As I've said, it doesn't matter what I believe. The facts are that I called you out on your 'alternative economics' and you couldn't give any
There's an echo in here, I think I laughed at you saying that not many minutes ago.
The EU debate - Part III
- Thread starter Jürgenmeiʃter
- Start date
-
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
-
- Status
There's an echo in here, I think I laughed at you saying that not many minutes ago.
We've got ourselves a nice little Nazi, racist, fascist bigot club going on, it's really fun.
Of course you can
Convenient that when I've asked you to provide the alternative evidence that you have, you suddenly 'can't be bothered' to post itAs I've repeated to you, it matters little what I think, I'm dealing with facts.
I've never said we shouldn't be funding housing for foreigners, I've said that the Royals should pay for Buck house refurb themsleves, or open it up to tourists and generate the income to pay for it.
There's an echo in here, I think I laughed at you saying that not many minutes ago.
I can see that you're on the defensive because I've called you out.
Classic tactic from the bullshitter, claim they are 'amused' when they've been done
Don't you want the EU to rule you?I'm not racist, I don't want to be ruled as a subject by anybody, whether they are German, English or North Korean
Of course you can
Convenient that when I've asked you to provide the alternative evidence you have, you suddenly 'can't be bothered' to post itAs I've repeated to you, it matters little what I think, I'm dealing with facts.
I've never said we shouldn't be funding housing for foreigners, I've said that the Royals should pay for Buck house refurb themsleves, or open it up to tourists and generate the income to pay for it.[/QUOTE]
I really couldn't give a toss mate. If you want to claim victory, fill your boots, I'm not arguing.
It's a small price to pay for the amusement the rest brings, especially knowing that, you being factual or not changes nothing in reality. Liz still has more homes than you have bedrooms.
If we get rid of lizzy and her houses, and share the dosh between us, are you going to use your money to give let the homeless live with you?
I can see that you're on the defensive because I've called you out.
Classic tactic from the bullshitter, claim they are 'amused' when they've been done
How the **** is agreeing with you and telling you you're right, me being on the defensive?
He's ahead of you though, he's got his to speak the local lingo.
Ballymore's finest. The Irish may not approve of your posts!But I don't have a beard. Just a little tache.
I really couldn't give a toss mate. If you want to claim victory, fill your boots, I'm not arguing.
I'm not claiming victory, I'm asking you to provide the evidence of your alternative economics that you said you had.
How the **** is agreeing with you and telling you you're right, me being on the defensive?
So you now agree that the Royal Family cost the taxpayer £334m per year. A while ago you were saying that they brought in a fortune
Make your mind up
and I'm giving you the same answer I did every other time you got demanding....in fact no, scratch that.
You're absolutely 100% right, I totally made it up.
There ya go.
I shouldn't think they would give a toss tbh. Maybe they would if I was employed by them, but hey, what do I know. You're the expert on these mattersBallymore's finest. The Irish may not approve of your posts!
I would think the DSS would be more concerned with you spending all day posting on here instead of being out looking for a job.
You're absolutely 100% right, I totally made it up.
There ya go.
I gathered that when I called you out and asked for your evidence
So you now agree that the Royal Family cost the taxpayer £334m per year. A while ago you were saying that they brought in a fortune
Make your mind up
Keep still you dopey tart, you're ****ing up quotes on double time.
Anyway, had you not got so giddy, you could have read the previous reply.
You're 100% right,
Brill eh. I guess that means Liz is evicted, and you're taking in homeless people at your expense. Everyone's happy.
The Queen is not the ruler. You don't seem to understand the British Constitution.I'm not back peddling at all, I'm happy to affirm what I said again, I didn't say the queen wasn't british, I said that the Royal Family have chosen a 'british' name because they are from a German family called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. They only changed it because they didn't want to be associated with Germany when we went to war with them. Which is ironic, because they had close ties with the Nazi party a few years later in the 1930's.
Also, the Queen is the head of state, so therefore she is the ruler, and whilst Parliament ultimately makes the decisions, the monarch gives the decree for the Govt to operate in Parliament. Whilst it may be largely symbolic, the Queen is still the head of state. It seems that it is you who has failed to understand how this constitutional make up works. You've just been schooled by a 'hypocritcal, ill-informed marxist'
As for her being 'attractive to tourists', fine. That's what I've said all along, open up Buck palace to the rich tourists and let them pay for the refurb.
I think he sees her as a measure of success.
Keep still you dopey tart, you're ****ing up quotes on double time.
Are you claiming that you didn't say that they generate a fortune ?
Nope, I'm saying I said it and your were so full of evidence I realised how wrong I was.
Saying in several replies really added to the strength of your argument.
Nope, I'm saying I said it and your were so full of evidence I realised how wrong I was.
So what quote did I **** up then ?
- Status