Lancasterclaret wrote:Again, I listen to experts who know what they are talking about.
Is there any reason to believe you or Ringo over someone who is a trade expert?
None whatsoever I'm afraid.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Most remainers probably were happy with the way things were in the UK before the referendum. I certainly was.SmudgetheClaret wrote:How was he exposed? he just answered her which is unusual for a politician , the problem with remainers is they bleat on about how bad it will be when we leave but never give us the benefits of staying in maybe they are happy with the way things are in the UK ...
The. Benefits. Are. That. We. Avoid. All. The. Bad. Stuff. You. Dumb. ****.SmudgetheClaret wrote:How was he exposed? he just answered her which is unusual for a politician , the problem with remainers is they bleat on about how bad it will be when we leave but never give us the benefits of staying in maybe they are happy with the way things are in the UK ...
fair enough, but what have you based this opinion on?Bdc wrote:Farage is an idiot
An idiot or just someone or disagree with?Bdc wrote:Farage is an idiot
What has he achieved?Right_winger wrote:An idiot or just someone or disagree with?
Clearly the mans not an idiot, he’s achieved more in life than the likes of yourself for example.
It's pretty easy to convince lazy thinkers that their lazy thought is correct.Lancasterclaret wrote:To be fair, its a hell of an achievement getting enough people not to realise you are thick ex-banker who lies all the time.
How do you know?Right_winger wrote:
Clearly the mans not an idiot, he’s achieved more in life than the likes of yourself for example.
Hi JakubJakubclaret wrote:You want to believe it, your mind is already made up, some people will for want of a better word gullible. The media portray UKIP in the worst possible light & it’s inaccurate.
When you curtail your unhealthy obsession regarding polish citizens & ducks (tbf your not on your own in that respect) & demonstrate a willingness to engage in a constructive sensible manner.Greenmile wrote:Hi Jakub
Are you going to tell me which parts of the articles I linked earlier are inaccurate and only for the gullible? They were all pretty widely reported.
It seems to me that it’s a bit more gullible to believe the cries of “fake news” and “biased MSM” that your political heroes like to use, without actually checking that the MSM have got it wrong first.
Thanks in advance.
Fair enough. I think I might have missed the “duck” thing though, tbh, although I’ve seen the odd reference to it.Jakubclaret wrote:When you curtail your unhealthy obsession regarding polish citizens & ducks (tbf your not on your own in that respect) & demonstrate a willingness to engage in a constructive sensible manner.
Not just democracy either.Lancasterclaret wrote:The collapse of evidence and fact based thinking as opposed to "I don't care, its what I believe" is one of the biggest dangers to democracy you can have.
Just had a look I honestly don’t think it’s a big deal & I would necessarily interpret any racism, in the era of political correctness it is, to a man on the street well in my opinion they should know better & that’s it. I honestly think some people are too sensitive instead of just laughing it off. 1,crude comment 2,crude comment 3, a maybe ill judged song getting distorted the proceeds going to charity, Godfrey bloom is actually married to a polish lady.Greenmile wrote:Fair enough. I think I might have missed the “duck” thing though, tbh, although I’ve seen the odd reference to it.
I suspect you’ve realised that all the links I posted relate to obviously true stories that are backed up by video evidence (not just someone’s YouTube blog) and / or were admitted by the protagonists themselves, which makes you look a bit silly when you dismiss them as fake news and have the gall to suggest that I was gullible for believing them.
Fake news to you (and many with your political outlook) just seems to be “stuff that doesn’t confirm my preconceptions”. I suppose it makes life easier when you can choose what to believe based on whether you want it to be true or not, rather than facts and stuff.
You've only just had a look??Jakubclaret wrote:Just had a look I honestly don’t think it’s a big deal & I would necessarily interpret any racism, in the era of political correctness it is, to a man on the street well in my opinion they should know better & that’s it. I honestly think some people are too sensitive instead of just laughing it off. 1,crude comment 2,crude comment 3, a maybe ill judged song getting distorted the proceeds going to charity, Godfrey bloom is actually married to a polish lady.
You weren't honest and open-minded enough to even look at the links I had posted before dismissing them, though. How can you be swayed by a convincing argument if you refuse to even look at the evidence presented to you before dismissing it.Jakubclaret wrote:It’s easy to post suggestive biased anti UKIP Rhetoric links. You only believe what you want to believe, the same applies to me but I’m more honest about it & have a open mind & if a convincing argument presents itself I will be swayed, some people don’t have that flexibility.
