The EU debate - Part III

Aye, no doubt some tedious sad sack will try to dismiss it and claim it's just from the Mail.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-online-and-on-the-high-street-a6786551.html

 

It hardly matters where it came from. You can be sure there's a lot of tourist money in there due to the weak pound. As far as the consequences of Brexit go, it means nothing.

But good luck trying to convince yourself otherwise...

 

Which is what people point out each time you and your fellow depressives try to dismiss positive news because of who reports it.

I'm not trying to convince myself of anything, it's about playing the hand you're dealt rather than just whining on and on...

 

And, oh look! The very same article...in the Fail!.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-took-advantage-weak-pound-steal-deals.html

Must try harder, Dull....

 

I disagree, the number where warnings were issued and bombs caused no loss of life or were defused far exceed the number you have listed. I have had 4 IRA bombs go off near me in the seventies and eighties, the biggest was at Brent Cross which destroyed an entire row of shops and made the flyover unusable for months.

 

Funnily enough, they even mention all those nasty foreigners being responsible for boosting sales...

 

Why do you find foreigners nasty? They're just people.

 

Only when they try to take our benefits they they have never paid into and use the NHS as a free healthcare system, commit crime, other than that they are fine with me.

 

Please give me a link for the 77 killed in Sweden in 2011.

 

Your original post said the current terrorists aimed to kill whereas the IRA mostly sent warnings and hit infrastructure...the list I gave (which ignored the bombings and or shootings against the police, the army and politicians and royal family) show that you assertion is wrong.
I do not get why anyone would suggest that Isis inspired terrorists are worse...they might be more efficient (in their terms) but surely killing innocent victims is equally wrong

 

I've only ever voted Tory or not at all. I'm certainly no leftie. However, in my opinion, sources from the centre and centre-left tend to be more balanced than to the right of centre.

A source which equates GDP going up to the future being bright is either intentionally omitting other important facts or biased.

 

So a report that appears in several outlets is biased if it also gets a mention in the Mail. I guess there's a logic in that somewhere.

 

Talking about 2015, yes my bad on dates, looking at another swede attack

 

That's not what I said at all. As always, you read what you want to read and delude yourself you're making some sort of point.

 

It's certainly what your post implied, but I can see why you'd prefer it to be read some other way so it didn't seem quite so ridiculous.

 

No, it wasn't. I'd love help you fill up your afternoon with more hours of you pretending you have a clue what you're on about and deflecting when you run out of ideas but you'll have to find someone else this time.

 

You do spout a load of ****e most of the time, and this is no exception.

 

You do have a habit of twisting and deflecting the conversation when you can't tackle it head on. And tbf you've done exactly that here with Watford's post.

 

Bollocks.

Have a read through and see where the deflections are. It happens almost every time any positive news is posted.