Cousin_Frothy wrote:
it's not playing the man and not the ball, what you appear to be doing is concentrating on RB's verbal and written word, and missing out the rest of what is communicated in other ways, if you want to use clichés that's up to you.
If we're going to look at RB's stance for social revolution we need to asses his behaviour not only his written and verbal words, if you want to condemn such holistic observations as 'playing the man not the ball' again that's up to you, what some appear to be doing is watching the 'shiny' whilst the other hand is doing the opposed to the 'narrative'.
The working class kid is hob nobbing with the elite as he slags them off l
I don't need to tear him down, I only look at the inconsistencies between his words and his actions, he tears himself down, I merely highlight his own judgements because he himself appears to not live by them.
What you're doing is making selective assumptions and presenting them as facts. I don't think going out with a particular woman necessarily means he approves of, or hob-nobs with her relatives. I expect there are plenty of us who don't like to be associated with our partner's families and their beliefs.
All this stuff about the New Statesman - nobody who's implying that's dodgy has yet addressed the point I made earlier about John Pilger also writing for them. So is he also guilty by that association of being a sleaze? Or does it just apply to some, as & when it suits, and not others?
Oh, and do you think you could learn to trim your quotes - we don't need all the posts duplicated over & over - unless you're Vera Suza.
But RB is making strong points in his presentations about 'concentrations of wealth' surely if he thought that he would not have had his last 3 gf's all to be millionaires ?