Wouldn't someone whose mind wasn't already made up have taken a look at the articles before dismissing them, and implying that they were inaccurate and only to be believed by the gullible?Jakubclaret wrote:You want to believe it, your mind is already made up, some people will for want of a better word gullible. The media portray UKIP in the worst possible light & it’s inaccurate.
That’s not entirely fair, as I recall you posted the links quite late on the evening & I did initially glance & formed an opinion based on the links, & only until recently with you posting again I’ve reread in more depth & formed a similar opinion to the 1 I’d already established. It’s not the done thing when you’re in the spotlight to say bongo & ting tong land that I do agree with, my standpoint is I don’t deem racist as I hear more offensive terms during day to day life from people I would necessarily describe as being racist. You seem to have a habit of larging things up to dovetail with your streamlined agenda improvising as you go along.Greenmile wrote:You've only just had a look??
Let me remind you. About half an hour after I first posted them, you said this....
You weren't honest and open-minded enough to even look at the links I had posted before dismissing them, though. How can you be swayed by a convincing argument if you refuse to even look at the evidence presented to you before dismissing it.
After I asked you which bits I shouldn't have believed, you said...
Wouldn't someone whose mind wasn't already made up have taken a look at the articles before dismissing them, and implying that they were inaccurate and only to be believed by the gullible?
To be clear, I'm not saying you have to read every link I ever post, but you really probably should if you're going to engage with me in order to imply that they are "fake news". Particularly if you go on to describe yourself as "honest" and "open minded", and me as "gullible".
If you don't think that talking about "bongo bongo land" and "a ting tong from somewhere" is racist, then that's your opinion which you're entitled to (I strongly disagree, obviously), but you can't just dismiss stuff as biased when you've not even read it.
You really have no self-awareness do you?Jakubclaret wrote:That’s not entirely fair, as I recall you posted the links quite late on the evening & I did initially glance & formed an opinion based on the links, & only until recently with you posting again I’ve reread in more depth & formed a similar opinion to the 1 I’d already established. It’s not the done thing when you’re in the spotlight to say bongo & ting tong land that I do agree with, my standpoint is I don’t deem racist as I hear more offensive terms during day to day life from people I would necessarily describe as being racist. You seem to have a habit of larging things up to dovetail with your streamlined agenda improvising as you go along.
Lancasterclaret wrote:To be fair, its a hell of an achievement getting enough people not to realise you are thick ex-banker who lies all the time.
If he does it all the time. It would be anything but easy to list them all - it’d take ages.burnleymik wrote:Can you please list all these lies. I am sure it will be very easy if he does it "all the time".
With UKIP, yes, it is.Jakubclaret wrote:It’s much easier to just post links trying to discredit a party & person with dubious content alleging racism when its no more than a handful of people misbehaving.
Hear hear Lancaster & GM, an unfortunate sign of present time. I however still believe we can turn the tide and populism will hopefully fade away in a number of years time from now.Greenmile wrote:Not just democracy either.
Our health (anti-vaxxers causing outbreaks of diseases) and education (creationists trying to ban the teaching of evolution) are also suffering as a result of this "feelz before realz" (as I believe the kidz say) way of looking at life.
Just a couple of examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure it affects all sort of things in various (but almost exclusively negative) ways.
Rubbish. You could easily post many of them. Wouldn't take much effort if every thing he says is a lie. I await with anticipation, but not expectation...Greenmile wrote:If he does it all the time. It would be anything but easy to list them all - it’d take ages.
Seems like this thread is taking a different route than its initial point: what's your take on Farrage's explanation on the interview as posted in post nr. 1?Jakubclaret wrote:Trouble is people are destroying the essence of the points you raise that’s why the upper hand will always be 1 way. In response to post 129.
You asked him (not me) to list them all though. That would be difficult. That’s the only point I was making.burnleymik wrote:Rubbish. You could easily post many of them. Wouldn't take much effort if every thing he says is a lie. I await with anticipation, but not expectation...
Im not sure what this is supposed to mean.Jakubclaret wrote:Trouble is people are destroying the essence of the points you raise that’s why the upper hand will always be 1 way. In response to post 129.
Greenmile wrote:You asked him (not me) to list them all though. That would be difficult. That’s the only point I was making.
Here’s a few for you to be going on with, though (six in a single article is pretty good going).
https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.co ... s-article/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Fake newsGreenmile wrote:Fair enough. I think I might have missed the “duck” thing though, tbh, although I’ve seen the odd reference to it.
