BS: A new political low take 2

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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 05:13 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 - 05:13 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 10:25 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:49 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:08 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: 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 - 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 - 05:29 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