to (mis) quote Amis:
"You suppose you sound provocative. You sound like the much-feard pub bore in Southend"
Printable View
to (mis) quote Amis:
"You suppose you sound provocative. You sound like the much-feard pub bore in Southend"
Dave. Why do you continue to be so objectionable? We get it. You are upset about Brexit. Join the club. It concerns us all. Surely the point of this thread is to debate it and hopefully learn. Quotes like that don't get us anywhere. Do you have something useful to contribute?
You find that objectionable? You really are quite thin skinned. I've spent plenty of time here pointing out the deceptions and downright lies that Oracle has posted and this is more of the same.
Life is too short to engage this sort of sociopath/bore/boor and these posts are the reason this forum is dying.
Well I hadn't encountered the reference to Martin Amis before - not being a regular Guardian reader - therefore I looked it up and so thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
You are of course welcome to challenge the points I made about. “ remainer lies” in the two recent posts, I doubt that you will because I doubt that you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
I am happy to learn new information that reinforces or contest what I have said. I am happy to discover that some arguments by both sides are creative rather than factual. Indeed on the remain side it is hard to find anything other than sophistry, Give a wise man instruction, he becomes yet wiser.
But Why is it remainers think they have licence just to insult others?
It is the reason the arguments get out of hand.
As I pointed out to Mr Breeze on another thread, where you posted the exact same: on a topic I suspect you have neither interest nor experience.
I get why someone disinterested in the topic of ( for example) brexit would find the subject “ a bore” What I don’t get is why someone who thought it “a bore “ would waste their lives reading such in order to declare it boring, and so insult the poster.
What a sad life that must be. Wandering thread to thread, just to insult others.
Adding nothing but heat, not light to the subject. Get a life Dave!
I still get depressed talking to the young people abroad whose countries and even hope have been destroyed in the name of empires false ideology. They are desperate. In Brussels they are too far away to hear the tears. British remainers don’t care.
Pointing out what you call deception and lies has no validation without counter evidence. Resorting to negative labelling and smearing only serves to underline the stereotype of a remain moaner. I agree with you. Don't waste your time on here.
Really? I don't recognise that reference but if you kindly enlighten me and you are correct I will,of course,defer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
Why only a 2nd referendum will solve thing sin the opinion of some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
But it is more likely in my humble opinion that it will only open more cans of worms as I set out in Post 2207.
By the way Stolly.
In case you haven't noticed, we have a Commons that cannot agree with itself. It has apart from Brady, so far only managed to find majorities for what it doesn't want on Brexit.
Any referendum bill has to pass the Commons. A minority want it, and even amongst that minority, there is unlikely to be any agreement on what the question would be.
So the only route to a referendum is via a General Election.
Now that is a very good point. I had not considered that angle.
I'm not a regular Guardian reader either, the quote was from an essay in "The Rub of Time: Bellow, Nabokov, Hitchens, Travolta, Trump. Essays and Reportage, 1994-2016". Some good essays in there....Quote:
Well I hadn't encountered the reference to Martin Amis before - not being a regular Guardian reader - therefore I looked it up and so thank you.
You were somewhat amused at the obvious truth in how I replied - so I presume you accepted the reasoning? It was the “ paid rounds “ threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
One other: By most reckoning there was a majority for boris’s deal.
It is why Bercow and letwin prevented it voting.
And that is why parliament and the speaker must go.
Labours ( and clearly Bercows) stated intention is derailing it not scrutinising it.
It no longer serves other than petty party politics.
We need statesmen not superannuated student protesters, who think their rights trump their obligations or responsibilities to society: the Glastonbury generation.
If as is likely we enter a period of low majority or coalition government, a partisan speaker intent on destruction of the constitution , so assuming the power but not accountability of government cannot be allowed. Such power must never be allowed in the hands of one man again.
If the speaker ever makes a controversial decision, there must be a right of appeal by reference to erskine. And the clear plotting of such as grieve in the speakers chamber or indeed by Bercow with EU must also be banned.
Any material conversations with a speaker must now be witnessed as for example is a judge in chambers by both parties. Bercow cannot be trusted.
His doing impressions in the chamber yesterday as a third rate comedian was a disgrace to his office. He should face a charge of bringing the house into disrepute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I guess we should add Bercowing to a list of adjectives like Gerrymandering that describe the unsubtle manipulation of Parliamentary process.
nice one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I gather he is on a charge of bullying and harassment, so his meal ticket to the Lords may be blocked.