I suspect you’ve realised that all the links I posted relate to obviously true stories that are backed up by video evidence (not just someone’s YouTube blog) and / or were admitted by the protagonists themselves, which makes you look a bit silly when you dismiss them as fake news and have the gall to suggest that I was gullible for believing them.
Fake news to you (and many with your political outlook) just seems to be “stuff that doesn’t confirm my preconceptions”. I suppose it makes life easier when you can choose what to believe based on whether you want it to be true or not, rather than facts and stuff.
I just lost a long reply to this (I think the Express website crashed my tablet), and I can’t be bothered typing it all out again, but will summarise it asburnleymik wrote:okay let's work through them:
1. We do pay the EU an estimate of £55million per day and that was back in 2016. Yes we supposedly get some back in rebates. - So it's not a lie we pay the EU £55 million per day even with the small rebate we pay them scandalous amounts of money.
2. So they admit this one in the first sentence, but then try and mitigate. - Once again not a lie.
3. They admit upto 50% are made and also that it depends how you measure it! - They are not proving a lie at all.
4. Effectively they do have the power unless the Supreme Court can justify a reason not to. haha. How spurious is that? terrible. - That said, I haven't actually heard or seem this comment about the supreme court, just about our laws in general.
5. This is grasping at best. he did not say "for every single small business". he was stating that a lot of businesses, even if they only trade within the UK are subject to EU legistlation, which makes things more costly and difficult. They are not proving he lied at all here, they are just interpreting it another way.
6. I think it's quite clear by now that the EU's treaty commitments on Asylum have allowed terrorists into the continent and there have been numerous examples to prove this. the only irresponsibility is not properly vetting the asylum seekers entering the continent. - Once again, this is not a lie.
That whole article doesn't actually prove a single outright lie. Worthless.
How is it omission?. he stated we pay the EU £55 million per day. We do. That is not a lie.Greenmile wrote:
1 - lie by omission (not including the rebate, for starters). It’s knowingly dishonest and misleading. AKA a lie.
Except the article states it's a lie and you concede it's not. Credibility is shot already.2 - I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant this as his opinion only, but he claims to be “absolutely certain” we can strike these trade deals, which I find hard to believe. Only lunatics are absolutely certain what will happen after Brexit, but let’s say Farage is one. Not a lie (we’re down to five).
Did you actually read into this? They clearly said it depends how you measure it! I also found Farage's quote and he said "upto 70%" How are they proving this is a lie?3 - Fullfact say 15 to 50% (https://fullfact.org/news/what-proporti ... -brussels/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) Even if we take the upper value that’s not a majority, as Farage claimed. A lie.
Look at the bottom part of the article, the Supreme Court can ONLY over rule the ECJ if they can find sufficient grounds to do so. I would say they can be over-ruled by the ECJ, unless they can justify their position.4 - Farage said “Our own Supreme Court can be overruled by a court in Luxembourg staffed by people who aren’t even proper judges” (his article is linked in the first line of the one I linked to). The Supreme Court’s own website says this is a lie. https://www.supremecourt.uk/faqs.html#1g" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He also didn't say ALL, so this once again is down to interpretation, as you pointed out, so how can it be an lie?5 - he claimed “EU legislation that holds back our economic potential and makes life hard for those who run small businesses.”. Not “some of those”, but “those”, which implies all of them. Another lie.
The article clearly claims 6, surely at this point you realise it's validity is worthless.Still, four lies in a single article is not the output of an honest individual, is it?
1 - it’s a lie no matter how you look at it. The rebate is applied before any money is sent, so we don’t and never have paid £55m a day.burnleymik wrote:How is it omission?. he stated we pay the EU £55 million per day. We do. That is not a lie.
Except the article states it's a lie and you concede it's not. Credibility is shot already.
Did you actually read into this? They clearly said it depends how you measure it! I also found Farage's quote and he said "upto 70%" How are they proving this is a lie?
Look at the bottom part of the article, the Supreme Court can ONLY over rule the ECJ if they can find sufficient grounds to do so. I would say they can be over-ruled by the ECJ, unless they can justify their position.
He also didn't say ALL, so this once again is down to interpretation, as you pointed out, so how can it be an lie?
The article clearly claims 6, surely at this point you realise it's validity is worthless.
You gave me an article with 6 supposed Farage lies and already you concede two are not lies and the others are spurious at best.
The comment LC made that Farage lies all the time and I still await evidence of this.
