Well there is no reason why Cameron would want to meet that gutless fool.
Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)
- Thread starter RJC
- Start date
- Status
Well there is no reason why Cameron would want to meet that gutless fool.
I don't think the person who started it cares about the out come.
Hear Hear
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Why do we need Holland to exit the EU?
François Hollande is the French president. In the political calculus, regardless of your In or Out stance, he comes several steps above a minor domestic party leader in any negotiations.
Still makes no difference. It's the UK citizens that vote....
As for getting a good deal, well that's for another thread.
Farage isn't just the leader of a domestic party in the UK, he also leads a grouping in the European Parliament, a grouping which contains the most UK MEPs from any party.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Mayhap, but I'm certain the HO answer would much the same -- they have the powers they need, and shall reserve judgement. But have fun with trying to get the motion debated.
I don't think he means what you think he means.
I think with you lot 'a good deal' is entirely optional.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Still doesn't put him above a country leader with a far greater degree of influence in our near abroad, as well as a major trade partner? He couldn't do both, he went with the French president. It's the same reason country leaders may not always visit the leader of the opposition on an official state visit.
Never said it did. Still, quite convenient to avoid the meeting with the guy you know is going to blow your arguments out of the water
Say what you like about Nick Clegg, at least he had the guts to face Farage in a debate, of course Clegg ended up losing spectacularly but I respect him for trying.Where do you get the impression that I signed\started it?
I don't think he means what you think he means.
Oh I know
obviously hasn't read the thread.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
But I already confessed that it was not all migrants several times and even stated the problem lies in mass migration being poorly enforced so it created an opportunity for criminal migrants to get away with crimes which then ruined cohesion for real migrants. I expressed care for the real migrants and even raised this issue within my initial post so why would you assume I am racist and blaming all migrants for something that I already highlighted was more down to failed cultural policies from politically correct cover ups and policing? So your analysis of what my thought pattern is based off has failed from the beginning because you didn't even comprehend a large part of what I already wrote or misread it to the point of having such a biased agenda you are incapable of understanding someones position. Read my initial post on page 39 as I can't even respectably reply to such a misunderstanding and false slandering of what I have already wrote as it's so off the mark I could only repeat what I already said.kitch9, I'd love to have your 'perfect' information and ideal expectations, I really would. A gut feeling isn't really sound input for a cost/benefit analysis now, is it?
Stick to your sandbox, and leave the real world to people who can deal with it.
Oh, really?!
You also follow some wonderful chains of reasoning, no doubt emulating the style of your top sources:
A member of a group commits a crime -> the whole group is responsible for that crime -> its sole purpose for coming here is to commit crime and destroy our predominant, majority culture -> multiculturalism doesn't work -- get rid of it!
No welfare system is prefect -> newcomers will see its abuses, and will always choose to partake in them rather than work -> their sole reason for coming here is thus to seek benefits and draw from the public purse -> send them back.
A big political and economic institution is not infallible -> it therefore insidiously and deliberately conspires to wreck its member nations, even though it stated mission is to ensure their prosperity -> thus it must be dismantled without a plan -> an assortment of independent political and economic fiefdoms that also aren't perfect can do a better job than a federation, with reduced demand, capacity and more trade barriers; we'll muddle through some how.
Politicians and business leaders are human, and so can lie -> they don't agree with my assessment of 'facts' interpreted from secondary sources, so they must be lying -> since my secondary sources are saying what I like to hear, and thus are true, I'll reject what I don't like and will make a better reality for myself.
I trust the media I approve of to give me the facts as they are without manipulating them -> they diligently fact check and there are processes in place to protect the consumer of information from bias and errors -> when they provide an analysis, it's accurate and impartial so I don't need to bother -> thus I can safely base my decisions and opinions on their output with absolute certainty.
In short, why bother with the facts when you can make your own? The spirit of Karl Rove is strong with this one!
