The EU debate - Part III

You don't have a point. You're making snide insinuations to avoid saying whatever it is you're thinking.
Just say what you think the background of the EU formation was and why.
You won't post more detail, as you'd rather talk bollocks and condescend to everyone about why you know better.

You claim that you want to debate and discuss issues, then refuse to do either and blame everyone else.
It's utterly cowardly and dishonest.

 

I appreciate the point you're making. With any post, people will make their own conclusions on who is right. Bigots will agree with bigots, non-bigots will agree with non-bigots.

 

Whatever I link to will be rejected, not because of its content, but rather because the ****s(napoleon) on here do it to try and stifle any views given by a 'non ducky'. So I will just say that her resistance to deeper European integration bought her from almost certain victory in the next election, to being out of office within just a few weeks.

 

Many on here don't seem to know what a bigot is, and when challenged can't support their claims of racism or xenophobia.

Their abuse of the words has made them meaningless and makes their other arguments far less credible.

It makes them hypocrites when they get demanding with others.

 

Even if that's true, that's not the EU driving her out. Europhile MPs, yes, but that's not the same thing.

 

QED

It is a fact that Hitler did wonders for Germany's economy in his early years. He was guilty of a great many things, but only idiots and morons will try to re-write history and attack others for highlighting it.

 

Ah, the 'cowardly' claim, I missed that one earlier. But I do think I covered the angst shown when someone is confused because a comment doesn't fit their prejudice.

You're doing what others do, and instead of re-evaluating your prejudice, you accuse people of dishonesty.

It's like the pollsters claiming they were right all the time, it was the voters that got it wrong.

 

Again, what support can someone provide to an accusation of racism/xenophobia/bigotry in response to a racist/xenophobic/bigoted post?

Justifying "that post is xenophobic" is hardly the same as justifying "the nazis created the EU" or whatever the latest conspiracy theory is.

 

I was more referring to the insistence by some that the economy was the singular most important element of a system.

 

Your argument seems to be that if you say a post is xenophobic, your proof is that you say it's xenophobic.

I say your post is written in French.

 

I don't have any prejudice, you're simply not saying anything.
You're claiming to be right, refusing to support it with anything and moaning about anyone pointing it out.

As I've said before on multiple occasions:
Deflect. Play the victim. Insult. Repeat.
Boring.

 

please log in to view this image

 

I'm not claiming to be right.

My suggestion was that you may find it interesting to look into the events that lead to the EU. Your repeated questions seem to suggest that's true.

The rest of it is your own baggage that you're desperately trying to hang on that, for your own peculiar reasons.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Thatcher ousted by the EU elite? probably the most stupid ****ing comment in this entire thread

What a stupid ****

 

More vague nonsense. You don't even believe this.
There's something about the formation of the EU that you want me to know, as you think it would change my opinion on the organisation.
Why not just say what it is and support the claim with some evidence?

 

I suggest you do, only next time try sources that aren't absolute horseshit

 

You boring repetitive ****

 

Because the claim is of your own invention.

I suggested no more than that you may find it interesting to look, your questions suggest that you would.

Why don't you do it?

 

Tedious tobes repeated.