Prime minister Boris

[burnleymik]

I have much more than just his decision to employ so many white supremacists to draw the conclusion that he believes his race to be superior to others.
Have you ever heard the phrase "body of evidence"? And if you have do you understand it?

Let's see direct evidence of Trump as a white supremacist... As I see it far far better people than you have been looking for this stuff and found nothing, as such you are now trying the guilty by association, which is a bit pathetic. Trump thinks Americans are the superior country, no matter the skin colour, but don't let that get in the way of your usual boll0cks.

[Bacchus]

As for your second paragraph, that's just the arrogance of a certain type of remainer coming through. You assume that because you believe brexit will cause massive damage, then it is fact that Brexit will cause massive damage, and anyone who votes Brexit wants to cause massive damage. This is not true. People who vote Brexit, almost unanimously, believe that Brexit will not cause massive damage; but it is beyond the wit of many Remainers to even recognise that point of view, let alone understand it.

Every credible economic study shows that Brexit will hit our economy hard. The government's own figures show that they also believe that to be true, with even the 'softest' option being projected to have an adverse impact. Against that backdrop it can't possibly be described as arrogance to assume that our economy will be damaged by it - it's an entirely rational conclusion to arrive at.

You are, of course, free to believe in whatever you like. If you've found a way of convincing yourself that Brexit will make us all richer that's entirely you prerogative. Don't demand that people give your beliefs the time of day though when all available evidence shows them to be far-fetched at best.

[Imploding Turtle]

Let's see direct evidence of Trump as a white supremacist... As I see it far far better people than you have been looking for this stuff and found nothing, as such you are now trying the guilty by association, which is a bit pathetic. Trump thinks Americans are the superior country, no matter the skin colour, but don't let that get in the way of your usual boll0cks.

Awww. Look at you trying to win a debate by setting the nonsensical condition that only direct evidence and not circumstantial evidence can be used. That's so cute.
And once again you're back to misrepresenting my position as a way to attack it. That's a lot of fun to see again. I've missed that while you had me blocked.

[burnleymik]

Every credible economic study shows that Brexit will hit our economy hard.

So if it doesn't show what you want it to, then it's not credible?

We have the CEO of Apple saying it will be fine. The BoE Governor Mark Carney says it will be fine.

Even the IMF says that 90% of economic growth for the next 20 years will be outside the European Union.

https://www.ft.com/content/b913db84-c62 ... c1c7c13aab" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is evidence to support both sides of the argument, but you are stating that only evidence that supports your side is "credible".

[Imploding Turtle]

So if it doesn't show what you want it to, then it's not credible?

We have the CEO of Apple saying it will be fine. The BoE Governor Mark Carney says it will be fine.

Even the IMF says that 90% of economic growth for the next 20 years will be outside the European Union.

https://www.ft.com/content/b913db84-c62 ... c1c7c13aab" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is evidence to support both sides of the argument, but you are stating that only evidence that supports your side is "credible".

Is that the plan then? Turn is unto a third-world economy to enable us to have lots of growth potential?

[burnleymik]

Awww. Look at you trying to win a debate by setting the nonsensical condition that only direct evidence and not circumstantial evidence can be used. That's so cute.
And once again you're back to misrepresenting my position as a way to attack it. That's a lot of fun to see again. I've missed that while you had me blocked.

I am not trying to win any debate. I am not a child who thinks it's about winning or losing. I am making my points to counter yours. It shows your mentality if this is how you score points.

So, back on topic.. you have no proof of Trump being a White Supremacist, despite making the claim and having no evidence to support that claim, except association, which is weak. Like I said, Corbyn has sympathised with many terrorist causes, shared platforms with them and more, but it doesn't make him a terrorist.

[burnleymik]

Is that the plan then? Turn is unto a third-world economy to enable us to have lots of growth potential?

When are you going to stop making bold claims, without any evidence? You make so many worthless statements, for impact, that do nothing because they are just your opinion and opinions are like ars3holes, everyone has one.

[Imploding Turtle]

When are you going to stop making bold claims, without any evidence? You make so many worthless statements, for impact, that do nothing because they are just your opinion and opinions are like ars3holes, everyone has one.

I think you need to learn the difference between a statement and a question. Don't you?


Homework assignment: The above paragraph contains two sentences. One is a statement, the other is a question. Can you identify which is which?

[AndrewJB]

When someone murders a member of your family, you don't invite them into your home to talk it over - even if you don't like the person they tried to kill. There is no way it was appropriate fora backbench MP to invite into Parliament the people who organised the Brighton bomb. It absolutely cannot be justified.

I disagree with you there. For one thing the conflict in Northern Ireland was far more complex than one group against another, and Corbyn didn't invite the actual bomb makers for tea, but representatives of one of the political parties that wanted NI to leave the UK. History is on Corbyn's side here, because peace was eventually negotiated. The Troubles didn't end through the dictum of 'no speaking with terrorists' and the Tories very much played their part in that too.