Another failure was within your anlysis of how I portray immigrants who use the welfare system, I readily admitted that I personally used it at one point so I have no reservations or damnations for others using it but the problem lies in how the EU is inflexible in regards to how it allows us to manage our own systems. Cameron wanted to bar child benefits for people claiming abroad and sending the funds back over seas for any number of children, the EU ruined this idea and while benefits are likely to not be strained to the point of breaking it is still undue pressure piled on top of other elements. I never used the benefits argument as a point to slander immigrants though, it was a comment to explain the economic impacts and the missing details of extra costs that go into the EU. We're always told about how much better off we are in the EU and my point was to distinguish between the benefits companies receive and the costs to the public itself. Your presumed racism when I was all along making valid political and economic analysis only underpins your own lack of respect for any one else with a differing view. I put a lot of time into representing what was an argument I clearly pointed out was pro immigration but against mass migration and you somehow misunderstood that to such an extent that you accuse racism and immigration hatred
You've missed the mark profoundly. We're in a debate as to whether to stay in the EU, merits of the economic benefits, cultural benefits and how it fits into our current infrastructure are all fair points worth analysing regardless of how pathetically touchy some can be on the subject. I never said the EU aimed to destroy member nations either, I simply feel it's designed to benefit the entire region in a one glove fits all approach. By doing this they don't care for our current infrastructure which is why the NHS and benefits systems are under such strain, they really have no management or care for how we run our country. In the end they are there to benefit the EU but that (as stated before) is by tying us down to the lowest performers and they accept countriebs like greece and other poor eastern european countries that are likely to require bailouts in the future. It's not a grand evil scheme but when we're a prosperous and well off society we're going to be the ones footing the bill for any failures within the EU region because failures of the lowest performers are going to be (like greece) something we pay for in the end. It doesn't seek to destroy us but it does nonetheless remove our democracy, it does tie us down financially to weaker performers and forced migration, it does prevent us from having control of our own future and flexibility even within realistic measure towards laws we should control ourselves. It doesn't destroy us so much as just tie our hands and legs behind our back, take our money when it likes to and keep promising to feed us.
You've finally made one actually accurate point
I do feel like some politicians could be lying but I have no proof. I don't randomly hate and go paranoid on the matter but I do think some are potentially lying since as I already explained there was tons of hidden costs towards migration, lack of control on taxation, our welfare state having various abuses being recognised and sourced. It seems funny you want to trust politicians yet when I post similarly skilled or in the know sources (so it's not the paper itself but the person who we analyse) you choose to ignore that.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...and-treatment-leaving-NHS-breaking-point.html
health tourism was just one example of damaging abuses within our welfare state that the pro eu economic numbers wouldn't mention. So yes I do feel like we have a few white lies, a few misguided truths about the entire benefit of the EU. It's not to say the whole thing is a huge conspiracy and a spiders nest of lies but the facts aren't given in a fair way to judge the actual benefit of it and I feel a few politicians will not even be keeping an eye on those hidden costs either. As for businesses I already pointed out it is in there interest to have an open market so they will promote it and aren't required to lie, they simply don't care and it's not there job to tot up how much extra governments have to spend in the EU so that doesn't even factor into the equation for them but as I said, it's the UK citizens that will be paying for the extra costs so it's not stupid or contrived to try and understand where the costs for migration and taxation would fall. After all we've seen sweetheart deals with google and Apple etc. so we know businesses are in it for themselves and not us, you'd be stupid to think otherwise.
Your final sentence doesn't even make sense, the paragraph above it you are stating I rely 100% on media (which is about as stupid a point to make as any since anyone short of EU and political figures will do this, we all rely on information but as seen I have linked to various news sites so don't rely on a single one to give me there preferred view whereas your information will come from news as well and somehow you vainly presume all others are wrong) but in the final sentence you say I make stuff up myself? Contradict yourself with childish rantings much? You're not even making sense anymore with your childish ad hominem approach to putting words in my mouth without understanding my position and failing to even read it
You're embarassing yourself with contradictory sentences, you're accusing me of being racist / anti immigration when anyone who reads my posts can see I was careful to point out I am pro immigration but dislike mass migration, you presume the benefits argument was a slander on immigrants despite it being framed entirely within the economic analysis of how we benefit from the EU and then you try and conclude anyone who actually reads any news websites and cites any news websites are somehow crazy and making up there own facts. Come on man, you're grasping like crazy to gather some confirmation bias here. It's a debate about our futures not a personal attack so quit the ego trip and just analyse what people have to say without trying to insinuate people have an agenda. Spice it up bud, add some sources of your own and some of your own facts that you seem to think are on a much higher level than other peoples. Enlighten us with your view rather than trying to impersonate people and rely on rude commentary to disparage them with little basis.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Never said it did. Still, quite convenient to avoid the meeting with the guy you know is going to blow your arguments out of the water
The outcome was much different at the Oxford Union. With debates you have to account for both the timing and the prevailing popular mood, and the interesting statistic that public debates most often result in a position of no change. That is: the politicians deliver the goods, put on a show, everybody claps... and then votes just as they would've done before; which signals to the political class that debates are useless diversions of time and money.
