BS: A new political low take 2

Subject: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:00 AM

Following the closure of the last thread on this subject due to too much off topic abuse I am trying again. Maybe this time we can have a sensible discussion without the derailment?

Thanks.

Farage and his cronies have hit rock bottom.

Farage attacks Jo Cox's widower

Sadly I think, like Jones, that worse is yet to come with the thumbs up given to the new US president. And who's fault is it? Sadly, ours :-( We let it happen but surely we can say 'no more'? Let us do what we can to stem the flow of this hateful type of politics. Don't support them. Let those who do support them know they are promoting hate.

We can but try and, if enough people get together then surely our voice will be heard.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:41 AM

"These individuals are a political cesspit. Some say: just ignore them. This is, I'm afraid, terribly naive."

Hear, hear. And on both sides of the pond.

Dissent is becoming treason.

1968 Redux. Only much worse.

Good luck, UK, and God Help AmeriKKK

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 12:09 PM

Meanwhile, good news on this side of the pond (from your same news source):

Thursday's announcement by the Department of Homeland Security that it is tearing down the remnants of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (Nseers) marks the most audacious attempt yet by Barack Obama to place roadblocks in the way of his successor's declared intentions. A key element of Trump's bid for the White House was his threat to prevent non-citizen Muslims from entering the US and to keep them under surveillance once inside the country.

The Nseers program was one of the most contentious – and widely hated – elements of the Bush administration's anti-terror policies in the wake of 9/11. More than 80,000 people from 25 listed countries, 24 of which had majority Muslim or Arab populations, were forced onto the scheme in which they were required to provide fingerprints and a photograph and periodically present themselves for in-person interviews with DHS officers.

About 14,000 of those individuals were placed into deportation proceedings. Yet not a single individual was found to have any links to terrorist or violent activities.

It's way more than time for that to go away. Many of the Bush-era moves that involved Homeland Security were too far-reaching and discriminatory.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 12:38 PM

Farage was in Putin's pocket more than two years ago, long before Trump declared any political ambitions. He's just the monkey, the problem is the organ grinder.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 12:52 PM

Ah, but WHICH monkey is more beholdin to the organ grinder?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 12:53 PM

That is good news, Acme. I think we can all take heart from these sensible moves.

I hope none of you mind but as there were a few posts that were pertinent on the original thread I have taken the liberty of copying them here. I have credited them with your names and the only editing I have done is deleting any part of the post that was in response to prior personal abuse. Please feel free to contact the team if you want any of them deleting.

Subject: RE: BS: A new politcal low?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:08 AM

The Independent,
"The row came after Mr Cox criticised the Ukip MEP for blaming German Chancellor Angela Merkel for a terrorist attack on a Christmas market in Berlin."

Whatever the rights and wrongs, If Mr. Cox takes on someone like Mr Farage it is unreasonable not to expect a reply

Subject: RE: BS: A new politcal low?
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:15 AM

It is reasonable to expect a reply. It is unreasonable that the replies range from linking Mr Cox to extremists and branding 'Hope not Hate' an extremist organisation to saying that it was Mr Cox who politicised his wife's death and calling him a 'total arsehole'. Do you support those tactics, Keith?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new politcal low?
From: Stu - PM
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:23 AM

"If Mr. Cox takes on someone like Mr Farage it is unreasonable not to expect a reply"

True, but you'd expect that reply to be measured, civilised and respectful of the fact the man lost his wife to an extremist encouraged by a volatile and aggressive political atmosphere fermented by some of our more populist politicians. But then Farage doesn't have that degree of integrity, does he?

Subject: RE: BS: A new politcal low?
From: Mr Red - PM
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:45 AM

Let Farage reply, we defend his right.
Let him be judged on what he says. That is our right.

But by and large Farage has an army doing his saying, not all obviously. Remember the Farcebook posts that reached way beyond the believable. Even for Sun readers.
Your "friends maybe" did the dissemination, not necessarily the origination.

remember Farage was a commodity trader. ie a chancer. a spiv.

Subject: RE: BS: A new politcal low?
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:52 AM

"If Mr. Cox takes on someone like Mr Farage it is unreasonable not to expect a reply"
Assuming that you are talking to a reasonable person and not a racist scumbag like Farage
Cox was entitled to a reply to what he said, which was, "blaming politicians for the actions of extremists? That's a slippery slope Nigel"
Nothing wrong with that, especially as his wife was murdered by someone who supported Farage's ideas.
There is a knee-jerk tendency to blame all these acts on one group or the other before any evidence has been gathered - the first thing the police did was to arrest the wrong person.
What Cox said was true and it's no surprise that people like Farage wish for this this automatic blame to continue - then we can send them all back to where they come from.
(Deleted section)
Shitbags like Farage thrive on this cultural and race hatred.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new politcal low?
From: Jack Campin - PM
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 07:38 AM

If Mr. Cox takes on someone like Mr Farage it is unreasonable not to expect a reply

It was also reasonable to expect that reply to be about as humanly sympathetic as the contents of an oozing rectal abscess. Farage delivered.

The rest of the posts were personal attacks and defenses. I have not linked to the original but feel free to look it up.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 01:44 PM

If you make controversial statements in public you must expect a reply whatever your personal circumstances.
Like you I disapprove of hateful personal abuse, but Farage did not do that, so I can not agree that this is some "new low."

Farage's view Cox objected to is widely held in Germany and perfectly reasonable.
Merkel was criticised at the time for allowing in without checks around a million "refugees," who were in fact overwhelmingly young (military age) men, on the grounds of the security threat posed.
The criticism could only intensify as Germany suffered terror attacks, and support for Merkel has plummeted.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 02:03 PM

Cents and nonsenseabilities is a romantic dramedy bio movie about new Trump Lows every 32 seconds - Against a background of guffawing Republicans making excuses for high crimes, treason and unconstitutional decrees.

Until recently it was LEGAL for US senators to use insider information to invest in stock. Naturally Trump wants $ from his office.
He will use foreigners who want access for cash of course.
But I was thinking how he can invest in all his seeing eye dog blind trusts with more than insider info.

HE COULD INVEST BY TWEET RUMOR. For example he could tweet the CEO of Westinghouse is a real drug addled son of a bish, wait 2 days, buy low, and tweet He's a real great guy. Sell high.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 02:26 PM

Like you I disapprove of hateful personal abuse, but Farage did not do that

Excuse me?????

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:20 PM

Did you fart Greg, or do you have examples of Farage doing personal abuse.
He has often been the victim of it however.
Remember "swivel eyed loon?"
And, read what Jim calls him!

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:10 PM

Like you I disapprove of hateful personal abuse, but Farage did not do that

Excuse me?????

Guess your hero Trump doesn't do it either.

Idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:25 PM

Who mentioned personal abuse about the exchange between Farage and Cox, Keith?

Farage commented "Terrible news from Berlin but no surprise. Events like these will be the Merkel legacy."

Brendan Cox replied "blaming politicians for the actions of extremists? That's a slippery slope Nigel" Which, in my opinion and in that of the articles author, is quite a logical thing to say. How can a criminal murdering innocent people be blamed on Merkel?

Farage responded with what we are actualy discussing; that Cox "would know more about extremists than me" because of his links to the anti-fascist organisation Hope Not Hate. This is the first low. Equating Hope not Hate to an extremist organisation when it blatantly is not and then accusing a man who has just lost his wife to extremism of having extremist links. Maybe to you that is acceptable behaviour, but not to many others. Now, quoting directly from the article

Then came Farage's sidekicks. "When are we allowed to say that Brendan Cox is a total arse?" tweeted the Breitbart columnist James Delingpole. "I'm sorry about his wife but he chose to massively politicise it. Who does that?" asked Ukip bankroller Arron Banks, accusing Jo's widower – rather than the far-right terrorist who killed her – of politicising her death.

I find this a disgusting thing to do. How would you feel, if you had just lost someone in such circumstances, to be accused of extremism, to be told you was cashing in on their death and then be called a total areshole for complaining about it?

If you find it acceptable then I think I may have discovered the reason we cannot easily communicate - We operate on totally different moralities.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:28 PM

Interesting chain of events that puts Farage's statement that started this exchange in context.

In 2010 Anis Amri, the suspect now being hunted for the Berlin terror attack, was accused of stealing a lorry in his homeland of Tunisia. His family say he drank, had girlfriends, and was not overtly religious.

In February 2011 he was charged with armed robbery but fled the country. He was convicted in his absence and handed a five year sentence.

He went to Italy, where he he claimed asylum as a minor - he was probably about 17 at the time - but after a series of crimes including arson at a school he was given a four year jail sentence.

Upon his release in early 2015 he was taken to a detention centre to await deportation. His family say he had become religious. In July his expulsion order expired because Tunisia didn't sort out the paperwork.

He was ordered to leave Italy anyway, and so crossed into Germany where he claimed asylum in July 2015.

In August 2015, German president Angela Merkel responded to the growing migrant crisis by saying her country would take in 1million Syrians.

She was heavily criticised by right-wing politicians, who said this was an open invitation to terrorists.

In February 2016 Amri moved to Berlin and a month later came under investigation after a tip-off to police that he was preparing an act of terror.

In June 2016 his claim for asylum was rejected. He was detained for a day but because he had no identity documents they could not establish he was the right man, so had to let him go. By this point he claimed six separate identities and three different nationalities.

In August 2016 Amri was arrested for a minor offence, and Germany asked Tunisia to provide a passport so they could deport him.

In September 2016 surveillance was called off. Amri was seen dealing drugs and fighting in a bar, but there was no sign of terrorism.

(Source Daily Mirror)

These are the facts that we know about the suspect. There are other things that could be deduced by the forensic evidence in the truck but I do not care to speculate on them save to say that it looks like the Polish lorry driver put up and fight.

So, based on what we do know I believe that Farage has been proven to be wrong in blaming Angela Merkel and Brendan Cox has been vindicated for saying so.

Do we think Farage will apologise?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:46 PM

I'm going to get personal with you, Dave. Where are those missing bloody bingo balls, pal? Had a near-riot on me hands last week when a bunch of 85-year-olds spotted that legs eleven, clickety-click and two fat ladies hadn't cropped up for three years. I mean, I did try to TELL you not to try carrying them in a soggy cardboard box in the pissing rain across a dark car park...

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:34 AM

Yebbut if those numbers ever cropped up they would all win. They are on all the cards since we decided to photocopy the first one to save cash.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 05:31 AM

Dave,
How can a criminal murdering innocent people be blamed on Merkel?

As I said yesterday, many in Germany blame Merkel because she allowed in a million people, mostly young men from N.Africa, Middle East, and Afghanistan, with little or no checks.
It was feared at the time to be a security threat and there have now been several terror incidents in Germany related to that influx.


Who mentioned personal abuse about the exchange between Farage and Cox, Keith?

You described it as Farage attacking Cox, and it being a new political low.
In fact it was a reasoned reply and in no way a new political low.

If you read stuff from Breitbart you do not expect to find reasoned debate. Nothing to do with Farage. Why did you call the columnist his "sidekick?"

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:24 AM

""Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity."
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny, and have posted claim after claim that this happened without producing a single hint of "a serious problem" or an example of that antisemitism
When you were unable to do so, you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.
You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.
Jim Carroll"
So asylum seekers are all potential mass murderers, just as male Pakistanis are all potential rapists
A twisted world you live in.
I've just been listening to a British security man being interviewed on this attack, and he said the sheer impossibility of checking people fleeing these wars absolves the Germany Government from all blame
He said something like "Work out the man hours it would take to check the security of each individual and multiply it by the number of refugees seeking asylum and you begin to see the problem".
He also said, to his credit, that the alternative was to turn them all away, and that was unthinkable - except to people (Christians) like you, it would seem.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:00 AM

Not that it should worry you too much Keith, given your attitude to the Jewish people, but exactly the same arguments were being used by your lot to stop taking in Jews fleeing to Britain from the Nazis, only then it was that they were potential Bolsheviks rather than terrorists
Funny how a turning world always returns to the same place
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:42 AM

Who is my lot Jim?
Britain had an exemplary record for taking in Jewish refugees from the Nazis.
Does any country have better?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:49 AM

Exemplary record eh

The facts: A short History

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:59 AM

"Who is my lot Jim?"
People who talk about Jewish pacts of silence to hide antisemitism Keith
"Who is my lot Jim?"
My point exactly - pity that spirit of generosity is not extended to today's refugees
Those of your lot I was referring to where the few who argued that taking Jews in was a risk - the antisemitism right (if it fits, wear it)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:01 AM

As I said yesterday, many in Germany blame Merkel because she allowed in a million people, mostly young men from N.Africa, Middle East, and Afghanistan, with little or no checks.

And, as I pointed out earlier, the main suspect entered the country prior to the German governments (Not Merkels, you will note. It was approved by the whole government, not one person) decision to let more refugees in. The right wing are just using this as an excuse to stir up more hate against immigrants and attempt to discredit the current administration.

As to the rest of your points. well, there may be something you say in that Farage may have attacked Cox after Cox criticised him for getting it wrong over Merkel. An attack by a politician, who should know better, on a member of the public who has suffered a tragedy. Whatever spin you you would care to put on it there is no excuse to lambaste someone who has had their family destroyed by extremism by suggesting they have links to extremist groups.

No excuse whatsoever.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:02 AM

...and please everyone, do not turn this into another thread about anti-semitism or it will simply be closed again.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:27 AM

Nothing to do with Farage. Why did you call the columnist his "sidekick?"

Maybe for the same reason that you tend to lump everyone who argues against you as 'a little gang' and ask me to comment on Jim's or Steve's posts. But, point taken, I shall not use the term where it is not applicable again.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:48 AM

Why did you call the columnist his "sidekick?"

