egafd.com

You don't get off that easily.

You clearly stated that you would defend to the death Argie's right express his views within the law.

I said that's total tosh. You are now backtracking and trying to wriggle out of what you said.

You will lose what little credibility you have if you don't back up what you say. Admit that you would not defend to the death Argie's right express his views within the law...

Are you totally bored! I will just have to cope with my little credibility. Hopefully it won't drive me to suicide.

!wink!

No, not bored. Just keen to expose you for the disingenuous individual you are. But then I think we all knew that anyway...

!laugh! !laugh! !laugh!

Ok possum, I will put you out of your misery, because I am a kind, forgiving individual.

"most Labour MPs and those they represent then.." talking about people who despise those they are supposed to be helping.

This is shite, clearly for which you have proved unable to back up other than selecting three potentials:

1. Tristram Hunt having a go at nuns teaching in Caltholic schools. Backs up everything mates have told me about their education in Catholic schools with nuns showing much more interest in hitting their knuckles with rulers rather than teaching them anything useful.
2. Emily Thornberry - a photo without comment. Stupid thing to do but no derogatory comments accompanying the pic.
3. Brown - letting off steam

ANd that is the best you can come up with to support your "most". Pathetic!

And as for defending Argie's right to say what he thinks, I was of course considering the wider issue of freedom of speech as part of a fascist government cracking down on freedom of speech. THe sort of fascist government that arrests people for speaking out of turn. I would like to think, rightly or wrongly that I would be prepared to fight to prevent a fascist takeover.

Now that is definitely it. I will leave you to twiddle your thumbs or whatever else you do when you are bored out of your skull on a Sunday afternoon.

max_tranmere wrote:

> The purpose of every species is to reproduce itself,
> without that the species would end.

That's too simplistic. A species needs a reproduction rate that broadly sustains its population, allowing it to go down during famine and increase when recovering from it. Perhaps increasing the level of homosexuality is one of nature's ways to combat over-population.

I doubt homosexual rates have ever increased, as far as the percentage of the population gay people constitute. We'll never know however because it was always hidden by people years ago. I think it's about 1 in 10 of the population, I would imagine it has always been that percentage.