Besides when Clegg first debated Farage, at the nadir of the coalition government, the latter could have undressed and done a song and dance routine without ever addressing his opponent or the issues, and the public would have still handed him the win. The outcome against a popular leader like Salmond or Sturgeon in Scotland, or a standing Tory PM like Cameron in England is far less certain for the Purple Comet.
Again, I feel the PM made a pragmatic choice in this case, leaving Nige to fume in the cold just as his party's largest donor was when Hague didn't know he even existed.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
But I already confessed that it was not all migrants several times and even stated the problem lies in mass migration being poorly enforced so it created an opportunity for criminal migrants to get away with crimes which then ruined cohesion for real migrants. I expressed care for the real migrants and even raised this issue within my initial post so why would you assume I am racist and blaming all migrants for something that I already highlighted was more down to failed cultural policies from politically correct cover ups and policing? So your analysis of what my thought pattern is based off has failed from the beginning because you didn't even comprehend a large part of what I already wrote or misread it to the point of having such a biased agenda you are incapable of understanding someones position. Read my initial post on page 39 as I can't even respectably reply to such a misunderstanding and false slandering of what I have already wrote as it's so off the mark I could only repeat what I already said.
Another failure was within your anlysis of how I portray immigrants who use the welfare system, I readily admitted that I personally used it at one point so I have no reservations or damnations for others using it but the problem lies in how the EU is inflexible in regards to how it allows us to manage our own systems. Cameron wanted to bar child benefits for people claiming abroad and sending the funds back over seas for any number of children, the EU ruined this idea and while benefits are likely to not be strained to the point of breaking it is still undue pressure piled on top of other elements. I never used the benefits argument as a point to slander immigrants though, it was a comment to explain the economic impacts and the missing details of extra costs that go into the EU. We're always told about how much better off we are in the EU and my point was to distinguish between the benefits companies receive and the costs to the public itself. Your presumed racism when I was all along making valid political and economic analysis only underpins your own lack of respect for any one else with a differing view. I put a lot of time into representing what was the an argument I clearly pointed out was pro immigration but against mass migration and you somehow misunderstood that to such an extent that you accuse racism and immigration hatred
I never said the EU aimed to destroy member nations either, I simply feel it's designed to benefit the entire region in a one glove fits all approach. By doing this they don't care for our current infrastructure which is why the NHS and benefits systems are under such strain, they really have no management or care for how we run our country. In the end they are there to benefit the EU but that (as stated before) is by tying us down to the lowest performers and they accept countriebs like greece and other poor eastern european countries that are likely to require bailouts in the future. It's not a grand evil scheme but when we're a prosperous and well off society we're going to be the ones footing the bill for any failures within the EU region because failures of the lowest performers are going to be (like greece) something we pay for in the end. It doesn't seek to destroy us but it does nonetheless remove our democracy, it does tie us down financially to weaker performers and forced migration, it does prevent us from having control of our own future and flexibility even within realistic measure towards laws we should control ourselves. It doesn't destroy us so much as just tie our hands and legs behind our back, take our money when it likes to and keep promising to feed us.
You've finally made one actually accurate point
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...and-treatment-leaving-NHS-breaking-point.html
health tourism was just one example of damaging abuses within our welfare state that the pro eu economic numbers wouldn't mention. So yes I do feel like we have a few white lies, a few misguided truths about the entire benefit of the EU. It's not to say the whole thing is a huge conspiracy and a spiders nest of lies but the facts aren't given in a fair way to judge the actual benefit of it and I feel a few politicians will not even be keeping an eye on those hidden costs either. As for businesses I already pointed out it is in there interest to have an open market so they will promote it and aren't required to lie, they simply don't care and it's not there job to tot up how much extra governments have to spend in the EU so that doesn't even factor into the equation for them but as I said, it's the UK citizens that will be paying for the extra costs so it's not stupid or contrived to try and understand where the costs for migration and taxation would fall. After all we've seen sweetheart deals with google and Apple etc. so we know businesses are in it for themselves and not us, you'd be stupid to think otherwise.
