different of no genetic origin?

Oh well saleem, I wouldn't worry about it. They'll judge me on the appropriateness of calling you 'Nazi boy', they'll only judge you on whether you think black people are genetic spongers. You'll win, I'm sure.

Come on teddy bear, I'm just trying to find out if you care? What's your position? You make a lot of claims about black people milking the welfare state, so I assume you believe them. So I'm wondering whether if I can prove that it's a bunch of old charlie you're going to change your mind? I don't think so, I just think you listen to emotionally charged hate stuff. You don't care about truth, you care about skin colour. I'm playing a little game with you regarding several sources, whether it's US Census, the Department of Agriculture or whoever. Most of whom developed their figures under a republican government. No census since Bush ;-) I don't think you care, I think you've established a teeny weeny position where you've started to judge people by the colour of their skin. Whilst I think that makes you a sad small little person, I don't want other people to listen to your nonsense and think it's true. That's why I'm crapping on.

Well, I'm just wondering if you'd believe figures that are predominantly from a white republican institution?

Okaaay... So.. If my figures were from a solid source would you change your mind about that welfare polemic? Just checkin' you're a man of your word an' all that?

Boogie boogie was Buck Rogers in the 25th(!) century... Who woulda thunk that, here as we are in 1864...

Boogie boogie.... 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to xxxx xxxxx xxxx statistics *scratches nose* Come on boyo, what's in the Xs, and who is the source? Could it be? Yes it could Something's happening, something good... Something toni....

Ha ha ha ha Come on pookie, you can do better than that.

"US government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black." Come on Nazi boy, let's see you knock the welfare figures... I'm going to let you guess for a leeeedle bit, and then I'm going to spank you with them ;-) How high are you going to hang yourself from before you discover that the biggest recipients of welfare are whitey boyz??

That's right baby boy, duck the numbers :) I'm waiting for you.

Just to clarify Saleem, I've got nothing against whites, I'm just pointing out that your racial profiling is a load of old cockpull.

Don't think that was the point was it? "Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients." Think it was just tired bullshit from a bullshitter?

*unashamedly dusts the red brick detritus from the donkey, pulls up a soiled sign for the swimming pool and shuffles out a bottle of Malibu from the antimacassar - coconut juice here!*

Seems perfectly reasonable for him to turn around and say 'that's the pot calling the kettle black', no? Besides which, 'giving hima kick up the ass' seems to imply that either he deserves it as punishment, or it will help the situation. Neither could be further from the truth. The delay is due to democracy, and the responsibility lies with institutional issues with banking, financing and corruption that were far outside his influence. As for a 'kick up the ass' helping, hardly. Having said that, I wonder if some of the 'headlines' about rash comments made from financiers and politicians aren't just really a bit of a push in the right direction?

Isn't that the same thing?

It's nothing to do with a personal attack on me or Marks and Spencer advertising. The average UK adult will spend twice as much on beer every year as he does on funding the NHS. If the taxpayer wants to pay doctors more and let them retire earlier on pensions of 68,000 a year that's entirely up to them, they are fully entitled to vote in political parties on the back of 'increase our taxes NOW' arguments. But they don't do they? So you'll need a more intelligent argument?

Dominic Lawson observed this of the new deal: "The average doctor's pension if he retires at 68 will be ?68,000 a year. To put that in context: if you wanted to buy a joint annuity which would provide that sum in retirement (and for your spouse after your death), it would cost about ?2m on the open market [...] and of which over 85 per cent would come courtesy of the taxpayer." i.e. to get a Doctor's pension you'd need to save two million quid before you retired. UDT may think I don't derseve my salary, but I'll never save 2m in my lifetime, and I'm not sure that being an expert gardener or secret premiership player manager deserves much of a salary either ;-). And 85% of that money comes from the taxpayer. The 'private fund' that the Unions refer to is the NHS fund (which is as observed currently in surplus, but won't be in surplus once we've all lived longer in greater numbers). The goverment is legislating for a 65 years old retirement date, and a 14.5% salary witholding to pay for the pension. All that cash (the NHS fund or the doctor's salaries) comes from the taxpayer, and the government is quite within it's rights to negotiate the terms of those agreements. Needless to say the doctors want to retire younger, pay less and get bigger pensions.

Why, because the 20,000 London bus drivers out of 24,000 in total that will never see an Olympic passenger deserve an extra 500 quid for all their hard work?

If doctors can defer sufficient pay from the public purse to generate a 100k a year pension, then we'd have to ask whether they're currently being overpaid?

What do you make of it silverfox? He was pointing out that brutal decisions in favour of the state are impossible in democracies as things take time, and the lectures from the US or others on fiscal management are hardly made on solid foundations. Not unreasonable?

In official forms that's exactly what it's there for - to measure whether people are being discriminated against because of their enthnicity

I can really see bus drivers running the St. Hellier routes getting blasted away by the Olympic traffic. Some of those boys in Canons Park aren't going to even know what hit them once the Olympic hordes crash in on suburban North West London. Thank heavens the unions are there to protect them. They're being absolutely stitched up by Boris Komolakoff - the one Olympic visitor who mistakenly happened to make a 100 yard bus journey on his single afternoon trip to visit the grave of a long lost relative. They deserve every penny these bus drivers. Boris was hard work he was. They're not on the gravy train at all. Five hundred quid isn't nearly enough.