FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Lies and our reactions to them
Lies and our reactions to them
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9" Sounds interesting. Thanks. | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9" . Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record." Brexit isn't a scam now?!? 
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
| |||
| |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9" I listened to this, very well made podcast. It's terrible what they did. Actually has a lot of parallels with Brexit. | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. Brexit isn't a scam now?!?
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
". If you dig down through the polling you find people willing to pay a price for it! No scam ever starts off with give me a tenner and I'll give you five back next week. Immigration is one of the biggest factors in brexit, just my opinion but it would seem most people are willing to take a financial hit to bring down immigration, of course it was never going to work because the Tories just upped the non EU immigration figures. Any party wanting to take votes off them wouldn't go to far wrong with attacking they're immigration policy, just seems none of them want to!. | |||
| |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them." . Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. | |||
" Take Labour,surely whatever there plans how can they be taken seriously as they do not include weather we leaving or staying in the EU.For instance if we stay they cannot fullfill there nationalisation programme it is against EU law,corbyn knows this but people just vote on his pledges." Because what you state is simply untrue. | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. Brexit isn't a scam now?!?
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
.
If you dig down through the polling you find people willing to pay a price for it! No scam ever starts off with give me a tenner and I'll give you five back next week.
Immigration is one of the biggest factors in brexit, just my opinion but it would seem most people are willing to take a financial hit to bring down immigration, of course it was never going to work because the Tories just upped the non EU immigration figures.
Any party wanting to take votes off them wouldn't go to far wrong with attacking they're immigration policy, just seems none of them want to!."Yeah exactly a scam. Immigration is a none issue. Which has been blown up into a huge issue, specifically to make it easier to convince people to vote against their own interests. | |||
| |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. Brexit isn't a scam now?!?
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
.
If you dig down through the polling you find people willing to pay a price for it! No scam ever starts off with give me a tenner and I'll give you five back next week.
Immigration is one of the biggest factors in brexit, just my opinion but it would seem most people are willing to take a financial hit to bring down immigration, of course it was never going to work because the Tories just upped the non EU immigration figures.
Any party wanting to take votes off them wouldn't go to far wrong with attacking they're immigration policy, just seems none of them want to!.
Yeah exactly a scam. Immigration is a none issue. Which has been blown up into a huge issue, specifically to make it easier to convince people to vote against their own interests.". It's actually 70% of adults when polled that want immigration reduced, 52% want it reduced significantly and only 5% want to see it increased. I don't know how that's a none issue?. | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody." Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering? | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?" . You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? | |||
" Take Labour,surely whatever there plans how can they be taken seriously as they do not include weather we leaving or staying in the EU.For instance if we stay they cannot fullfill there nationalisation programme it is against EU law,corbyn knows this but people just vote on his pledges. Because what you state is simply untrue." You do not want to know the truth do you?All you do is crave to live in poverty and cannot see it | |||
| |||
" Take Labour,surely whatever there plans how can they be taken seriously as they do not include weather we leaving or staying in the EU.For instance if we stay they cannot fullfill there nationalisation programme it is against EU law,corbyn knows this but people just vote on his pledges. Because what you state is simply untrue.You do not want to know the truth do you?All you do is crave to live in poverty and cannot see it" The EU state aid rules only mean that you cannot subsidise or buy a company that would otherwise fail. Privatisation is allowable if you can afford it and don't terrify the markets. The only easy option is rail and buses as they simply don't renew contracts. | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means?" I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify. | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify." . It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. Brexit isn't a scam now?!?
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
.
If you dig down through the polling you find people willing to pay a price for it! No scam ever starts off with give me a tenner and I'll give you five back next week.
Immigration is one of the biggest factors in brexit, just my opinion but it would seem most people are willing to take a financial hit to bring down immigration, of course it was never going to work because the Tories just upped the non EU immigration figures.
Any party wanting to take votes off them wouldn't go to far wrong with attacking they're immigration policy, just seems none of them want to!.
Yeah exactly a scam. Immigration is a none issue. Which has been blown up into a huge issue, specifically to make it easier to convince people to vote against their own interests..
It's actually 70% of adults when polled that want immigration reduced, 52% want it reduced significantly and only 5% want to see it increased.
I don't know how that's a none issue?."okay. let's go back to basics. There is a difference between a real issue. Let's say. Housing. And a made up issue. Let's say immigration. Housing requires investment to fix. The investment goes to the benefit of poorer people. Whom the current government does not care about. Providing housing does not nothing for their agenda set out to them by the corporations whom they work for. Immigration, which has a net positive effect on the UK economically and culturally (not to mention the responsibility we have for taking people from countries we've invaded over the past number of years), has been demonised by the right wing media for years and years. And is a very useful scapegoat for people who wish to either, distract from not tacking real issue, like housing, or to coerce people to vote for some absolute bullshit, like brexit. Just because some random poll (which I am assuming was in the Sun/Express/Mail), says some people think something. Doesn't mean that it's real. | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. Brexit isn't a scam now?!?
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
.
If you dig down through the polling you find people willing to pay a price for it! No scam ever starts off with give me a tenner and I'll give you five back next week.
Immigration is one of the biggest factors in brexit, just my opinion but it would seem most people are willing to take a financial hit to bring down immigration, of course it was never going to work because the Tories just upped the non EU immigration figures.
Any party wanting to take votes off them wouldn't go to far wrong with attacking they're immigration policy, just seems none of them want to!.
Yeah exactly a scam. Immigration is a none issue. Which has been blown up into a huge issue, specifically to make it easier to convince people to vote against their own interests..
It's actually 70% of adults when polled that want immigration reduced, 52% want it reduced significantly and only 5% want to see it increased.
I don't know how that's a none issue?.
okay. let's go back to basics.
There is a difference between a real issue. Let's say. Housing. And a made up issue. Let's say immigration.
Housing requires investment to fix. The investment goes to the benefit of poorer people. Whom the current government does not care about. Providing housing does not nothing for their agenda set out to them by the corporations whom they work for.
Immigration, which has a net positive effect on the UK economically and culturally (not to mention the responsibility we have for taking people from countries we've invaded over the past number of years), has been demonised by the right wing media for years and years. And is a very useful scapegoat for people who wish to either, distract from not tacking real issue, like housing, or to coerce people to vote for some absolute bullshit, like brexit.
Just because some random poll (which I am assuming was in the Sun/Express/Mail), says some people think something. Doesn't mean that it's real.
". No it was yougov, although some there bullshit  .
"We've invaded" who me and my next door neighbour invaded, the village I live in maybe?.
Oh you mean that government you think is evil invaded, and you think more and bigger government is the solution? and those corporations who you think are evil, yet there Pro immigration, massively Pro immigration, why would they convince 70% of adults that we need less immigration?.
I've got a much easier answer (Occam's razor) the 70% have just seen the immigration scale and think it's way to much? No massive conspiracy theory needed. | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?." So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers? | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. Brexit isn't a scam now?!?
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
.
If you dig down through the polling you find people willing to pay a price for it! No scam ever starts off with give me a tenner and I'll give you five back next week.
Immigration is one of the biggest factors in brexit, just my opinion but it would seem most people are willing to take a financial hit to bring down immigration, of course it was never going to work because the Tories just upped the non EU immigration figures.
Any party wanting to take votes off them wouldn't go to far wrong with attacking they're immigration policy, just seems none of them want to!.
Yeah exactly a scam. Immigration is a none issue. Which has been blown up into a huge issue, specifically to make it easier to convince people to vote against their own interests..
It's actually 70% of adults when polled that want immigration reduced, 52% want it reduced significantly and only 5% want to see it increased.
I don't know how that's a none issue?.
okay. let's go back to basics.
There is a difference between a real issue. Let's say. Housing. And a made up issue. Let's say immigration.
Housing requires investment to fix. The investment goes to the benefit of poorer people. Whom the current government does not care about. Providing housing does not nothing for their agenda set out to them by the corporations whom they work for.
Immigration, which has a net positive effect on the UK economically and culturally (not to mention the responsibility we have for taking people from countries we've invaded over the past number of years), has been demonised by the right wing media for years and years. And is a very useful scapegoat for people who wish to either, distract from not tacking real issue, like housing, or to coerce people to vote for some absolute bullshit, like brexit.
Just because some random poll (which I am assuming was in the Sun/Express/Mail), says some people think something. Doesn't mean that it's real.
.
No it was yougov, although some there bullshit .
"We've invaded" who me and my next door neighbour invaded, the village I live in maybe?.
Oh you mean that government you think is evil invaded, and you think more and bigger government is the solution? and those corporations who you think are evil, yet there Pro immigration, massively Pro immigration, why would they convince 70% of adults that we need less immigration?.
I've got a much easier answer (Occam's razor) the 70% have just seen the immigration scale and think it's way to much? No massive conspiracy theory needed. "Nah. Opinion on immigration directly tracks how prosperous people feel. Do some of your non-referenced research | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?" . I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. Brexit isn't a scam now?!?
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
.
If you dig down through the polling you find people willing to pay a price for it! No scam ever starts off with give me a tenner and I'll give you five back next week.
Immigration is one of the biggest factors in brexit, just my opinion but it would seem most people are willing to take a financial hit to bring down immigration, of course it was never going to work because the Tories just upped the non EU immigration figures.
Any party wanting to take votes off them wouldn't go to far wrong with attacking they're immigration policy, just seems none of them want to!.
Yeah exactly a scam. Immigration is a none issue. Which has been blown up into a huge issue, specifically to make it easier to convince people to vote against their own interests..
It's actually 70% of adults when polled that want immigration reduced, 52% want it reduced significantly and only 5% want to see it increased.
I don't know how that's a none issue?.
okay. let's go back to basics.
There is a difference between a real issue. Let's say. Housing. And a made up issue. Let's say immigration.
Housing requires investment to fix. The investment goes to the benefit of poorer people. Whom the current government does not care about. Providing housing does not nothing for their agenda set out to them by the corporations whom they work for.
Immigration, which has a net positive effect on the UK economically and culturally (not to mention the responsibility we have for taking people from countries we've invaded over the past number of years), has been demonised by the right wing media for years and years. And is a very useful scapegoat for people who wish to either, distract from not tacking real issue, like housing, or to coerce people to vote for some absolute bullshit, like brexit.
Just because some random poll (which I am assuming was in the Sun/Express/Mail), says some people think something. Doesn't mean that it's real.
.
No it was yougov, although some there bullshit .
"We've invaded" who me and my next door neighbour invaded, the village I live in maybe?.
Oh you mean that government you think is evil invaded, and you think more and bigger government is the solution? and those corporations who you think are evil, yet there Pro immigration, massively Pro immigration, why would they convince 70% of adults that we need less immigration?.
I've got a much easier answer (Occam's razor) the 70% have just seen the immigration scale and think it's way to much? No massive conspiracy theory needed.
Nah.
Opinion on immigration directly tracks how prosperous people feel.
Do some of your non-referenced research "Thanks. I pretty much give up. He's either being deliberately awkward for the sake of it. Or he is just unable to think critically and objectively about anything. | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen?" Education is the answer. If more people have access to knowledge and the ability to analyse the information then there would be less confused people. Like you. Who think that immigration is a problem. | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. Brexit isn't a scam now?!?
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
.
If you dig down through the polling you find people willing to pay a price for it! No scam ever starts off with give me a tenner and I'll give you five back next week.
Immigration is one of the biggest factors in brexit, just my opinion but it would seem most people are willing to take a financial hit to bring down immigration, of course it was never going to work because the Tories just upped the non EU immigration figures.
Any party wanting to take votes off them wouldn't go to far wrong with attacking they're immigration policy, just seems none of them want to!.
Yeah exactly a scam. Immigration is a none issue. Which has been blown up into a huge issue, specifically to make it easier to convince people to vote against their own interests..
It's actually 70% of adults when polled that want immigration reduced, 52% want it reduced significantly and only 5% want to see it increased.
I don't know how that's a none issue?.
okay. let's go back to basics.
There is a difference between a real issue. Let's say. Housing. And a made up issue. Let's say immigration.
Housing requires investment to fix. The investment goes to the benefit of poorer people. Whom the current government does not care about. Providing housing does not nothing for their agenda set out to them by the corporations whom they work for.
Immigration, which has a net positive effect on the UK economically and culturally (not to mention the responsibility we have for taking people from countries we've invaded over the past number of years), has been demonised by the right wing media for years and years. And is a very useful scapegoat for people who wish to either, distract from not tacking real issue, like housing, or to coerce people to vote for some absolute bullshit, like brexit.
Just because some random poll (which I am assuming was in the Sun/Express/Mail), says some people think something. Doesn't mean that it's real.
.
No it was yougov, although some there bullshit .
"We've invaded" who me and my next door neighbour invaded, the village I live in maybe?.
Oh you mean that government you think is evil invaded, and you think more and bigger government is the solution? and those corporations who you think are evil, yet there Pro immigration, massively Pro immigration, why would they convince 70% of adults that we need less immigration?.
I've got a much easier answer (Occam's razor) the 70% have just seen the immigration scale and think it's way to much? No massive conspiracy theory needed.
Nah.
Opinion on immigration directly tracks how prosperous people feel.
Do some of your non-referenced research ". I never said immigration was bad or that people wanted to stop it or that they thought it was even bad. What I actually said is that yougov polls find 70% of adults wanted it reduced and 52% significantly reduced, those figures dropped down slightly this year to 63% but have been somewhat consistent for many years now, so if immigration was one of the main topics for brexit and polls have shown the UK public want it reduced and yet no political side even attempts it, isn't obvious you'd get a brexit?. I mean sure since brexit the Tories have just upped massively non EU immigration so it's now still at record highs so that lessening brexit immigration hasn't really meant shit I'll agree. Still the "real natives" as you like to call them still ain't happy about it, so I'm not sure how that's going to pan out..? | |||
| |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? Education is the answer. If more people have access to knowledge and the ability to analyse the information then there would be less confused people. Like you. Who think that immigration is a problem." . Access to knowledge? What like a magical thing called the tinterweb .