Just google "delingpole farage" and see what you get (I'm not about to recycle that shit). That's exactly what he is.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Charmion
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:51 AM

Who did better than Britain at providing sanctuary for Jews fleeing the Nazis?

Not Canada. Not the United States. Not Australia. Not any of the English-speaking countries.

The Dominican Republic, of all places, did better, offering settlement opportunities (accepted by only a few refugees) and, more importantly, travel papers that thousands used to find sanctuary elsewhere.

Bolivia was surprisingly welcoming, accepting some 20,000 Jewish refugees between 1938 and 1941.

The Mexican consul stationed in Marseilles under the Vichy regime was personally responsible for producing travel documents that allowed tens of thousands of Jews to get out of Europe via France. He was so successful that the Gestapo arrested him and his family, holding them in Germany for a year.

Check out the Holocaust Museum site for more information.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 09:15 AM

IT GOT REAL

Less than two hours Putin announced that Russian needs to upgrade its tactical nuclear bombs when

Trump tweeted an expansion of our nuclear arsenal.
(collusion?)




I know we still use 8 inch floppies to run our guidance and detonation system. but a nuclear bomb race we do not need.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 10:18 AM

Who did better than Britain at providing sanctuary for Jews fleeing the Nazis?

Japanese-occupied Shanghai. Look it up.

Geographically, the obvious place to flee to for most European Jews faced with annihilation was the USSR. I have not yet found any believable information about how many went there - every site I can locate on the web obscures the demographic facts behind mountains of ideological garbage.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 10:44 AM

People who talk about Jewish pacts of silence to hide antisemitism Keith

Not me then Jim.

Dave,
From your post,
In August 2015, German president Angela Merkel responded to the growing migrant crisis by saying her country would take in 1million Syrians.

She was heavily criticised by right-wing politicians, who said this was an open invitation to terrorists.

In February 2016 Amri moved to Berlin and a month later came under investigation after a tip-off to police that he was preparing an act of terror.

He arrived in Germany as an asylum seeking refugee.

It is a widely held view that the open door policy allowed many Jihadists to enter, and has led to the upsurge in attacks in Germany.

An attack by a politician, who should know better, on a member of the public who has suffered a tragedy. Whatever spin you you would care to put on it there is no excuse to lambaste someone who has had their family destroyed by extremism by suggesting they have links to extremist groups.

No. The criticism was put to Farage in a broadcast interview and any politician would have had to give a full strength response.
Even tragic personal circumstance do not allow you free hits in politics.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 10:51 AM

Fine, Keith, we know your position on this. I do not believe there is any excuse for the actions of Farage and his supporters, including yourself now. No need to confirm it any further.

The criticism by Brendan Cox was on twitter BTW, not in an interview. However it does not matter, it was Farages response that was unforgivable and as we are obviously poles apart there is no point in continuing the discussion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 11:23 AM

"Not me then Jim."
Please stop lying stupidly Keith
You said exactly this - it is archived as this
If you doiid not say it, what excuse did you give for the Jewish members not revealing the nature of the antisemitism?
You have till the end of the day to makeup another porkie.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 12:51 PM

Lat's settle this once and for all Keith
You claim there is a serious problem of antisemitism within the Labour Party
Why haven't the Jewish victims of this antisemitism gone public?
What is to stop them from going to the press, who would be more than happy top publicise it and get it stopped?
Simple - answer the question
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:07 PM

Can we get this back on track of Farage being an obnoxious lying arsehole (like his doppelganger Trump) and let the Zionist bigots/apologists destroy other threads as per usual?

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:09 PM

This is not a thread about anti-Semitism in the Labour party, Jim. There seems to be enough of them going on already without turning this into another. This thread is about the depths to which some politicians will stoop to gain attention. I suppose the two things are loosely linked but unless you can link the two in a sensible manner here I would politely ask you to keep to the topic.

Many thanks in advance.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:13 PM

Thanks, Greg - Cross posted but the message was the same :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:33 PM

Dave,
The criticism by Brendan Cox was on twitter BTW, not in an interview.

Farage made his comment about Merkel on twitter too, but Brendan's criticism was put to Farage on LBC so he could not duck responding to it.

I do not believe there is any excuse for the actions of Farage

What actions Dave?
He replied to the criticism of him.
What exactly are you accusing him, and now me, of doing that was so terrible?

Norman Tebbit's wife was maimed in a terrorist attack, and eventually died of her injuries. Did he get any special dispensations?

Jim, I answered your questions on the Labour Party thread.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:53 PM

Just heard some brilliant news on the BBC. Brendan Cox is to deliver the alternative Christmas message. on Channel 4 on Christmas day. In it he will call for an end to the rise in hatred.

Now, I wonder why they did not offer that job to Farage? I wonder what the hate mongers will make of it?

Cheers

DtG

PS, that same article comments that Earlier this week, Mr Cox clashed with Nigel Farage on Twitter after the former Ukip leader said that the Berlin lorry attack would be "[Angela] Merkel's legacy".

Mr Cox responded by saying "blaming politicians for the actions of extremists" was a "slippery slope"

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:57 PM

...Farage then of course responded by trying to smear by linking himto extremists. And that is where I came in.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:02 PM

Here is all of what Farage said according to Huffington,

When asked about Cox's comments during an interview on LBC this morning, Farage responded: "Yes well of course he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox.
"He backs organisations like Hope not Hate who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means.
"And I'm sorry Mr Cox but it is time people start taking responsibility for what happened. Mrs Merkel has directly caused a whole number of social and terrorist problems in Germany, it's about time we confronted that truth."
Forced to acknowledge that no-one has arguably been more on the receiving end of this sort of extremism than Cox, Farage said: "Yes and it's a terrible thing that happened to his family with the murder of his wife but he continues to be active in the political arena and as I say, given some of the organisations that he supports I can't just stand here and say 'I'm not going to respond'."

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:04 PM

"
Jim, I answered your questions on the Labour Party thread."
You didn't - it will take you a second to answer it here
Why did they not describe the antisemitism you claim they were subjected to?It will take you a few seconds to get me off your back
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:18 PM

Precisely, Keith. Brendan Cox made a perfectly valid statement on twitter. Instead of responding in kind, Farage used his high profile public position to try to smear Brendan Cox and the Hope not Hate campaign as being extremists. It is just sick and I simply cannot understand how anyone can attempt to justify it. You complain profusely when someone on here, a little read specialist forum, tries to smear you with what you deem to be lies. Yet when a public figure abuses his prominent position to tell the world a widower is linked to the very thing his wife was fighting against when she was murdered, it is perfectly acceptable to you? As I said earlier, there is not point in continuing this discussion with you. Our moralities and sensibilities are poles apart.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:45 PM

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:53 PM

Just heard some brilliant news on the BBC. Brendan Cox is to deliver the alternative Christmas message. on Channel 4 on Christmas day. In it he will call for an end to the rise in hatred.

Just a little late. I believe HRH Prince Charles has already covered that subject very well, also on "Thought for the day"

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 03:02 AM

The more the merrier, Nigel. He will also say it is the "moment to reach out to somebody that might disagree with us" so, in that spirit and it being the season of goodwill...

Although I simply cannot understand your viewpoint, Keith, you are entitled to hold and express it without fear. It may be a sticking point in this discussion but I hold no animosity and wish you and your loved ones a happy and peaceful Christmas.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 04:48 AM

Jim,
Why did they not describe the antisemitism you claim they were subjected to?It will take you a few seconds to get me off your back

They did describe their experiences of anti Semitism, to the Labour leadership.

Dave,
on twitter. Instead of responding in kind, Farage used his high profile public position

No. It was put to him to respond to live on LBC, otherwise he probably would not have responded at all.
Nothing sick in that. Not any kind of "new political low."

to smear Brendan Cox and the Hope not Hate

Is it a smear? I do not know but Farage is not known for making statements he can not support.
I predict that the legal case will be quietly forgotten or it will fail.
We will see.

You complain profusely when someone on here, a little read specialist forum, tries to smear you with what you deem to be lies.
Of course I do! They are lies.

Yet when a public figure abuses his prominent position to tell the world a widower is linked to the very thing his wife was fighting against when she was murdered, it is perfectly acceptable to you?

Absolutely not, unless it is true.

There is no difference in our morality Dave and please do not suggest such a thing. I just believe that you have misread this event.
Do have a joyful family Christmas.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 05:08 AM

"They did describe their experiences of anti Semitism, to the Labour leadership."
Not what I asked Keith - why didn't they take it further?
You said it was out of loyalty to the party - that is antisemitic.
The answer is simple, they didn't take it public is because, beyond critiscism otf Israel, it does not exist any more than it does in any other political party.
Supporters of the Israeli regime, particularly those who oppose B.D.S., were perfectly at liberty to go to the press with it - they didn't.
Unless and until somebody does, there is no case to answer - British justice, natural justice and simple common sense - you do not accuse siomebody of something and refuse to describe it and no jury in the land would convict somebody without considering fully what they have been accused of.
You live in an Alice Through the Looking Glass World - "Off with his head".
BDS and ANTISEMITISM

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 05:10 AM

BDS and ANTISEMITIC SMEARS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 08:23 AM

Thank you, Keith, but I believe it is you that have misread it so we will just have to agree to differ. Answer me one question though. Do you believe that Hope not Hate is an extremist organisation and that Brendan Cox has links to extremism?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 10:34 AM

Jim
The answer is simple, they didn't take it public is because, beyond critiscism otf Israel, it does not exist any more than it does in any other political party.

But we know it does Jim because so many senior people have acknowledged that it does.
The NEC itself said it was appalled by recent cases, and that it is a serious problem.
That is proof Jim.

Dave,
Do you believe that Hope not Hate is an extremist organisation and that Brendan Cox has links to extremism?

I know nothing about it Dave, but I know Farage to be wily and clever.
As I said earlier, he is not known for making statements he can not support.
I predict that the legal case will be quietly forgotten or it will fail.
We will see.

but I believe it is you that have misread it so we will just have to agree to differ.

Then why can you not produce something offensive from Farage?
Is anything in that Huffington transcript offensive? What?
"A new political low" is a huge claim and you have failed to even remotely justify it.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 10:51 AM

I just find it offensive to suggest that someone who has lost his wife to extremism has extremist links. I thought that was enough justification. If you do not, fair enough, but I am not on my own nor, I suspect, are you.

If I may use an folk based illustration. I used to black up to play various roles in the Abram Pace Egg play. Some people said it was offensive and I argued for a long time that it was not. Then I had an epiphany about it. If someone genuinely finds something offensive then, to them. it is. If it is offensive and there is a perfectly viable alternative, then it should stop.

From the Huffington transcript you provided -

"Yes well of course he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox.
"He backs organisations like Hope not Hate who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means.

That is offensive in the extreme. It is, ultimately, suggesting that by supporting extremist organisations, Brendan Cox was somehow culpable in the murder of his own wife. I find it sickening. You may disagree. Not a good measure of whether I am right or wrong, I know, but I think you will find I am with the majority.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 11:42 AM

You may disagree. Not a good measure of whether I am right or wrong

Actually, Dave, it is an EXCELLENT indicator that you are indeed correct if The Professor disagrees with you, as has been proven without a doubt by his extensive posting history of arrant nonsense, supposition, false conclusions, lies, distortions & etc.

As for what The Professor "believes" ... who the hell cares?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 02:24 PM

I just find it offensive to suggest that someone who has lost his wife to extremism has extremist links. I thought that was enough justification. If you do not, fair enough, but I am not on my own nor, I suspect, are you.

Not alone? Of course we are not. Every possible view is held by someone.
So what?

I would agree with you Dave if it was a baseless smear, but I doubt that it was.
If it has some truth in it, is it still "a new political low?"
How certain are you of the facts Dave?

Have you dropped your objection to him replying to the criticism put to him live on radio?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 03:32 PM

No. I have not Keith, but it is late on Christmas eve and there are better things to do with our time. I intend to enjoy myself. I suggest you do the same. Time is the thing that is in most short supply.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 06:04 PM

Keith has the matter summed up to a tee.
Dave should admit that he was wrong in his attempt to smear Mr Farage.

Happy Christmas to all members lapsed, current and debarred! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 06:29 PM

Farage sets himself up to be smeared, ridiculed, dismissed, disbarred, impeached, whatever else you can do to him. His politics are loathsome - even this American knows that much.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 06:36 PM

Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 07:09 PM

Mr Farage is arguably one of the most influential politicians of the last few years.

He almost singlehandedly secured the referendum in favour of the UK leaving the EU, he also assisted Mr Trump in his dramatic victory in the American Presidential election.....he is an extremely clever and well informed politician.....The fact that YOU do not agree with him or his views is of no consequence, the facts speak for themselves.

The policy of unregulated immigration is unsustainable and Mr Farage was instrumental in making every mainstream political Party accept that fact......"liberals" can cry racist till they are blue in the face but the facts say something very different.....we must have the ability to control our borders and that does not mean an end to immigration, it simply means that we can control who and in what number people migrate into the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 07:12 PM

Acme if you are so well versed on UK politics could you please give some examples of Mr Farage's "loathsome politics"?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 08:03 PM

Mr. Farage, Ache, is a piece of shit. As is Trump.

Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 02:12 AM

Ake, you can dish out all of the SHIT that the Russians pushed about Hillary, yet the long-standing facts about the racist BNP's Farage upset you? Pull up your socks, fella, if you can keep dishing it out for months on end you'd damn well better be able to take it when your rep is a documented as being a bigot and a panderer to the lowest-common-denominator. There is no question as to his low moral character. His nasty characterizations of anyone who isn't a white xtian are deplorable.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 05:13 AM

I agree with all you say about his rotten character but must correct you slightly: Farage is not a member of the BNP. UKIP is his outfit. I'm sure that's what you meant. They are different but not exactly poles apart.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 06:39 AM

Mr Farage and the BNP ARE "poles apart".

