NIGEL FARAGE - THE BEST PRIME MINISTER THAT BRITAIN NEVER HAD.Jakubclaret wrote:You just know it's coming, you couldn't find a more sincere honest gentleman than Nigel if you tried, it's hilarious people knocking him because he will always come back stronger.
Like this one belowRingoMcCartney wrote:NIGEL FARAGE - THE BEST PRIME MINISTER THAT BRITAIN NEVER HAD.
YET!.....
When he was in charge of UKIP they had the strictest policy on who was allowed to join. Unlike Labour, Lib Dems (and maybe even the Conservatives) UKIP banned anyone who had been a member of the BNP.Lancasterclaret wrote:Its not a shock that there is ample evidence of him being an ignorant tool, he's never off the radio or the TV.
Big plus point in his favour though, he's not happy about Tommy Robinson potentially joining UKIP.
This is the most constantly aired opinion against Farage.Lancasterclaret wrote:Its the fact that he's a rabble rousing soulless prick that gets me to be honest.
Can't imagine why UKIP of all parties would ever need such a policy but it's nice they had it.Rowls wrote:When he was in charge of UKIP they had the strictest policy on who was allowed to join. Unlike Labour, Lib Dems (and maybe even the Conservatives) UKIP banned anyone who had been a member of the BNP.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.news ... rbyn%3famp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Spiral wrote:Can't imagine why UKIP of all parties would ever need such a policy but it's nice they had it.
Well it's pretty obvious really but they had it and no other party did.Spiral wrote:Can't imagine why UKIP of all parties would ever need such a policy but it's nice they had it.
Because there were plenty of people willing to jump up and say "UKIP are racist" on no evidence at all; UKIP didn't want to give them any evidence.Spiral wrote:Can't imagine why UKIP of all parties would ever need such a policy but it's nice they had it.
Mainly to stop undesirables from entering the fray, I can dig the dirt on the other 3, I'm not even a ukip supporter but the policy was to prevent other entities clouding the overriding vision.Spiral wrote:Can't imagine why UKIP of all parties would ever need such a policy but it's nice they had it.
No evidence at all?dsr wrote:Because there were plenty of people willing to jump up and say "UKIP are racist" on no evidence at all; UKIP didn't want to give them any evidence.
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.Greenmile wrote:No evidence at all?
What about when Godfrey Bloom said we should stop sending aid to “bongo bongo land” (and refused to apologise, saying he can’t be racist because he has two Kashmiri staff)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... bongo-land" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...or the the UKIP MEP who referred to a Thai constituent as “a ting tong from somewhere”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-28840210" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...and you must remember Mike Read’s brilliant not at all racist calypso song, which the Red Cross refused to accept the royalties for and Read eventually withdrew from sale.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29722860" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You could probably find similar stories about politicians from other parties (though you’d struggle to find examples as egregious as these, I’d wager), but to suggest people have “no evidence at all” to say UKIP are racist is laughable.
Which part(s) of the articles I linked should I not believe?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.
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.Greenmile wrote:Which part(s) of the articles I linked should I not believe?
You can stop laughing because I didn't say it.Greenmile wrote:... but to suggest people have “no evidence at all” to say UKIP are racist is laughable.
So popular that he never won a seat in a general election.Rowls wrote:This is the most constantly aired opinion against Farage.
And it translates roughly as "I just don't like they guy".
This is why he's so popular amongst so many ordinary voters - because Farage's opponents have lost every debate of substance against him and their last resort is vague insults and insinuations like "he's a rabble rouser".
17.8 million is a very large rouse of rabble.
You forgot to add /sJakubclaret wrote:You just know it's coming, you couldn't find a more sincere honest gentleman than Nigel if you tried, it's hilarious people knocking him because he will always come back stronger.
Hey, remember when Farage blamed immigration for him being late for a speech? That was funny, wasn't it? Or when he met with Julian Assange (possibly as part of a criminal conspiracy to steal a presidential election) and then when asked what the meeting was about he said he couldn't remember?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.
Which part(s) of the articles I linked are inaccurate?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.
So you’re saying the evidence is available but some people just aren’t using it, and would still say UKIP are racist even if there was no evidence? How do you know this, exactly?dsr wrote:You can stop laughing because I didn't say it.
I said "there were plenty of people willing to jump up and say "UKIP are racist" on no evidence at all". I didn't say there wasn't any evidence, just that there were people willing to cry racism without needing evidence.