Funny you couldn't even manage to look up it was yougov poll and just assumed it was the daily mail, maybe you should try your own medicine | |||
 | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? Education is the answer. If more people have access to knowledge and the ability to analyse the information then there would be less confused people. Like you. Who think that immigration is a problem.. Access to knowledge? What like a magical thing called the tinterweb .
Funny you couldn't even manage to look up it was yougov poll and just assumed it was the daily mail, maybe you should try your own medicine "So I should scour millions of polls on line. In an attempt to try to find some information you referenced from one poll? There is information on the web. But the problem is, people are unable to analyse it properly, and either believe, or disbelieve it. Completely blindly. | |||
"I was going to post this as a thread but it is relevant here. It's a BBC podcast on The Missing Crypto Queen. A huge global scam. Interesting in itself but the third episode goes into the psychology of believing in a scam and excluding other information. It's a cult. Brexit is a bigger cult than politics in general and is going strong even once the feet of clay are washed away... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07pdnw9. Scams rely on greed,a something for nothing policy, you put ten in and get a hundred out. It would appear when you dig deep, people are willing to even lose out personally over brexit, whatever brexit is, it isn't a scam. There's one policy the Tories would be slammed on with the voters but no other party seems to mention it. There immigration record. Brexit isn't a scam now?!?
We should at least try to keep this vaguely withing the bounds of reality.
.
If you dig down through the polling you find people willing to pay a price for it! No scam ever starts off with give me a tenner and I'll give you five back next week.
Immigration is one of the biggest factors in brexit, just my opinion but it would seem most people are willing to take a financial hit to bring down immigration, of course it was never going to work because the Tories just upped the non EU immigration figures.
Any party wanting to take votes off them wouldn't go to far wrong with attacking they're immigration policy, just seems none of them want to!.
Yeah exactly a scam. Immigration is a none issue. Which has been blown up into a huge issue, specifically to make it easier to convince people to vote against their own interests..
It's actually 70% of adults when polled that want immigration reduced, 52% want it reduced significantly and only 5% want to see it increased.
I don't know how that's a none issue?."What's behind their desires? Is that really their biggest priority? What's the accuracy of their data upon what EU free movement has achieved for the economy? Have austerity measures reduced the quality of their lives? How appropriate was the local funding for state services there? Hospitals? Education? Housing? Immigrants have been scapegoats for many, as deflection tactics away from the right wing inadequacies of prudent management of the economy. | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen?" It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. How did you do seeing how prosperity and opinion on immigration tracks? Why's the lack of education an indictment? Education is free to 18 and even now attainable beyond that. The "ethnic British" don't seem to want it yet they also don't want immigrants to do those jobs. Is it more nuanced than that? Do they want immigrants to do the cleaning or not? | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? Education is the answer. If more people have access to knowledge and the ability to analyse the information then there would be less confused people. Like you. Who think that immigration is a problem.. Access to knowledge? What like a magical thing called the tinterweb .
Funny you couldn't even manage to look up it was yougov poll and just assumed it was the daily mail, maybe you should try your own medicine
So I should scour millions of polls on line. In an attempt to try to find some information you referenced from one poll?
There is information on the web. But the problem is, people are unable to analyse it properly, and either believe, or disbelieve it. Completely blindly.
". No need to scour millions and millions of pages, some egghead invented this thing called a search engine, it's really easy you just type in say, does the UK want to reduce immigration and voila, your first hit is yougov polling. Next to the figures is more "nuanced"(I threw that word in for you)polling, like what type of immigration would you like to see, what type of immigration would you want less of, is immigration on the whole good or bad and you know what, it really helps to analyse the original polling better. Your welcome | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. " . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4?  .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know "I am trying to work out what you are saying. It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others. We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular. The solution is less. Alternatively, say what you mean. | |||
 | |||
""He who tells the world first is believed." When you hear something for the first time, it creates a new little space in your head, a new framework. After that, every piece of new information about that topic is processed through the mark left by the original information. No-one ever wants to admit to being duped, to having something false imprinted on their mind. So people cope by dismissing what someone later says is the truth as a lie. It takes a lot of truth before it begins to erase that first impression. "Propaganda works best when those being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will" - Goebbels. " ********************************************************* You speak for yourself and generalise if you will. My own mind does not conform nor even compare to this "universal simple model" you have described above. Bizarre and alien to myself....., obviously I cannot and would not speak for others but, if this IS how you percieve your own psyche and you DO indeed believe it to be so, then, it speaks volumes to me and confirms one or two impressions I already have of you. Fascinating you are...., certainly. (My opinion, I may add...) | |||
| |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? Education is the answer. If more people have access to knowledge and the ability to analyse the information then there would be less confused people. Like you. Who think that immigration is a problem.. Access to knowledge? What like a magical thing called the tinterweb .
Funny you couldn't even manage to look up it was yougov poll and just assumed it was the daily mail, maybe you should try your own medicine
So I should scour millions of polls on line. In an attempt to try to find some information you referenced from one poll?
There is information on the web. But the problem is, people are unable to analyse it properly, and either believe, or disbelieve it. Completely blindly.
.
No need to scour millions and millions of pages, some egghead invented this thing called a search engine, it's really easy you just type in say, does the UK want to reduce immigration and voila, your first hit is yougov polling.
Next to the figures is more "nuanced"(I threw that word in for you)polling, like what type of immigration would you like to see, what type of immigration would you want less of, is immigration on the whole good or bad and you know what, it really helps to analyse the original polling better.
Your welcome "Checked out the poll. YouGov does say there's a difference between immigration and immigrants. Higher proportion (75%) believe immigration is not in control. But 10% has a problem with ethnicity. I guess your not in the 10% man on fire? | |||
| |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? Education is the answer. If more people have access to knowledge and the ability to analyse the information then there would be less confused people. Like you. Who think that immigration is a problem.. Access to knowledge? What like a magical thing called the tinterweb .
Funny you couldn't even manage to look up it was yougov poll and just assumed it was the daily mail, maybe you should try your own medicine
So I should scour millions of polls on line. In an attempt to try to find some information you referenced from one poll?
There is information on the web. But the problem is, people are unable to analyse it properly, and either believe, or disbelieve it. Completely blindly.
.
No need to scour millions and millions of pages, some egghead invented this thing called a search engine, it's really easy you just type in say, does the UK want to reduce immigration and voila, your first hit is yougov polling.
Next to the figures is more "nuanced"(I threw that word in for you)polling, like what type of immigration would you like to see, what type of immigration would you want less of, is immigration on the whole good or bad and you know what, it really helps to analyse the original polling better.
Your welcome
Checked out the poll. YouGov does say there's a difference between immigration and immigrants. Higher proportion (75%) believe immigration is not in control. But 10% has a problem with ethnicity. I guess your not in the 10% man on fire?"From the data there is no clear consensus on why they think it's not under control. YouGov even say they are what they perceive and not what is true. So from the poll people think that there is a problem but don't have a consensus in why. Which is based on perception and not fact. These are based on opinions. So as a statiscian the poll is is interesting and true but opinion only. The question is, what are the facts of immigration. | |||
""He who tells the world first is believed." When you hear something for the first time, it creates a new little space in your head, a new framework. After that, every piece of new information about that topic is processed through the mark left by the original information. No-one ever wants to admit to being duped, to having something false imprinted on their mind. So people cope by dismissing what someone later says is the truth as a lie. It takes a lot of truth before it begins to erase that first impression. "Propaganda works best when those being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will" - Goebbels. ********************************************************* You speak for yourself and generalise if you will. My own mind does not conform nor even compare to this "universal simple model" you have described above. Bizarre and alien to myself....., obviously I cannot and would not speak for others but, if this IS how you percieve your own psyche and you DO indeed believe it to be so, then, it speaks volumes to me and confirms one or two impressions I already have of you. Fascinating you are...., certainly. (My opinion, I may add...)" It's lucky that propoganda, targeted political messaging and the repetition of lies and fake news isn't widespread otherwise people might change their voting behaviour and both state actors and private companies might spend massive time and resource on it | |||
| |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean.". I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean". Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you) | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? Education is the answer. If more people have access to knowledge and the ability to analyse the information then there would be less confused people. Like you. Who think that immigration is a problem.. Access to knowledge? What like a magical thing called the tinterweb .
Funny you couldn't even manage to look up it was yougov poll and just assumed it was the daily mail, maybe you should try your own medicine
So I should scour millions of polls on line. In an attempt to try to find some information you referenced from one poll?
There is information on the web. But the problem is, people are unable to analyse it properly, and either believe, or disbelieve it. Completely blindly.
.
No need to scour millions and millions of pages, some egghead invented this thing called a search engine, it's really easy you just type in say, does the UK want to reduce immigration and voila, your first hit is yougov polling.
Next to the figures is more "nuanced"(I threw that word in for you)polling, like what type of immigration would you like to see, what type of immigration would you want less of, is immigration on the whole good or bad and you know what, it really helps to analyse the original polling better.
Your welcome
Checked out the poll. YouGov does say there's a difference between immigration and immigrants. Higher proportion (75%) believe immigration is not in control. But 10% has a problem with ethnicity. I guess your not in the 10% man on fire?". In the context were talking about ethnicity means British born and bread with British culture, I'm of the opinion that when immigration is done correctly this is maintained, when it's over done, then you get multiculturalism, which is a misnomer because what you actually get is mono culturalism living in the same space, nobody mixes and everybody stays separated (human nature, we tend to stick to our own tribe so to speak). The polls say Immigration isn't a problem and neither is ethnicity of the immigrants, scale is important. Were doing to much to quickly in a very densely populated country already and this has been consistent polling for some time, why no party seems to want to tackle it I've no idea. | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean..
I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean".
Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you) "No, you haven't. You have been talking about ethnicity. It's nothing to do with ethnicity. Obvious physical difference. It's culture and integration that you're talking about isn't it? You still haven't found any link between prosperity and opinion on immigration? Does your expert Google searching not turn anything up? Do you think there is no connection? Do you think that LESS immigration will make people happier if they cannot get hospital treatment and their streets aren't cleaned and their Uber doesn't turn up? You really are on fire with your patronising comments. Not so much with thinking through what you're trying to look clever about | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean..
I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean".
Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you)
No, you haven't.
You have been talking about ethnicity. It's nothing to do with ethnicity.
Obvious physical difference.
It's culture and integration that you're talking about isn't it?
You really are on fire with your patronising comments. Not so much with thinking through what you're trying to look clever about ". I'm sorry I really can't help being patronising to your comments as it's a self defense to your pompous ones!. Yes yes I wrote ethnic and what's more I meant ethnic despite your Cathy Newman so what your saying is comments | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean..
I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean".
Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you)
No, you haven't.
You have been talking about ethnicity. It's nothing to do with ethnicity.
Obvious physical difference.
It's culture and integration that you're talking about isn't it?
You really are on fire with your patronising comments. Not so much with thinking through what you're trying to look clever about .
I'm sorry I really can't help being patronising to your comments as it's a self defense to your pompous ones!.
Yes yes I wrote ethnic and what's more I meant ethnic despite your Cathy Newman so what your saying is comments "Yawn. | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean..
I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean".
Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you)
No, you haven't.
You have been talking about ethnicity. It's nothing to do with ethnicity.
Obvious physical difference.
It's culture and integration that you're talking about isn't it?
You really are on fire with your patronising comments. Not so much with thinking through what you're trying to look clever about .
I'm sorry I really can't help being patronising to your comments as it's a self defense to your pompous ones!.
Yes yes I wrote ethnic and what's more I meant ethnic despite your Cathy Newman so what your saying is comments
Yawn.". Is this last word syndrome?. Sigh | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean..
I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean".
Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you)
No, you haven't.
You have been talking about ethnicity. It's nothing to do with ethnicity.
Obvious physical difference.
It's culture and integration that you're talking about isn't it?
You really are on fire with your patronising comments. Not so much with thinking through what you're trying to look clever about .
I'm sorry I really can't help being patronising to your comments as it's a self defense to your pompous ones!.
Yes yes I wrote ethnic and what's more I meant ethnic despite your Cathy Newman so what your saying is comments
Yawn..
Is this last word syndrome?.
Sigh "You made a statement. Said you were being absolutely clear. Contradicted yourself. Said you were being absolutely clear. Unable to find any information on the internet that implies a link between opinion on immigration and economic prosperity. Unable to identify if opinion on immigration is tied to people's perceived skills or if they are a positive contribution to the UK. Unable to specify if a non ethnic British Italian is more or less of an immigration "problem" than a non ethnic British South Asian. Attempted to mock me for calling you out on it. The last word is yours although all of your previous ones are available to read | |||
| |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie." Yes both sides lie. The right wing bunch seem to lie far more lately, though. And it's worse when people in power lie because the lies cover or excuse malfeasance. | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. Yes both sides lie. The right wing bunch seem to lie far more lately, though. And it's worse when people in power lie because the lies cover or excuse malfeasance." Lying openly no longer seems to be a bar to electoral success so what difference now? This will only change if there is an electoral punishment. If not, then I'm not sure how political decisions will be made. We seem to be just about at that point though. | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie." I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. | |||
" Take Labour,surely whatever there plans how can they be taken seriously as they do not include weather we leaving or staying in the EU.For instance if we stay they cannot fullfill there nationalisation programme it is against EU law,corbyn knows this but people just vote on his pledges. Because what you state is simply untrue." It's true that nationalisation is not against EU rules. But not giving fair compensation to current owners and subsidising any industry may be. | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean..
I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean".
Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you)
No, you haven't.
You have been talking about ethnicity. It's nothing to do with ethnicity.
Obvious physical difference.
It's culture and integration that you're talking about isn't it?
You really are on fire with your patronising comments. Not so much with thinking through what you're trying to look clever about .
I'm sorry I really can't help being patronising to your comments as it's a self defense to your pompous ones!.
