Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story...

[Dolph]

So what you're syaing is

1) It's a different document
2) UKIP lied/strongly insinuated it being the same document during the first (real) statement in his speech, so incorrectly accusing GB of breaking a manifesto pledge.
3) Even GB laughing about it, as they both know it's ridiculous popularism ..

?


Er, ok, thanks ..

It's a different document with largely the same content, so I'm pointing out your misleading lies in this section.

That just isn't true. The EU treaty he explicitly referred to in the manifesto pledge for a referendum was thrown in the bin and another different document with very different things in it was drawn up that was even called something else - with different terms,

When it wasn't at all. It was a very similar document, doing very similar things by a different means (ie treaty amendment rather than treaty replacement).

I didn't counter your argument that Farage got it wrong, I just pointed out that you got it wrong as well

 

[Thesaff]

It was pretty clear that I was talking about the larger unions though,r ather than the smaller ones ...

No it wasnt, you said our unions, there was no distinction, there was a sweeping statement.

 

[footman]

Nice that you're prepared to learn

thanks for the sarcasm

So what you're saying is

1) It's a different document
2) UKIP lied/strongly insinuated it being the same document during the first (real) statement in his speech, so incorrectly accusing GB of breaking a manifesto pledge.
3) Even GB laughed about the rather daft speech, as they both know it's ridiculous popularism .. but looks like UKIP had the last laugh, as Joe Daft Public actually believes it

?


Er, ok, thanks ..

you're obviously not prepared to learn.

 

[britboy4321]

thanks for the sarcasm
you're obviously not prepared to learn.

Actually I was serious -- it's nice that you are prepared to learn that the speech had fairly blatent factual problems (the first of which I pointed out) and perhaps change your opinion on it. There was no sarcasm at all, I promise. There was a reason why GB was p****** himself throughout it. I think it took some control by UKIP guy to stop HIMSELF laughing about it

I told you one factual problem exactly like you asked me to (the first 'factoid' the guy said!) - you've suddenly come back all snotty! Just to confirm .. are you prepared to learn and alter your opinion on the speech as I point out the factual problems? Or was this actually just a call for a big ol' Friday argument?

 

[footman]

Actually I was serious -- it's nice that you are prepared to learn that the speech had fairly blatent factual problems (the first of which I pointed out) and perhaps change your opinion on it. There was no sarcasm at all, I promise. There was a reason why GB was p****** himself throughout it.

I told you one problem like you asked me to - you've come back all snotty! Just to confirm .. are you prepared to learn and alter your opinion on the speech as I point out the factual problems? Or was this actually just a call for an argument?

Apologies for "snottiness". However, it appears that you were misrepresenting the issue just as he was.

 

[britboy4321]

Apologies for "snottiness". However, it appears that you were misrepresenting the issue just as he was.

OK, so we both agree, he was misrepresenting the issue (which was IMO so blatant to everyone, THAT is why GB was just laughing at him). Cool ..


As I previously said - UKIP man does have the last laugh, as his speech is plastered all over UKIP's website with of course

1) No comment whatsoever on the inaccuracies - Joe Daft Public is asked to form his own opinions based on his own knowledge..
2) No video whatsoever of GB's retort, or what GB said prior to the speech. That's all on the editing room floor

.. nice - but such behaviour doesn't win my vote ..!

 

[Biohazard]

The statement:



is an appeal to tradition, not a statement of fact. It breaks down as follows.



Fact

So it is fact, like I said?

Telling historical facts is not a fallacy.

You pretending it is a fallacy is a fallacy.



FACT is not an appeal to tradition.

History is not an appeal to tradition.

What is in front of our eyes are not an appeal to tradition.

Right ok.

There's the first fallacy. It implies that if we are in a mess now, we were in a mess in the past. It then follows that as we weren't 'in a mess' in the past (at least in the view of the poster) that we aren't 'in a mess' now.

So you are saying its your own subjectiveness that makes it a fallacy then?

Right ok.

That is an appeal to tradition/appeal to history fallacy, a classic one no less.

Appeal to history?

The guy is talking about historic fact with regards to debt levels as an example for this argument.

Does every history book out there make the fallacy of appeal to history, merely by covering the topic it was created for?

Saying the follwing factual statement;

"The truth is that since 1750, our national debt has always been higher than it is now, except for two 40-year gaps. "

Is not an fallacy.

It's called regurgitating figures, a truthful statement.

 

[Dolph]

There's an easy way to settle this.

Scorza, what was the purpose of you posting your historical viewpoint? Was it meant to imply anything about the current situation or not?

 

[jas72]

All we need is for the G20 to agree that we owe nothing to each other

IOU 550 billion and you owe me 550 billion let's just wipe the figures clean and shake on it.

It will happen !

 

[Hatter The Mad]

All we need is for the G20 to agree that we owe nothing to each other

IOU 550 billion and you owe me 550 billion let's just wipe the figures clean and shake on it.

It will happen !

