The EU debate - Part II

Mummy; 'it's ok Custard, they don't think you are racist and you made a mistake using the same words as those naughty people. I'll explain and I'm sure they will let you join in with their games'

 

I guess some are beyond help.

 

You're literally just trying to turn this around on me by making assertions.
I've demonstrated that you parrot the Leave campaign.
You're simply claiming that I'm doing the same for the remain one.

Back your claims up with some examples, as I've done.
You're just flapping your gums otherwise.

 

Veer off?

You're so ****ing predictable, avoid the content and deflect when it doesn't suit, and claim that it's others somehow trying to steer the debate away.

I've just downed Pete's post, and you liked it, so try countering what I actually posted, not that you will like, as facts aren't your thing are they?

Bonehead

 

You've not offered any examples, nor have you proved your point. You just keep claiming to have done so, presumably in the hope that if you repeat it often enough, it will miraculously become true.

All you're showing is that you think you've been swayed by the propaganda.

 

But to be fair Poll, it also didn't say on the side of the bus that we would spend the reported £350m on the NHS.
I think the words were;
"We send £350m a week to the EU. Let's fund the NHS instead". It depends how you read it, to how you interpret it?
All we have proved, so far, is it was a particularly bad campaign from both sides leading up to the referendum and both sides were economical with the truth when it suited.
The comments Cameron made indicated that being part of the EU offered some security with regards to future conflicts. However, it was a badly written speech, which he had to come out later and state that he didn't mean WW3. However, by then the damage was done and it stuck as the WW3 claim.

 

No need to sign your post. It was self evident.

The facts are those nasty bits I posted pages back, and repeated a few pages later that you and yours have been trying to shift away from.

 

No love, the facts are that over 40% on both sides of the vote made their decision in the last month of the debate, with over 20% making their choice in the last week.

Only a complete ****wit would try and contest that the campaign claims wouldn't affect the decision process of this section of the electorate.

You are that ****wit

 

I didn't contest that. I think that makes you the ****wit by your rules.

 

So you've never contested that the lies from Leave was a key factor in the out vote?

You sure about that?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-37265752

@petersaxton

 

I'm certain.

Before you jump up and down, think about what you're claiming, and what I'm arguing.

I was arguing against the claim that implied all leave voters were influenced, I'm arguing that I wasn't. They're not the same thing.

The others arguing your point are simply showing that some voters on both sides, bought the bullshit offered from the leave and remain campaigns. That makes you either thick enough to have been influenced, or pompous enough to believe that only you and remoanians were bright enough not to have been.

 

I've never said your personal view wasn't entrenched, that's patently obvious.

However, you've maintained throughout this debate that the lies from Leave wasn't the deciding factor in the result. Denying that you have is laughable

Luckily for you the search function is ****ed, otherwise I'd vault you to high heaven. If I can be arsed later I might manually dig out your many posts on the subject, just for the craic

 

Can you supply a link to such "facts"

 

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Note how 80% of leave voters saw immigration and multiculturalism as for a force for ill, and remain was virtually the complete converse.

 

I've maintained no such thing. I've repeatedly said to the contrary, that remain campaigners have also bought some of the bullshit on offer from both sides.

If anything, the remoanians bang on about the bullshit, and even try to twist it further in a desperate attempt to show that even though they're out of step with the majority, it's because they for some unsupported reason, believe themselves brighter. It means that by their argument, they're the ones that bought the bullshit.

There seems to be a trend among the remoanians to create a position nobody has held and then try to make that the focus of their argument.

EDIT, at least you realise that the bullshit from either side wasn't a factor in MY decision. T'other idiot can't grasp that.

 

Mate, your an ignoramus of almost unimaginable proportions.

What I've posted re Scotland is not only factual, but feasible. Instead of trying to debate those points sensibly , you just try to ridicule them by claiming you know something that you clearly don't.

You're a fool. And a pig ignorant one too!...

 

You ridicule yourself. You're doing what I suggested on another post, building an argument nobody is making, to somehow show that you're not wrong, without accepting not wrong isn't the same as being right.

The initial post you were responding to was the yougov poll, (with caveats accepted for poll accuracy).that shows that the Scots are not remoanians despite earlier claims. All you've done is reply with a "yeah but, what if" wish list that has no basis in the existing position. The future price of oil is neither here nor there for the conversation.

Your resort to silly insults shows that deep down, you realise that.