Acme's comment indicate her grasp of UK politics, I am still waiting for examples of his "loathsome politics"

Every thinking person is disturbed about the effects of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism, especially given the present rates of migration from the middle East through the EU open borders, your characterisation of all these thinking people who number many millions in the West, is not only "deplorable" but inaccurate.

In fact you do not have a dog in this race, as the US does not and quite rightly would not, accept unregulated immigration from these regions.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 07:23 AM

Acme can speak for herself, but I feel pretty confident in saying that she has a far better grasp of everything that we have ever discussed here than you. By a country mile. Well, I suppose you may know a little more about Pedigree Chum for greyhounds.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 08:06 AM

Examples of Farages loathsome politics

1. As detailed in this thread
2. The poster that he supported showing queues of dark skinned people waiting to get into the UK
3. Referring to Barack Obama as a loathsome creature who cannot stand Britain

Three just off the top of my head. Do you support him attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife, ake?

Oh, and a merry Christmas to you too.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 10:39 AM

UKIP, BNP, they're both loathesome. Sounds like UKIP has filled in the power vacuum when BNP fell apart a while back. Ake, I'm not debating this with you any more, and if you continue to trash threads with your one-note statements (they couldn't be considered "argument" in the sense of debate because you show no evidence of learning or adjusting your opinions based upon current events or FACTS) you may find yourself edited out of conversations.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 12:33 PM

OK Dave, Keith has already dealt with your attempted smear of Mr Farage, so nothing further needs to be said on that point.

Regarding President Obama, Mr Farage called him a "loathsome individual" after he had come to the UK in an attempt to influence the result of the EU referendum....something which had absolutely nothing to do with him or the USA. He threatened us that should we vote to leave the EU we would be "put right to the back of the queue" regarding any trade deals, completely ignoring the so called "special relationship which is supposed to exist between our two nation.
Apparently this relationship only exists when warmongering US presidents require support or somewhere to refuel their "rendition" aircraft?

The queues of people were not in my opinion dark skinned, more like Eastern European or Middle Eastern and the queues were to accurately represent the numbers of people who were lining up to take advantage of the EU ruling on freedom of movement. The last figures show that numbers entering the UK through EU auspices have indeed increased and will continue to increase until Brexit is realised.

Acme, I have no wish or intention of discussing with you, so you can ignore my posts....however it is unfair to silence me simply because you do not agree with my political views. There are other members who like to discuss politics.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 02:17 PM

The people in the queue were refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 02:20 PM

it is unfair to silence me simply because you do not agree

Agreed - but then there's the fact that you have no bloody idea what you're talking about, that you invent your own "facts"[sic] and that you persist in smearing Farcebook-style feces about all over the place.

So while there may not be a case for "silencing", there's most assuredly one for calling your bullshit out for the bullshit that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 02:49 PM

That's fair enough Greg, that's your opinion.

Although I disagree with you over this partisan politics issue, I still find you straight and often funny....I respect you for that.

I do not respect trolls, two faced creeps or arse lickers whatever shade of political opinion they promote.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 03:23 PM

As-salāmu alaykum   لسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 16 - 03:36 PM

Wa alaikum assalaam...Greg,   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Dec 16 - 07:57 AM

I have not attempted to smear Farage. Just reported what happened. If you saw it as a smear then surely you must agree he was wrong to do what he did. But even had I done so, I am perfectly within my rights to call out what I see as 'a new political low' which I believe it is. Others do not. Keith does not beieve it is and has told us his reasons for not believing so. You have not answered my question though, ake. Do you believe it is right that anyone should be allowed to besmirch a good man with misinformation that, ultimately, suggests that Brendan Cox has links with the very idealism that killed his wife and not have anyone comment on it?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 16 - 09:23 AM

Firstly I do not accept the context of the question.
Secondly as you know very well, it is a "Loaded Question"
Thirdly, if you require any further information on my views, refer to my post to Greg, 25th Dec 16   2:49pm.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Dec 16 - 09:49 AM

You have heard the Mafia context excuse dozens of times in your life.

It goes like this, "It's not personal it's business".

With Donald Trump the context has been the reverse of the Mafia.

It goes like this, "it's not business, it's personal".

Both context's are a dangerous evil but the one based on a personality disorder is the most unpredictable.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 05:11 AM

"Do you support him attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife" - Asks DtG

Now please feel free to correct me on any of the following that is factually wrong:

Point 1: Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair, a 52-year-old Batley and Spen constituent who had a history of psychiatric problems and links to the U.S.-based National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group".

Initial reports indicated that the gunman shouted "Britain first" as he carried out the attack.

The far-right Britain First party issued a statement denying any involvement or encouragement in the attack and suggested that the phrase "could have been a slogan rather than a reference to our party".

At Mair's trial a witness stated that he shouted, "This is for Britain. Britain will always come first".

Question 1 for DtG: What proven evidence is there of Brendan Cox being a supporter or member of the US-based National Alliance, the only political movement Mair had any sort of connection with?

Point 2: "Well, he would know more about extremists than me, wouldn't he. He backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means." - Reported words of Farage

The exchange that prompted the above was nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Jo Cox, it was about the Christmas Market attack in Berlin.

Question 2 to DtG: Where and when does Nigel Farage make any reference to the murder of Jo Cox?

Point 3: After her death, Brendan Cox set up a Memorial Trust in memory of his wife. There were three beneficiaries all selected by Brendan Cox, one of them was the "Hope not Hate" group referred to by Nigel Farage.

Question 3 to DtG: Is the following true with regard to "Hope not Hate" - In November 2016 a press release from Hope not Hate exaggerated the findings of a report on abusive social media following the murder of Jo Cox MP by a right-wing extremist. The press release was used by several national newspapers which subsequently withdrew the articles - Source: The Economist. 17th December 2016 ISSN 0013-0613. Article "A supposed outpouring of online hatred against Jo Cox, a murdered MP, was exaggerated".

Answer those questions honestly and you will find that Nigel Farage said nothing that could be even remotely interpreted as him - attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 05:20 AM

Dave,
Do you support him attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife, ake?

He did not suggest that.
He suggested that he had links to a different extremism.
If that is a lying smear, it is indeed despicable.

If there is some truth in it is fair comment.

Whatever else he may be, Farage is wily and clever, and not known for making claims that subsequently prove false.
I know nothing about Brendan and the organisation referred to but I predict that the legal action will be quietly dropped or that it fails.

Steve,

The people in the queue were refugees.

They were all young (military age) men.
Real refugees tend to be less homogenous so economic migrants may be a more suitable description.

Steve and Dave,
Farage's politics are those of UKIP whose manifesto is available on line.
Please identify the most loathsome bit or any loathsome bits.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 05:52 AM

They were refugees. I don't bloody care how old they looked. They were nothing to do with the sort of EU immigration that the racist Farage continually prattles on about. The photo was inappropriately used by him to make some point or other. Try to be honest about something for a change, Keith. And you have now said three times that he is not known for making false claims. So it's true that we give the EU £350 million per week, is it? So it's true that the £350 million per week will be spent on the NHS, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 07:20 AM

Sorry ake, I don't understand how the post to Greg has any bearing on my question to you. You need to explain.

Teribus - Simply linking Brendan Cox to any sort of extremism is hurtful to the grieving family. That is the point and it makes your questions irrelevant.

Keith - See above.

Farage is indeed wily and clever. He will make sure that he has nothing to answer for in law while managing to smear those who stand against him. It is a transparent tactic and I, along with many others, believe he is indeed a loathsome character. I am sure he has no interest in other peoples opinions anyway unless he can see some way of promoting himself. As he did here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 08:19 AM

Far from my questions being irrelevant as you put DtG - Your reluctance to address them stems from the fact that it was YOU who were the one that did the linking, based on absolutely nothing.

Nigel Farage did not make any reference at all to the murder of Jo Cox, and most certainly did not make any reference to any association between Brendan Cox or the person who killed her (Please note NO right wing organisation had any connection with the death of Jo Cox - If you dispute that then offer up some hard substantive evidence - I am not the slightest bit interested in opinion)

Is "Hope not Hate" an "extremist" organisation?? It is certainly "militant" in what it sees as it's chosen causes that would prompt it to push faux-news knowing it to be inaccurate and misleading - that makes them rather dangerous. Brendan Cox chose "Hope not Hate" as a beneficiary of the funds raised after the his wife's murder - so the link between Brendan Cox and "Hope not Hate" is an undeniable fact.

As a result of this exchange "Hope not Hate" has resorted to crowdfunding to raise the money it would require to sue Nigel Farage (Apparently the sums of money they get from Trades Unions and the Jo Cox Fund aren't sufficient). I pray that Hope Not Hate does sue Farage because it will allow this debate to move beyond arrogant, politically partisan virtue signalling to a genuine examination of the facts.

1: Is Hope Not Hate really "a well-respected, civil society organisation"? I would remind you that it was not Farage but that bastion of rational and independent journalism - The Economist - which revealed that Hope not Hate exaggerated 'hate speech' claims by over 3000 percent following the murder of Jo Cox MP. The Hope not Hate website has also published opinion columns by Fiyaz Mughal, director of the 'anti-Islamophobia' website Tell Mama - which itself lost all its Government funding after hugely inflating the number of hate crimes following the murder of Lee Rigby.

Not much respect there then - especially for the facts.

2: I Would point out, too, that it is not Farage, but the former communications advisor of Hate not Hope - Dan Hodges - who says "Hope not Hate" uses "dirty, underhand, low down, unscrupulous" tactics in their efforts to crush political opponents. I think we can probably take the 'civil' out of the 'civil society organisation' assertion.

3: Jo Cox's husband was happy to overtly blame right wingers for creating the context that led to his wife's murder, but that he now expresses a moral objection when Farage, not unreasonably, draws attention to the sadly inconvenient fact that Merkel opened her borders to mass migration despite being warned at the time (not least by ISIS) that killers would be travelling amongst the refugees.

In a Court of Law under rules of evidence I suspect that Hope Not Hate will come off rather the worse in the encounter.
 

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 08:32 AM

She opened her doors to refugees. Let's be careful, unlike Farage, to keep that entirely separate from the free movement of EU citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 09:48 AM

Teribus, I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly. Neither Farage nor I nor anyone else has suggested Brendan Cox had any links with the person that killed his wife. What I am saying is that I find it wrong that Farage suggested that Brendan Cox had links with ANY exremist organisation while the Cox family are still grieving after Jo Cox's death at the hands of an extremist. It was unfeeling and, in my opinion, a despicable thing to do. You may find it justified or you may see nothing wrong with it. That is your right just as it is mine to express my views.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 10:30 AM

At least my views on Farage are not as extreme as some :-)
DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 11:33 AM

Dave the Gnome - 27 Dec 16 - 09:48 AM

Teribus, I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly. Neither Farage nor I nor anyone else has suggested Brendan Cox had any links with the person that killed his wife.

Now that DtG is the exact opposite of what you state here:

Dave the Gnome - 25 Dec 16 - 08:06 AM

"Do you support him attacking a widower by suggesting he has links to the extremism that killed his wife"

And again here:

Dave the Gnome - 23 Dec 16 - 02:18 PM

"when a public figure abuses his prominent position to tell the world a widower is linked to the very thing his wife was fighting against when she was murdered"

At NO POINT AT ALL has Farage EVER told the world that - and you damn well know it.

"The day after Cox died, 17 June 2016, Brendan Cox set up a GoFundMe page named "Jo Cox's Fund" in aid of three charities which he described as "closest to her heart": the Royal Voluntary Service, Hope not Hate, and the White Helmets, a Syrian civil defence group."

See any connection there between Brendan Cox, purportedly Jo Cox, and the militant campaigning group "Hope not Hate"? That is the "Hope not Hate" group that according to Dan Hodges, uses "dirty, underhand, low down, unscrupulous" tactics in their efforts to crush political opponents.

How about this for a piece of gross misrepresentation from Nick Lowles writing in the Guardian:

When Nigel Farage used a radio interview this week to publicly attack Brendan Cox, husband of the murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, he lashed out in the most unbelievable way. Just six months after Jo was murdered by neo-Nazi Thomas Mair, the former Ukip leader attempted to pin the extremist tag on Brendan Cox because of his association with the organisation I head, Hope not Hate.

Here again is what Nigel Farage said:

"Well, he would know more about extremists than me, wouldn't he. He backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means." - Reported words of Farage

It is undeniable that Brendan Cox did provide financial backing to "Hope not Hate" - matter of audited record.

It is not Brendan Cox who is being tarred with the "extremist" label - it is "Hope not Hate" who Farage views as being "extremist".

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Thompson
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 11:49 AM

This thread seems like the definition of "the expense of spirit in a waste of time", but could I ask both sides for one fact, please? How many immigrants have entered Britain in the last 10 years, where from, and what proportion of the population do they make up?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 11:53 AM

From Mr Shaw..."Try to be honest about something for a change, Keith. And you have now said three times that he is not known for making false claims. So it's true that we give the EU £350 million per week, is it? So it's true that the £350 million per week will be spent on the NHS, is it?"

Mr Farage had absolutely nothing to do with the Vote Leave claim that £350,000 COULD be used on the NHS.

Pay particular attention to the word "could"

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:13 PM

Nothing of what you C&Pd makes any difference to my position, Teribus and I have not suggested anything contrary at all.