[Bacchus]

So if it doesn't show what you want it to, then it's not credible?

We have the CEO of Apple saying it will be fine. The BoE Governor Mark Carney says it will be fine.

Even the IMF says that 90% of economic growth for the next 20 years will be outside the European Union.

https://www.ft.com/content/b913db84-c62 ... c1c7c13aab" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is evidence to support both sides of the argument, but you are stating that only evidence that supports your side is "credible".

Can't read that because I don't subscribe.

I'm pretty sure Mark Carney has been taking steps to mitigate the impact of Brexit - not sure how that stacks up with 'it will be fine.' Of course, in his position he's hardly likely to run around shouting "We're all doomed!"

If Tim Cook thinks it will be fine then good for him - it's odd though that the general view of British businesses (i.e. those who will be affected) is one of far greater concern than the view from across the Atlantic. It's beyond dispute that the overwhelming majority of economists and studies believe the impact will be negative.

90% of economic growth being outside the EU doesn't mean that we'll suddenly follow that trend post Brexit. It's because most of the emerging markets are outside the EU, and generally more difficult for us to trade with due to distances and differences in existing standards of living / product standards / employment laws etc.

[dsr]

I disagree with you there. For one thing the conflict in Northern Ireland was far more complex than one group against another, and Corbyn didn't invite the actual bomb makers for tea, but representatives of one of the political parties that wanted NI to leave the UK. History is on Corbyn's side here, because peace was eventually negotiated. The Troubles didn't end through the dictum of 'no speaking with terrorists' and the Tories very much played their part in that too.

When Corbyn voted aganst the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985, he made it quite clear that it wasn't peace he was after, it was a united Ireland outside the UK.

But the point you are missing about the invite to the IRA members (not Sinn Fein members, but IRA) was that Corbyn wasn't in a position to negotiate anything. All he could do by inviting IRA members to the House of Commons was support their position; and as the most recent thing they had done was to murder and attempt to murder numerous MPs, then as an MP he should not have been supporting them.

[burnleymik]

I think you need to learn the difference between a statement and a question. Don't you?


Homework assignment: The above paragraph contains two sentences. One is a statement, the other is a question. Can you identify which is which?

Maybe you should take your own advice..

I'm saying he's a white supremacist

[Imploding Turtle]

Maybe you should take your own advice..

Fair enough. But you also said "without any evidence". I provided plenty of evidence. So are you going to apologise for yet again misrepresenting what I've posted?

[burnleymik]

Fair enough. But you also said "without any evidence". I provided plenty of evidence. So are you going to apologise for yet again misrepresenting what I've posted?

Evidence of association is not evidence. If you have proper evidence I would be happy to be proven wrong.

[Imploding Turtle]

Evidence of association is not evidence. If you have proper evidence I would be happy to be proven wrong.

So you're just going to ignore the rest of my evidence and pretend that my opinion rests solely on the fact that Trump hires white supremacists to advise him on how to be president?

You're just going to pretend that Trump doesn't think black people are an inferior race to his, as evidenced by the proportion of times it is black people whose intelligence he's mocking? You've going to pretend that he doesn't use white supremacist language to stoke white people's fears of other races? You're going to ignore all the other evidence of his racism and all the times he chooses to praise or spread white supremacist's message just because the fact that his decision to hire white supremacists to positions where they can promote their white supremacy doesn't on its own prove that Trump is also a white supremacist.

The body of evidence shows that Trump is a white supremacist. But not just the evidence of what is there, you can also look at the absent evidence if you like. Trump criticises everyone and everything, except who? It took him days to criticise white supremacists after Charlottesville last year where one of them drove a car into a crowd of counter protesters and killed one of them. He called some of them 'very fine people' but it took days of pressure from his own staff, his own party, the media, everyone for him to finally come out with bland criticism of them, And we both know why, because those are his base supporters. Why are they his base supporters? Because they really, really like what he says and does.

So the sum of everything he says and does is why i think he's a white supremacist, and the people who love him most also being white supremacists does nothing to reduce my opinion that Donald Trump thinks that the white race is superior to other races.

Prove me wrong. This week he called a black woman who disagreed with him a 'dog' (a racist insult, but you won't understand that). Find me an example of a white supremacist he's criticised the way he regularly calls black people 'stupid', 'dumb', etc.

[AndrewJB]

When Corbyn voted aganst the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985, he made it quite clear that it wasn't peace he was after, it was a united Ireland outside the UK.

But the point you are missing about the invite to the IRA members (not Sinn Fein members, but IRA) was that Corbyn wasn't in a position to negotiate anything. All he could do by inviting IRA members to the House of Commons was support their position; and as the most recent thing they had done was to murder and attempt to murder numerous MPs, then as an MP he should not have been supporting them.

