The Two-faced, hypocritical Buffoon and his Party set for a Mauling at PMQ's Today..

[lardy]

thats fair enough Eric the point I was making ( and I still find it rather amusing ) is when people dismiss a article they disagree with because its in the Mail and as you pointed out they have form , but are happy to point to a different article in the mail as fact when it is something they agree with, all seems a touch hypocritical to me ( they then go on to defend the hypocrisy )

Still enjoying this point very much. It's a great point. Look forward to getting stuck into it again soon.

[lardy]

because when the mail prints something you disagree with its a joke of a newspaper and only prints right wing lies, yet if it prints something you agree with and can use to prove a point, its the Bastion of truth , surely you can't have it both ways, or maybe you will continue to try

Pretty sure I have made that point, maybe if I repeat you will understand

It's a great point. You played a blinder.

Falls down a bit when every other paper is running the same story, but I reckon it's still a winner. Well done!

[lisvaneblue]

Matt voted Tory and nuance is beyond him so all he can do is defended them whatever happens. For some reason he’ll keep bringing up that people think the daily mail is a propaganda filled rag but won’t ever say why that is actually relevant. Unless he thinks the mail photoshopped the photo

I must confess to having a little smile to myself imagining that Dominic Cummings took the photo and kept it for an opportune moment.

[Croesy Blue]

because when the mail prints something you disagree with its a joke of a newspaper and only prints right wing lies, yet if it prints something you agree with and can use to prove a point, its the Bastion of truth , surely you can't have it both ways, or maybe you will continue to try

Pretty sure I have made that point, maybe if I repeat you will understand

No Matt you just don’t understand the difference between an opinion from a mail journalist and a photo/story taken from another source.

If you can’t work out the difference now you never will. The mail is a rag with an agenda, it prints a lot of propaganda and twists things and lies. This does not mean everything in it is automatically a lie.

A lot of people can tell the difference, their target demographic cannot.

I wonder who the target demographic is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[JamesWales]

No but you are spending the day on CCMB pretending people who are just saying it isn't ok are "furious" whilst repeatedly saying how you're not bothered and making some weird statements that I can only imagine you consider a boast about having a red wine at work. Not sure if that's much better to be honest

It's a forum isn't it?
I don't think people have to all think the same way or be outraged over the same things and if I say something and then someone repeatedly misconstrues that, or misinterprets it or does a sludge and turns it into an acid trip then I am reasonably likely to pop up and make the point again.

It's kind of fun and I think defending myself is a reasonable thing to do. Complete waste of time of course but I think that goes for every post on every football forum since the internet was invented.

And I wasn't really drinking red wine. I don't even like red wine.

[JamesWales]

No Matt you just don’t understand the difference between an opinion from a mail journalist and a photo/story taken from another source.

If you can’t work out the difference now you never will. The mail is a rag with an agenda, it prints a lot of propaganda and twists things and lies. This does not mean everything in it is automatically a lie.

A lot of people can tell the difference, their target demographic cannot.

I wonder who the target demographic is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

How you can see this with such clarity for things you oppose but not see it for things you support is just baffling.

They are all at it Croesy. You are a pawn in the left wing media's game as much as any Mail reader is for them.

How can you not see it? The truth isn't in the Mail. It's not in the guardian. It's found by piecing them together.

[Croesy Blue]

How you can see this with such clarity for things you oppose but not see it for things you support is just baffling.

They are all at it Croesy. You are a pawn in the left wing media's game as much as any Mail reader is for them.

How can you not see it? The truth isn't in the Mail. It's not in the guardian. It's found by piecing them together.

You’ve made such a tit of yourself in here already today you think you’d be quiet. Where have I said one particular source is 100% trustworthy? That doesn’t mean one source can’t be less trustworthy. You’ve made enough of a tit of yourself for one day, give it a rest ffs.

Go back to boot licking and defending people who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.