Thank you. I have re-read the thread. (And I can justify why, at the time, the FRA Committee took the action it did on non-registered races).Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
AFWIIWorth...I think your posts are always worth reading. Perhaps polemical but preferable to pap and pomposity.
Accordingly I have reserved it from my local library - which is currently closed because of industrial action against library cut backs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
Haha that’s only because I couldn’t be arsed to read it 😊Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
and is easy to refute by anyone with access to Google and half a brain.Quote:
Haha that’s only because I couldn’t be arsed to read it
Perhaps we should set up Stolly's Lounge.
He can announce anything he likes, no one will challenge it and he doesn't have to read anyone else's thoughts on any issue.
Ha ha. Brilliant! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I was appealing to those with a whole brain, now I understand why you dont understand!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
OK, then.
Most of what you post is opinion, dressed up as “fact”.
Along with a healthy dose of lies.
No there wasn't and no it wasn't. It was the same motion as was voted on 48 hours previously. Letwin had nothing to do with the subsequent disalowal of the vote.Quote:
By most reckoning there was a majority for boris’s deal.
It is why Bercow and letwin prevented it voting.
They were funded by five of the UKs richest businessmen. If you mean intellectually disadvantaged, then I’d be inclined to agree with you.Quote:
Leave were always massively disadvantaged
So you accept that the “bus claim” was false. This graph shows that our contribution has gone down.Quote:
Our spending to EU is rapidly increasing, so whether or not the leave bus claim was 50 percent overstated, it is getting closer by the day
No it hasn’t.Quote:
the EU army derided at the time as a "leave lie" has now been proven entirely true.
and Turkey hasn't joined the EU, either.
Anyway, my point is, these "facts" are easy to disprove. I'm just bored of doing it. It's too easy.
I'll tell you what, with the extensive number of posts by Oracle, you need to do more than a few random snippets.
"By most reckoning there was a majority for boris’s deal.
It is why Bercow and letwin prevented it voting."
well we might know tonight, but even Letwin has said he will vote for the bill tonight and it only needed 6 to change.
so it's a well founded opinion like the others that you have cut and pasted.
And if you look at most posts, facts are used and then opinions given based on facts.
it's a different bill!Quote:
but even Letwin has said he will vote for the bill tonight
no they're not.Quote:
if you look at most posts, facts are used and then opinions given based on facts.
Shouldn't someone be dead in a ditch by now?
Meanwhile in the real world...
Election maps uk (with no allegiance ) predicted a majority for the motion on their spreadsheet of declared views. Dave mole always claims he knows better than those whose job it is to know. And that is why the house did not want it to vote.
The letwin amendment prevented and was intended to prevent a meaningful vote making it meaningless. Bercow should not allow an amendment that changes the substance and intent of a government motion an amendment should only amend. He abuses standing orders every day.
Yet again bercow acted beyond powers. Of course it is mild compared to the consitutional outrage of allowing back bench control of timetable. The benn act was therefore not legitimate
Government bombarding us with remain messages throughtout national media was way in excess of coverage it was possible for leave to buy. In addition to the official channels, and the lack of leave proponents on such as QT was an outrage by the BBC
The EU army is clearly a fact. Borrel ( the chief diplomat of EU ) called for raising the size to over 50000 with permanent military structures. Van der Leyen supports it all the way. And worse Borrel has said "we must become an actor on the world stage".
Troops entering someone elses rhineland soon then.These European empires never learn.
On the budget, on investigation. Agreed. Net Budget has been flat at 9 billion (with a lot of provisoes on the extent to which that actually defines what it cost) . I assumed the inexorable trend would continue. See I am happy to agree, if on investigation what I say doesnt stand scrutiny. But I use House of Commons library as my source. Fullfact is unreliable on some matters.
You see I am happy to have a discussion on it.
The substance of what I said has not changed. Brexiters decided to leave long before any statements on buses, which were irrelevant in the decision. As I said: EU as a protection zone with a far too complex decision structure inevitably is a world laggard. EU made it harder for me to export world wide not easier. The 9 billion although a hideous waste, matters little in the EU holding us back. The euro will crash, so the far away we can be from that tsunami the better.
Merkel supports brexit as best for UK (not her) . She said we would be a serious competitive threat like China and USA when we leave ie we will be a world trade power.. That is why they want us on a leash. Seems you have less faith than merkel in our potential. You think too small.