No, because almost everyone owes China.

 

[scorza]

There's an easy way to settle this.

Scorza, what was the purpose of you posting your historical viewpoint? Was it meant to imply anything about the current situation or not?

Just that we're not in as much a mess as everyone thinks we are, we aren't on the brink of bankruptcy as a nation and nor have we been recently. We have nothing to fear except fear itself etc.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Just that we're not in as much a mess as everyone thinks we are, we aren't on the brink of bankruptcy as a nation and nor have we been recently. We have nothing to fear except fear itself etc.

Except the fact that we are currently borrowing money to pay the interest on our existing debts. Bankruptcy verge no, but looking over the cliff of a debt spiral, yes.

 

[scorza]

Except the fact that we are currently borrowing money to pay the interest on our existing debts. Bankruptcy verge no, but looking over the cliff of a debt spiral, yes.

I sometimes go into my overdraft to pay my mortgage* - is this an indication that I'm looking over the cliff of a debt spiral or an indication I need an adjustment to my income and expenditure balance? Nothing like a bit of hysteria for a Friday afternoon.

*I don't really, but needed an example.

 

[Dolph]

Just that we're not in as much a mess as everyone thinks we are, we aren't on the brink of bankruptcy as a nation and nor have we been recently. We have nothing to fear except fear itself etc.

So it was an appeal to tradition then, thanks for confirming.

 

[scorza]

So it was an appeal to tradition then, thanks for confirming.

I would say it was an appeal to not be hysterical, but whatever.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I sometimes go into my overdraft to pay my mortgage* - is this an indication that I'm looking over the cliff of a debt spiral or an indication I need an adjustment to my income and expenditure balance? Nothing like a bit of hysteria for a Friday afternoon.

*I don't really, but needed an example.

That is an absurd and false parallel.

In your example your survival does not rely on your borrowing more month in, month out, and your 'dipping into the overdraft' does not increase the price of the money you can borrow later on because that overdraft is already arranged and authorised (for example, it has all already been deducted from the amount of credit your credit report says you are good for).

You are also simply paying off an existing loan. The country isn't doing that - we're just borrowing.

Let's also consider that it was not too many months ago that the country (for the fourth time in the history of our government bond issues) failed to sell all of them. The cost of borrowing is going up, the markets are already turning away our bonds, and we are (to quote Alistair Darling) 'treading on thin ice' with regards to the cost of new borrowing.

 

[Dolph]

I would say it was an appeal to not be hysterical, but whatever.

Based on the idea that it has been ok before, in different circumstances, so it must be ok now?

That's the exact fallacy...

 

[Biohazard]

I would say it was an appeal to not be hysterical, but whatever.

 

[Biohazard]

Based on the idea that it has been ok before, in different circumstances, so it must be ok now?

That's the exact fallacy...

He never said or implied that from the way I read his postings.

He was just pointing out the past to put the argument in context, not claiming the past makes the present acceptable (fallacy).

He is pointing out its a historic problem, not a new one. (you really hate this, you can't bash labour with it)

 

[do_ron_ron]

Was this a balanced programme, heck no. All they ever showed were the success stories, what of the countries where this had not bought prosperity, what of the drawbacks. Who were the people who were heavily involved in this, Kelton Murdoch and some book writers who i have never heard of. Might have taken this seriously is it wasnt so dumbed down and evenly balanced.
As it is, it looks likes its propaganda for The Tea Party. Maybe drop the rent a star and actually produce a television series that looks at it seriously. Looking at those issues it skimmed over with a sleight of hand.

I agree it was a far right production, trashy in bits - guess the job? wtf!!! Apart from the obvious that all industry has been coming up with weird titles for jobs for the last 20 years, what did this add to the program. Having the ex-stun editor was a bit obvious.

The North East quoted in the prog did not get it's wealth from people coming up with great ideas. It got it's wealth from using people to work 12hr shifts, 6 days a week for a pittance in mills and down pits. That included children and if you got injured you got kicked out to beg on the streets. They led short, diseased, brutish lives.

Bristol and Liverpool merchants got wealthy and built the new buildings they were enthusing about by selling humans into slavery in the West Indies.

A lot of Britain's wealth at that time came from looting other countries at the barrel of the gun, captive markets for British goods.

The per capita income quoted - how was that really divided? A US colleague gave me a booklet that showed in 2007 that the top 20% owned between 87 to 95%, depending on the measure taken, of the wealth of his country. I imagine it would be the same in the countries quoted. The ex-Soviet countries? It was the mafias and the corrupt officials who got the wealth.

China has one of the poorist records on safety for their workers - hardly a week goes past without news of another bunch of miners killed. China kept their currency low(the current moan at the G20) and used the army to billet and control workers to work in their factories.

The far right would not have been pleased though by the trashing of Thatcher's policy of turning Britain into a service-based economy. But I suppose Dolph and the other usual suspects will come up with an excuse or denial for the attack on their goddess.

It does look like propaganda for the Tea Party.