[Croesy Blue]

thats fair enough Eric the point I was making ( and I still find it rather amusing ) is when people dismiss a article they disagree with because its in the Mail and as you pointed out they have form , but are happy to point to a different article in the mail as fact when it is something they agree with, all seems a touch hypocritical to me ( they then go on to defend the hypocrisy )

How does one dismiss a photograph?

[blue matt]

How does one dismiss a photograph?

just for clarification, my post doesn't state specific articles, but you knew that

the point I have made is when people dismiss a article they disagree with because its in the Mail, but are happy to point to a different article in the mail as fact when it is something they agree with

still defending the hypocrisy of it all, thats fine, I wouldn't expect anything less

[JamesWales]

You’ve made such a tit of yourself in here already today you think you’d be quiet. Where have I said one particular source is 100% trustworthy? That doesn’t mean one source can’t be less trustworthy. You’ve made enough of a tit of yourself for one day, give it a rest ffs.

Go back to boot licking and defending people who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.

Your definition of someone making a tit of themselves is someone daring to have a different opinion to the usual political sectarians on here.

I've actually had a laugh about it today. How incomprehensible it is to some people that others have a different opinion to them. All I said was that I don't have a big issue with the photo and theres greater concerns in the world.

Are you a narcissist Croesy? I think you may be. You need to learn to deal with other people's different opinions better.

You need to chill out a bit and give the political equivalent of the old testament a rest. "Book licking", "piss on you when you're on fire" etc. This is weird stuff. Stop it, please.

[the other bob wilson]

Your definition of someone making a tit of themselves is someone daring to have a different opinion to the usual political sectarians on here.

I've actually had a laugh about it today. How incomprehensible it is to some people that others have a different opinion to them. All I said was that I don't have a big issue with the photo and theres greater concerns in the world.

Are you a narcissist Croesy? I think you may be. You need to learn to deal with other people's different opinions better.

You need to chill out a bit and give the political equivalent of the old testament a rest. "Book licking", "piss on you when you're on fire" etc. This is weird stuff. Stop it, please.

So says the man who, with a straight face it seems, was claiming that the picture which shows Johnson and his cohorts in the worst light was chosen to be sent to the Guardian. This presupposes that there were a large number of photos, and thereby a large number of incriminating images to choose from - a strange line to adopt by someone who was, I assume, meant to be defending those in the photo.

That said, apart from the usual towing of the Tory line from someone who never stops telling us how balanced he is in his approach, it became hard to make out exactly what your argument was as yesterday wore on.

Now here you are on here bright and early the next day carrying on an argument where, let's face it, you took a hell of a beating in yesterday - maybe you're just being deliberately contrary.

[Croesy Blue]

Your definition of someone making a tit of themselves is someone daring to have a different opinion to the usual political sectarians on here.

I've actually had a laugh about it today. How incomprehensible it is to some people that others have a different opinion to them. All I said was that I don't have a big issue with the photo and theres greater concerns in the world.

Are you a narcissist Croesy? I think you may be. You need to learn to deal with other people's different opinions better.

You need to chill out a bit and give the political equivalent of the old testament a rest. "Book licking", "piss on you when you're on fire" etc. This is weird stuff. Stop it, please.

Has someone broken this ****?

[JamesWales]

So says the man who, with a straight face it seems, was claiming that the picture which shows Johnson and his cohorts in the worst light was chosen to be sent to the Guardian. This presupposes that there were a large number of photos, and thereby a large number of incriminating images to choose from - a strange line to adopt by someone who was, I assume, meant to be defending those in the photo.

That said, apart from the usual towing of the Tory line from someone who never stops telling us how balanced he is in his approach, it became hard to make out exactly what your argument was as yesterday wore on.

Now here you are on here bright and early the next day carrying on an argument where, let's face it, you took a hell of a beating in yesterday - maybe you're just being deliberately contrary.

I didn't take a bearing because I wasn't defending it, I was saying it didn't cause me great concern, which obviously outraged you and the other members of angry club almost as much as the photo, given how much time you spent replying!