Jo Cox was fighting against extremism and it was extremism that killed her. To link Brendan Cox with extremism is callous and uncalled for. That is my position and has been consistently so throughout the thread. I have never stated anywhere that Farage has tried to link Brendan Cox with anyone specific. Just that he implies that Brendan Cox supports extremism. I may not be as wily as Farage but I do know what I both said and meant!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:19 PM

Absolute rubbish. He was the leader of the party that hoodwinked the public into voting leave and he was the prime mover for leave. All round him leave campaigners in his own party as well as within Tory ranks were saying those things whether he uttered them or not (and he did). Did you hear him saying that the bus ad was a lie? No you did not. Did you hear him protesting that the NHS WASN'T going to get the money? No you did not. Some nice twisting and turning when confronted with the reality, for sure, but no retraction. Those things suited him down to the ground and he had ample opportunities to correct them. Did he do so? No he did not. Not one word until he'd safely won the vote. You might as well claim that Pontius Pilate had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM

That was aimed at akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:24 PM

For Thompson:

Immigration last 10 years

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:33 PM

Ake, you are mistaken the bus clearly states "lets fund our NHS instead"

No could or should.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

Raggytash, the statement had nothing to do with Mr Farage.
Boris Johnston made the original statement which included the word COULD.

Mr Shaw is completely wrong to credit the slogan to Mr Farage. He did so in an attempt to better Keith (that would be a first) :0)
Fortunately his claim has been exposed as "more made up shit"

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 12:46 PM

We "could" fund the NHS that amount. A hair dye will cover "up to 100% of the grey".   A bleach kills "up to 99%" of germs. These are vapid noises of no value or merit, not serious points. And anyone who makes them is knowingly practicing deceit.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 01:08 PM

DMcG - 27 Dec 16 - 12:46 PM - Complete and utter BS DMcG and you are the one guilty of deliberate misrepresentation

Statement 1: We "could" fund the NHS that amount.

Is a statement detailing a possible future course of action - COULD as Akenaton says is the operative word. It is not a definite statement of intention.

Statement 2: A hair dye will cover "up to 100% of the grey".

That is a definite s statement to the efficiency of the product - WILL being the operative word.

Statement 3: A bleach kills "up to 99%" of germs.

A definite claim and statement of the efficiency of the product.

In other words DMcG you are comparing Apples to Oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 01:14 PM

I am only stating the wording on the side of the "Battle Bus"

If any party meant to say £350 million COULD be spent on the NHS they should not have written "We send the EU £350 Milllion a week, Let's Fund our NHS instead, Vote Leave" "Let's take back control"

That is quite clear to most sane, rational people but obviously not so to people who prefer to argue in semantics.

Neither Johnson or Farage, who as you correctly state was not a part of that particular fiasco, did anything to suggest that it was not the case that monies would or could be directly transferred.

Farage had his own mistruths to pedal "Leave the EU and restore our Sovereignty" "Make Britain a self governing nation again" "Lower energy prices and scrapping 'green' taxes" etc etc before he went back to collecting his 96,000 Euro salary plus expenses for being a MEP.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 01:29 PM

A 96,000 Euro plus expenses, I should add, that has increased in Sterling value by about 10% since the Brexit vote.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 01:40 PM

You do have a point Raggytash, but a completely different one from the point Mr Shaw was attempting to make?

The slogan was carelessly worded but not uttered by Mr Farage. In fact I did hear him in an interview saying that not all the money would be spent on the NHS ....in his opinion.
Mr Farage would of course have no say in where the money was spent?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 02:07 PM

ah!! silly me, the penny has dropped regarding D Mc G......It was that intervention by MrT that did it.

I must be getting old or someone is getting careless.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 04:15 PM

Not really, Teribus. The point of all three statements is to make an association in the listeners mind between the item and the number
The exact words are not critical when we are really talking about the 'feeelong' created by the phrases. And they are intentionally deceitful. Let us assume you are right and the claim was just about a possible course of action. Then any other course of action is equally possible. They could have said a possible action was to give tax incentives to businesses, but they didn't choose that. They could have said they would spend it in flood defences but they didn't.   Out of all possible 'courses of action' they chose the NHS. And the reason was to build an association between spending this money and the NHS. Or do you have an alternative explaination why NHS was the possible route they choose to emphasise?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 05:06 PM

DMcG and Raggtytash are both absolutely right. I care not a jot who coined the £350 million per week bus slogan or the suggestion that the money could or should go to the NHS. Farage and his party were more than happy to be associated with those lies. There was no retraction, apart from wriggling when pressed, until after the vote was in the bag. Whether the slogan was initially uttered by Farage is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that he has a very big mouth and was more than capable of dismissing the slogan as lies. Which he didn't. The perpetuation of the lie was right up his street.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 06:30 PM

Farage evil is amateur balderdash.

I RAISE YOU 2 Trump tweets " let it be an arms race " & European leaders are weak

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 06:34 PM

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Dec 16 - 06:44 PM

Sorry, that was an accidental click. It happens sometimes when I pick up the phone. Apologies to one and all.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 02:41 AM

Raggytash - 27 Dec 16 - 01:14 PM

I am only stating the wording on the side of the "Battle Bus"

If any party meant to say £350 million COULD be spent on the NHS they should not have written "We send the EU £350 Milllion a week, Let's Fund our NHS instead, Vote Leave" "Let's take back control"

That is quite clear to most sane, rational people but obviously not so to people who prefer to argue in semantics.

Ehmmmmm No Raggy - Let's {Let us} do something to most sane, rational people implies a suggested, NOT a definite, course of action or choice.

As to arguing about semantics, there are believe it or not certain professions and circumstances where words have to be chosen very carefully to ensure that the meaning of what is being said is absolutely clear. The English language is notoriously ambiguous and difficult when it comes to precision of meaning which is why in days gone by French was chosen as the language of diplomacy as in French it is far easier to say precisely and unambiguously what you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 03:05 AM

Donuel - 27 Dec 16 - 06:30 PM

Since 2008 the Russians, ( and when I say that I am referring the Russian leadership) had been doing a bit of muscle flexing and until they decided to attempt to reclaim parts of the Ukraine a country THEY gave independence to, nobody has really provided any "back pressure" to curb this "expansionism".

I'd love to know what "Farage evil is" Donuel, but if it is of the same "Donuel invented sort" that you attributed to Senator John McCain you can keep it to yourself.

As to the two Trump tweets:

1: " let it be an arms race "

Stated in response to Putin declaring a massive overhaul and expansion of Russia's military capabilities with particular emphasis on her nuclear capabilities. In stating the above your President elect is merely reminding both Russia, and as a sidebar China, what it was that lost both the "Cold War" and in Russia's case the collapse of the USSR and the communist regime. It is a good, relevant and timely reminder for Russia's current leader that it will be race that Russia will again lose.

2: & European leaders are weak

What on earth is wrong with that? It is a mere statement of recognised fact - European leaders ARE weak and totally ineffectual - especially if viewed from a US perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 03:15 AM

"Farage had his own mistruths to pedal "Leave the EU and restore our Sovereignty" "Make Britain a self governing nation again" "Lower energy prices and scrapping 'green' taxes" etc etc before he went back to collecting his 96,000 Euro salary plus expenses for being a MEP." - Raggy

Ah so in doing so he was actually achieving what all our other totally useless MEPs have been rabbiting on about since 1973 - Changing the EU from the inside - Farage stood for election to the EU Parliament with the clearly expressed and honest intention of getting the UK OUT of the EU - you tell me Raggy did he succeed? Did he keep his promises to those who elected him and all the other UKIP MEPs? I'd say yes he did, now tell me what changes and reforms Conservative, Labour and LibDem MEPs have managed to achieve from the inside in Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 05:22 AM

So he succeeded in changing the EU from the inside, did he? "Succeeded?" If so, why does he still want us out? Doesn't say much for his "success," does it? Perhaps he'd have had more "success" had he turned up for votes a bit more often. As it is, there are 746 MEPs and he has the 745th best voting record, the only person below him being a long-term sick man. Still, on €100,000 a year plus expenses, why would he worry? Just about the most egregious exploiter of that very same "gravy train" you're always whingeing about. How amusing to see you and ache defending such a man of principle!

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 05:52 AM

Amusing ........... yes, no doubt. Surprising .......... not at all.

Farage's record of taking on the EU and "changing the EU from the inside" is nothing less than pathetic.

He has attended the fewest European parliamentary votes of any party in the EU's 28 countries.

Since 1999 he has collected his salary as an MEP together with generous expenses each year. Some of those expenses claims have been questioned and would provide for a interesting debate all on their own

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 06:42 AM

His excuse for not turning up was that he, unlike other MEPs, was the leader of a political party. A ragbag collection of unprincipled thugs, more like, as they've clearly demonstrated since June.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 10:40 AM

Oh for heavens sake don't you read what Mr T says, Mr Farage had no intention of "changing the EU from inside". Mr Farage's stated intention was to get the UK OUT of the EU.....and he succeeded brilliantly.
I don't know another politician with the balls to stand up to the whole political establishment single handedly and achieve his stated goal despite being smeared right left and centre.

I am opposed to his economic policies as one would expect, but by god I admire a man who does what he says he will do against all the odds.

That is the problem with UK politics too man people afraid to risk their comfortable jobs, lack of principles, and many of them cowering the Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 10:56 AM

As one would expect? You jest - we expect you to hold views that disagree with most of us and be unwilling to listen to reasonable debate. We expect you are unable and unwilling to see the hardships such bigotted individuals as Farage (and Trump) will force upon the citizens of their nations. After small single steps of progress forward, each of those individuals represents the "two steps back" we've all heard of. I hope your new world bites you in the ass so you finally understand what we've all been trying to tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 11:47 AM

Steve,
They were refugees. I don't bloody care how old they looked. They were nothing to do with the sort of EU immigration that the racist Farage continually prattles on about. The photo was inappropriately used by him to make some point or other. Try to be honest about something for a change, Keith. And you have now said three times that he is not known for making false claims. So it's true that we give the EU £350 million per week, is it? So it's true that the £350 million per week will be spent on the NHS, is it? .

If they were refugees and not economic migrants, why all men of a similar age?
And a proportion will have been heading for UK.
Farage had no involvement in the 350m claim and was critical of it, so why bring that into this discussion.
If I was wrong to say he is not known for making false claims, quote one.
"Try to be honest about something for a change, Keith"
You failed to identify any dishonesty from me, but there it is in your post.

Dave,
See above.

and I, along with many others, believe he is indeed a loathsome character.

You make that clear, but have not given any grounds for it.
What exactly has he ever said or done that is "loathsome?"

I am sure he has no interest in other peoples opinions anyway unless he can see some way of promoting himself. As he did here.

Not true. He responded to something put to him without warning live on radio.

Steve,

She opened her doors to refugees. Let's be careful, unlike Farage, to keep that entirely separate from the free movement of EU citizens.

The free movement across Europe allows refugees to reach Calais and thence UK.

Dave,
What I am saying is that I find it wrong that Farage suggested that Brendan Cox had links with ANY exremist organisation

Do you find it wrong even if true?

To link Brendan Cox with extremism is callous and uncalled for.
Not if it was true, and "callous and uncalled for" is hardly "a new low in politics!"
That is a huge and inflammatory claim.
If you had claimed "a new level of mild disapproval" no-one would have challenged you.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 11:55 AM

Say good night, Professor.

Move along, people, nothing to see here.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 01:01 PM

Christ - Is Keith still keeping foreigners out?
And Ake is still defending teh undefendables?
And Little Briton Teribus still ranting on about Europe?

Has anybody mentioned the resolution U.N. Resolution condemning Israeli Settlements (best news of the holiday season - bang goes Keith's "decent countries" defence) - or is that a pleasure we have to come?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 02:06 PM

It doesn't matter whether it is true or not, Keith. That is the age old excuse that simply does not wash. The seed has been sown and there will be people out there who will believe that Brendan Cox is an extremist just in the same way as some will believe Cliff Richards is a pedophile. Mud sticks. It's the way misinformation works and it is the way smarmy politicians get away with smearing people.

I gave three reasons for why I believe he is loathsome earlier. The fact that you do not believe the reasons to be right does not affect my opinion in the least.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 02:13 PM

From the "professor"

"To link Brendan Cox with extremism is callous and uncalled for.

Not if it was true, and "callous and uncalled for" is hardly "a new low in politics"

OK "professor" Can you give us just one small example to link Brendan Cox with extremism in anything he has done or said. Can you tell us if it was true.

Can you tell us where in any way, shape or form can he be linked to extremism, apart from the obvious fact his wife was killed by one.

PS. The callous and uncalled for relates to an accusation against a man who is still grieving the loss of his wife. I thought even you might be able to comprehend that.

Christian ............... my arse.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 02:34 PM

"Christian ............... my arse."
Do you really thing that little of such an essential part of your anatomy raggy?
You need to remember Keith's Christmas message is "No room at this inn"
The Russian and Syrian forces kill as many refugees as possible and their counterparts over here do their bit by spreading hate, fear and suspicion.
They all look the same, you know, swarthy skinned and hook nosed.
You really can't trust these people - especially culturally!!
The experts have said so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 03:04 PM

Shaw, please tell us what the other 745 MEPs are paid?

He doesn't vote because as a dissenting voter his vote does not count.

On waste of money can you explain the monthly lift and shift of the whole caboodle from Brussels to Strasbourg, done for no other reason but to give the French a wad of cash.

He did manage to change things more so than any other MEP who has sat there - He managed to get Britain to vote to leave, by exposing the horrendous waste and inefficiency of this organisation that you would have us shackled to.

As far as politicians with their snouts firmly wedged in the trough, you need look no further than the Kinnocks - they played the EU Gravy train system like a concert grand for everything it was worth. So sorry Shaw, Nigel Farage is no different from the herd, lambast him, lambast them all.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 03:57 PM

If he's "no different from the herd" then why do you eejits build him up and defend him! You told us what a great job he was doing reforming the EU from within. So tell us about his "success" then! Attack the "herd" by all means, but if he's no different attack him too!

