The EU debate - Part III

Sorry but for someone who seems to thrive on "facts", this whole response is just based on your opinion and conjecture, the very thing you criticise other posters for.

 

The Daily Mail does have an average readership age of 58 and it's own readers self-describe as being intolerant on occasion.
Not sure about the scared bit, but he's not far wrong on the old people bit, really.

 

He asked for my opinion.

 

Which Eastern Bloc countries wish to rejoin Russia or some sort of USSR?

There are lots of plans for the EU from various people. It doesn't mean that any of them are feasible.

Who's optimistic about Trump as President? I'm sure that a lot of politicians have said that they are, but that's diplomacy, isn't it?
They can hardly come out and call him a ****bag. It wouldn't be good for international relations.

Some countries are happy with Brexit. It weakens the UK and the EU. It's great for Russia, for example.

 

Even as a remain voter, I really find this subject hilarious as it's continually brought up by people firmly in the remain camp.
Generally the remain camp do like to portray themselves as far superior intellectually, but this slogan seems to have "baffled and outwitted" the best of them.

 

But you portrayed it as facts, that's why I commented.

 

He asked for my opinion and I commented in response.
As we're talking about speculative subjects, I don't see how I could be offering facts.

Would the EU army proposal have more chance or less following Brexit? Clearly speculation.
Will Eastern Bloc countries rejoin Russia following Brexit and Trump taking office? Clearly speculation.
Will the UK negotiate favourable trade deals following Brexit? Clearly speculation.

 

In what way? It was intentionally misleading and some people definitely bought it.

 

Your now being pedantic. The term was used as a low level insult, as has been on many occasions, by different posters. Terms like simpleton, scared, pensioners are commonplace when describing certain newspapers.
I just found it slightly amusing that claiming once all the people who read certain newspapapers pass away, we will become a more tolerant society. Can't wait to Get rid of all the bigots because we don't like what they say. Now where's that definition of bigotry

 

It was misleading, that was the whole point
Yes, I'm sure some did "buy it", but again many didn't (certainly not in the circles I mix in). I'm sure if the boot had been on the other foot, you would be claiming it was an extremely clever campaign slogan.
The bit that amuses me, is it seems to have "mind ****ed" the supposed intelligent masses.

 

Answer the question.

 

I don't like dishonesty in politics, especially when it comes to things like campaign slogans.
I'd be surprised if you could find me promoting or praising something like that anywhere.
Intentionally misleading people to win an election should be something that incurs penalties, in my opinion.
It's false advertising.

Who calls the masses intelligent? By it's very definition, roughly half of the population is of below average intelligence.

 

I think you know you’ve lost the argument when you have to fall back on opinion pieces because you can't form your own retort. I went away and read them and formed my retort below. I've taken them for what they are and see them as a ringing endorsement for your own beliefs with no differences of opinion, that's the risk you take with these tactics.

Okay, we’re going to have lots of fun with these. I’m not going to opt for the cheap way out like the rest of you and attack the sources or the writers (particularly the Huffington Post one, he's very odd), I’m not going to disregard it as cultural Marxist propaganda (which it is), I’m going to show you how ridiculous both of these articles are and give you an example of how ******ed you actually are too.

Let’s go for the Huffington Post article first.

This is very interesting because you’ve been calling me a racist for quite some time now, but this article that you are using to try and prove me wrong actually contradicts your own position. If Black people and all other races, as it states in this article, aren’t a race, how can I be a racist?

He then talks about race being a myth, how can this be true if there are clear biological differences between people from Africa, Asia and Europe? I mean, he says that race isn’t biological, but then doesn’t refer to biology to back up what he’s saying… Well, of course he doesn’t, if you close your eyes and pretend that we are all blank pieces of colourless and shapeless paper, you can see whatever the damn hell pleases you.

Then we get on to the justification of this pathetic piece of literature – ‘cultural racism’. Culture is formed by ideas, and ideas are formed by debate, if the argument is ‘racism now means culture’, then how can a culture ever change for fear of being called racist? Are all of the Muslim reformers that receive death threats from other Muslims racists? Did our country become racist in 1948 when it decided that our culture could do with a change and offer free healthcare to all citizens? Were the Germans who turned away from the culture under Literally Hitler racist for doing so? Were the Republicans racist for deciding to change their culture and releasing the slaves? Do you see the hole you’ve dug for yourself?

Answer these questions for me. Is our culture better than a culture that thinks it’s okay to throw homosexuals from the ‘highest point’? Is our culture better than a culture that thinks it’s okay to stone adulterers to death? Is our culture better than a culture that thinks it’s okay to decapitate those who don’t believe in Allah? Is our culture better than a culture that thinks it’s okay to go to war to establish a Caliphate? Is our culture better than a culture that thinks it’s okay to degrade women through making them cover themselves up and beating them for not complying? Is our culture better than a culture that thinks it’s okay to believe that the word of a woman is only worth half of the word of a man? Is our culture better than a culture that thinks it’s okay to molest children? Is our culture better than a culture that thinks it’s okay to kill those who want to leave that culture?

If you answer no to any of these questions, you are a sick person, if you answer yes, you are a racist. Take your pick. My culture is better than this pile of **** culture that you think is ‘racist’ to criticise. I don’t think you’ve even read this crap.

Now for the Guardian piece.

I thought this one would have a bit more substance than the last considering it’s from The Guardian, but I was wrong, and I get to see again why they are going out of business and shilling for donations. I don’t think you’ve read this one either, simply typed in a few keywords on Google and took the first things that popped up. There is nothing in this article for me to reply to, all it talks about is Islamophobia and simply says ‘Yeah, it’s pretty racist, guys. Stop!’. Zero substance. Sad!

lol no.

 

So using your own beliefs, you will now happily balance the argument by condemning quotes from the remain camp that could be considered lies (Cameron's ww3 claim, Osborne's continued scare stories over how much it would cost each person etc.) You seem to "brush over" these types of absurd claims made by remain.

For what it's worth, I thought it was dreadful campaigning from both sides, mainly based on a whole raft of "half truths" and downright deception.
The arrogance of the remain, that people would just "fall into line" when it mattered and a leave campaign headed up by someone who I consider a stain on society, speaks volume. Coupled with dubious reporting from various publications (and you must remember the older generation aren't as technically savvy as the younger voter, therefore it's more difficult for them to easily research a different view...I'll leave it at that) meant that it's unsurprising that a balanced decision based on facts isnt possible. I'm not saying that leave or staying is the wrong decision, that's why we had a vote.

 

Bigot,leftie,snowflake,racist,moron. There, that'll teach you.

 

They print a twisted, slanted version of the truth. Designed to pander to the scared and bigoted, and influence the dimwitted.

Now, stop wasting my time.,..

 

It was a suggestion that the money would be better spent on the NHS than on the EU. Why is that dishonest?

 

Shouldn't you be concerned whether something is true not who published it?

 

He's not trying to get you to accept anything. He's asking you what you think of it. You seem to be saying it must be wrong because of who is publishing it. That shows you are a bigot.

 

Your comments are the precise definition of bigotry.