Nothing like a bit of hair splitting! Just because he voted against the Anglo Irish Agreement didn't mean he "wasn't after peace"! Did the Anglo Irish Agreement bring an end to violence? No. Was he alone in voting against it? No. The Unionists also did. But he voted for the Good Friday Agreement, which did lead to peace.

He invited two EX IRA members to parliament to discuss, from what I've been able to find, 'prison conditions' Is that the same as 'supporting their position'? No, it's not. Has he ever said he supports the IRA? No. Has he ever said he supports violence? No (although he's on record as saying he's not absolutely a pacifist). And he's condemned it from everyone. Was the UK government talking to the IRA at the time? Yes, they were. Was he breaking any laws? No. Was peace in NI eventually reached through violence or dialogue?

And all of this is thirty-five years ago. If you consider anything he did at this time to be inappropriate, then he's at least earned the right to be judged by what he currently says and not by things you think he did back then. Many people in Northern Ireland have been accepted into mainstream politics after having lived documented lives of violence during the Troubles, so to not accord Corbyn the same courtesy is silly.

[burnleymik]

Prove me wrong. This week he called a black woman who disagreed with him a 'dog' (a racist insult, but you won't understand that). Find me an example of a white supremacist he's criticised the way he regularly calls black people 'stupid', 'dumb', etc.

Pathetic.

Her skin colour had no bearing, otherwise why would he hire her in the first place? Your logic is beyond bonkers.

He called her the derogatory term because she recorded private conversations and used them in her book, pretty sly and backstabbing thing to do.

[Imploding Turtle]

Pathetic.

Her skin colour had no bearing, otherwise why would he hire her in the first place? Your logic is beyond bonkers.

He called her the derogatory term because she recorded private conversations and used them in her book, pretty sly and backstabbing thing to do.

Told you.

[Imploding Turtle]

Pathetic.

Her skin colour had no bearing, otherwise why would he hire her in the first place? Your logic is beyond bonkers.

He called her the derogatory term because she recorded private conversations and used them in her book, pretty sly and backstabbing thing to do.

Also, remember when Trump implied that there were tapes of his meeting with James Comey as a threat against James Comey?

Yes, when your man likes to use the threat of recorded private conversations it's all OK. But when someone does it to him it's "sly and backstabbing".

Question: What's wrong with recording yourself having a conversation with someone you don't trust to tell the truth about the conversation?
Are you aware of the accusations she faced before she released her recording?

[burnleymik]

Told you.

..and exactly how did I misrepresent you?

I answered your quote directly. You claimed he made the comment dog because he is a white supremacist. If he was a white supremacist why would he have even hired her in the first place? It doesn't make any sense.

[burnleymik]

Also, remember when Trump implied that there were tapes of his meeting with James Comey as a threat against James Comey?

Yes, when your man likes to use the threat of recorded private conversations it's all OK. But when someone does it to him it's "sly and backstabbing".

Question: What's wrong with recording yourself having a conversation with someone you don't trust?

..and you talk about me mis-representing! Jesus wept. Your lack of self-awareness is absolutely astounding!

[Imploding Turtle]

..and exactly how did I misrepresent you?

I answered your quote directly. You claimed he made the comment dog because he is a white supremacist. If he was a white supremacist why would he have even hired her in the first place? It doesn't make any sense.

This is so stupid it's hard to know where to start.

1. I "told you" you wouldn't understand.

2. You've literally just misrepresented me again. I didn't say he called her a dog because he's a white supremacist. I said he used a racial insult. I didn't say why i thought he used it. But yes, i'm fairly sure he used it because he's a racist piece of ****. Just like his most ardent and defensive supporters.

[burnleymik]

This is so stupid it's hard to know where to start.

1. I "told you" you wouldn't understand.

2. You've literally just misrepresented me again. I didn't say he called her a dog because he's a white supremacist. I said he used a racial insult. I didn't say why i thought he used it. But yes, i'm fairly sure he used it because he's a racist piece of ****. Just like his most ardent and defensive supporters.

1. I understood clearly, you have just assumed that it was a racial because of your own prejudices.

2. How is this misrepresentation. You have stated numerous times he is a white supremacist and that he made a racial slur (what other reason could there be except the racial prejudice you think he holds?). That is not mispresenting you, that is using the information you have given yourself in this very thread.

[Imploding Turtle]

1. I understood clearly, you have just assumed that it was a racial because of your own prejudices.

2. How is this misrepresentation. You have stated numerous times he is a white supremacist and that he made a racial slur (what other reason could there be except the racial prejudice you think he holds?). That is not mispresenting you, that is using the information you have given yourself in this very thread.