Your final sentence doesn't even make sense, the paragraph above it you are stating I rely 100% on media (which is about as stupid a point to make as any since anyone short of EU and political figures will do this, we all rely on information but as seen I have linked to various news sites so don't rely on a single one to give me there preferred view whereas your information will come from news as well and somehow you vainly presume all others are wrong) but in the final sentence you say I make stuff up myself? Contradict yourself with childish rantings much? You're not even making sense anymore with your childish ad hominem approach to putting words in my mouth without understanding my position and failing to even read it
Keep on reading the Daily Mail, son.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
I also linked to the guardian, the telegraph, BBC and euro observer in my other post. I don't have time to specifically understand each and every poster on this website, find out what is there preferred website and hope they don't throw a wildishly ignorant and childish slander my way despite already proving I have other sources.
Do you have anything proper to add or is your failure to even recognise my previous sources are more in line with such stand up opinions as yours somehow going to remain within your confirmation bias as further mental gymnatics to try and debunk arguments you have no real basis for arguing against? I have other sources, they say the same thing though so what would be the need to change the source other than to please people like you who are clearly just childish and hostile and wouldn't want to listen anyway? I proved you was randomly going on stupid contradictory rants and then you can't even defend your point and fail to raise counter points and merely hunker down with further lies that have ALREADY been proven wrong. Why post to you if you require 3 or 4 posts to understand you make up things that I would have already gave leeway for or provided other sources for before you even spoke? You need your head checking.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 12,996
- Location
- La France
Vote out and join Putin in crushing the House of Saud!
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
House of saud are on there way to syria and joining turkey, maybe if we crush them quickly we can steal turkey and get a free holiday before brexit
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Sure. Let's take your most recent link: Professor Dalgleish makes wild quantitative claims about the NHS. Moreover, he is talking in personal capacity as a UKIP rep rather than an impartial researcher. Even the Daily Mail have to clarify that it is his party line on the issue, and since even they know these assertions cannot stand up to independent scrutiny, they couch them in the language of caution: 'can cost', 'potentially', 'partially explains', whilst suggestively linking a blurb about the migrant crisis, again dealing with the 'known unknowns'... just because! Then they proceed to follow editorial policy on the issue, grafting their own click-bait narrative. NHS side of the story isn't presented, nor is its representative on the issue offered to write a rebuttal -- DM at its finest.
I wouldn't put it past the average Mail reader to then make a tenuous implied connection between refugee numbers and expensive cancer treatment, and blow a gasket. Your 'points' aren't much better; you could've just 'news dropped' to save everyone a bit of time.
But be it as it may: if Dalgelish has seen something wrong in the official statistics, or has original, ground-breaking research on the matter -- why did he not publish it in a peer-reviewed journal or take ONS to court for misleading the public off the back of a FOI? Why does he go to a tabloid with weak information quality standards with his 'great revelation'?
--------------------------
Your problem is that you often post ternary sources of rumour and political PR messaging; which you often skim through without realising the contradicting narratives different editorial policies present on the same issue -- hardly ever bothering with the data, if there's any, to back it all up -- as gospel, hence why people don't take you too seriously, and you'll be called out on it.
Fine for GD, but won't get you the referendum cigar, I'm afraid!
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
I asked for evidence, that's the problem, you're free to criticise but you seem like you merely have an opinion that has no reference or basis to go off. By refusing to cite your own sources and refusing to show where you stand yourself you aren't deflecting criticism you are merely not giving anything worth criticising because no one can validate what you say has come from a credible source. I admit I don't exactly know everything that man did but a quick scan of his wikipedia page seems to show he has a good track record and sounds well learned along with successful in that field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Dalgleish
If you have evidence he is making wild claims then feel free to prove it but if you don't provide any evidence then how can anyone have faith in what you say
He potentially does have some position (as I think everyone in the world does but regardless of his place in UKIP that doesn't automatically mean that any opinion he is qualified to give on the NHS itself and that he is making a presentation towards rather than just simple quotes to the public is going to be wrong) which could be compromised as you state so I'm actually happy to take that point in regard. Despite your childish tantrum throwing I do honestly post this stuff to discuss it and are happy for others to point out there counter arguments. If there's something Im wrong on then feel free to say, that is the point of a discussion on a forum in a community I would suppose? Despite your apparent disdain for the idea of people trying to put there view forward that is the way we discuss these sort of issues further. It strikes me that if I had no evidence it would just be a shouting match between one another, on the other hand it's me presenting my views through sources which regardless of there potential for having an agenda any adult should be aware they simply have to rely on skimming and scanning for the meat and bones of the article and ignore the political agendas. You see you can get facts regardless of the presenter (especially when as pointed out, you use several sources).Again I've yet to see any points you've raised you can actually back up with more than bluster and childish rage at the idea that people look at the news. I posted many sources to many different websites and yet you keep referencing the DM as if it's somehow your secret weapon in your war of propaganda and confirmation bias. Childish forum rage gone awry I feel I've shown I'm willing to listen to your points and I entertain your dialogue when it's worthwhile but when not posting anything of merit to back yourself up then it is just presumptuous to assume everyone would take your word at face value while you've yet to add anything to any discussion despite your love of trying to denounce others. Again, provide the evidence to counter my points, it's not good enough to sit back and talk crap. One point you fail to recognise is that for all your deflection as to political agenda's of tabloids people themselves can have agenda's in this regard so why without evidence or source or provable merit should anyone implicitly trust you?