Of course there's no hypocrisy whatsoever in socialists wanting a democratic right to vote?Imploding Turtle wrote:It amuses me that you call the EU a "gravy train" yet hero worship a man who refuses to get off of it. The hypocrisy should be astounding but it's just the standard now with you lot.
I mean really?!Erm. No. There isn't. Socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive.Wisswosswass wrote:Of course there's no hypocrisy whatsoever in socialists wanting a democratic right to vote?
Bordeauxclaret wrote:Lancasterclaret - can you please please please unblock Ringo.
I think it’s about twenty times now he’s tried to reply after being told he’s blocked.
It’s just easier if you unblock him rather than explain how it works.
Genuinely painful.
Then you clearly don't understand the basic fact that there is a spectrum of opinion that is represented by different parties in UK politics.Spiral wrote:Thanks for all the responses, guys. I'm a bit surprised the Liberal Democrats didn't feel the need to take an official policy position on denying membership to ethnostate white nationalists.
RingoMcCartney wrote:Then you clearly don't understand the basic fact that there is a spectrum of opinion that is represented by different parties in UK politics.
Or rather , you absolutely do, but just want to make a sad little, and entirely predictable, point.
I like Nigel.Lancasterclaret wrote:The only thing madder than Brexiteers are the Brexiteers who think Farage could win an election anywhere.
He appeals to that 10% who vote UKIP and have er, "interesting" ideas about immigrants.
No one else.
And if you want me to be serious, he's lost seven straight elections, including finishing behind a bloke dressed as a dolphin.
One man's "good" is another man's entirely predictable.Imploding Turtle wrote:Oooh. Ringo's got his angry face on because someone made a good point and he can't refute it by any other means than by being really angry about it.
Ringo, you go girl!
"Good" and "predictable" are not antonyms, numbnuts.RingoMcCartney wrote:One man's "good" is another man's entirely predictable.
Your far too easily pleased sister!!!!
Spijed wrote:So you'd be happy to get chlorinated chicken from the USA as one of the benefits of leaving the EU?
We do a deal with them, and we'll have to accept lower food standards.
Nobody said they were you hapless clown.Imploding Turtle wrote:"Good" and "predictable" are not antonyms, numbnuts.
Classic Ringo.RingoMcCartney wrote:
Oi cloth ears. I pointed out to you previously, that I'm fully aware that after he blocked me , simply because he wouldn't accept he was wrong, despite being presented with independent facts from the ONS and Full Facts, he is unable to read my posts.
However I really enjoy being able to highlight his arrogant hypocrisy when droaning on about how he only "respects
posters who can back up their opinion with facts!"
It's refreshing to be still able to shine a light on him, knowing I'm not going to be on the receiving end of another one of his pious, sanctimonious, holier than thou, superiority fests
Remember, this is the guy that announced, " I have the the unfortunate habit of being right most of the time!"
So stop pretending I haven't already pointed this out to previously. You really shouldn't need me to explain again. Your post that's an attempt at humour, based on faux ignorance - GENUINELY GENUINELY PAINFUL
Lancasterclaret wrote:I can't work out if its good or bad that when someone highlights one of his posts I can still read it.
It is good overall I think, because it reminds me why I blocked him in the first place.
And having him rant about me all the time (because I've been right on Brexit) is hilarious!
You said you were "right on Brexit" - that is quite literally impossible, unless you have a crystal ball and can see the future?Lancasterclaret wrote:Over two and bit years though BM (and I appreciate that you haven't been on that long) I've been spot on
That because I listen and read what experts say, rather than Daily Mail editorials, blokes in the pub, lying politicians etc etc etc
Personally I found it even more entertaining that he managed to be beaten by this man in a dolphin outfit in the general election.TheFamilyCat wrote:So popular that he never won a seat in a general election.
17.8 million people voted to leave the EU, they weren't votes for Nigel Farage. Most of them would have voted for it regardless of who were campaigning for it.
Nothing personally against the man, but did you have a look at the linked video? It was the man himself talking, so directly from the sauce without any media influence...burnleymik wrote:Farage is no worse than any other politician.
When you read through a thread like this you realise just how much influence the media has on people's thought processes and how much hatred that creates towards someone they quite literally do not know personally.
burnleymik wrote:Farage is no worse than any other politician.
When you read through a thread like this you realise just how much influence the media has on people's thought processes and how much hatred that creates towards someone they quite literally do not know personally.
The vast majority did. ( 14 max )Imploding Turtle wrote:I guess you've slept through all the Corbyn threads.
Yeah I see it too with Corbyn, which is why I thought more people would now understand, but alas, no.Imploding Turtle wrote:I guess you've slept through all the Corbyn threads.