Yes yes I wrote ethnic and what's more I meant ethnic despite your Cathy Newman so what your saying is comments
Yawn..
Is this last word syndrome?.
Sigh
You made a statement. Said you were being absolutely clear. Contradicted yourself. Said you were being absolutely clear.
Unable to find any information on the internet that implies a link between opinion on immigration and economic prosperity.
Unable to identify if opinion on immigration is tied to people's perceived skills or if they are a positive contribution to the UK.
Unable to specify if a non ethnic British Italian is more or less of an immigration "problem" than a non ethnic British South Asian.
Attempted to mock me for calling you out on it.
The last word is yours although all of your previous ones are available to read ". I only mock you because your so mockable .
In this context ethnic British means people born in Britain or as you put it "the real natives"
So take your race batting nonsense and sling your hook .
| |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. " Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises?" There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean..
I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean".
Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you)
No, you haven't.
You have been talking about ethnicity. It's nothing to do with ethnicity.
Obvious physical difference.
It's culture and integration that you're talking about isn't it?
You really are on fire with your patronising comments. Not so much with thinking through what you're trying to look clever about .
I'm sorry I really can't help being patronising to your comments as it's a self defense to your pompous ones!.
Yes yes I wrote ethnic and what's more I meant ethnic despite your Cathy Newman so what your saying is comments
Yawn..
Is this last word syndrome?.
Sigh
You made a statement. Said you were being absolutely clear. Contradicted yourself. Said you were being absolutely clear.
Unable to find any information on the internet that implies a link between opinion on immigration and economic prosperity.
Unable to identify if opinion on immigration is tied to people's perceived skills or if they are a positive contribution to the UK.
Unable to specify if a non ethnic British Italian is more or less of an immigration "problem" than a non ethnic British South Asian.
Attempted to mock me for calling you out on it.
The last word is yours although all of your previous ones are available to read .
I only mock you because your so mockable .
In this context ethnic British means people born in Britain or as you put it "the real natives"
So take your race batting nonsense and sling your hook.
"You are hilarious. You don't even know what you've written 
"it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two."
If ethnic British means born in Britain, then it doesn't matter where anyone's mother's are born does it?
You said what you meant did you? | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys "The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie. | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie."The "no one knows" line is a cop out. Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion. The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote. There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example... | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean..
I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean".
Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you)
No, you haven't.
You have been talking about ethnicity. It's nothing to do with ethnicity.
Obvious physical difference.
It's culture and integration that you're talking about isn't it?
You really are on fire with your patronising comments. Not so much with thinking through what you're trying to look clever about .
I'm sorry I really can't help being patronising to your comments as it's a self defense to your pompous ones!.
Yes yes I wrote ethnic and what's more I meant ethnic despite your Cathy Newman so what your saying is comments
Yawn..
Is this last word syndrome?.
Sigh
You made a statement. Said you were being absolutely clear. Contradicted yourself. Said you were being absolutely clear.
Unable to find any information on the internet that implies a link between opinion on immigration and economic prosperity.
Unable to identify if opinion on immigration is tied to people's perceived skills or if they are a positive contribution to the UK.
Unable to specify if a non ethnic British Italian is more or less of an immigration "problem" than a non ethnic British South Asian.
Attempted to mock me for calling you out on it.
The last word is yours although all of your previous ones are available to read .
I only mock you because your so mockable .
In this context ethnic British means people born in Britain or as you put it "the real natives"
So take your race batting nonsense and sling your hook.
You are hilarious. You don't even know what you've written
"it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two."
If ethnic British means born in Britain, then it doesn't matter where anyone's mother's are born does it?
You said what you meant did you? ". Oh Jesus you are a nitpicking nitwit aren't you. Yes I'm pretty what I wrote was easily understood by everybody else reading it except you. Ok so just for you I'll qualify that figure on white British, there I said white are you happy now and no white Italians don't count either or white French or black French or pink flamingos. The whole conversation was about scale of immigration and integration 1 million every four years is to much in my opinion and I'm in the 70% when polled who think it's to much. But like I said, don't panic as no party is doing anything about it anyhow. | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example..."Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it. Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen" | |||
"Scaremongering over immigration is an insidious tactic many politicians have used over the years. And the fears are based on a fundamental lie. Immigration is not a bad thing. It's actually very good. Immigrants produce more money for the economy than they take out of it. They commit less crime than natives of a country too. They provide much needed staff for many jobs that need to be done eg in the NHS. The fears are stoked by certain politicians for the political gain of those politicians. If the scared voters thought about it, they might realise they have far more in common with the immigrants than the rich and privileged politicians who rule them.. Some of that is true but it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two. 1 million every four years is alot when you already have one of the highest figures for population density. I don't think anybody in the mainstream is against immigration, it's the scale of it over the last twenty years they've started to resent and that's not good for anybody. Am I the problem then? Not British enough? Perhaps the "real natives" should either lower themselves to fruit picking or educate themselves enough to practise medicine or engineering?. You personally? I dont think it works like that. I'm guessing your not ethnically British?. Why are you putting "real natives" ,surely you know what ethnic British means? I am personally part of the "problem" you are describing then. How would you like to "solve" those like me? What about our children? Are "we" making "you" a minority? Is the child of an Italian ethnic British? Are they more or less of a "problem"? Am I being a snowflake? Am I "deliberately" misunderstanding? Perhaps you should clarify.. It's hard to tell your simply stating questions, I'd say your being somewhat snowflakish over a very simple statement I made. The "problem" as your referring to it? is when I said there's to much immigration right?. So what's so contentious about that, 70% of UK adults want to see immigration figures go down, there's to much, this has been known for years, when you ignore it you get shit like brexit no?. So my parents were "too much" immigration and I am making "ethnic British" people minorities. You didn't say of the children of Italians were do the same thing. Still. What's the solution? Fewer new immigrants? Do fewer children of immigrants solve the "problem" too? What is the "problem" that needs fixing? How does that solve the need for care workers and engineers?. I don't think it was just your parents no and yes fewer new immigrants!. Its a damning indictment when the UK needs immigrant engineers, that's like taking coal to Newcastle, how the fuck did that happen? It was my parents. It's me as well it seems, but not my Italian friend who's parents came over at the same time as me. That is what you're saying, right? People don't dislike immigrants that they actually know, they dislike immigrants "in general". The "other" has been blamed for everything throughout history, but that is rarely because people inherently believe it. It's because they are told that the other is to blame. . So what your saying is....Have you considered applying for Cathy Newman's job on ch4? .
You are being slightly Snowflakeery now mate, just letting you know
I am trying to work out what you are saying.
It isn't people like my parents or me that "ethnic British" don't like. It's others.
We don't know if Italian immigrants are unpopular.
The solution is less.
Alternatively, say what you mean..
I have said exactly what I mean, it's there in black and white, it's not a cryptic crossword for you to reconfigure and purport what I "really mean".
Why are you obsessed with Italians? At a pinch I'd say Italians aren't ethnic British, the clues in the name Italian and yes obviously the solution is LESS (big bold letters just for you)
No, you haven't.
You have been talking about ethnicity. It's nothing to do with ethnicity.
Obvious physical difference.
It's culture and integration that you're talking about isn't it?
You really are on fire with your patronising comments. Not so much with thinking through what you're trying to look clever about .
I'm sorry I really can't help being patronising to your comments as it's a self defense to your pompous ones!.
Yes yes I wrote ethnic and what's more I meant ethnic despite your Cathy Newman so what your saying is comments
Yawn..
Is this last word syndrome?.
Sigh
You made a statement. Said you were being absolutely clear. Contradicted yourself. Said you were being absolutely clear.
Unable to find any information on the internet that implies a link between opinion on immigration and economic prosperity.
Unable to identify if opinion on immigration is tied to people's perceived skills or if they are a positive contribution to the UK.
Unable to specify if a non ethnic British Italian is more or less of an immigration "problem" than a non ethnic British South Asian.
Attempted to mock me for calling you out on it.
The last word is yours although all of your previous ones are available to read .
I only mock you because your so mockable .
In this context ethnic British means people born in Britain or as you put it "the real natives"
So take your race batting nonsense and sling your hook.
You are hilarious. You don't even know what you've written
"it's also true that no ethnic group wants to become a minority in their own country, when you have 40% of live births to foreign born mothers then as they say in n/Ireland the demographics are just a matter of a generation or two."
If ethnic British means born in Britain, then it doesn't matter where anyone's mother's are born does it?
You said what you meant did you? .
Oh Jesus you are a nitpicking nitwit aren't you.
Yes I'm pretty what I wrote was easily understood by everybody else reading it except you.
Ok so just for you I'll qualify that figure on white British, there I said white are you happy now and no white Italians don't count either or white French or black French or pink flamingos.
The whole conversation was about scale of immigration and integration 1 million every four years is to much in my opinion and I'm in the 70% when polled who think it's to much.
But like I said, don't panic as no party is doing anything about it anyhow."It's not "nit picking". It's fundamental to your point about people feeling like strangers in their own country due to births from foreign born mothers. So the British feel overwhelmed by immigrants who arrived fifty years ago and their children or the ones who've arrived more recently? All of them arriving "suddenly" over half a century perhaps? So being born here doesn't make you British nor does having conventionally liberal social and ethical views. Does anyone care if they feel no financial threat? Why is there such high immigration? Who do you foresee doing the work and caring and paying for the elderly? I actually happen to agree that the immigration spike from the Eastern European states did cause a lot of resentment, rightly or wrongly. As a matter of fact, first generation immigrants are equally likely to resent later immigrants as established natives (although their children aren't) However your simple-minded characterisation of the situation and arrogance are spectacular to behold and your insistence on being correct despite your contradiction is worthy of Hove and Johnson | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example...
Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it.
Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen"
"Evolution still happens. We predict things with it. There is plenty of history of human civilization, how markets operate and how nations interact and make deals. We predict things with that too. Are you really saying that we make all of our decisions blindly so it doesn't matter what we do as "anything might happen"? | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example...
Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it.
Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen"
Evolution still happens. We predict things with it.
There is plenty of history of human civilization, how markets operate and how nations interact and make deals. We predict things with that too.
Are you really saying that we make all of our decisions blindly so it doesn't matter what we do as "anything might happen"?"Evolution still happens. But it also happened in the past. There is enough evidence. It is a fact. When someone says evolution is not true we were created our of nowhere, it is a lie. We can call it out as lie. I never told we should be deciding blindly because anything might happen. The topic of discussion here is "lies". What May did was just a speculation. If you say that X will happen and it doesn't happen, does it justify people calling you a liar? | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example...
Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it.
Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen"
Evolution still happens. We predict things with it.
There is plenty of history of human civilization, how markets operate and how nations interact and make deals. We predict things with that too.
Are you really saying that we make all of our decisions blindly so it doesn't matter what we do as "anything might happen"?
Evolution still happens. But it also happened in the past. There is enough evidence. It is a fact. When someone says evolution is not true we were created our of nowhere, it is a lie. We can call it out as lie.
I never told we should be deciding blindly because anything might happen. The topic of discussion here is "lies". What May did was just a speculation. If you say that X will happen and it doesn't happen, does it justify people calling you a liar?"You cannot call creationism a lie. It cannot be disproved. It it a nonsense, bit you cannot disprove it. Evolution remains a theory. Credible, but still a theory. It is based on a lot of data and knowledge. That is also how an opinion about the consequences of Brexit can be formed. Changing your mind when the information changes is sensible. Changing your mind out of political expediency may not be a lie, but it is not honest either is it? Regardless this particular phrase of May's is one example. Many of the rest are unambiguous lies. Do you agree with that? | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example...
Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it.
Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen"
Evolution still happens. We predict things with it.
There is plenty of history of human civilization, how markets operate and how nations interact and make deals. We predict things with that too.
Are you really saying that we make all of our decisions blindly so it doesn't matter what we do as "anything might happen"?
Evolution still happens. But it also happened in the past. There is enough evidence. It is a fact. When someone says evolution is not true we were created our of nowhere, it is a lie. We can call it out as lie.
I never told we should be deciding blindly because anything might happen. The topic of discussion here is "lies". What May did was just a speculation. If you say that X will happen and it doesn't happen, does it justify people calling you a liar?
You cannot call creationism a lie. It cannot be disproved. It it a nonsense, bit you cannot disprove it. Evolution remains a theory. Credible, but still a theory. It is based on a lot of data and knowledge.
That is also how an opinion about the consequences of Brexit can be formed.
Changing your mind when the information changes is sensible. Changing your mind out of political expediency may not be a lie, but it is not honest either is it?
Regardless this particular phrase of May's is one example. Many of the rest are unambiguous lies. Do you agree with that?"In scientific terms, anything can be considered a theory or fact only if it is falsifiable. Everything from Newton's theory to Einstein theory is falsifiable. But most of them haven't been falsified yet. Creationism is non falsifiable. So it is not even considered a theory. Still no one can use evolution to predict the future. There are plenty of unknowns. Sane with Brexit. There is no way anyone is going to predict how it is going to turn out. I asked for an example of an outright lie that is not an election promise. I didn't get any yet. | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example...
Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it.
Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen"
Evolution still happens. We predict things with it.
There is plenty of history of human civilization, how markets operate and how nations interact and make deals. We predict things with that too.
Are you really saying that we make all of our decisions blindly so it doesn't matter what we do as "anything might happen"?
Evolution still happens. But it also happened in the past. There is enough evidence. It is a fact. When someone says evolution is not true we were created our of nowhere, it is a lie. We can call it out as lie.
I never told we should be deciding blindly because anything might happen. The topic of discussion here is "lies". What May did was just a speculation. If you say that X will happen and it doesn't happen, does it justify people calling you a liar?
You cannot call creationism a lie. It cannot be disproved. It it a nonsense, bit you cannot disprove it. Evolution remains a theory. Credible, but still a theory. It is based on a lot of data and knowledge.
That is also how an opinion about the consequences of Brexit can be formed.
Changing your mind when the information changes is sensible. Changing your mind out of political expediency may not be a lie, but it is not honest either is it?