And if anyone here has read such bollocks as this in 2016 I should like to hear of it.

Ahem:

"Shaw, please tell us what the other 745 MEPs are paid?

He doesn't vote because as a dissenting voter his vote does not count."

Err, Bill, his vote counts PRECISELY AS MUCH AS EVERY OTHER MEP'S VOTE. You OK with that now? 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 04:17 PM

Still missing the point entirely Shaw.

No matter what vote Farage casts in the European Parliament he will always fid himself out voted. That being the case ne does not bother. He was sent to Brussels by electors on a ticket and representing a political party whose sole aim was to get the UK out of the EU. In that he has been remarkably successful.

You attack him because as an elected MEP he draws his salary - He should do he is entitled to it.

You attack him because he can draw on expenses and take advantage of allowances paid to every single other MEP - These are all automatic entitlements so give me one good reason why he should forego them?

In accepting these entitlements please tell us all what he is doing that is illegal. The answer to that question, as I know Shaw will ignore it, is NOTHING.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 05:12 PM

"Cliff Richards is a pedophile"
Cliff Richard,not Richards.real name Harry Webb

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 16 - 06:57 PM

It's perfectly relevant to point out that he has a terrible voting record. He is in dereliction of his duties in that regard far more than almost every other MEP. Yes I will ignore that stupid question because I have never accused him of doing anything illegal and you know it. What a stupid and pointless thing to say. You have attacked the gravy train of the EU countless times. Well here's a chap who's well and truly on it who you choose to defend. Breathtaking double standard. As for finding himself outvoted, in all my adult voting life I have never lived in a constituency that returned an MP I wanted. But guess what - I still vote. It's called democracy, something I seem to remember you rattling on about quite a lot when you castigated people for not bothering to vote in the referendum.

And once and for all, stop prattling on about Kinnock as though he's the stock answer to all your EU gripes. Let me just tell you that I have no more regard or respect for the man than you do. I detest the bugger. I may have to remind you of this post every time you drearily bring up his name.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 02:32 AM

"You have attacked the gravy train of the EU countless times. Well here's a chap who's well and truly on it who you choose to defend. Breathtaking double standard." - Steve Shaw

Yes Shaw and he would appear to be one of twenty who were elected to the European Parliament where they worked tirelessly to make such the "Gravy Train" ended as far as the UK goes. He's so "well and truly on it" as you put it that he has succeeded in ending it. I see no double standard at all. Their aim at the time of their election was clearly stated (Take the UK out of the EU) and they succeeded in doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Stu
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 03:13 AM

"where they worked tirelessly"

Pish. Google "ukip mep attendance". They're paid to attend the EU parliament, they don't and are widely considered lazy and boorish. Quite right too.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:00 AM

Jim, telling lies about my views on immigration is not debate.
It is what you do when you can not produce an intelligent argument.
Everything you said about me is a lie. All made up shit because making up shit is all you can do.

Dave, your three reasons to describe Farage as loathsome were all easily knocked down.
Have you any more?
Please repeat any that you think you can stand up.


It doesn't matter whether it is true or not, Keith. That is the age old excuse that simply does not wash.

Truth is not an excuse Dave.
If the accusation was true it is fair to make it.
If it was not, legal action can be taken and was promised.

Rag,
OK "professor" Can you give us just one small example to link Brendan Cox with extremism in anything he has done or said.

Nope. I said I know nothing about him or his organisation.
Farage made the claim, and he is not known for making false claims.
None of you have been able to produce one!

Stu,
They're paid to attend the EU parliament, they don't

The were elected to work against it and get us out.
They have succeeded admirably.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:29 AM

I have told you my reasons, Keith. To me they stand up. To you they do not and yet when I suggest we are working to different moralities and sensibilities you spit out your dummy and tell me how upset you are. I have nowhere further to take the discussion as it is obvious that you support Farage and I detest the man. We have no common ground here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:42 AM

I do not support Farage, and you have not given any rational reason for your detestation of him.
Please remind us what he has ever said or done that is detestable.
You started this. You should be able to answer a such a simple question.

If you do not it looks like prejudice and not reason behind your use of words like "loathesome" and "detest."
If you start a discussion, and make such statements, you should be prepared to justify them.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:52 AM

I don't need to justify anything to you or anyone else, Keith. If you feel that I am irrational or prejudiced then, fine, feel free to believe it. My reasons remain the same. The man is divisive and the discussion up to now has only underlined that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:08 AM

"The man is divisive."
I agree. Politics is about the divide opinions about issues. Nothing loathsome or detestable about that Dave.

"I don't need to justify anything to you or anyone else, Keith."

If you start such an argument as this with divisive and inflammatory claims and statements, you actually do need to justify them Dave.

Throwing them out and then standing back from the discussion and refusing to justify them, is trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:11 AM

No lies here Keith - you have a track recored of hatred of "implanted" foreigners.
Your views are xenophobic and are aimed at suggesting that refugees are a threat to our security - the essence of what you wrote - and our way of life - your "implant" theory.
You are a hate monger and your hate-mongering is aimed at some of the most needy and vulnerable people on the planet
The fact that you do this while claiming to be a Christian, makes you what you are.
The refugees you undermine with your accusations (and your defence of scum like Farrage in his attacks on Jo Cox's widow) pose no conceivable security risk at present and your claim that there is echoes the those made by scum like Archibald Maule Ramsey against the Jews in the 1930s   
"Please remind us what he has ever said or done that is detestable."
He is a piece of racist scum who has based the entire policy of his party on xenophobia - not a criticism to some people, I grant you - especially those who rant on about "implants"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:23 AM

Jim,
bang goes Keith's "decent countries" defence)

No it does not, but why bring Israel into every thread?
You are obsessed.

No lies here Keith - you have a track recored of hatred of "implanted" foreigners.

No I have not. Just another filthy lie because you have no actual argument you can make.

Your views are xenophobic and are aimed at suggesting that refugees are a threat to our security

More lies. Personal attack is all you can do.

You are a hate monger and your hate-mongering is aimed at some of the most needy and vulnerable people on the planet

Completely false. Lie upon lie with no attempt at discussion of the subject of the thread.

The fact that you do this while claiming to be a Christian, makes you what you are.

The views you ascribe to me are indeed anti-Christian, but I am a Christian and hold none of them.

He is a piece of racist scum who has based the entire policy of his party on xenophobia -

Not true Jim. Just made up shit because making up shit is all you can do.

Identify one racist statement or claim.
Identify one piece of xenophobia.
You just can't Made up shit Jim.

"Please remind us what he has ever said or done that is detestable."

Good luck with that Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:28 AM

There is no need for me to justify my views, Keith, and you have no need to justify yours to me. We know what they are and, as I said, we have no common ground. So why continue? There really is no point. At no point have I 'stood back' from the discussion and have, in fact, contributed more than 20% of the posts so far. Trolling is goading and arguing for arguments sake, which I am trying to avoid by pointing out that we have no common ground here and any further discussion will just lead to further conflict. I could also point out that, far from this point of view coming directly from me, I am just agreeing with the author of the article I linked in the OP. But I will not.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:58 AM

"Keith's Crusade appears to have hit rock bottom Steve
Want to see bet whether he says Obama is and expert on British politics and knows nothing of Israeli politics, or whether he chooses not to respond
I think the betting shops are open today!!
Jim Carroll
"
If you think Israel's behaviour is playing no part in the unrest in the Middle east, dream on Keith
You are obsessed with both defending the Israeli regime and attacking democratically elected British politicians.
The wife of the man who is being attaced by scum like Farage was burdered for her liberal and humane views on many things, including the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli regime - Israel is part of this ongoing attack on democratic British politics.
And yes - bang goes your 'decent countries" defence - the U.N. have just condemned Israel for its settlement policy, Israel has rejected that condemnation and Trump has tweeted that things will be different when he takes charge - so now you have got an American fascist president on your side as well as God.
What is happening in the world today is interlinked an most roads lead to cheap and secure oil.
"Identify one piece of xenophobia."
To paraphrase - will dig the exact quote uo if yoiu wisg
"Don, I now do believe that all make British make Pakistanis are culturally implanted to have underage sex"
That is Xenophobia at its most fundamental - and had it been made outside the safety of the Internet it would be open to prosecution under the promotion of race hatred laws.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 07:14 AM

Your persecution of asylum seekers by suggestion they are a security risk is equally classic xenophobia and is ongoing
BREXIT POSTER
RANVIR SINGH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 08:03 AM

ANALYSIS OF FARAGE'S XENOPHOBIA _ Want any more evidence?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 08:23 AM

What a load of claptrap Jim, the opinions of a "liberal" activist.

These opinions were certainly persuasive, when the piece was written, polling showed 49% to remain and 41% to leave. On polling day, presumably after reading the article the good folks of the UK voted.............wait for it......52% leave 48% remain. :00

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:06 AM

Dave,
At no point have I 'stood back' from the discussion and have

Dave, whenever I have challenged you to justify your claims, you have said that you do not wish to continue.
You did it again this morning.

If you start an argument such as this with divisive and inflammatory claims and statements, you actually do need to justify them Dave.

Throwing them out and then refusing to justify them, is just trolling.

You have not given any rational reason for your detestation of Farage.
Please remind us what he has ever said or done that is detestable.
You started this. You should be able to answer a such a simple question.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:16 AM

Jim,
And yes - bang goes your 'decent countries" defence - the U.N. have just condemned Israel for its settlement policy,

No. I have always acknowledged that Israel alone believes its settlement policy legal.
The "decent countries defence" refers to the FACT that no decent country believes Israel to be guilty of massacres, atrocities or war crimes.

This thread has nothing to do with Israel.
You are obsessed and deranged.

The theory that culture led to an over-representation of one demographic in one kind of crime did not come from me.

Producing one sentence from a three sentence post without any context is proof of nothing but your dishonesty.

Stick to the issues of the thread instead of always trying to smear anyone you disagree with, but can not argue against.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:24 AM

No, no and a thousand times no, Keith. I stated my views. They are my views and you chose not to accept them. Fine, I chose not to accept yours. It is not a challenge or a fight. It is not something that can be won or lost. It is an exchange of views. I have nothing to justify or answer for. If you chose to pick a fight over it, fine, go ahead but don't expect me to join in.

You say this make me seem prejudiced. Well, again, fine if that is how it looks to you. Your views on what I think are as trivial as my views on what you think. I shall continue to hold my views and the people who are important to me know that they are genuine. The rest really do not matter.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

"No. I have always acknowledged that Israel alone believes its settlement policy legal."
Yoour onlt defence has been that decent countries have never challenged Israeli atrocities - bang - gone in a flash
"This thread has nothing to do with Israel."
Once again you are happy to discuss Israel until you paint yourself into a corner
You are deranged at the lengths you will go to
defend these terrorists
"This thread has nothing to do with Israel."
You have ben given it - it won't go away because you choose to ignore it
You asked for proof of Farage's Xenophobia - you got it - the rest is silence as Fortinbras was heard to remark
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:49 AM

Dave,
Keith. I stated my views. They are my views and you chose not to accept them. Fine, I chose not to accept yours. It is not a challenge or a fight.

No. It is supposed to be a discussion.

A discussion is not about stating views and then stopping.
It is about showing why you hold those views.
It is about arguing against alternative views.

What you seem to want is neither debate nor discussion.

Your OP should have been,
"I think Farage has achieved a new political low, but I can not say why and am not prepared to discuss it.
End of."

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:55 AM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

Jim,
Yoour onlt defence has been that decent countries have never challenged Israeli atrocities - bang - gone in a flash

Not gone. It still stands.
No decent country holds Israel guilty of massacres, war crimes or atrocities.
Settlement policy and many other policies are disputed as with any country.

You asked for proof of Farage's Xenophobia - you got it -

No. You have produced no xenophobia from him. Just linked to long opinion pieces about him.

Identify something he has said or done that is xenophobic please.

Your persecution of asylum seekers by suggestion they are a security risk is equally classic xenophobia and is ongoing

No persecution from me. Another lie.
Do you claim that no asylum seeker could be a security risk?
If so you have been bloodily proved wrong many times already.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 10:06 AM

No. It is supposed to be a discussion.

Errrr, who started the thread, Keith and who knows more about the intention behind it? You want a debate - Feel free. You want someone to win or lose - Go ahead.

The problem here seems to be that both you and Farage want the same thing. To 'win' at all costs. I don't. I don't even want to fight. I just want the freedom to express an opinion should I so desire. I am happy to let you give your opinions. I am even happy to let Farage have his. Not everything is a challenge and not everything needs to be won or lost.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 10:25 AM

Keith
You asked for information on Farage's Xenophobia (you wished us good luck in finding it)
You were given it and now you refuse to comment on it
Perghaps you should have said you were not prepared to discuss it "end of"
Why ask?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 10:28 AM

"Keith
You asked for information on Farage's Xenophobia (you wished us good luck in finding it)
You were given it and now you refuse to comment on it
Perghaps you should have said you were not prepared to discuss it "end of"
Why ask?
Jim Carroll"
The silence of self deserving politicians has never stood - it was always the most dishonestly stupid argument you ever came up with - even more stupid than your "historians"
Not only has it gone, but Israel has sworn to take her revenge
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 10:42 AM

how the decent countries voted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:07 PM

BRITAIN
FRANCE
NORWAY
SWEDEN
DENMARK
BELGIUM
GERMANY
NETHERLANDS
A RAY of HOPE
AND ANOTHER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM

Dave,
I just want the freedom to express an opinion should I so desire

This is a discussion forum.
If you express an opinion here, expect to have it challenged and alternative views put.