No. Calling black women dogs has been a racist and sexist insult for centuries. Back when they were seen as breeding machines to make more livestock.

And yes, you misrepresented me. You claimed i had given a reason for Trump's racist insult when no reason had been given. You claimed i said Trump used a racist insult because he's a white supremacist. I make no such claim. I definitely think he's a white supremacist. And i definitely think he used a racist insult. But that doesn't mean i think he used it because he's a white supremacist, and i never claimed that was why he used it. You just made it up that i claimed that's why he used it. Stop making **** up.

[burnleymik]

No. Calling black women dogs has been a racist and sexist insult for centuries. Back when they were seen as breeding machines to make more livestock.

And yes, you misrepresented me. You claimed i had given a reason for Trump's racist insult when no reason had been given. You claimed i said Trump used a racist insult because he's a white supremacist. I make no such claim. I definitely think he's a white supremacist. And i definitely think he used a racist insult. But that doesn't mean i think he used it because he's a white supremacist, and i never claimed that was why he used it. You just made it up that i claimed that's why he used it. Stop making **** up.

I have no words. You are delusional.

[Imploding Turtle]

I have no words. You are delusional.

http://www.thesaurus.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[burnleymik]

http://www.thesaurus.com

Yes. you said, that I said, that you said, that I said that he said that you misrepresented me.

[Imploding Turtle]

Yes. you said, that I said, that you said, that I said that he said that you misrepresented me.

You claimed that I said trump used a racist term because he's a white supremacist. I made no such claim.

What is it you're having trouble understanding?

[burnleymik]

What is it you're having trouble understanding?

Your lack of clarity and self-awareness.

[Imploding Turtle]

Your lack of clarity and self-awareness.

It's long been tactic of right-wing politicians to accuse your opponents of what you're guilty of. It's disheartening to see that it's a tactic that their supporters are taking on board whole-heartedly.

[burnleymik]

It's long been tactic of right-wing politicians to accuse your opponents of what you're guilty of. It's disheartening to see that it's a tactic that their supporters are taking on board whole-heartedly.

Why are you misrepresenting me again? I am not far right or a far right supporter. You can't complain about misrepresentation and then do it yourself in most posts afterwards. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Imploding Turtle]

Why are you misrepresenting me again? I am not far right or a far right supporter. You can't complain about misrepresentation and then do it yourself in most posts afterwards. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

So you're criticising me for misrepresenting you as "far right or a far right supporter", are you? Do i really need to point out just how stupid that is?

You're doing it deliberately, aren't you? Deliberately misrepresenting what i've said while criticising me for misrepresenting you in a way i haven't done. Not even you could be that stupid. Or maybe you could.

[KateR]

Turning into one of the funniest posts ever

[Erasmus]

There are two things Trump has done that expose his underlying attitudes. I don't think there is enough evidence to brand him a white-supremacist, but the response he gave to the Charlottesville killing was shameful and showed just how far he is willing to go to avoid condemning overt racism. The other is the way he spoke about Sadiq Khan, which seemed to be based only on the fact that Khan is a Muslim. For the President of the USA to speak in that way about our country was truly disgraceful, an insult to our values.

[burnleymik]

So you're criticising me for misrepresenting you as "far right or a far right supporter", are you? Do i really need to point out just how stupid that is?

You're doing it deliberately, aren't you? Deliberately misrepresenting what i've said while criticising me for misrepresenting you in a way i haven't done. Not even you could be that stupid. Or maybe you could.

Still misrepresenting my misrepresentation. Joker!

[Imploding Turtle]

Still misrepresenting my misrepresentation. Joker!

At least you're accepting that what you did was a misrepresentation.

[RingoMcCartney]

. Not even you could be that stupid. Or maybe you could

If Mik was "that stupid", at least you'd finally have an intellectual equal.

Every cloud!

[burnleymik]

At least you're accepting that what you did was a misrepresentation.

No.. You are misrepresenting me again. I am referring to your claims of misrepresentation. Can you not even grasp that? What is it like up there on cloud cuckoo land?

[aggi]

Timing is purely co-incidental i'm sure https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45201306 nothing to do with this peer being a major critic of Boris Johnson's burka comments.

If neither major party can present a united approach to tackling antisemitism in Labour's case,and Islamophobia in the Conservative's case,how can either stand up and claim to be a credible Government.

Zac Goldsmith's attempt to push buttons re: Muslims didn't work out too well for him last time ...

[Conroy92]

The scary thing is that at 26, most of a people a similar age to myself seem to like Boris and would happily have him as prime minister. Maybe that's because a lot of people these days just don't actually care and Boris can be amusing every now and again?
Either way, Boris is a bafoon.
Racist, probably not.

[Imploding Turtle]

Moon bat

This is one of the ways they suppress democratic voters.

https://www.wjbf.com/news/georgia-news/ ... 1375679662" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;