Regardless this particular phrase of May's is one example. Many of the rest are unambiguous lies. Do you agree with that?
In scientific terms, anything can be considered a theory or fact only if it is falsifiable. Everything from Newton's theory to Einstein theory is falsifiable. But most of them haven't been falsified yet. Creationism is non falsifiable. So it is not even considered a theory. Still no one can use evolution to predict the future. There are plenty of unknowns.
Sane with Brexit. There is no way anyone is going to predict how it is going to turn out.
I asked for an example of an outright lie that is not an election promise. I didn't get any yet."I do not follow what you are saying about something being falsifiable. I think that's starting to go off track. Creationism cannot be confirmed or denied because it is a self-contained and self-justified story. If you say that God created everything and put fossils in the ground to keep us busy then we're done. There's no argument
I did not say that you can predict Brexit, bit you use the information that you have and history to five you a good idea. How else do you come to a conclusion? I still don't know if you are are saying that we may as well do it because nobody knows for sure what will happen.
I said look at the existing threads in the forum and Led by Donkeys.
I didn't mention Theresa May saying anything so I assumed that you picked this after you looked. I guess not. It's not something I'm trying to defend anyway. | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example...
Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it.
Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen"
Evolution still happens. We predict things with it.
There is plenty of history of human civilization, how markets operate and how nations interact and make deals. We predict things with that too.
Are you really saying that we make all of our decisions blindly so it doesn't matter what we do as "anything might happen"?
Evolution still happens. But it also happened in the past. There is enough evidence. It is a fact. When someone says evolution is not true we were created our of nowhere, it is a lie. We can call it out as lie.
I never told we should be deciding blindly because anything might happen. The topic of discussion here is "lies". What May did was just a speculation. If you say that X will happen and it doesn't happen, does it justify people calling you a liar?
You cannot call creationism a lie. It cannot be disproved. It it a nonsense, bit you cannot disprove it. Evolution remains a theory. Credible, but still a theory. It is based on a lot of data and knowledge.
That is also how an opinion about the consequences of Brexit can be formed.
Changing your mind when the information changes is sensible. Changing your mind out of political expediency may not be a lie, but it is not honest either is it?
Regardless this particular phrase of May's is one example. Many of the rest are unambiguous lies. Do you agree with that?
In scientific terms, anything can be considered a theory or fact only if it is falsifiable. Everything from Newton's theory to Einstein theory is falsifiable. But most of them haven't been falsified yet. Creationism is non falsifiable. So it is not even considered a theory. Still no one can use evolution to predict the future. There are plenty of unknowns.
Sane with Brexit. There is no way anyone is going to predict how it is going to turn out.
I asked for an example of an outright lie that is not an election promise. I didn't get any yet.
I do not follow what you are saying about something being falsifiable. I think that's starting to go off track.
Creationism cannot be confirmed or denied because it is a self-contained and self-justified story. If you say that God created everything and put fossils in the ground to keep us busy then we're done. There's no argument
I did not say that you can predict Brexit, bit you use the information that you have and history to five you a good idea. How else do you come to a conclusion? I still don't know if you are are saying that we may as well do it because nobody knows for sure what will happen.
I said look at the existing threads in the forum and Led by Donkeys.
I didn't mention Theresa May saying anything so I assumed that you picked this after you looked. I guess not. It's not something I'm trying to defend anyway."Your theory on creationism is exactly what I say is non-falsifiable. In case of scientific theories, we could always say if the temperature or velocity of something is not X, then this theory or equations are false. In case of creationism, no matter what happens, you can always say that everything is a plan of god. There is no way to verify if it is false. I am not saying we should do Brexit because we don't know what will happen. If I were in UK at that time, I would have voted remain. We should do Brexit because people voted for it. People seem to sing songs on the importance of democracy and they just can't stand implementing a democratically made decision? | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example...
Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it.
Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen"
Evolution still happens. We predict things with it.
There is plenty of history of human civilization, how markets operate and how nations interact and make deals. We predict things with that too.
Are you really saying that we make all of our decisions blindly so it doesn't matter what we do as "anything might happen"?
Evolution still happens. But it also happened in the past. There is enough evidence. It is a fact. When someone says evolution is not true we were created our of nowhere, it is a lie. We can call it out as lie.
I never told we should be deciding blindly because anything might happen. The topic of discussion here is "lies". What May did was just a speculation. If you say that X will happen and it doesn't happen, does it justify people calling you a liar?
You cannot call creationism a lie. It cannot be disproved. It it a nonsense, bit you cannot disprove it. Evolution remains a theory. Credible, but still a theory. It is based on a lot of data and knowledge.
That is also how an opinion about the consequences of Brexit can be formed.
Changing your mind when the information changes is sensible. Changing your mind out of political expediency may not be a lie, but it is not honest either is it?
Regardless this particular phrase of May's is one example. Many of the rest are unambiguous lies. Do you agree with that?
In scientific terms, anything can be considered a theory or fact only if it is falsifiable. Everything from Newton's theory to Einstein theory is falsifiable. But most of them haven't been falsified yet. Creationism is non falsifiable. So it is not even considered a theory. Still no one can use evolution to predict the future. There are plenty of unknowns.
Sane with Brexit. There is no way anyone is going to predict how it is going to turn out.
I asked for an example of an outright lie that is not an election promise. I didn't get any yet.
I do not follow what you are saying about something being falsifiable. I think that's starting to go off track.
Creationism cannot be confirmed or denied because it is a self-contained and self-justified story. If you say that God created everything and put fossils in the ground to keep us busy then we're done. There's no argument
I did not say that you can predict Brexit, bit you use the information that you have and history to five you a good idea. How else do you come to a conclusion? I still don't know if you are are saying that we may as well do it because nobody knows for sure what will happen.
I said look at the existing threads in the forum and Led by Donkeys.
I didn't mention Theresa May saying anything so I assumed that you picked this after you looked. I guess not. It's not something I'm trying to defend anyway.
Your theory on creationism is exactly what I say is non-falsifiable. In case of scientific theories, we could always say if the temperature or velocity of something is not X, then this theory or equations are false. In case of creationism, no matter what happens, you can always say that everything is a plan of god. There is no way to verify if it is false.
I am not saying we should do Brexit because we don't know what will happen. If I were in UK at that time, I would have voted remain. We should do Brexit because people voted for it. People seem to sing songs on the importance of democracy and they just can't stand implementing a democratically made decision?"That's a different point. There was and is no definition for Brexit. Nobody bothered to ask the population what they thought it is before or after the referendum. The government and Parliament has been trying to deliver this undefined thing for over three years. I do not know where this pretence that it is simple to define or deliver has come from, bit it has become more and more clear that it is untrue to claim this. I'd we make a deal or don't make a deal then there is something to actually compare to current EU membership. It is not anti-democratic to ensure that a decision is made based on a known situation. Is that not better than not knowing what the options are? Alternatively are you saying that no deal Brexit and an EFTA agreement are identical outcomes to voting to leave the EU and no further discussion is required? | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example...
Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it.
Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen"
Evolution still happens. We predict things with it.
There is plenty of history of human civilization, how markets operate and how nations interact and make deals. We predict things with that too.
Are you really saying that we make all of our decisions blindly so it doesn't matter what we do as "anything might happen"?
Evolution still happens. But it also happened in the past. There is enough evidence. It is a fact. When someone says evolution is not true we were created our of nowhere, it is a lie. We can call it out as lie.
I never told we should be deciding blindly because anything might happen. The topic of discussion here is "lies". What May did was just a speculation. If you say that X will happen and it doesn't happen, does it justify people calling you a liar?
You cannot call creationism a lie. It cannot be disproved. It it a nonsense, bit you cannot disprove it. Evolution remains a theory. Credible, but still a theory. It is based on a lot of data and knowledge.
That is also how an opinion about the consequences of Brexit can be formed.
Changing your mind when the information changes is sensible. Changing your mind out of political expediency may not be a lie, but it is not honest either is it?
Regardless this particular phrase of May's is one example. Many of the rest are unambiguous lies. Do you agree with that?
In scientific terms, anything can be considered a theory or fact only if it is falsifiable. Everything from Newton's theory to Einstein theory is falsifiable. But most of them haven't been falsified yet. Creationism is non falsifiable. So it is not even considered a theory. Still no one can use evolution to predict the future. There are plenty of unknowns.
Sane with Brexit. There is no way anyone is going to predict how it is going to turn out.
I asked for an example of an outright lie that is not an election promise. I didn't get any yet.
I do not follow what you are saying about something being falsifiable. I think that's starting to go off track.
Creationism cannot be confirmed or denied because it is a self-contained and self-justified story. If you say that God created everything and put fossils in the ground to keep us busy then we're done. There's no argument
I did not say that you can predict Brexit, bit you use the information that you have and history to five you a good idea. How else do you come to a conclusion? I still don't know if you are are saying that we may as well do it because nobody knows for sure what will happen.
I said look at the existing threads in the forum and Led by Donkeys.
I didn't mention Theresa May saying anything so I assumed that you picked this after you looked. I guess not. It's not something I'm trying to defend anyway.
Your theory on creationism is exactly what I say is non-falsifiable. In case of scientific theories, we could always say if the temperature or velocity of something is not X, then this theory or equations are false. In case of creationism, no matter what happens, you can always say that everything is a plan of god. There is no way to verify if it is false.
I am not saying we should do Brexit because we don't know what will happen. If I were in UK at that time, I would have voted remain. We should do Brexit because people voted for it. People seem to sing songs on the importance of democracy and they just can't stand implementing a democratically made decision?
That's a different point.
There was and is no definition for Brexit.
Nobody bothered to ask the population what they thought it is before or after the referendum.
The government and Parliament has been trying to deliver this undefined thing for over three years.
I do not know where this pretence that it is simple to define or deliver has come from, bit it has become more and more clear that it is untrue to claim this.
I'd we make a deal or don't make a deal then there is something to actually compare to current EU membership.
It is not anti-democratic to ensure that a decision is made based on a known situation. Is that not better than not knowing what the options are?
Alternatively are you saying that no deal Brexit and an EFTA agreement are identical outcomes to voting to leave the EU and no further discussion is required?"I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. | |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises? There are two entire threads on this. Also, have a look at Led by Donkeys
The one about Theresa May saying that she feels it is good for UK to remain in EU. She clearly stated it as her opinion. And tbf, no one knows how post Brexit UK is going to look like. People can only speculate. I don't see that as a straight lie.
The "no one knows" line is a cop out.
Know one knows that the theory or evolution is correct, but you use the best information available to form your opinion.
The point of that particular quote is that there was no factual change to make "Brexit means Brexit" make anymore sense after the vote.
There are plenty of very bare lies as well so I'm assuming that you aren't using this as being a representative example...
Theory of evolution happened in the past and we have plenty of evidences to it.
Brexit is something that is yet to happen. Anything anyone says about Brexit is just a speculation. And there is a difference when someone says that "I feel X will happen" and "I know X will happen"
Evolution still happens. We predict things with it.
There is plenty of history of human civilization, how markets operate and how nations interact and make deals. We predict things with that too.
Are you really saying that we make all of our decisions blindly so it doesn't matter what we do as "anything might happen"?
Evolution still happens. But it also happened in the past. There is enough evidence. It is a fact. When someone says evolution is not true we were created our of nowhere, it is a lie. We can call it out as lie.
I never told we should be deciding blindly because anything might happen. The topic of discussion here is "lies". What May did was just a speculation. If you say that X will happen and it doesn't happen, does it justify people calling you a liar?
You cannot call creationism a lie. It cannot be disproved. It it a nonsense, bit you cannot disprove it. Evolution remains a theory. Credible, but still a theory. It is based on a lot of data and knowledge.
That is also how an opinion about the consequences of Brexit can be formed.
Changing your mind when the information changes is sensible. Changing your mind out of political expediency may not be a lie, but it is not honest either is it?
Regardless this particular phrase of May's is one example. Many of the rest are unambiguous lies. Do you agree with that?
In scientific terms, anything can be considered a theory or fact only if it is falsifiable. Everything from Newton's theory to Einstein theory is falsifiable. But most of them haven't been falsified yet. Creationism is non falsifiable. So it is not even considered a theory. Still no one can use evolution to predict the future. There are plenty of unknowns.
Sane with Brexit. There is no way anyone is going to predict how it is going to turn out.
I asked for an example of an outright lie that is not an election promise. I didn't get any yet.
I do not follow what you are saying about something being falsifiable. I think that's starting to go off track.
Creationism cannot be confirmed or denied because it is a self-contained and self-justified story. If you say that God created everything and put fossils in the ground to keep us busy then we're done. There's no argument
I did not say that you can predict Brexit, bit you use the information that you have and history to five you a good idea. How else do you come to a conclusion? I still don't know if you are are saying that we may as well do it because nobody knows for sure what will happen.
I said look at the existing threads in the forum and Led by Donkeys.
I didn't mention Theresa May saying anything so I assumed that you picked this after you looked. I guess not. It's not something I'm trying to defend anyway.
Your theory on creationism is exactly what I say is non-falsifiable. In case of scientific theories, we could always say if the temperature or velocity of something is not X, then this theory or equations are false. In case of creationism, no matter what happens, you can always say that everything is a plan of god. There is no way to verify if it is false.
I am not saying we should do Brexit because we don't know what will happen. If I were in UK at that time, I would have voted remain. We should do Brexit because people voted for it. People seem to sing songs on the importance of democracy and they just can't stand implementing a democratically made decision?
That's a different point.
There was and is no definition for Brexit.
Nobody bothered to ask the population what they thought it is before or after the referendum.
The government and Parliament has been trying to deliver this undefined thing for over three years.
I do not know where this pretence that it is simple to define or deliver has come from, bit it has become more and more clear that it is untrue to claim this.
I'd we make a deal or don't make a deal then there is something to actually compare to current EU membership.
It is not anti-democratic to ensure that a decision is made based on a known situation. Is that not better than not knowing what the options are?