Meanwhile it isnt just us. EU is picking a fight with all its trade partners, trying to bully others. From Swiss to EU to USA, to a host of small countries. The despots who run it cant help themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
No idea why you even botherQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
Neither do I ,since only one item of what he said bore scrutiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
And that mattered not one iota in the overall argumen
And as for you Pat you never check anythign at all. eg You were grumbling about coverage of gymnastics on TV a while ago and how tiny it was. Meanwhile the local gymnastics club here (only a medium size town) attracted 500 gymnasts to a small regional competition, and coaches just as many youngsters, on average training 5-10 hours a week. And that is one club. I will wager less organised football training happens in this area by quite a big margin.
There are others only a few miles away. So Just because you dont research things...dont make assumptions.
So why do you think you know better than for example the architect of the Euro (otmar issing) , the nobel laureate economist Stiglitz, and most of the economists who predicted 2008 (unlike the IMF, the ECB, and all the silly remain economist pressure groups that produce relentless remainer hype) When they all say the euro will collapse. History says the euro will collapse.
WHy do you know better?
The one assumption I did make (budget contribution) was on the basis of a provable trend, although presently flat. And I am happy to correct anything I say that turns out not verifiable.
possibly the most hilarious response to a post, even on this thread! You're quite brilliant, Oracle!Quote:
You were grumbling about coverage of gymnastics on TV a while ago and how tiny it was. Meanwhile the local gymnastics club here (only a medium size town) attracted 500 gymnasts to a small regional competition, and coaches just as many youngsters, on average training 5-10 hours a week. And that is one club. I will wager less organised football training happens in this area by quite a big margin.
Quote:
So why do you think you know better than for example the architect of the Euro (otmar issing) , the nobel laureate economist Stiglitz, and most of the economists who predicted 2008 (unlike the IMF, the ECB, and all the silly remain economist pressure groups that produce relentless remainer hype) When they all say the euro will collapse. History says the euro will collapse.
er....becasue we are not, and never have been, part of the Euro?
there is no discussion. You were plain wrong.Quote:
You see I am happy to have a discussion on it.
But won't accept it. You never do.
I support banning clubs from Cumbria from racing outside Cumbria. So does my wife. We're both members of the FRA. I also support the raising of all clubs from the Peak District to membership of over 5000, with permanent gazebos.Quote:
Borrel ( the chief diplomat of EU ) called for raising the size to over 50000 with permanent military structures. Van der Leyen supports it all the way.
unsupported opinnionQuote:
Government bombarding us with remain messages throughtout national media was way in excess of coverage it was possible for leave to buy. In addition to the official channels, and the lack of leave proponents on such as QT was an outrage by the BBC
But that doesn't change the fact that the Remain campaign spent more than the Leave one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
£19.3 million against £13.3 million according to the Electoral Commission
https://www.electoralcommission.org....-eu-referendum
And Oracle is right to say that Leave were disadvantaged because the Remain campaign had the weight of the establishment on their side - the Government machinery, all three main political parties and the civil service. And boy did they use it.
The Government spent £9.3 million to print a propaganda leaflet sent to all households in favour of remaining, money that was denied the other side. So added to the official campaigns the money spent by Remain was more than twice that of Leave.
Then they used the Treasury to produce bogus forecasts predicting that the UK would lose 500,000 to 800,000 jobs in the two years following a vote to leave (not actually leaving). How did that work out? You go on about the red bus Dave Mole but at least that was based on fact i.e. it was the gross contribution. Not something you could say about the Treasury's ridiculous scaremongering.
And they even used a US president to state that the UK would be at the back of the queue in any trade negotiations. The reality is that we will be right at the front.
Well clearly not that easy. I think you need to try harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
Evidence?Quote:
. Bercow should not allow an amendment that changes the substance and intent of a government motion an amendment should only amend. He abuses standing orders every day.
seems to me they were quite unpopular.Quote:
the Remain campaign spent more than the Leave one.
£19.3 million against £13.3 million according to the Electoral Commission
If you want to get into conspiracy theories about Brexit, what about Russia? Or aliens?
I'm just posting this so that you can have a nice little cry
https://assets.publishing.service.go...for-the-uk.pdf
and the BBC's biased response to it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-35990076
presently decliningQuote:
The one assumption I did make (budget contribution) was on the basis of a provable trend, although presently flat.
because they get the impression that, if no one points out the obvious lies they can get away with it. And then pass them off as "fact".Quote:
No idea why you even bother