The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
My 'point' was that you may find it interesting to look at the background of the beginnings of the EU. You've then tried to make that fit your false preconceptions.

I took the time to explain why I won't post more detail, and part of that was to try to stop you just blethering on. You've shown that you've either not read, misunderstood or ignored the replies to you, so why would I waste my time and clutter this thread up spoon feeding you?

I'd rather you did your own digging and reached your own conclusion, rather than dissapearing up a rabbit hole arguing over who wrote it, rather than analysing what's written.

You're simply confirming the view I posted earlier.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Watford_R said:
I had a brief read on the subject this morning out of curiosity. Lots on her MPs forcing her out eventually. Nothing on the EU doing so. I'd genuinely be interested if you have an article on the subject from some non-mental source.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Watford_R said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grand Wizard said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even if that's true, that's not the EU driving her out. Europhile MPs, yes, but that's not the same thing.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petersaxton
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grand Wizard said:
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.
Click to expand...


I was more referring to the insistence by some that the economy was the singular most important element of a system.
 
Watford_R said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grand Wizard said:
Harold Macmillan, backed by the USA first pushed their NWO dreams so as to preempt the perceived threats of a power play by a coalition of German/French nationalists. De Gaulle sussed them out and vetoed the UK from joining the EEC and we had to wait for Heath to con us into signing up.

The EU is not a democratic institution by any stretch of the imagination, nor was it ever intended to be. Look at how many democratically elected European leaders the EU elite has ousted so far? Maggie Thatcher's being their largest scalp to date.

If anyone is truly interested to know the truth about the EU's conception, start by looking at Jean Monnet.
Click to expand...
Thatcher ousted by the EU elite? <laugh> probably the most stupid ****ing comment in this entire thread

What a stupid ****
 
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Born again Humanitarian
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back