Alternatively are you saying that no deal Brexit and an EFTA agreement are identical outcomes to voting to leave the EU and no further discussion is required?
I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too.
But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote?
Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. "How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more." People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would." Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important?" Why do you want to go back to people again and again asking for a decision? It's like having an election for people to choose a government and then going back to them and asking if they like the coalition between parties to get majority. Anyway, both conservatives and labour party have put up their manifestos. If conservatives win, we can assume people want Brexit and are ok with their deal. If labour wins, it could be considered a sign of people not happy with the Brexit proceedings. And whichever party wins should make sure that they stick to what they told. Of course, not keeping promise is a lie. But we had consensus that both parties make fake promises. Someone here mentioned that conservatives don't just make fake promises. They tell outright lies about things. Like saying that something happened but didn't happen. So I asked for an example of that. That's where the entire conversation started. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would." You are assuming that Brexit was a democratic vote. It wasn't. People were mislead. Facebook information was illegally sold to determine which fake news needed to be sent to which people in order to swing the vote. How does a democracy operate when people vote based on information that is incorrect? You cannot take a referendum that approves leaving with a deal and use it as a mandate to leave without a deal. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Why do you want to go back to people again and again asking for a decision? It's like having an election for people to choose a government and then going back to them and asking if they like the coalition between parties to get majority. Anyway, both conservatives and labour party have put up their manifestos. If conservatives win, we can assume people want Brexit and are ok with their deal. If labour wins, it could be considered a sign of people not happy with the Brexit proceedings. And whichever party wins should make sure that they stick to what they told. Of course, not keeping promise is a lie. But we had consensus that both parties make fake promises. Someone here mentioned that conservatives don't just make fake promises. They tell outright lies about things. Like saying that something happened but didn't happen. So I asked for an example of that. That's where the entire conversation started." What a monumental load of nonsense. Are you saying that you can infer from the tea leaves whether someone supports remain or leave just from whether they voted Tory or Labour? This is *why* going back to have a second referendum would have made sense. As you could have *actually* asked the people what they wanted, rather than try to pretend you know from GE results. -Matt | |||
| |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. You are assuming that Brexit was a democratic vote. It wasn't. People were mislead. Facebook information was illegally sold to determine which fake news needed to be sent to which people in order to swing the vote. How does a democracy operate when people vote based on information that is incorrect? You cannot take a referendum that approves leaving with a deal and use it as a mandate to leave without a deal." Trump wins the election. It is because of fake news. Brexit results. Fake news. Conservatives win elections. It is fake news. When is the left going to look at the mirror and realise that they are doing something wrong instead of trying to shift the blame on others? I don't think the referendum had mentioned anything about the deal. The question was whether to leave or remain in EU. People voted to leave. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Why do you want to go back to people again and again asking for a decision? It's like having an election for people to choose a government and then going back to them and asking if they like the coalition between parties to get majority. Anyway, both conservatives and labour party have put up their manifestos. If conservatives win, we can assume people want Brexit and are ok with their deal. If labour wins, it could be considered a sign of people not happy with the Brexit proceedings. And whichever party wins should make sure that they stick to what they told. Of course, not keeping promise is a lie. But we had consensus that both parties make fake promises. Someone here mentioned that conservatives don't just make fake promises. They tell outright lies about things. Like saying that something happened but didn't happen. So I asked for an example of that. That's where the entire conversation started. What a monumental load of nonsense. Are you saying that you can infer from the tea leaves whether someone supports remain or leave just from whether they voted Tory or Labour? This is *why* going back to have a second referendum would have made sense. As you could have *actually* asked the people what they wanted, rather than try to pretend you know from GE results. -Matt" How many referendums do you need for taking a decision? That sounds nonsensical to me. What makes you think that people who voted leave would have changed their minds? From what I see, even the ones who voted remain just want to get Brexit done and move on and rather get stuck in deadlock forever. | |||
"A second referendum is good in theory. Keep the wheels of democracy turning. But people still believe the bullshit they were fed in the last referendum. They still think it's a good idea to leave the EU. So I don't see any point in it from a practical perspective." You are right about people. They are still going to vote the same. Whether they are right or wrong, only time will tell. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. You are assuming that Brexit was a democratic vote. It wasn't. People were mislead. Facebook information was illegally sold to determine which fake news needed to be sent to which people in order to swing the vote. How does a democracy operate when people vote based on information that is incorrect? You cannot take a referendum that approves leaving with a deal and use it as a mandate to leave without a deal. Trump wins the election. It is because of fake news. Brexit results. Fake news. Conservatives win elections. It is fake news. When is the left going to look at the mirror and realise that they are doing something wrong instead of trying to shift the blame on others? I don't think the referendum had mentioned anything about the deal. The question was whether to leave or remain in EU. People voted to leave." Then you weren't paying attention. It was all about how quick and easy the deal would be and how we would retain all of the benefits without any of the downsides. Regardless of what information they were presented with, right or wrong, they have not got a quick or easy deal with the same benefits or EFTA or Canada++. No deal was certainly not mentioned much at all. We almost have a transition agreement. That's all. It's not about having referenda for no reason. It's about deciding if the final option available is better or worse than remaining in the EU as it is. Are you genuinely saying that people should not have that choice? Is that too much democracy or not enough? | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Why do you want to go back to people again and again asking for a decision? It's like having an election for people to choose a government and then going back to them and asking if they like the coalition between parties to get majority. Anyway, both conservatives and labour party have put up their manifestos. If conservatives win, we can assume people want Brexit and are ok with their deal. If labour wins, it could be considered a sign of people not happy with the Brexit proceedings. And whichever party wins should make sure that they stick to what they told. Of course, not keeping promise is a lie. But we had consensus that both parties make fake promises. Someone here mentioned that conservatives don't just make fake promises. They tell outright lies about things. Like saying that something happened but didn't happen. So I asked for an example of that. That's where the entire conversation started. What a monumental load of nonsense. Are you saying that you can infer from the tea leaves whether someone supports remain or leave just from whether they voted Tory or Labour? This is *why* going back to have a second referendum would have made sense. As you could have *actually* asked the people what they wanted, rather than try to pretend you know from GE results. -Matt How many referendums do you need for taking a decision? That sounds nonsensical to me. What makes you think that people who voted leave would have changed their minds? From what I see, even the ones who voted remain just want to get Brexit done and move on and rather get stuck in deadlock forever. " Well besides the fact that the Tories are quite literally planning to "get stuck in deadlock forever" as their whole "get brexit done" mantra is really "get brexit started" but if they say it enough, enough stupid people will believe them.... but besides that... If we were to have a second referendum then: 1) People have learnt a lot since then, even with those that have chosen not to learn anything and still choose to believe the lies, I think they would be less this time around 2) A 2nd Ref would be *on a specific version of leave* so you wouldn't be able to just pretend that all leave voters want the same thing, as they are doing now. 3) The natural shift of population in 3 years is greater than the difference in the vote last time. -Matt | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. You are assuming that Brexit was a democratic vote. It wasn't. People were mislead. Facebook information was illegally sold to determine which fake news needed to be sent to which people in order to swing the vote. How does a democracy operate when people vote based on information that is incorrect? You cannot take a referendum that approves leaving with a deal and use it as a mandate to leave without a deal. Trump wins the election. It is because of fake news. Brexit results. Fake news. Conservatives win elections. It is fake news. When is the left going to look at the mirror and realise that they are doing something wrong instead of trying to shift the blame on others? I don't think the referendum had mentioned anything about the deal. The question was whether to leave or remain in EU. People voted to leave." Firstly there a factual documentary on Netflix on exactly how Cambridge Analyica swung the outcomes on various electrons are around the world and proves statistically how voting changed in aread that were targeted. Secondly the leave campaign not only never once mentioned the option of leaving without a deal. We were told "The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history" Are you still going with that? | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Why do you want to go back to people again and again asking for a decision? It's like having an election for people to choose a government and then going back to them and asking if they like the coalition between parties to get majority. Anyway, both conservatives and labour party have put up their manifestos. If conservatives win, we can assume people want Brexit and are ok with their deal. If labour wins, it could be considered a sign of people not happy with the Brexit proceedings. And whichever party wins should make sure that they stick to what they told. Of course, not keeping promise is a lie. But we had consensus that both parties make fake promises. Someone here mentioned that conservatives don't just make fake promises. They tell outright lies about things. Like saying that something happened but didn't happen. So I asked for an example of that. That's where the entire conversation started. What a monumental load of nonsense. Are you saying that you can infer from the tea leaves whether someone supports remain or leave just from whether they voted Tory or Labour? This is *why* going back to have a second referendum would have made sense. As you could have *actually* asked the people what they wanted, rather than try to pretend you know from GE results. -Matt How many referendums do you need for taking a decision? That sounds nonsensical to me. What makes you think that people who voted leave would have changed their minds? From what I see, even the ones who voted remain just want to get Brexit done and move on and rather get stuck in deadlock forever. " If a referendum is undemocratic it needs to be redone. The use of illegally obtained data undermines this democratic process. And when a government lies to it's people it ceases to be a democracy. It's a bit like winning a medal by cheating and after you're caught out still wanting the medal. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. You are assuming that Brexit was a democratic vote. It wasn't. People were mislead. Facebook information was illegally sold to determine which fake news needed to be sent to which people in order to swing the vote. How does a democracy operate when people vote based on information that is incorrect? You cannot take a referendum that approves leaving with a deal and use it as a mandate to leave without a deal. Trump wins the election. It is because of fake news. Brexit results. Fake news. Conservatives win elections. It is fake news. When is the left going to look at the mirror and realise that they are doing something wrong instead of trying to shift the blame on others? I don't think the referendum had mentioned anything about the deal. The question was whether to leave or remain in EU. People voted to leave. Firstly there a factual documentary on Netflix on exactly how Cambridge Analyica swung the outcomes on various electrons are around the world and proves statistically how voting changed in aread that were targeted. Secondly the leave campaign not only never once mentioned the option of leaving without a deal. We were told "The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history" Are you still going with that?" I have watched that documentary too. But there is no evidence to prove that without the targeting, the election results would have been different. And most user data that was used by Cambridge analytica are from the US. Now that it is all out in the open, do you think Trump will lose next elections? Do you think people will vote differently now? A second referendum is just a waste of time and money. People who voted for Brexit still want Brexit. They don't care how. What next? You want a referendum for every decision the government takes? Why do we even need elections then? Let's just have an executive body that creates on online poll for absolutely everything and implement whatever people have voted for? Instead of undermining the elections and crying about fake news, the remainers and election losers should focus on what really went wrong and try to fix it. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Why do you want to go back to people again and again asking for a decision? It's like having an election for people to choose a government and then going back to them and asking if they like the coalition between parties to get majority. Anyway, both conservatives and labour party have put up their manifestos. If conservatives win, we can assume people want Brexit and are ok with their deal. If labour wins, it could be considered a sign of people not happy with the Brexit proceedings. And whichever party wins should make sure that they stick to what they told. Of course, not keeping promise is a lie. But we had consensus that both parties make fake promises. Someone here mentioned that conservatives don't just make fake promises. They tell outright lies about things. Like saying that something happened but didn't happen. So I asked for an example of that. That's where the entire conversation started. What a monumental load of nonsense. Are you saying that you can infer from the tea leaves whether someone supports remain or leave just from whether they voted Tory or Labour? This is *why* going back to have a second referendum would have made sense. As you could have *actually* asked the people what they wanted, rather than try to pretend you know from GE results. -Matt How many referendums do you need for taking a decision? That sounds nonsensical to me. What makes you think that people who voted leave would have changed their minds? From what I see, even the ones who voted remain just want to get Brexit done and move on and rather get stuck in deadlock forever. If a referendum is undemocratic it needs to be redone. The use of illegally obtained data undermines this democratic process. And when a government lies to it's people it ceases to be a democracy. It's a bit like winning a medal by cheating and after you're caught out still wanting the medal." This is childish. When you lose a game you start calling it cheating? If you don't like an election outcome, you call it undemocratic? Suck it up and focus on the future. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. You are assuming that Brexit was a democratic vote. It wasn't. People were mislead. Facebook information was illegally sold to determine which fake news needed to be sent to which people in order to swing the vote. How does a democracy operate when people vote based on information that is incorrect? You cannot take a referendum that approves leaving with a deal and use it as a mandate to leave without a deal. Trump wins the election. It is because of fake news. Brexit results. Fake news. Conservatives win elections. It is fake news. When is the left going to look at the mirror and realise that they are doing something wrong instead of trying to shift the blame on others? I don't think the referendum had mentioned anything about the deal. The question was whether to leave or remain in EU. People voted to leave. Firstly there a factual documentary on Netflix on exactly how Cambridge Analyica swung the outcomes on various electrons are around the world and proves statistically how voting changed in aread that were targeted. Secondly the leave campaign not only never once mentioned the option of leaving without a deal. We were told "The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history" Are you still going with that? I have watched that documentary too. But there is no evidence to prove that without the targeting, the election results would have been different. And most user data that was used by Cambridge analytica are from the US. Now that it is all out in the open, do you think Trump will lose next elections? Do you think people will vote differently now? A second referendum is just a waste of time and money. People who voted for Brexit still want Brexit. They don't care how. What next? You want a referendum for every decision the government takes? Why do we even need elections then? Let's just have an executive body that creates on online poll for absolutely everything and implement whatever people have voted for? Instead of undermining the elections and crying about fake news, the remainers and election losers should focus on what really went wrong and try to fix it. " There is no evidence because inless the people reponsible investigate themselves that will never be known. The quote from CA was "We won the referendum, what a surprise!" Any decision, be it an election, referendum, what to eat, what to wear, if it is based on the wrong information should be done again. If you wore light clothing because the forecast said was sunny, and then you found out the forecast was wrong, snow instead. Wouldn't you change your clothes? We were told getting a deal. Would be easy and 3 years later and 3 prime ministers later it obviously isn't. Two of the parties are calling for a second referendum but for me to do so is childish? Childish is the way your grown Tory adults behave in parliament. Waste of time and money? This will affect the UK for generations to come but it isnt worth time and money? What about the 3 years already wasted dithering? What about 100 million spent of advertising a 31 October Brexit when was abundantly clear it was never going yo happen! | |||