What is all that shit about winning?
If you can not support your case then it is true that you have lost the debate.
Is that your position?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:30 PM

Jim,
You asked for information on Farage's Xenophobia (you wished us good luck in finding it)
You were given it and now you refuse to comment on it

I was not given any such thing!
Just links to very long opinion pieces.
Can you produce an example of xenophobia from Farage?
Clearly not.

I know how the vote went thank you.
They were voting on settlements and I have always acknowledged that all countries except usually USA do not support the policy.
Why do you keep trying to make this about Israel?
You are obsessed.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:00 PM

ANALYSIS OF UKIP'S NIGEL FARAGE'S XENOPHOBIC RHETORIC
14 March 2016        · by European Student Think Tank        · in ambassadors, articles and blogs, EU Foreign Policy, EU Policy Process, Eurocrisis, European Integration, Geen categorie, ISIS, Migration, Religion.        ·
By Matt Evans, British EST Ambassador. Matt is a final year BA (hons) History and Politics student at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, UK.

16486626570_7f070e3bc4_o

The upcoming June referendum on whether Britain should remain a member of the European Union has once again increased the media's interest in the UK Independence Party, commonly known as UKIP. UKIP, formed in 1993 as a response to increasing European integration, are generally viewed as to the right on the political spectrum of the governing Conservative Party, advocating British withdrawal from the European Union and an end to what they view as "uncontrolled immigration".[1] Under the leadership of the charismatic but divisive Nigel Farage, the party has enjoyed recent electoral success, gaining the most seats and votes in the 2014 European Parliament election, marking the first time since 1910 that a party other than Labour and the Conservatives won the largest number of seats in a national election.[2] This article looks at a speech delivered by leader Farage when campaigning for UKIP in the 2015 UK General Election.

            As a part of the general election campaign the infamous Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, went to Grimsby Town Hall and urged the residents of Grimsby to vote for Victoria Ayling, a local councillor, as their next Member of Parliament[3]. This speech exemplifies a large part of Great Britain's scepticism towards the European Union. Given the situation as it was the general election and Farage was holding a speech in a town known for its fishing, it can be argued that he attempted to ignite a nostalgic and nationalist fire in Grimsby. He begins his speech by stating: "Grimsby used to be a great place"[4]. Already here, Farage is presenting a problem in the United Kingdom namely its lack of sovereignty. It can be argued that this problem is the overarching theme on Farage's agenda since, in his view, it is the root for the sinking fishing industry in Grimsby because of the Common Fisheries Policy, Great Britain's declining living conditions due to the Open Door Policy and the British debt due to the European Union membership.

            Farage gives a historical background of why Great Britain's sovereignty has declined according to his own view, which gives his audience an overview and general knowledge of the problem that Great Britain is currently in. Moreover, it is revealing that Farage had an understanding for his audience. This can be seen, for example, by his focus on the famous fishing industry in Grimsby which illustrates that the speech had a particular audience but also his aggressive quote that "Tony Blair can go to hell"[5] which was received by applause of the audience. He even says sarcastically that he misread the audience when he first mentions Tony Blair, indicating that he knows the audience.

First of all, by igniting the nostalgic and nationalistic fire in the audience, he manages to use the argumentative appeal of pathos. This can be tied into Aristotle's notion of emotions since Farage sparks dissatisfaction or even anger in the audience where Aristotle argues that if an item has importance, people will eventually get angry[6]. In this case, Farage is able to present a broken Great Britain and acknowledge it, which the residents of Grimsby are attached to. This indicates that the residents of Grimsby find an importance in Great Britain. Farage is able to direct that frustration and anger, and pinpoint the lack of sovereignty as the fundamental problem. This use of pathos can be considered rather successful since Farage's aim is convince the residents of Grimsby to vote for Ayling because belief and action are intertwined, according to Aristotle[7], and thus by making that certain belief a constituent part of emotion, Farage is able to gain more votes for UKIP.

            Another argumentative appeal is ethos, which he is able to portray through his view of Europe. By claiming that he is not against Europe as countries and people and that he, in fact, likes Europe, Farage is able to illustrate to the public that he is a concerned man of Great Britain rather than a fearful or discriminating man of Europe. In addition, he also presents himself as a moral character by telling the audience that the other politicians have been abusing him due to UKIP's "sensible" policies as he puts it[8].

            The last argumentative appeal is logos where Farage appeals to the rationality of the voters in Grimsby. This is illustrated when he makes the case that Great Britain should become like Norway and Iceland who have a booming fishing industry and are not a part of the European Union. Also, by giving a historical background of Great Britain's ties with the European Union, he also appeals to the rationality of the audience since they see a chronological timeline of the developing problem in Great Britain.

Farage uses contradictions in order to portray his policies as appealing. This can be exemplified by his view that controlling the borders of the United Kingdom "immigration once again becomes a positive in our country and not a negative"[9]. By using juxtapositions, Farage is able to make the audience differentiate between UKIP and the other parties, making UKIP more appealing to voters. It is also seen that Farage uses examples as inductions such as his argument for an increase in the defence budget that he compares to house insurance and the comparison that British debt is like maxing out a credit card. At the end of the speech, Farage states that he doesn't want to sell out nor have a ministerial car but rather wants to "drive the agenda of British politics the next five years"[10]. Here, an odd metaphor is applied in order to contrast what politicians want compared to what Farage want to do if elected but since it is the first metaphor that Farage uses in the speech, it also emphasises his goal of influencing British politics.

The hostility towards the European Union that Farage represents sums up the split in Great Britain. The latest opinion poll by Comres suggests that 49% of Britons want to remain in the EU whereas 41% wants to leave[11]. By analysing a speech by one of the leading figures of the British euroscepticism, we can clearly see that the charismatic Farage is able to adapt his rhetoric to different situations and the issues he touches upon are strong entities of British nationalism. Whether you agree with him or not, "[R]hetoric proves crucial when it comes to invoking discourses in the audience conducive to the claim made by the representative, and downplaying competing discourses"[12] and this is fundamental to the democratic ideals that Great Britain but also the European Union represent. Thus, it is important to acknowledge euroscepticism as a part of British political discourse since it illustrates the antagonism of views in British society.

All in all, Farage focuses on the particular audience by his examples and comparisons that are specific to the people in Grimsby, which helps igniting the nostalgic and nationalistic fire in Grimsby. Hence, the speech can be considered to be successful since it convinces the audience that the sole problem of British politics is its lack of sovereignty and UKIP can provide the solution to make Grimsby a thriving fishing town again.

[1] UKIP Manifesto 2015 "Immigration" p.10

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:03 PM

If you express an opinion here, expect to have it challenged and alternative views put.

I fully expect that and thank you for doing it. I do not have to justify myself to anyone though.

If you can not support your case then it is true that you have lost the debate.

There we have the huge difference in our positions. I don't expect to win or lose any debates. I did not even suggest it was a debate. I stated my views. Simple as that. If you chose to argue against them, as I said, feel free. I feel quite secure enough in my position with the people I care about to not have to try and impress someone that differs with me to such an extent that I cannot even comprehend their views.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:36 PM

" was not given any such thing!"
Not true - but good to see you are still supporting him despite saying that you didn't
GSS has done a great job of boxing you into a corner though
If you do suppoert him - why lie
If you don't - why make such an effort on his behalf?
You really haven't got the hang of this yet, have you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 02:32 PM

Dave,
I stated my views. Simple as that.

Yes, thereby instigating a discussion.

I do not have to justify myself to anyone though.

You have to justify your views or it is not a discussion.
This is a discussion forum, not a graffiti wall!

I don't expect to win or lose any debates.

Neither do I, but if I made a claim or stated an opinion that I could not justify then I would know that I had indeed lost and would either retract or withdraw.
You have chosen the latter.

differs with me to such an extent that I cannot even comprehend their views.

No problem. Just say which of my views you can not comprehend and I will explain it simply.

Jim,
If you don't - why make such an effort on his behalf?

Because you were all making false statements about him, and I admit I enjoy showing you up for what you are.
I am anti EU and have been since before there was a UKIP.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 03:00 PM

This is a discussion forum, not a graffiti wall!

Ahhhh. Yet another one who has decided that Mudcat is for their own purposes. It is whatever we need it to be. I am sure that the management team will sort it our if they feel it is going astray. I have neither retracted nor withdrawn because to do so would mean I believed it to be a debate in the first place. It never was as far as I was concerned.

Another thread gone the way of the last one I suppose. I'll leave to to it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 03:16 PM

To us in California who've heard his name, Farage seems to be a right-wing extremist. How much of the UK population support him, would you suppose?

To us in California, Trump seems to be simply an idiot. We thought he might have had support of 20 percent of the U.S. population, but somehow we got stuck with him as President.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 04:52 PM

Joe, I think you are being slightly disingenuous. A quick look through Mr Farage's interviews and statements on you tube should assure you that he is no extremist, on the right or on the left.
What makes you say such a thing without recourse to evidence?
Mr Farage opposes the EU on grounds of sovereignty ...the USA would never accept legislation from some other body which demanded that it accept unregulated immigration from overseas, so why do you think Mr Farage an extremist? He is actually an old "one nation conservative"

Don't believe all the media tell you Joe they may have ulterior motives :0)

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 04:59 PM

That is exactly what he is, Joe. But, as Keith says, he is also very clever and wily, which makes him very dangerous. I cannot believe for one minute that I am more perceptive than other people yet I can seem to see through his facade where some cannot. As has been pointed out you will find nothing to link him directly to the politics of hate, yet he seems to engender the same wherever he goes. I find it difficult to get my head around it yet I am sure there were many in 1930s Germany who felt the same. He is very dangerous indeed and don't let the right wingers on here tell you otherwise.

Thanks for your trans Atlantic view.

Cheers


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:30 PM

"
That is exactly what he is, Joe. But, as Keith says, he is also very clever and wily, which makes him very dangerous. I cannot believe for one minute that I am more perceptive than other people yet I can seem to see through his facade where some cannot. As has been pointed out you will find nothing to link him directly to the politics of hate, yet he seems to engender the same wherever he goes."

Cant believe anyone had the gall to put their name to that. Your opinions are simply opinions with not a scrap of evidence to back them up. Go listen to the man's interviews....there is no excuse for ignorance these days

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:55 PM

I have the gall to put my name to it.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:33 PM

Go listen to the man's interviews...

Are you serious? He's a serial and professional liar like his buddy Trump.

And so, I'll put my name to it as well.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:17 PM

Far above the screen you are seeing is a higher perspective, from there you can see part of the US and UK.

From there you have super vision and perspective.

From there you can even see social media flowing like rivers of discussion about White Identity Politics. Extreme blending of opinions at this perspective all begin to look like brown lakss.




even Keith who in contrast is obsessed and deranged for polite civility, peace, truth and rational thought looks almost similar to right wing repeatists and extremists. Shaw commentary turns into the rest of the harrumph stained lakes. And I, I am but a whispering shadow.


But AKE got it right, BRIGHT and visible from the rarified thin atmosphere.

Yes Indeed TRUMP IS WILEY.   Wiley E Coyote. We all know how well Wiley's far fetched schemes worked. They all worked against him, falling all the way down from the highest perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:28 PM

Thank you for redacting the middle of my last post.
Some things while true are the hardest thing for mortals to read let alone understand.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 04:05 AM

I wonder why it is that opinions that differ from those of certain members on here are considered ignorant by some. The opening article gives the opinion of Owen Jones, a left wing but well respected political journalist. I purposely chose one that was not as bad as many others. Try this one on Farage's visit to Scotland if you want to see how the majority in Scotland view him - The majority in this case being members of the SNP. Are these all ignorant as well? Again, I feel in good company.

I repeat, I believe the man is both despicable and dangerous. Wily he may be but he has not fooled everyone.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 04:42 AM

Incidentaly, for anyone remotely interested, the original thread, prior to someone getting it closed by a series of unwarranted and unprovoked attacks, was entitled A new political low? Posing the question as to whether anyone agreed with the linked article. I fully understood that some people would agree and some would not but that does beggar the question as to why I should be so attacked, deemed ignorant by some and a troll by others for agreeing with someone who is well respected.

Makes you wonder who it is that really wants freedom of speech doesn't it?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 05:02 AM

Dave,
Yet another one who has decided that Mudcat is for their own purposes. It is whatever we need it to be.

No. It IS a discussion forum. Sorry but it is.

I am sure that the management team will sort it our if they feel it is going astray.

Your first thread on this proved so divisive and inflammatory that they had to close it after less than eight hours.
To post inflammatory and divisive statements with no intention of justifying them or entering into free and open discussion really is just trolling Dave.


I repeat, I believe the man is both despicable and dangerous.

Then tell us why Dave!
What has he ever done that is despicable? Why can't you tell us??
In what way is he dangerous? Why can't you tell us.
Like arseholes, everyone has an opinion.
Unless you can justify it, it is of no more interest than your arsehole is.
Just a whim from an empty head.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 05:13 AM

Greg,
Are you serious? He's a serial and professional liar like his buddy Trump.

But you can not quote a single one!
Your statement is just another of YOUR lies.
It is a joke that you are accusing someone else of being a serial liar while lying yourself.

Dave again,
Farage's visit to Scotland if you want to see how the majority in Scotland view him

The majority in Scotland want to remain in EU. That is why he is opposed there.
The majority in England and Wales want out. That is why he has such support. He won the last EU election. The firsts election not won by the established parties for centuries.

Nothing to do with right wing politics Joe.
Traditional Labour voters comprise most of his support.
It is just about the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 05:13 AM

Yes, Keith. Just a whim from an empty head if that makes you feel any better. If, however, you have no interest in my opinions why do you respond to them? I would like nothing better than to be ignored by you and your friends. It would certainly make a lot of people happier.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 05:22 AM

If, however, you have no interest in my opinions why do you respond to them?