Easy to make these claims and throw labels around, but when you ask for evidence....
ezpz.burnleymik wrote:How is it omission?. he stated we pay the EU £55 million per day. We do. That is not a lie.
We do because we are told how we spend that rebate! it's not exactly our money as we don't have control over how it is spent. So it's not a lie is it?Greenmile wrote:1 - it’s a lie no matter how you look at it. The rebate is applied before any money is sent, so we don’t and never have paid £55m a day.
It's very premise is about 6 lies Farage told and you citied it to prove he is a liar. For me that really does affect the credibility when you are freely admitting that it's not as it portrays.2 - I didn’t write the article, so I don’t have to agree with every word it says in order to maintain credibility.
15%-50% - come on, that clearly means they don't know, so how can they state for sure Farage is wrong? they clearly have no definitive answer!3 - yes it depends how you measure it, but no matter how you measure it you will never come up with a figure greater than 50%, which is not a majority as Farage claimed (in the Express article that the one I linked refers to). If he said “up to 70%” that would be dishonest and misleading, but strictly speaking true. He said “a majority” which is a lie.
It also states, what you are missing, is that only if the Supreme Court can find sufficient grounds. That is a pretty big caveat, you must admit?4 - I’m sure you would say they can be over ruled by the ECJ, but you’d be lying (or maybe just wrong), too. From the Supreme Court website I linked (emphasis mine) -
“Can the European Court of Human Rights or the Court of Justice of the European Union overrule the UKSC?
No. However, when making decisions, the UKSC must give effect to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.”
How is that analogy even close? You simply imply he meant ALL because that is how you interpreted it, but he didn't actually say that.5 - if I say “the people living in my house are adults”, would you be surprised if you came round and a child was living there, or would you think “well, he didn’t say ALL the people...”?
I found plenty, but you yourself admitted two of their six are not even true. Their entire premise is that they found six lies Farage told.6 - Nope. An article can contain both good and bad points (or even both truths and lies). You can’t dismiss an entire article by finding one mistake in it.
You clearly linked me to one of the first Google articlea that popped up, without checking it first yourself. You provided absolutely nothing of substance to prove your point. In fact the best you had was a lie by omission!!!“Easy to make these claims and throw labels around, but when you ask for evidence...”
...someone provides it and you try to shoot it down with terrible logic.
It does cost that. We have no say on how the rebate is spent and let's not forget that the EU wanted to reduce that rebate! We can't just give them less and spend it on our own economy.Tall Paul wrote:He actually states that it COSTS £55m a day, which is an even bigger lie than saying we pay £55m.
Imploding Turtle wrote:ezpz.
I bought a bottle of coke earlier. 500ml. I paid with a £20 note. Now, would i be telling the truth if i then told everyone that i paid £20 for that coke?
What spending restrictions do the EU put on the rebate?burnleymik wrote:How about you paid £20 for that coke, but you can only spend the change on what the shopkeeper tells you to spend it on. You still had to give £20 to the shopkeeper and because you have to spend the change how he says, then it has still meant it cost you £20.
I give up.burnleymik wrote:We do because we are told how we spend that rebate! it's not exactly our money as we don't have control over how it is spent. So it's not a lie is it?
It's very premise is about 6 lies Farage told and you citied it to prove he is a liar. For me that really does affect the credibility when you are freely admitting that it's not as it portrays.
15%-50% - come on, that clearly means they don't know, so how can they state for sure Farage is wrong? they clearly have no definitive answer!
It also states, what you are missing, is that only if the Supreme Court can find sufficient grounds. That is a pretty big caveat, you must admit?
How is that analogy even close? You simply imply he meant ALL because that is how you interpreted it, but he didn't actually say that.
I found plenty, but you yourself admitted two of their six are not even true. Their entire premise is that they found six lies Farage told.
You clearly linked me to one of the first Google articlea that popped up, without checking it first yourself. You provided absolutely nothing of substance to prove your point. In fact the best you had was a lie by omission!!!
So busy believing that you want to be true, that facts seem to be worthless to you.
A rare moment of honesty and self-awareness there. Are you feeling ok?Jakubclaret wrote:Let’s all just ignore facts, we can all improvise & just wing it by posting links to suit our own arguments & we don’t even have to read other peoples links & if we do we accuse people of not reading the links & just make it up.
I’m pretty sure he’s mixing up the rebate with funding that the EU gives to UK projects. That’s the level of wilful ignorance we’re dealing with here.Imploding Turtle wrote:What spending restrictions do the EU put on the rebate?