| |||
""People who voted for Brexit still want Brexit. They don't care how. " That is the problem. They don't care how, or what their Brexit looks like. They don't care what damage it will do to the country or their fellow citizens. They just want to "get it done". Despite the fact their pier piper knows full well that "get it done" actually means "get it started". -Matt" This is a pretty good summary. As soon as someone doesn't care how it gets done. It loses all meaning. The type of brexit might not even achieve their desired outcome. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. You are assuming that Brexit was a democratic vote. It wasn't. People were mislead. Facebook information was illegally sold to determine which fake news needed to be sent to which people in order to swing the vote. How does a democracy operate when people vote based on information that is incorrect? You cannot take a referendum that approves leaving with a deal and use it as a mandate to leave without a deal. Trump wins the election. It is because of fake news. Brexit results. Fake news. Conservatives win elections. It is fake news. When is the left going to look at the mirror and realise that they are doing something wrong instead of trying to shift the blame on others? I don't think the referendum had mentioned anything about the deal. The question was whether to leave or remain in EU. People voted to leave. Firstly there a factual documentary on Netflix on exactly how Cambridge Analyica swung the outcomes on various electrons are around the world and proves statistically how voting changed in aread that were targeted. Secondly the leave campaign not only never once mentioned the option of leaving without a deal. We were told "The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history" Are you still going with that? I have watched that documentary too. But there is no evidence to prove that without the targeting, the election results would have been different. And most user data that was used by Cambridge analytica are from the US. Now that it is all out in the open, do you think Trump will lose next elections? Do you think people will vote differently now? A second referendum is just a waste of time and money. People who voted for Brexit still want Brexit. They don't care how. What next? You want a referendum for every decision the government takes? Why do we even need elections then? Let's just have an executive body that creates on online poll for absolutely everything and implement whatever people have voted for? Instead of undermining the elections and crying about fake news, the remainers and election losers should focus on what really went wrong and try to fix it. " I know you are fairly new to the politics forum so you probably haven’t seen how it has evolved on here but I can tell you that the Brexiteers on here use many of the same arguments you are putting forward - logic, democracy, sore losers, etc but the fact is CA and their paymasters fomented a rebellion amongst the disaffected by blaming the EU and immigration rather than the Tories austerity. The original referendum was a mistake because the Tories had no idea that the result would go the way it did and their real reason for holding it was because of the existential threat UKIP posed to them. The EU is democratic and we are actually in a vey good position within it because of our various opt outs but none of the parties stood up for EU membership in a significant way at the time. What we have achieved in three years of Brexit preparations is a fall in the value of the pound, lower investment caused by the uncertainty, huge amounts of money (billions of pounds) spent on brexit preparations, and the process of governing the country brought to a virtual standstill. Its not great but the idea that you can just wash your hands of it all and walk away tomorrow is frankly unrealistic as there are years of negotiations ahead of us not to mention all the new technical bodies to replace those from the EU. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Why do you want to go back to people again and again asking for a decision? It's like having an election for people to choose a government and then going back to them and asking if they like the coalition between parties to get majority. Anyway, both conservatives and labour party have put up their manifestos. If conservatives win, we can assume people want Brexit and are ok with their deal. If labour wins, it could be considered a sign of people not happy with the Brexit proceedings. And whichever party wins should make sure that they stick to what they told. Of course, not keeping promise is a lie. But we had consensus that both parties make fake promises. Someone here mentioned that conservatives don't just make fake promises. They tell outright lies about things. Like saying that something happened but didn't happen. So I asked for an example of that. That's where the entire conversation started. What a monumental load of nonsense. Are you saying that you can infer from the tea leaves whether someone supports remain or leave just from whether they voted Tory or Labour? This is *why* going back to have a second referendum would have made sense. As you could have *actually* asked the people what they wanted, rather than try to pretend you know from GE results. -Matt How many referendums do you need for taking a decision? That sounds nonsensical to me. What makes you think that people who voted leave would have changed their minds? From what I see, even the ones who voted remain just want to get Brexit done and move on and rather get stuck in deadlock forever. If a referendum is undemocratic it needs to be redone. The use of illegally obtained data undermines this democratic process. And when a government lies to it's people it ceases to be a democracy. It's a bit like winning a medal by cheating and after you're caught out still wanting the medal. This is childish. When you lose a game you start calling it cheating? If you don't like an election outcome, you call it undemocratic? Suck it up and focus on the future." Childish is when you lose the rugby world cup, rip your medals off. Turn your back to the podium and refuse to clap. Actually when sports people are found guilty of unfair means they are stripped of their titles. Putting up a huge lie on the side of a bus is not honest behaviour any way you want to spin it. The electorate placed their vote placed on false information and now that they know the lies that were told, they should have the chance to make a choice based on truth. You may call me childish but if your leader is a known liar and has no integrity whatsoever, and you admire amd support that. Well. I may be childish but at least I have values, honour and integrity which is more than I can say for you and your weasel of a leader. | |||
| |||
" Childish is when you lose the rugby world cup, rip your medals off. Turn your back to the podium and refuse to clap. Actually when sports people are found guilty of unfair means they are stripped of their titles. Putting up a huge lie on the side of a bus is not honest behaviour any way you want to spin it. The electorate placed their vote placed on false information and now that they know the lies that were told, they should have the chance to make a choice based on truth. You may call me childish but if your leader is a known liar and has no integrity whatsoever, and you admire amd support that. Well. I may be childish but at least I have values, honour and integrity which is more than I can say for you and your weasel of a leader." My leader?
You should go back to the start of the conversation to see my views on this. I said that both the left and right wing are the same when it comes to telling lies. But for some reason, the left feels some kind of moral superiority over the rest if the world. More recently, the left wing has started to behave more like how the right wing used to behave. Maybe it is true for all losing sides. If the left wing wins an election, it was a totally clean and fair democratic election. If they lose, it was due to fake news or people being stupid.
Boris is a liar. But for every conservative lie, there is also a labour lie. It's not like the labour party is full of people with integrity and honour. | |||
" Childish is when you lose the rugby world cup, rip your medals off. Turn your back to the podium and refuse to clap. Actually when sports people are found guilty of unfair means they are stripped of their titles. Putting up a huge lie on the side of a bus is not honest behaviour any way you want to spin it. The electorate placed their vote placed on false information and now that they know the lies that were told, they should have the chance to make a choice based on truth. You may call me childish but if your leader is a known liar and has no integrity whatsoever, and you admire amd support that. Well. I may be childish but at least I have values, honour and integrity which is more than I can say for you and your weasel of a leader. My leader?
You should go back to the start of the conversation to see my views on this. I said that both the left and right wing are the same when it comes to telling lies. But for some reason, the left feels some kind of moral superiority over the rest if the world. More recently, the left wing has started to behave more like how the right wing used to behave. Maybe it is true for all losing sides. If the left wing wins an election, it was a totally clean and fair democratic election. If they lose, it was due to fake news or people being stupid.
Boris is a liar. But for every conservative lie, there is also a labour lie. It's not like the labour party is full of people with integrity and honour."It would be a fair argument if labour was also backed by very powerful and rich corporations and individuals with enough power and influence to get an entire party to withdraw from the election. Same applies to newspapers. 5 billionaires own 80% of the UK media. This includes the Sun, The Times and Sunday Times. The Daily Mail is owned by Viscount Rothermere who despite his £720 million (some say £1 billion) net worth ,claims tax concessions as "non-dom", something he will loose if labour ever come to power..... But of course fake news and newspaper bias is just a conspiracy theory for nutters right? | |||
| |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important?" Something can be untrue but not necessarily a lie. For it to be a lie the person saying has to know that what they're saying is actually untrue at the time they said it. Sometimes something that was initially just untrue might actually become a lie. An example of this might be the £350 million BREXIT bonus where it might have been possible to explain the figure away as being the gross figure, not the net, but insisting that the figure was correct and that we actually sent that amount of money was lie. Similarly with the nurses. I can see someone rushing into Johnson's office saying "Look PM, if we do this..., we'll have an extra 50,000 nurses in a few years time" then Johnson rushing of to a press conference to announce 50,000 new nurses. Was it true? No. Was it a lie? Only if Johnson insists on saying it's 50,000 new nurses as opposed to 50,000 extra nurses. I think it's far better just to point out the errors in what politicians say and let the people decide between their honesty or competency. I also think that if we spend our time arguing about whether their are going to be 50,000 new nurses or 50,000 extra nurses the only thing the public is going to remember is that the Conservatives are giving them 50,000 nurses - a bit like the £350 or £270 million EU payment, all most people got from that is that we were paying a large amount of money to the EU. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. You are assuming that Brexit was a democratic vote. It wasn't. People were mislead. Facebook information was illegally sold to determine which fake news needed to be sent to which people in order to swing the vote. How does a democracy operate when people vote based on information that is incorrect? You cannot take a referendum that approves leaving with a deal and use it as a mandate to leave without a deal. Trump wins the election. It is because of fake news. Brexit results. Fake news. Conservatives win elections. It is fake news. When is the left going to look at the mirror and realise that they are doing something wrong instead of trying to shift the blame on others? I don't think the referendum had mentioned anything about the deal. The question was whether to leave or remain in EU. People voted to leave." But the Leave campaign definitely said we'd get a deal, that it would be the easiest trade deal and would be better than the deal we currently had as EU members because, the day after we vote to Leave, we would hold all the cards. They even went further and dismissed talk of leaving with 'no deal' as project fear. So where do you get this mandate from to Leave with no deal? | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Something can be untrue but not necessarily a lie. For it to be a lie the person saying has to know that what they're saying is actually untrue at the time they said it. Sometimes something that was initially just untrue might actually become a lie. An example of this might be the £350 million BREXIT bonus where it might have been possible to explain the figure away as being the gross figure, not the net, but insisting that the figure was correct and that we actually sent that amount of money was lie. Similarly with the nurses. I can see someone rushing into Johnson's office saying "Look PM, if we do this..., we'll have an extra 50,000 nurses in a few years time" then Johnson rushing of to a press conference to announce 50,000 new nurses. Was it true? No. Was it a lie? Only if Johnson insists on saying it's 50,000 new nurses as opposed to 50,000 extra nurses. I think it's far better just to point out the errors in what politicians say and let the people decide between their honesty or competency. I also think that if we spend our time arguing about whether their are going to be 50,000 new nurses or 50,000 extra nurses the only thing the public is going to remember is that the Conservatives are giving them 50,000 nurses - a bit like the £350 or £270 million EU payment, all most people got from that is that we were paying a large amount of money to the EU. " So the Tories are liars and/or incompetent. They still get the votes though. So it's meaningless. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Something can be untrue but not necessarily a lie. For it to be a lie the person saying has to know that what they're saying is actually untrue at the time they said it. Sometimes something that was initially just untrue might actually become a lie. An example of this might be the £350 million BREXIT bonus where it might have been possible to explain the figure away as being the gross figure, not the net, but insisting that the figure was correct and that we actually sent that amount of money was lie. Similarly with the nurses. I can see someone rushing into Johnson's office saying "Look PM, if we do this..., we'll have an extra 50,000 nurses in a few years time" then Johnson rushing of to a press conference to announce 50,000 new nurses. Was it true? No. Was it a lie? Only if Johnson insists on saying it's 50,000 new nurses as opposed to 50,000 extra nurses. I think it's far better just to point out the errors in what politicians say and let the people decide between their honesty or competency. I also think that if we spend our time arguing about whether their are going to be 50,000 new nurses or 50,000 extra nurses the only thing the public is going to remember is that the Conservatives are giving them 50,000 nurses - a bit like the £350 or £270 million EU payment, all most people got from that is that we were paying a large amount of money to the EU. " Beautiful post. If conservatives say something wrong, labour should point it out and vice versa. In the end, it is upto the people to take a decision based on what they hear from both parties. That's how a good democracy function. A democracy is only as strong as its opposition party. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Something can be untrue but not necessarily a lie. For it to be a lie the person saying has to know that what they're saying is actually untrue at the time they said it. Sometimes something that was initially just untrue might actually become a lie. An example of this might be the £350 million BREXIT bonus where it might have been possible to explain the figure away as being the gross figure, not the net, but insisting that the figure was correct and that we actually sent that amount of money was lie. Similarly with the nurses. I can see someone rushing into Johnson's office saying "Look PM, if we do this..., we'll have an extra 50,000 nurses in a few years time" then Johnson rushing of to a press conference to announce 50,000 new nurses. Was it true? No. Was it a lie? Only if Johnson insists on saying it's 50,000 new nurses as opposed to 50,000 extra nurses. I think it's far better just to point out the errors in what politicians say and let the people decide between their honesty or competency. I also think that if we spend our time arguing about whether their are going to be 50,000 new nurses or 50,000 extra nurses the only thing the public is going to remember is that the Conservatives are giving them 50,000 nurses - a bit like the £350 or £270 million EU payment, all most people got from that is that we were paying a large amount of money to the EU. So the Tories are liars and/or incompetent. They still get the votes though. So it's meaningless." But do they still get the votes? The problem most disillusioned Conservatives have at the moment is that, although some may trust Corbyn more than Johnson, they really don't like what he is offering and for some the thought of a Corbyn Labour government is a far worse thought than either a dishonest PM or BREXIT. With having lived through the most incompetent government since 1688, Labour should have walked this election but they're not. You have to ask why, and just blaming it on right wing media doesn't explain because that's always been the case and Labour has won in the past. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Something can be untrue but not necessarily a lie. For it to be a lie the person saying has to know that what they're saying is actually untrue at the time they said it. Sometimes something that was initially just untrue might actually become a lie. An example of this might be the £350 million BREXIT bonus where it might have been possible to explain the figure away as being the gross figure, not the net, but insisting that the figure was correct and that we actually sent that amount of money was lie. Similarly with the nurses. I can see someone rushing into Johnson's office saying "Look PM, if we do this..., we'll have an extra 50,000 nurses in a few years time" then Johnson rushing of to a press conference to announce 50,000 new nurses. Was it true? No. Was it a lie? Only if Johnson insists on saying it's 50,000 new nurses as opposed to 50,000 extra nurses. I think it's far better just to point out the errors in what politicians say and let the people decide between their honesty or competency. I also think that if we spend our time arguing about whether their are going to be 50,000 new nurses or 50,000 extra nurses the only thing the public is going to remember is that the Conservatives are giving them 50,000 nurses - a bit like the £350 or £270 million EU payment, all most people got from that is that we were paying a large amount of money to the EU. So the Tories are liars and/or incompetent. They still get the votes though. So it's meaningless. But do they still get the votes? The problem most disillusioned Conservatives have at the moment is that, although some may trust Corbyn more than Johnson, they really don't like what he is offering and for some the thought of a Corbyn Labour government is a far worse thought than either a dishonest PM or BREXIT. With having lived through the most incompetent government since 1688, Labour should have walked this election but they're not. You have to ask why, and just blaming it on right wing media doesn't explain because that's always been the case and Labour has won in the past. " The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Something can be untrue but not necessarily a lie. For it to be a lie the person saying has to know that what they're saying is actually untrue at the time they said it. Sometimes something that was initially just untrue might actually become a lie. An example of this might be the £350 million BREXIT bonus where it might have been possible to explain the figure away as being the gross figure, not the net, but insisting that the figure was correct and that we actually sent that amount of money was lie. Similarly with the nurses. I can see someone rushing into Johnson's office saying "Look PM, if we do this..., we'll have an extra 50,000 nurses in a few years time" then Johnson rushing of to a press conference to announce 50,000 new nurses. Was it true? No. Was it a lie? Only if Johnson insists on saying it's 50,000 new nurses as opposed to 50,000 extra nurses. I think it's far better just to point out the errors in what politicians say and let the people decide between their honesty or competency. I also think that if we spend our time arguing about whether their are going to be 50,000 new nurses or 50,000 extra nurses the only thing the public is going to remember is that the Conservatives are giving them 50,000 nurses - a bit like the £350 or £270 million EU payment, all most people got from that is that we were paying a large amount of money to the EU. So the Tories are liars and/or incompetent. They still get the votes though. So it's meaningless. But do they still get the votes? The problem most disillusioned Conservatives have at the moment is that, although some may trust Corbyn more than Johnson, they really don't like what he is offering and for some the thought of a Corbyn Labour government is a far worse thought than either a dishonest PM or BREXIT. With having lived through the most incompetent government since 1688, Labour should have walked this election but they're not. You have to ask why, and just blaming it on right wing media doesn't explain because that's always been the case and Labour has won in the past. The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter." . Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Something can be untrue but not necessarily a lie. For it to be a lie the person saying has to know that what they're saying is actually untrue at the time they said it. Sometimes something that was initially just untrue might actually become a lie. An example of this might be the £350 million BREXIT bonus where it might have been possible to explain the figure away as being the gross figure, not the net, but insisting that the figure was correct and that we actually sent that amount of money was lie. Similarly with the nurses. I can see someone rushing into Johnson's office saying "Look PM, if we do this..., we'll have an extra 50,000 nurses in a few years time" then Johnson rushing of to a press conference to announce 50,000 new nurses. Was it true? No. Was it a lie? Only if Johnson insists on saying it's 50,000 new nurses as opposed to 50,000 extra nurses. I think it's far better just to point out the errors in what politicians say and let the people decide between their honesty or competency. I also think that if we spend our time arguing about whether their are going to be 50,000 new nurses or 50,000 extra nurses the only thing the public is going to remember is that the Conservatives are giving them 50,000 nurses - a bit like the £350 or £270 million EU payment, all most people got from that is that we were paying a large amount of money to the EU. So the Tories are liars and/or incompetent. They still get the votes though. So it's meaningless. But do they still get the votes? The problem most disillusioned Conservatives have at the moment is that, although some may trust Corbyn more than Johnson, they really don't like what he is offering and for some the thought of a Corbyn Labour government is a far worse thought than either a dishonest PM or BREXIT. With having lived through the most incompetent government since 1688, Labour should have walked this election but they're not. You have to ask why, and just blaming it on right wing media doesn't explain because that's always been the case and Labour has won in the past. The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class." You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore." https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. " Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. " This one I am not sure. I have been following UK and US news for many years. But I actually moved to UK couple of years back. I still haven't understood the pulse of the people as I have been mostly living in London. I know that even Johnson has been smeared by the left wing media. If smearing campaigns are reasons, it should works both ways. I still feel like an outsider to UK politics. In my view, it just looks like the labour party suffers from a serious lack of clarity. Tories in spite of all their bullshit have a clear voice. At least it looks like they know what they are doing. Labour on the other hand just looks confused. They are trying too hard to keep everyone happy and are eventually pissing off everyone. If Tories win again, it's time for the labour party to do some proper retrospection. | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. This one I am not sure. I have been following UK and US news for many years. But I actually moved to UK couple of years back. I still haven't understood the pulse of the people as I have been mostly living in London. I know that even Johnson has been smeared by the left wing media. If smearing campaigns are reasons, it should works both ways. I still feel like an outsider to UK politics. In my view, it just looks like the labour party suffers from a serious lack of clarity. Tories in spite of all their bullshit have a clear voice. At least it looks like they know what they are doing. Labour on the other hand just looks confused. They are trying too hard to keep everyone happy and are eventually pissing off everyone. If Tories win again, it's time for the labour party to do some proper retrospection." I agree that the Labour party don't send a clear and direct message on a number of issues. I agree with that criticism of their party. I dont agree that there is anything like the same amount of negative smear stories printed against Johnson and his predecessors when compared to Corbyn. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Something can be untrue but not necessarily a lie. For it to be a lie the person saying has to know that what they're saying is actually untrue at the time they said it. Sometimes something that was initially just untrue might actually become a lie. An example of this might be the £350 million BREXIT bonus where it might have been possible to explain the figure away as being the gross figure, not the net, but insisting that the figure was correct and that we actually sent that amount of money was lie. Similarly with the nurses. I can see someone rushing into Johnson's office saying "Look PM, if we do this..., we'll have an extra 50,000 nurses in a few years time" then Johnson rushing of to a press conference to announce 50,000 new nurses. Was it true? No. Was it a lie? Only if Johnson insists on saying it's 50,000 new nurses as opposed to 50,000 extra nurses. I think it's far better just to point out the errors in what politicians say and let the people decide between their honesty or competency. I also think that if we spend our time arguing about whether their are going to be 50,000 new nurses or 50,000 extra nurses the only thing the public is going to remember is that the Conservatives are giving them 50,000 nurses - a bit like the £350 or £270 million EU payment, all most people got from that is that we were paying a large amount of money to the EU. So the Tories are liars and/or incompetent. They still get the votes though. So it's meaningless. But do they still get the votes? The problem most disillusioned Conservatives have at the moment is that, although some may trust Corbyn more than Johnson, they really don't like what he is offering and for some the thought of a Corbyn Labour government is a far worse thought than either a dishonest PM or BREXIT. With having lived through the most incompetent government since 1688, Labour should have walked this election but they're not. You have to ask why, and just blaming it on right wing media doesn't explain because that's always been the case and Labour has won in the past. The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore." . No worries, it's why you'll get beat in this election by an aloof liar and a shit Tory government, then you'll do soul searching about why oh why labour lost, you'll blame Russian bots, foreign far right interference, voters being stupid and not knowing what there voting for. And what's more you'll still not listen to people like me because I'm telling you what don't want hear!!. Your no different than brexiteers at heart | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. " And you really don't think it's got anything to do with what he's offering? Oh well, looks like we're just going to have to accept that Labour is out of contention for another 5 to 10 years because, if they can't win this time and win big, after the total shambles that this government has been since 24 June 2016 at least, then until they change there is no chance of them winning anytime soon. | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. And you really don't think it's got anything to do with what he's offering? Oh well, looks like we're just going to have to accept that Labour is out of contention for another 5 to 10 years because, if they can't win this time and win big, after the total shambles that this government has been since 24 June 2016 at least, then until they change there is no chance of them winning anytime soon. " I'm not saying they should win. I'm not a Labour voter. But absolutely none of the people who believe the rhubarb they read about Corbyn in the press will even glance at the labour manifesto. And if people based their votes on what the parties were offing. The greens would win every time by a country mile. The blind policy polls, where you pick policies that you like the best on a number of subjects. The greens win out by far across all demographics. | |||
" I accept that Brexit is complicated. No deal Brexit and EFTA are different. Agreed there too. But Brexit by definition is to leave the EU. People voted for it. Whether it is with a deal or without a deal is something which the elected candidates must decide. What are you suggesting? Put it on another vote? Just people did not get the outcome they expected, we have to put it on another vote? Again. Why are we having this discussion? No one seems to answer my question. They just say there were many lies from Tories. I asked for an example. You pointed me to a thread of May saying she feels that it is good to remain in EU. I say it is just her speculation. Even the labour party told that Kashmir should be given independence first. Now it says it is a bilateral decision between the two countries. Is one of that a lie? Not at all. The party is just speculating about what is good for the people. I am asking for an outright lie. How do you deliver something when there is no definition for it? You've just agreed that "leaving the EU" can mean two completely different things. Which one do those who voted to leave want? You tell us how the UK should have delivered Brexit by now. It's nothing to do with people not getting the result they expected. The question is what does the result mean and do you still want it now that you know? I did not point you to a thread on Theresa May. https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/946818 Then search for "Led by Donkeys" on Google and read a few more. People voted for leave. Which way they do it, is for the elected members to decide. This idea that "we don't know if this is what people wanted" seems to be a lame excuse to get around democracy. Hong Kong voted in favour of a party that supports independence. If China says Independent government can be implemented in different ways and we want to make sure that we figure out what people want and ask for another election, the same left wing group that wants another brexit referendum will call out the government for being anti democratic. I looked at the thread you mentioned and led by donkeys page. All the complaints are about promises made by conservatives. The only post that could be considered a lie is the conservatives claiming that labour does not want to deliver brexit. This seems to be a made up lie without any factual evidence. Even the labour says that the conservatives are planning to sell NHS to the Americans. Not backed by evidence. I don't see any difference between both the parties. Both of them are playing vote bank politics just like any other political party in any other country would. Parliament has not been able to decide what Brexit means has it? A new Parliament may or may not. Then what? What if they do decide and the majority of the population don't like the version they come up with? How would you know? Is it more democratic to go through with it without knowing or to find out if it is acceptable? Not keeping a promise is not a lie? Seems semantic to me, but if you like. Is saying that you will provide 50,000 new nurses of which 18,000 are ones that you persuade not to leave a lie or a technicality? Is deceit a description for these acts? If the distinction important? Something can be untrue but not necessarily a lie. For it to be a lie the person saying has to know that what they're saying is actually untrue at the time they said it. Sometimes something that was initially just untrue might actually become a lie. An example of this might be the £350 million BREXIT bonus where it might have been possible to explain the figure away as being the gross figure, not the net, but insisting that the figure was correct and that we actually sent that amount of money was lie. Similarly with the nurses. I can see someone rushing into Johnson's office saying "Look PM, if we do this..., we'll have an extra 50,000 nurses in a few years time" then Johnson rushing of to a press conference to announce 50,000 new nurses. Was it true? No. Was it a lie? Only if Johnson insists on saying it's 50,000 new nurses as opposed to 50,000 extra nurses. I think it's far better just to point out the errors in what politicians say and let the people decide between their honesty or competency. I also think that if we spend our time arguing about whether their are going to be 50,000 new nurses or 50,000 extra nurses the only thing the public is going to remember is that the Conservatives are giving them 50,000 nurses - a bit like the £350 or £270 million EU payment, all most people got from that is that we were paying a large amount of money to the EU. So the Tories are liars and/or incompetent. They still get the votes though. So it's meaningless. But do they still get the votes? The problem most disillusioned Conservatives have at the moment is that, although some may trust Corbyn more than Johnson, they really don't like what he is offering and for some the thought of a Corbyn Labour government is a far worse thought than either a dishonest PM or BREXIT. With having lived through the most incompetent government since 1688, Labour should have walked this election but they're not. You have to ask why, and just blaming it on right wing media doesn't explain because that's always been the case and Labour has won in the past. The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class." You, Boris Johnson and Donald Trump should have a threesome. Even the Republicans are starting to get sick of him. He isn't the only fascist America has to offer. And he'll be hard pressed to stay out of prison the way things are going. | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. And you really don't think it's got anything to do with what he's offering? Oh well, looks like we're just going to have to accept that Labour is out of contention for another 5 to 10 years because, if they can't win this time and win big, after the total shambles that this government has been since 24 June 2016 at least, then until they change there is no chance of them winning anytime soon. I'm not saying they should win. I'm not a Labour voter. But absolutely none of the people who believe the rhubarb they read about Corbyn in the press will even glance at the labour manifesto. And if people based their votes on what the parties were offing. The greens would win every time by a country mile. The blind policy polls, where you pick policies that you like the best on a number of subjects. The greens win out by far across all demographics." . Everybody loves free stuff pal, it's the paying for it that never quite adds up though, plus the greens are even wackier than labour with the quackery social justice shit, there literally only electable in progressive crazy areas like Brighton and Bristol. Most working class people who vote don't even read the politics section of the papers, your deluded and beyond help if you think that's the problem. I'll tell you what it is and then you can stop the debate. The left are crazy hung up on fixing the