But I do have interest in your opinions Dave.
I just want to know why you hold them.
If they are based on no actual knowledge or facts, it makes a difference to how much attention anyone should give to them.
None, if they are based on just whims and prejudice.

I also want you to tell me why you think mine are wrong.
Can you?
If not, perhaps they are right and yours wrong Dave.
You need facts and knowledge to choose between contradictory opinions.
You seem to have none.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 05:41 AM

My opinions are based on many things Keith. Often no specific thing but a balance of probabilities. In this instance I am agreeing with Owen Jones and a number of other political commentators. I have seen both sides of the argument and, on balance, I believe Farage is all I have said before. I have no interest whatsoever in even attempting to discuss it with someone of such a wildly different opinion that it can only ever end badly.

I am really not interested in your opinions or why you hold them. You do not have to justify anything to me. I accept that they are your opinions and that you have arrived at them somehow. Can you just not offer the same consideration?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 05:52 AM

Sorry, I mis-phrased my last bit there. I am interested in the opinions of others. I have no interest at all in why they hold those opinions and have no interest in trying to get them to change their minds. I have friends across the whole spectrum of political beliefs and we accept each other for what we are. It is futile to try and change a belief that has been built on 60+ years of experience. What we need to find is common ground and, where there is none, there is no basis for discussion.

Hope that helps.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 06:11 AM

It does not help Dave.
I have no interest at all in why they hold those opinions and have no interest in trying to get them to change their minds.
If you have no interest in discussing opinions, what are you doing here?
What was the point in starting this thread?
If all us contributors merely stated our opinions there would only be about ten posts and none of us would have learned a single thing.

I have no interest whatsoever in even attempting to discuss it with someone of such a wildly different opinion that it can only ever end badly.


How sad that you can not exchange views with people holding different opinions without it ending badly!
I can and I do. Some very close friends of mine hold wildly different political views and it just adds to the fun when we get together.

This is a discussion forum Dave.
If you post controversial statements you must expect to be asked to support them and to have them challenged.
That is what the rest of us come here for.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 06:30 AM

There you go again, Keith. Telling us what Mudcat is. It is many things to many people. I shall use it and post to it as I see fit until such a time that I am told otherwise. Just looking down todays threads I can see that many are not discussions as you describe them at all. You tell me I must expect to be challenged and I do. I also expect to be treated with respect and not be told I am empty headed because I do not fit in with your 'rules'. If you are only interested in discussions I can save you a lot of work - Just stay away from the threads that do not fit your criteria.

Seemples

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 06:52 AM

"How sad that you can not exchange views with people holding different opinions without it ending badly!
You "debate" to win Keith
If you can't win with argument, you cheat - stonewalling by asking questions that have been answered, repeating arguments that have been shot down in flames, misquoting historians you haven't read - and the latest - the silence of "decent countries".
You bring no foreknowledge and your reactionary extremist ideas are predictable and can be scooped up from the headlines of any tabloid.
You deny what you have written and when it is put before you you argue for it all over again (your disgusting "implants" claim is a typical example.
You don't have the bottle to stand behind your beliefs - you claim you are not a Farragoite, yet you have bent over backwards defending his scummy attacks on Jo Cox's husband.
You are probably the longest-standing troll on this forum.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 07:23 AM

Jim, Keith is entitled to his opinions as you are to yours and I am to mine. I am only saying that I am not interested in how those opinions were arrived at or in changing anyone's mind. I have no doubt that Keith is interested in what went into my opinions but he does not seem to accept that it is not always as easy as that. On the other hand I will not dismiss Keith's opinion as merely reactionary and extremist as I am sure he has thought as long and hard as I have to arrive at his views. I can also see and understand what you are saying as I have been down that path but have now realised it gets us nowhere. Say your bit, let others have their say and let others decide who is right or wrong. Don't expect people to play by your own rules but do stick to your principles. Just my opinion of course... :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 08:08 AM

"Jim, Keith is entitled to his opinions as you are to yours and I am to mine. "
Dave - I talk about his track record of behaviour on thread after thread over a number of years - if it were a matter of his opinions alone - fine, we could move on and agree to disagree, but his terrier like quest in winning something, in my opinion, has become detrimental to genuinely enchanting information.
He shows no interest in debating, just in winning, and is prone to crowing when he believes he has done so.
Some of his opinions I believe to be offensive, even to the extent of being illegal elsewhere.
I understand there used to be a number of Muslims on this forum - there no loger are - a great pity on a musoc thread, in my opinion.
If I were of that faith, I wouldn't hang around too long to be told I am a danger to underage girls because of my culture.
Keith is not the only one, of course -
I have no doubt there are a number of homosexuals sharing ideas with us - several have stated so
I can imagine how I would feel to be told I am a disease carrying pervert whose sexual orientation is a conscious choice
Perhaps it's not a bad time of year for a couple of us to start reforming our social behaviour and considering others.
Happy New Year to all who deserve one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:06 AM

Keith is no troll Jim....he deals in facts, rarely opinions.

"There you go again, Keith. Telling us what Mudcat is. It is many things to many people. I shall use it and post to it as I see fit until such a time that I am told otherwise"
This is the contribution of a proper devious troll, he starts thread after thread with the intention of provoking not discussion but aggression.

The "new political low" thread being a perfect example.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:08 AM

Dave,
There you go again, Keith. Telling us what Mudcat is.

No. I told you what Mudcat says it is.
"The Mudcat Cafe is a music discussion forum. "
We now also have below the line for non-music discussion but it defines itself as a "discussion forum."

From your OP of this thread,
"Maybe this time we can have a sensible discussion."

So you are now disagreeing not just with me, but with Mudcat and yourself too.

This is a discussion forum Dave.
If you post controversial and contentious statements you must expect to be asked to support them and to have them challenged.
That is what the rest of us come here for.

I also expect to be treated with respect and not be told I am empty headed because I do not fit in with your 'rules'

I did no such thing Dave. Why pretend it?

I said,
"Like arseholes, everyone has an opinion.
Unless you can justify it, it is of no more interest than your arsehole is.
Just a whim from an empty head. "

If you really have no actual knowledge or facts to base your opinions on, it is fair comment.
You did say that you were just choosing not to divulge the knowledge and facts behind your claims.
Refusing to engage in discussion, on a discussion forum, in a thread you started by asking for discussion!

If you are only interested in discussions I can save you a lot of work - Just stay away from the threads that do not fit your criteria.
All threads do, including this one.

Jim, again everything you just said about me is a lie.
Just more personal abuse. This is not about me or any individual apart from Farage.
Instead of trying to fake a "track record" to use in a personal attack, discuss the issues.
Quote us Farage saying the despicable things you accuse him of.
Why can't you do that simple thing Jim?
Is any of it true or not?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:28 AM

DtG, you can go back 12 years and see people accusing admin for mudcat for being fascist for different reasons.

It was said that the BS section is what you make it .

My fanciful points out that we all are reacting to a monumental shift in a perception of reality that has been foisted upon us all that no longer has rules, no longer has precedent, no longer has seriously obeys law. There is an abeyance of access to the President but instead spokes people who deal out misinformation and confusion to hide the fact Trump is a linear no nothing except personal profit by lies.

I don't give a crap about who swears at who

1 Its friendly fun sometimes

2 When the purpose is to instigate a knee jerk closing of a thread it is always done by right wing extremists. Why Steve complies with that UGIdiot's strategy is not smart or helpful from my pov but having a temperament is everyone's personal choice.

3   swearing is part of our lexicon.


We are doing our best to learn how to deal with the short sighted politics of white identity and global fascism. Watching Democracy gradually evaporate is not my idea of time well spent.


The right speaks the language of the emotional but not factually true

The left speaks the language of intellectual cause and effect and effect.

They do not speak the same language so rarely listen to one another. It is a dialog of reacting to the latest outrageous claim.




Elections used to end at our shores. That has now been violated.

On this we must all agree on THIS or nothing we know as citizenship or borders or sovereignty will exist. The anti globalist can become the biggest globalist of all.


Let us have thicker skin than Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:35 AM

"my fanciful post points out...

elections must end at or shores..

even though borders from a higher perspective are not real."

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:41 AM

Donuel,

"2 When the purpose is to instigate a knee jerk closing of a thread it is always done by right wing extremists."

This is verifiably NOT a factual statement, unless you mean to say that when the Left does so it is OK, but when the Right does so the thread is closed.



"The right speaks the language of the emotional but not factually true

The left speaks the language of intellectual cause and effect and effect."


Not a proven statement by any means. I have been seeing statements here about Trump that, if made about Obama, would have the thread closed. Seems like the rules change when it is the majority viewpoint that is under attack.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:54 AM

"Elections should end at our shores" a good principle Don but one which has never been observed.....the CIA have been complicit in the rigging of more elections, in more countries than I can remember.
President Obama has seen fit to intervene personally in at least two of the latest UK elections.

The allegations that the hacking of DPC files was ordered by the Russian state are simply allegations.....no proof of their voracity has been offered.

You remarks regarding the closing of threads being exclusively the fault of "right wing members" is simply not true, as many threads in which I had taken part have had to be closed by admin because of the vicious personal abuse from "liberal" members. If you like I can reprint some of it, those who are still contributing here will not be proud of their behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:56 AM

Yes Keith. Saying an opinion that is not evidenced by your rules is just a whim from an empty head is not the same as saying I have an empty head. Asking if it OK to call a grieving widower an arsehole is not the same as calling that widower and arsehole. Saying that someone has made their point and you can like it or lump it is not the same as asking someone politely to fuck off. We can all make up silly little rules to suit our games but not everyone has to abide buy them. I chose to base my opinions of 60+ years of experience, the experience of my peers, friends and family and the voices of those political commentators I respect, such as Owen Jones. You, for some reason, do not believe that is good enough. I believe it is. Where do we go from here?

Ake, you got the last thread closed. Does that not tell you something?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 10:05 AM

I got the last thread closed? how did you come to that conclusion?
I have been told that it was because of aggressive posting, something I do not indulge in.
If there is a rule regarding what political views are permitted, I am unaware of it

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 10:11 AM

No need to come to a conclusion, ake. It is there in black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: A new politcal low?
From: Acme - PM
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:48 AM

Ake, you're the troll, and you've tangled this thread into a hot mess.

This Thread Is Closed.

If anyone doubts the veracity of that please feel free to follow this link.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 10:32 AM

Donuel, I care not a jot about people expressing criticisms of me on this forum. It goes with the territory. It would be good, however, if you could couch such criticisms in language that I can actually understand.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 10:49 AM

Any time my dad said "you always..." it made me mad.

I am guilty of saying "you always".
Part of me is becoming my dad.
I think most guys are becoming their dad.

For the second time since we are without previous precedent, law and are in danger of having the proletariats believe intellectuals are an enemy of the state, we need to listen to each other and let some things go.

What we do by nature is only react to the most recent offense to our own way of thinking. Common ground on Earth and perhaps a higher perspective are needed. We are starting to accept Nuclear War again justified by Conspiracy Theory. ( I kid you not )

Let it go is an olde lesson but it must be done

Some folks are smarter about some things, let it go
Robots are better at some things, let it go
Some sermons and theories are not true, let it go.
We all have abilities and disabilities, let it go.
(except for the fully actualized person who is perfect but nobody is perfect.)

One might see an insult or lie and another will not or can not see it.
You know that the one person whose mind can not be changed is not the one who will grant your wish for understanding.
Instead we must find things of agreement first, even the mundane, and little by little we will learn a common language.

1% agreement may be enough to save everyone.

On Sept 25th 1983 we were all saved by Stan. He was an employee, a soldier who reported a false alarm of incoming nukes despite the fact all instruments and alarms said otherwise. His treason or thinking for himself saved YOU. He was Russian but this scenario has happened almost 20 times since.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 10:57 AM

Steve I can't put my finger on why I felt a need to prod your ego but I did and understand your request.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 11:00 AM

I'm not sure where Stan came in but I am in full agreement about

One might see an insult or lie and another will not or can not see it.
You know that the one person whose mind can not be changed is not the one who will grant your wish for understanding.
Instead we must find things of agreement first, even the mundane, and little by little we will learn a common language.

It is what I have been trying to say and, in my own way, trying to do on the thread named something about 'usual suspects'. It is what I have been unsuccessful in trying to explain why there is no point in starting from so far apart that we cannot even see each other. It is why we need to concentrate more on similarities than differences.

I suspect I will have my olive branch shoved up my arse yet agian though :-(

Thanks for trying anyway Donuel.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 11:01 AM

So, you believe there are Unicorns in Ohio, Greggie?


Should have figured that.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 11:12 AM

HAHAHA DtG Olive branch...
That caught me off guard and lost some coffee.

Stanislav figured that his instruments made no sense so he used his own sense and averted a nuclear holocaust. The websites people chose are like our own instruments and I believe some of them do not make sense. This true of red and blue.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 11:36 AM

The point was that the statement I made was that something was NOT proven.


Your comment is of no value, as it seems is your existence.

Donuel is invited to provide some support for his statements, should he wish to do so.

You are invited to take a long walk off the shortest pier that you can find.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 11:36 AM

Steve, mystery solved.

I had consciously forgotten your reply to a post of mine that had the phrase "and now back to reality" That was combined with other negative associations I had with that phrase.

It serves as a good example of how we can accidentally make false assumptions or associations without awareness. Or maybe my ego didn't like the smart ass comment. Cool?

We all should try to ego proof ourselves but TRUMP SIMPLY CAN NOT.