Maybe he goes to the tabloid because it provides a good source of getting news to people? How many people do you think honestly scour through every single medical legal case? He's supposedly raising the issue to resolve a potential problem within the EU (a hard institution to sue or legally pin down I would have thought) but it doesn't sound like he truly believes it was a case of illegal conspiracy so why would he launch such a suit?
You say I've missed contradictory narratives, go ahead then. This time you don't even need to post a link from one of those conspiracy craving tabloids you hate. Just find a post where I've quoted two sources or more, got tripped up on the narrative and exposed my lack of reading on the subject. Considering I only posted one source per subject that wouldn't be possible for you to prove but go ahead, match your claim with evidence. I post those sources more as a way for people to extrapolate the important information and then they can make of it what they will, they can decide if it is reliable or not but your random hatred of tabloids and your previous crazy rants seem to be coming back. You now profess you somehow have knowledge I have tripped up on reading the narratives of several sources (so in other words I'm not taking any single source for sole value but rather getting confused between them) and in the same breath and sentence state I take it for gospel. Your contradictory rants seem to pop out of nowhere and indicate that despite your seeming confidence on the subject that you rely on misinformation and a lack of evidence along with contradictory statements to simply attack people without any true basis. How can you presume to know the extent to which I take these sources to heart? I may post them (as they are my 'general' source of information) but that doesn't mean I 100% presume that every word within the article correct or without some influence. Hence why I use several sources despite you claiming that is bad and yet taking any single source is also bad because that is taking there word as gospel. Your confusing and contradictory tirades are no more flame bait that the daily mail is click bait and yet you profess to be a better man who has failed time and again to remain consisten within your own arguments, failed to provide sources or evidence other than your own egotistical view and failed within all these posts to do more than slander people without any real evidenced counter argument that people can take seriously other than it being your general opinion. There's no point posting to you if you can't deliver any substance, I even am willing to be the bigger man and forgive your contradictions, forgive your failure to provide evidence, forgive your attempted frequent slanders to admit that you could be right with that UKIP guy. Maybe health tourism isn't as bad as I think it is and it's a subject I posted because I feared it was important and relevant but I'll accept he has a potential bias if it's a party line regardless of his background as well. I'll await further statistics and new info in that regard but I pray the wait for you to produce a more meaningfully sourced and evidenced argumnent on the other points free from ranting contradicitions or attempted ad hominems based merely on presumption that people will accept whatever you alone have to say without evidence will be a shorter wait.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Insanties_birth said:
His chief area of expertise strays far from both migration and NHS funding. And none of his official research backs any of his points, even the four links on his wiki page. Precisely why you shouldn't take his 'expert' opinion on matters he knows little about, and simply states the official party line on. Spouting claptrap by bypassing peer review towards a political end, is still spouting claptrap, be it from an academic or not. Or don't you practice the subtle art of critical thinking?
It's the same thread of reasoning about the NHS that got picked up as rather lacking on evidence in the original debates by the independent fact checkers, especially when it came to the doom-saying about health tourism, as interpreted by UKIP high command, pushing the NHS to the brink. Turned out we don't fund it enough, and those funding decisions had little to do with either health tourism or immigrants.
Maybe DM wasn't particularly kind by pulling him up on this article? Possibly he was caught with his pants down out of context? Maybe he just wanted to grab the headlines of questionable PR value? Perhaps he knows something about how much it costs to treat a particular form of cancer; but what does he know regarding health tourism in the NHS at large, including devolved matters? The world will never know, and has moved on.
Until you start doing your homework, all I can say is that here's a chap with plenty of opinions, mostly borrowed, but nothing credible to back them up with. I don't see why I, or anyone else for that matter, should play the role of your personal researcher.
Last edited:
- Status