Sometimes you lot can be a bit annoying but yesterday wasn't one of them; it was more illuminating in casting light on how some people really do struggle to comprehend that others see thigns differently.

And still, no mention on cancelled operations in Wales. Does that not matter more? Wheres the understanding of that impact on people's lives?

In terms of balance. You and the other angries seem to think this thread is a normal rational name for a political discussion. It isnt. It's batty.

Arguing a more centrist position (ie, the govt aren't devils out to get you, not being furious about an 18 month old photo) gets you called a bootlicker or worse by a small minority of some on here, but really it's just being fairly non plussed or neutral about it. I will at least always acknowledge someone else's viewpoint..like I said, I get why others don't like it and it's a bad look, but I'm personally not exercised by it. Far more important things going on.

900,000 vaccinations yesterday btw. Keep silent on that life saving stuff and stay angry on an old photo. Great use of your time. 🙄

[JamesWales]

Has someone broken this ****?

Nice to see you with a smile on your face! Spending the day shouting at things you can't control isn't healthy, especially at this most special time of the year.

[Croesy Blue]

Nice to see you with a smile on your face! Spending the day shouting at things you can't control isn't healthy, especially at this most special time of the year.

One of us my 2 posts yesterday and one made 200 insisting they didn’t care.

[JamesWales]

One of us my 2 posts yesterday and one made 200 insisting they didn’t care.

That's because I was having fun with you lot yesterday.

Also, if people ask questions, I do try to answer them

And I've also sorted all of my christmas presents.

[lardy]

Wow, he really thinks he's on to a winner with angry/furious/outraged.

[JamesWales]

Wow, he really thinks he's on to a winner with angry/furious/outraged.

I know right. I think I may christen you the angries.

[Dorcus]

So says the man who, with a straight face it seems, was claiming that the picture which shows Johnson and his cohorts in the worst light was chosen to be sent to the Guardian. This presupposes that there were a large number of photos, and thereby a large number of incriminating images to choose from - a strange line to adopt by someone who was, I assume, meant to be defending those in the photo.

That said, apart from the usual towing of the Tory line from someone who never stops telling us how balanced he is in his approach, it became hard to make out exactly what your argument was as yesterday wore on.

Now here you are on here bright and early the next day carrying on an argument where, let's face it, you took a hell of a beating in yesterday - maybe you're just being deliberately contrary.

I can remember a time when poor old Ronnie Bird was the most annoying, deluded, ridiculous right winger on the board. Bad news for Ronnie; I think he's been toppled from his perch.

[JamesWales]

I can remember a time when poor old Ronnie Bird was the most annoying, deluded, ridiculous right winger on the board. Bad news for Ronnie; I think he's been toppled from his perch.

Nothing screams right-wing like not spending his day angrily shouting at an 18 month old photo. Borderline fascism that is comrade.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Nothing screams right-wing like not spending his day angrily shouting at an 18 month old photo. Borderline fascism that is comrade.

You remind me of feedback

In fact .....

[ninian opinian]

I must confess to having a little smile to myself imagining that Dominic Cummings took the photo and kept it for an opportune moment.

Christ he must have long arms, he’s sat opposite Johnson.

[Croesy Blue]

just for clarification, my post doesn't state specific articles, but you knew that

the point I have made is when people dismiss a article they disagree with because its in the Mail, but are happy to point to a different article in the mail as fact when it is something they agree with

still defending the hypocrisy of it all, thats fine, I wouldn't expect anything less

You only think it’s hypocrisy because you don’t understand it.

Id never use an article from the mail to back up anything but just because it’s a hate filled rag full of right wing propaganda doesn’t mean everything in it is false.

[Croesy Blue]

Still enjoying this point very much. It's a great point. Look forward to getting stuck into it again soon.

Yeah for some reason it’s brought up by Matt in every thread now even though it doesn’t have the effect he thinks it does

[goats]

Yeah for some reason it’s brought up by Matt in every thread now even though it doesn’t have the effect he thinks it does

And then you comment on every post he makes…..stalker?