Greg you are anathema to my social science theory and practice.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 11:41 AM

The point was that the statement I made was that something was NOT proven.

Exactly. As was mine. And you still don't get it.

Sorry, Donuel. I yam what I yam.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 11:59 AM

Bruce your need of reply regarding 'not a proven statement' is an example of how I do not understand your request. In my mindset I do not know how to justify truth, existence and life long observation. I think there is more than one mouthful in my words.

Your answer could be contained in a book about political hypnosis but I have not written it. If I did your mindset may still not understand it. There are books on the Hitler propaganda techniques and today's post truth age. I am not wise cracking here.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 11:59 AM

From today's Times
Jim Carroll

Hackers working for the Kremlin Targeted all walks of life in the West, says FBI
Mark Bridge
Russia is committed to a longstanding cybercampaign against the American government and its citizens in every arena, from politics to business and education, intelligence services have claimed.
In a joint report, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security said that the same Kremlin-backed hackers had been involved in multiple attacks. This fits with revelations in The Times this month that Russian hackers have attempted attacks on British targets.
The report said that covert Russian operations, codenamed Grizzly Steppe by US officials, were based around so¬phisticated "spearphishing" campaigns.
They used the tactics to access the computer systems of government orga¬nisations, critical infrastructure, think tanks, universities, political organisa¬tions, and corporations, leading to the theft of information.
It confirmed that recent big attacks were the works of the Kremlin-backed groups known as Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, as private security operators had previously stated.
The report included an account of successful cyberattacks on the Demo¬cratic National Committee, which led to the damaging leaks of correspond¬ence between senior party figures by WikiLeaks. Investigators said Cozy Bear broke into the party's computer systems in the summer of last year, and Fancy Bear entered in spring this year.
It said Cozy Bear crafted spearphishing campaigns, where recipients of an email were enticed to open it because they thought it was from an official source. Once they did this, their computer was infected by "remote access tools" or RATs, giving them entry to all other computers on the network.
Fancy Bear worked slightly different¬ly, it said, creating fake domains that tricked people into entering legitimate credentials. The group compromised the party by sending a spearphishing email which tricked recipients into changing their passwords through a fake webmail domain. The email that tricked senior democrats such as John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, contained a link that looked like a legitimate Google web address.
Using the harvested credentials, Fancy Bear was able to gain access and steal content, leading to the leaked emails from senior Democratic Party figures. "The US Government assesses that information was leaked to the press and publicly disclosed," the report continued, prompting some critics to complain it was stating the obvious.
The jargon-heavy report continued: "Once they have access to victims, both groups exfiltrate and analyse informa¬tion to gain intelligence value. These groups use this information to craft [further] highly targeted spearphishing campaigns. These (groups] set up operational infrastructure to obfuscate their source infrastructure, host domains and malware for targeting organizations, establish command and control nodes, and harvest credentials and other valuable information."
Spearphishing attacks are essentially the same as the Nigerian "phishing" attacks most British internet users are now wise to. The US government report indicated that the Russian attacks were particularly convincing, however.
Russia Today, the state-backed media outlet, responded to the US report by tweeting a picture of a grizzly bear ap¬parently playing a guitar.
The Times Dec 30th

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:14 PM

Russia did not politically assassinate Hillary.
We did that ourselves by believing innuendo.


Jim did you know 2 years ago a radio talk jock convinced the entire State of Texas that UN troops were about to invade Texas. The Governor even responded with the National Guard.



Trump will be sure to buy some freeze dried survivalist food companies before he rattles his nuclear sabre.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:15 PM

I think that quite nicely fits in to politics in general hitting a new low, Jim. Maybe it is my age and looking at the past through rose tinted specs but it is only in the last 10 years or so that I recall so much negativity going on. People no longer seem to vote for politicians and policies but against them. Campaigns are geared around peoples fears. People like Farage and Trump have cashed in greatly and, to be honest, I don't blame them.

If people are viewing mainstream politicians as so corrupt and so similar in style regardless of the party then the mavericks will make a killing. A quick spell at the soap box and the support of the popular press seems to be all they need to get the electorate so wound up about immigrants or terrorists or whatever they have latched on to.

Wasn't like that when I was a lad...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:17 PM

Donuel,


"The right speaks the language of the emotional but not factually true

The left speaks the language of intellectual cause and effect and effect."


Not a proven statement by any means. I have been seeing statements here about Trump that, if made about Obama, would have the thread closed. Seems like the rules change when it is the majority viewpoint that is under attack.



I look at the posts here, ans see attacks on Trump, and his supporters, that, if similar ones had been made about Obama, there would have been loud screams form the majority here. From observation, the rules about what is acceptable posting here is that anything a Liberal posts is OK, while any of the minority that attempt to defend their viewpoint are vilified and posts deleted.

I have been here longer than 13 years, and the Liberals here have not shown ANY great effort in presenting support for their statements. In fact, in most cases the assumption is that the Liberal "fact" needs no support, and should be assumed to be true, while the conservative statement is shredded and proof demand and then ignored. Hardly a valid way of making your ideas accepted by rational people.


As for Greg, he is the self-declared Liberal Poster Boy- How dare you say otherwise!! ;)

He makes Liberals look bad- yet I notice no effort to rein him in.

See his continued use of BSBruce...about me- My posts are deleted when I use GregtrF, or try to defend myself from his attacks- But then, he's "special".

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:17 PM

200!

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM

I have no ego, Donuel. Why, I'm an atheist who doesn't even know whether there's a God or not. Beat that for self-doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:28 PM

Disinformation is now done by phone and Facebook. They are our instruments. They will call us to war by tweet and post.
Most of us will believe anything. (present&future speculative tense)

When I was a lad there were kids who would look for hiding places from the Russians. (imperfect past tense)

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:34 PM

Greg is the anti matter to your white matter Bruce.

No doubt you have suffered dismissal by the liberals here.
So lets start over like DMcG said.

We all know we are being lied to. Lets agree on that.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:35 PM

Donuel,

When I was little, we had drills to hide under our desks in case of nuclear attack- THAT was under Kennedy.

Of course, we were within the TD/firestorm area of DC...

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:36 PM

"Jim did you know 2 years ago a radio talk jock convinced the entire State of Texas that UN troops were about to invade Texas."
I did indeed, I also know that Orson Welles convinced America that Marians had landed
I think we're talking about different things here wgeb referring to what Trump stands for and it's complacent to ignore that fact.
There are certain states which would benefit from a swing to the right - "free" Russia bing only one of them
I'd hate to think that we'll all be kicking ourselves in twelve moths time when we have half a dozen fascist European states all enjoying the protection of the U.S. veto - Israel has already been promised that one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:40 PM

I KNOW that HC committed various felonies concerning her misuse of classified information .

I have had NSA training as AISSR, and Alt Comsec Custodian, and what SHE STATED SHE HAD DONE was a violation of the law, regardless of whether she got cover from the Obama Administration. ANYONE who held a clearance would know this.

Doesn't matter if I had to hold my nose to vote for Trump- the Democrats conspired to make that the only choice available.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 12:58 PM

This is the stuff :-) Thanks for getting into the swing of it and sharing your school drills with us, Bruce. Over on another thread I have said that politics today seems to be the politics of fear so no one will blame you for voting for Trump. Well, some will but you can ignore them. As daft as it sounds, even though I immensely dislike this type of politics, I can understand how it gets so popular. I tend to sit back and take everything in, often for years, before I make a decision. Much to my wife's chagrin. But it does mean that I can often see many sides of the same event. Much to my own chagrin!

Are we moving slowly forward do you think?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:00 PM

Sorry - Wrong thread! C&Ping my last remark to the 'usual suspects' one. If a mudelf has enough goodwill left to remove my comment - Feel free :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:11 PM

Bruce I guess baby steps of small agreements won't work yet. I never saw the Cuban Missile Crises as a DEMOCRATIC Kennedy caused crises.
But it does make sense in a black and white, world.

We had the same blast drills in Colorado. We even had a special siren.

I shouldn't say red and blue anymore because we all used to be blue and the Commies were always Red especially China.

Even Pink was suspect.

Its all very confusing. Now Trump is red and Russia is red white and BLUE.

Bruce if we throw away law , rule and precedent for Trump because Trump doesn't know what they are we leave ourselves open to criminal rule.

I know you feel IRKED at almost every mention of Trump. There has never been a president beyond scrutiny unless we just settle for a King and forget Democracy.

Remember liberals will not forget democracy, get used to it. In a way learn to see us as originalists.

All this is the civil war I envisioned 10 years ago. Learn to get along for both of us.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:15 PM

Eyes are opening

Dave it looked like the right thread to me, at least I hoped so.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:17 PM

I hold the Trump administration to the same standards I tried to hold the Obama one too ( and were berated for here)- but if I were to hold it to the standards that the LIBERALS held Obama to, then anything goes.


"Celebrity chef and self-described "privileged Eastern liberal" Anthony Bourdain slammed his fellow leftist elites this week, arguing that their disdain for working-class Americans helped create "the upswell of rage and contempt" that propelled Donald Trump to the presidency.

"The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," Bourdain said in an interview with Reason magazine.

"I've spent a lot of time in gun-country, God-fearing America," Bourdain continued. "There are a hell of a lot of nice people out there, who are doing what everyone else in this world is trying to do: the best they can to get by and take care of themselves and the people they love. When we deny them their basic humanity and legitimacy of their views, however different they may be than ours, when we mock them at every turn and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good.""


https://www.yahoo.com/news/anthony-bourdain-slams-privileged-liberals-for-utter-contempt-of-working-class-151215285.html

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:24 PM

"I KNOW that HC committed various felonies concerning her misuse of classified information ."
Eve though she was found not guilty by an enquiry
The first action Trump took following his election was to partially settle a law suit concerning one of his enterprises' ripping off students
Would you buy used car from this man - or elect him president?
Mind you, he has promised to look into accusations of hacking by the Russians and I'm sure he is the last person to carry out a cover-up
He's threatened to pull the plug on his Golf Club a few miles down this coast if he doesn't get his way over sealing off access to a local beach - so it's not all bad news
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:33 PM

Let me see- A private business man sued over business activities ( the cost of doing business)

Vs

A Federal Government Cabinet official who puts her privacy above the law and security of the US.


What a choice! But the DNC gave it to us.



No inquiry, no trial, nothing: Being NOT found guilty is NOT the same as being found NOT GUILTY- total shield by the Obama administration. If it had bee a Republican DOJ and Bush Cabinet official, how loud would the screams have been?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:41 PM

Strongly worded but fair enough.

Also half the stuff alt and right wing media accused Obama of doing is virtually impossible.

Fox never carried Obama speeches except for Inauguration, State of the Union and even skipped press Conferences
I bet you liked the American Freedom medal selections.

Staying who you are is only honest but opening yourself to more knowledge without automatic hate will make you a more balanced and fair person. With proganda wars upon us don't be a hypnosis victim. Be your own decision maker.

Greg may have to learn this the hard way.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:47 PM

I don't watch Fox. I read multiple sources, not listen to talking heads.


"Staying who you are is only honest but opening yourself to more knowledge without automatic hate will make you a more balanced and fair person."

As it would for ALL ( I am looking at YOU) of us.


Also half the stuff alt Left and "Main Stream" media accused Trump of "going to do" is virtually impossible.

Yet you help spread these anti-Trump accusations, while complaining about others spreading anti-Obama messages

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:47 PM

Reprimands were applicable but claims of Felonies and no inquiries are so false I am embarrassed for you.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:52 PM

When Obama was ELECTED, he was given a Nobel Prize for what he might do.

When Trump was elected, there were demonstrations because of what he MIGHT do.


I can judge Obama on his PAST failures- can YOU wait to judge Trump on his, or will you give him the same chance that Obama had to make good?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:56 PM

"Reprimands were applicable but claims of Felonies and no inquiries are so false I am embarrassed for you. "

Sorry you feel that way. Whose lies are YOU now believing?

What training in handling classified information have you had? What positions in the Federal Government have you been in that exposed you to classified materials?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 02:09 PM

I could tell you, Bruce, but I would then have to kill you...

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 02:12 PM

That post is an example of only reacting to specious propaganda, it gets us nowhere except a bookmark of truth.

Yes I can wait.

What we can judge so far are the 4 Fox news contributors from Fox News to his cabinet, 3 billionaire globalists to his cabinet, 3 Generals, one neo Nazi advisor, and 2 people whose positions are to disband the agency they were given, and one HUD head who is an expert with baby brains.

We know different things so it will take time to learn if we both listen. Facts are amazing and entertaining. bbl

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 02:15 PM

DtG,

Actually, the training is rather widespread- several million of us.

Including all those DOJ people dealing with classified material- HRC had to sign off that she HAD been given that training. When I took it, it was a three plus day course, just for SECRET level.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 02:26 PM

As opposed to the Obama paying off the Auto unions after getting a hefty contribution from them? I had GM stock- but the Obama administration split GM into two companies- One, that was the old one given to the stockholders ( ie, the funds that had everyone else's retirement money was in ) got the debts. The new GM (which had only the assets and no debt) stock was given to the unions.

Not propaganda, fact.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 02:27 PM

oooo you got me

I will not read Brietbart.

I can agree on most things you say but sometimes for different reasons
But there is no alt left in a literal sense

You might know when you have been misled. Sometimes you might not know.

PS Thank you for your honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 02:29 PM

"reacting to specious propaganda"

I listened to HRC stating what she had done, and referred to the documents that I was given and had signed to be authorized to handle classified data. Where does "specious propaganda" come into it? are you saying the HRC LIED about what she did?

Subject: RE: BS: A new political low take 2
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 02:33 PM

"I will not read Brietbart."


That is where we differ- I will read ALL points of view, and try to determine what the facts actually are.