world, everybody gets in, everybody gets free shit, diversity is Marv. There sick to death of hearing about you fixing the fucking world and want you to fix there potholes, fix there crime levels and most importantly fix things here for them. We know the Tories are screwing us over every year little by little, we know it, we don't need middle class gender studies dweebs telling us the problems of intersectionality, but how fucking bad is the left when we're voting for Tories to screw us??. There's an entire raft of working class people who are socially conservative but open to left wing policies on NHS, schools, transport, social security. Your like a party committing suicide for your fucking principles, well hoorah for the labour party and there moral standpoints. Just good luck getting any power ever again. | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. And you really don't think it's got anything to do with what he's offering? Oh well, looks like we're just going to have to accept that Labour is out of contention for another 5 to 10 years because, if they can't win this time and win big, after the total shambles that this government has been since 24 June 2016 at least, then until they change there is no chance of them winning anytime soon. I'm not saying they should win. I'm not a Labour voter. But absolutely none of the people who believe the rhubarb they read about Corbyn in the press will even glance at the labour manifesto. And if people based their votes on what the parties were offing. The greens would win every time by a country mile. The blind policy polls, where you pick policies that you like the best on a number of subjects. The greens win out by far across all demographics.. Everybody loves free stuff pal, it's the paying for it that never quite adds up though, plus the greens are even wackier than labour with the quackery social justice shit, there literally only electable in progressive crazy areas like Brighton and Bristol. Most working class people who vote don't even read the politics section of the papers, your deluded and beyond help if you think that's the problem. I'll tell you what it is and then you can stop the debate. The left are crazy hung up on fixing the world, everybody gets in, everybody gets free shit, diversity is Marv. There sick to death of hearing about you fixing the fucking world and want you to fix there potholes, fix there crime levels and most importantly fix things here for them. We know the Tories are screwing us over every year little by little, we know it, we don't need middle class gender studies dweebs telling us the problems of intersectionality, but how fucking bad is the left when we're voting for Tories to screw us??. There's an entire raft of working class people who are socially conservative but open to left wing policies on NHS, schools, transport, social security. Your like a party committing suicide for your fucking principles, well hoorah for the labour party and there moral standpoints. Just good luck getting any power ever again. " https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/earth-tipping-point/ So let me understand this. The people who want to prevent us all being dead in 25 years time (although some scientists say it may be as short as 12) are nutters. We should be worried abour potholes instead? And that's sanity? OK | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. And you really don't think it's got anything to do with what he's offering? Oh well, looks like we're just going to have to accept that Labour is out of contention for another 5 to 10 years because, if they can't win this time and win big, after the total shambles that this government has been since 24 June 2016 at least, then until they change there is no chance of them winning anytime soon. I'm not saying they should win. I'm not a Labour voter. But absolutely none of the people who believe the rhubarb they read about Corbyn in the press will even glance at the labour manifesto. And if people based their votes on what the parties were offing. The greens would win every time by a country mile. The blind policy polls, where you pick policies that you like the best on a number of subjects. The greens win out by far across all demographics.. Everybody loves free stuff pal, it's the paying for it that never quite adds up though, plus the greens are even wackier than labour with the quackery social justice shit, there literally only electable in progressive crazy areas like Brighton and Bristol. Most working class people who vote don't even read the politics section of the papers, your deluded and beyond help if you think that's the problem. I'll tell you what it is and then you can stop the debate. The left are crazy hung up on fixing the world, everybody gets in, everybody gets free shit, diversity is Marv. There sick to death of hearing about you fixing the fucking world and want you to fix there potholes, fix there crime levels and most importantly fix things here for them. We know the Tories are screwing us over every year little by little, we know it, we don't need middle class gender studies dweebs telling us the problems of intersectionality, but how fucking bad is the left when we're voting for Tories to screw us??. There's an entire raft of working class people who are socially conservative but open to left wing policies on NHS, schools, transport, social security. Your like a party committing suicide for your fucking principles, well hoorah for the labour party and there moral standpoints. Just good luck getting any power ever again. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/earth-tipping-point/ So let me understand this. The people who want to prevent us all being dead in 25 years time (although some scientists say it may be as short as 12) are nutters. We should be worried abour potholes instead? And that's sanity? OK" . I wasn't talking to you but seen as you've taken me off point and done the usual leftists bollocks, go on, I'll bite, name me an ipcc scientist that thinks we'll all be dead in 25 years (I'll use your high figure not your low one to give you a chance). | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. And you really don't think it's got anything to do with what he's offering? Oh well, looks like we're just going to have to accept that Labour is out of contention for another 5 to 10 years because, if they can't win this time and win big, after the total shambles that this government has been since 24 June 2016 at least, then until they change there is no chance of them winning anytime soon. I'm not saying they should win. I'm not a Labour voter. But absolutely none of the people who believe the rhubarb they read about Corbyn in the press will even glance at the labour manifesto. And if people based their votes on what the parties were offing. The greens would win every time by a country mile. The blind policy polls, where you pick policies that you like the best on a number of subjects. The greens win out by far across all demographics.. Everybody loves free stuff pal, it's the paying for it that never quite adds up though, plus the greens are even wackier than labour with the quackery social justice shit, there literally only electable in progressive crazy areas like Brighton and Bristol. Most working class people who vote don't even read the politics section of the papers, your deluded and beyond help if you think that's the problem. I'll tell you what it is and then you can stop the debate. The left are crazy hung up on fixing the world, everybody gets in, everybody gets free shit, diversity is Marv. There sick to death of hearing about you fixing the fucking world and want you to fix there potholes, fix there crime levels and most importantly fix things here for them. We know the Tories are screwing us over every year little by little, we know it, we don't need middle class gender studies dweebs telling us the problems of intersectionality, but how fucking bad is the left when we're voting for Tories to screw us??. There's an entire raft of working class people who are socially conservative but open to left wing policies on NHS, schools, transport, social security. Your like a party committing suicide for your fucking principles, well hoorah for the labour party and there moral standpoints. Just good luck getting any power ever again. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/earth-tipping-point/ So let me understand this. The people who want to prevent us all being dead in 25 years time (although some scientists say it may be as short as 12) are nutters. We should be worried abour potholes instead? And that's sanity? OK. I wasn't talking to you but seen as you've taken me off point and done the usual leftists bollocks, go on, I'll bite, name me an ipcc scientist that thinks we'll all be dead in 25 years (I'll use your high figure not your low one to give you a chance). "Why IPCC? "Conservative nature of IPCC reports Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to be conservative by consistently underestimating the pace and impacts of global warming,[140] and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climate-crisis-scientists-fear | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. And you really don't think it's got anything to do with what he's offering? Oh well, looks like we're just going to have to accept that Labour is out of contention for another 5 to 10 years because, if they can't win this time and win big, after the total shambles that this government has been since 24 June 2016 at least, then until they change there is no chance of them winning anytime soon. I'm not saying they should win. I'm not a Labour voter. But absolutely none of the people who believe the rhubarb they read about Corbyn in the press will even glance at the labour manifesto. And if people based their votes on what the parties were offing. The greens would win every time by a country mile. The blind policy polls, where you pick policies that you like the best on a number of subjects. The greens win out by far across all demographics.. Everybody loves free stuff pal, it's the paying for it that never quite adds up though, plus the greens are even wackier than labour with the quackery social justice shit, there literally only electable in progressive crazy areas like Brighton and Bristol. Most working class people who vote don't even read the politics section of the papers, your deluded and beyond help if you think that's the problem. I'll tell you what it is and then you can stop the debate. The left are crazy hung up on fixing the world, everybody gets in, everybody gets free shit, diversity is Marv. There sick to death of hearing about you fixing the fucking world and want you to fix there potholes, fix there crime levels and most importantly fix things here for them. We know the Tories are screwing us over every year little by little, we know it, we don't need middle class gender studies dweebs telling us the problems of intersectionality, but how fucking bad is the left when we're voting for Tories to screw us??. There's an entire raft of working class people who are socially conservative but open to left wing policies on NHS, schools, transport, social security. Your like a party committing suicide for your fucking principles, well hoorah for the labour party and there moral standpoints. Just good luck getting any power ever again. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/earth-tipping-point/ So let me understand this. The people who want to prevent us all being dead in 25 years time (although some scientists say it may be as short as 12) are nutters. We should be worried abour potholes instead? And that's sanity? OK. I wasn't talking to you but seen as you've taken me off point and done the usual leftists bollocks, go on, I'll bite, name me an ipcc scientist that thinks we'll all be dead in 25 years (I'll use your high figure not your low one to give you a chance).
Why IPCC?
"Conservative nature of IPCC reports
Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to be conservative by consistently underestimating the pace and impacts of global warming,[140] and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climate-crisis-scientists-fear
"Leftist? That's so funny. Love it! I suppose to some of the goosestepping brainwashed pawns on here I'm a commie. Just happens to hhave a nice car  | |||
" The media has outright attacked Corbyn from the very start of his party leadership. There has been a sustained campaign against him. Just look at some of the guff people on here post. There's a good piece in The London Economic that discusses how Corbyn is the most smeared politician in history. You have to ask, why is the establishment so afraid of him? I get PMs with all kinds of nasty insults, for even suggesting that he should be treated fairly. Even while pointing out that I am not a Labour supporter.. Nobodys been attacked more than Donald trump and he's still going to get reelected. In the main people just don't like Corbyn and speaking frankly the left wing psycho babble social sciences studies as discussed on the other thread has killed labour with the working class. You continue your tradition of not understanding information. I'll try to help. Trump is criticised for his words and actions. Corbyn has a sustained campaign of made up nonsense against him. The second part of your post demonstrates how people believe the nonsense printed about him in the mainstream media. Feel free to let fly your normal tirade of confused insults. I rarely read your nonsensical posts anymore. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010 Even Trump has been targeted many times for smear campaigns. And repeating myself again - Both left and right wing media generate fake news. Fair point. I don't see why they would need to smear him, seems pointless. His Twitter feed does a good job of making him look like a twat. Anyway that's in the US. We were talking about the UK, and why people vote Tory instead of Labour. And the point isn't really if Corbyn has been the most smeared, it's that he is hugely smeared. Daily. By the mainstream press. That seems to be enough to stop people voting labour. Judging by what I'm being told by Tory voters. And you really don't think it's got anything to do with what he's offering? Oh well, looks like we're just going to have to accept that Labour is out of contention for another 5 to 10 years because, if they can't win this time and win big, after the total shambles that this government has been since 24 June 2016 at least, then until they change there is no chance of them winning anytime soon. I'm not saying they should win. I'm not a Labour voter. But absolutely none of the people who believe the rhubarb they read about Corbyn in the press will even glance at the labour manifesto. And if people based their votes on what the parties were offing. The greens would win every time by a country mile. The blind policy polls, where you pick policies that you like the best on a number of subjects. The greens win out by far across all demographics.. Everybody loves free stuff pal, it's the paying for it that never quite adds up though, plus the greens are even wackier than labour with the quackery social justice shit, there literally only electable in progressive crazy areas like Brighton and Bristol. Most working class people who vote don't even read the politics section of the papers, your deluded and beyond help if you think that's the problem. I'll tell you what it is and then you can stop the debate. The left are crazy hung up on fixing the world, everybody gets in, everybody gets free shit, diversity is Marv. There sick to death of hearing about you fixing the fucking world and want you to fix there potholes, fix there crime levels and most importantly fix things here for them. We know the Tories are screwing us over every year little by little, we know it, we don't need middle class gender studies dweebs telling us the problems of intersectionality, but how fucking bad is the left when we're voting for Tories to screw us??. There's an entire raft of working class people who are socially conservative but open to left wing policies on NHS, schools, transport, social security. Your like a party committing suicide for your fucking principles, well hoorah for the labour party and there moral standpoints. Just good luck getting any power ever again. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/earth-tipping-point/ So let me understand this. The people who want to prevent us all being dead in 25 years time (although some scientists say it may be as short as 12) are nutters. We should be worried abour potholes instead? And that's sanity? OK. I wasn't talking to you but seen as you've taken me off point and done the usual leftists bollocks, go on, I'll bite, name me an ipcc scientist that thinks we'll all be dead in 25 years (I'll use your high figure not your low one to give you a chance).
Why IPCC?
"Conservative nature of IPCC reports
Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to be conservative by consistently underestimating the pace and impacts of global warming,[140] and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climate-crisis-scientists-fear
". So you couldn't find ONE out of tens of thousands on the IPCC?. Do you think that's because you just made all that shit up before?. | |||
| |||
"Lies have been part of politics for years and they will be too. And yes. It is not specific to right wing. Both right and left wing politicians lie. Both right and left wing newspapers lie. I only really remember broken promises from manifestos over the years but we seem now to have been hit hard and fast with demonstrably bare faced lying, even when presented with the truth the lies are just repeatedly made until people give up and the lie lives on. Can you share an example of such lie that is not related to manifesto or promises?" Goves comments to a Ch4 interviewer when pressed on Goves own previous statements Sajid Javid denied Tory leaders have ever been accused of islamofobia Said Javid called out by interviewer that his figures didn't add up at all yet kept repeating the false figures like a robot We will leave the European Union on x date no ifs no buts - May & Boris I will not ask the EU for an extension, I'd rather be dead in a ditch - Boris We are building 40 NEW hospitals - Boris "stated as a fact" but isn't a fact at all Boris sacked for a front page lie when he was a journalist Starting to get the picture yet lol | |||
"Have you actually read that two year old article you posted?. It's an opinion piece, no science, just a few "scientists" who think this that and the other COULD happen. The IPCC gives a range of 1.5-4 degrees of warming by 2100. I must have missed the paragraph on the end of everybody in 12 years or even 25?.
"Wait. What? Now suddenly, after arguing that science isn't real, you're trying to invoke some scientific evidence. Make your mind up. | |||
"Have you actually read that two year old article you posted?. It's an opinion piece, no science, just a few "scientists" who think this that and the other COULD happen. The IPCC gives a range of 1.5-4 degrees of warming by 2100. I must have missed the paragraph on the end of everybody in 12 years or even 25?.
Wait. What?
Now suddenly, after arguing that science isn't real, you're trying to invoke some scientific evidence.
Make your mind up.". Your boring now, repeating your original lies doesn't make it true this time. | |||
