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
You are beginning to sound like Stan.
Go read up on the subject rather than make dumb, vacuous comments.
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.
You are beginning to sound like Stan.
Go read up on the subject rather than make dumb, vacuous comments.
It's a common trait among that leaning. They don't propose much, they mainly oppose or hope to undermine.
It's like the media offering the microphone to protesters, many of them can't provide much substance behind their soundbites and placards. There's a few clips of blm leaders on tv and being asked what they want as a solution. They just kept repeating that they won't shut up until they're heard, even when the presenter pointed out that they have an opportunity to be heard by the nation right where they're sat.
This thread shows plenty of examples of that, it's why they don't discuss, they just oppose or try to find something to sneer at with the messenger with no realistic alternative proposals, yet if that's done to them, they get 'outraged' and demanding.
It's amusing when they oppose something, and then demand information because they say they know nothing about it themselves.
I don't think it's asking too much to justify something as bizarre as the EU ousted Thatcher.
You are beginning to sound like Stan.
Go read up on the subject rather than make dumb, vacuous comments.
That's right!...
Go and read a load of fantasy world, far right wing, conspiracy bullshit!
You too could soon become just as deluded as the ****wits who believe that tripe!..
This is just nonsense.
You keep suggesting things that nobody's bloody heard of, like the Nazis starting the EU or removing Thatcher.
It's conspiracy nonsense and you can't back up your assertions with any facts.
You then blame people who ask you to support your claims.
It's another deflection, as you don't want to provide sources, as they're all bloody awful.
Con-men and fruitcakes to a man, so far.
I didn't suggest either of the things, that's just you spinning and supporting the point I made.
On face value, I'd say it's a daft claim. By the same token, there are plenty of other daft claims on here that don't get supported by facts, like 'racist' 'bigot' and 'xenophobe'.
You linked to a video claiming that the EU was started by Nazis and then backed off from it.
"I'm not saying that they're Nazis... but they're Nazis."
Either that's what you're claiming or there literally wasn't any point in what you were saying.
Grand Wizard/Gooner Pleb said that the EU deposed Thatcher and was challenged on it.
When he threw a hissy fit on that, you backed him up and attacked someone for asking for information.
If you know nothing about it, then that makes even less sense.
I suppose that depends if you think the posts they're in reaction to are racist, bigoted or xenophobic.
I linked a video, and added caveats, that I said at the time some fools would ignore in a desperate attempt to support their claims on a point I'm not making.
I must be psychic.
Nope, it depends if the person making the claim can offer something to support the allegation.
You must believe in psychics, as that seems to be where you're getting your information from.
You posted a video in what you claimed was an effort to aid my search.
If it was complete bollocks, then why bother posting it?
You said that there was better information out there and then posted that, instead.
Why not post the better information?
If someone is replying to a post by saying the points made are xenophobic it's because they consider the points made to be xenophobic. Apart from providing a definition of xenophobia, what support can they provide?
Because you hate him and will attack him whatever he says no matter how good the points that he's making are, obviously.
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.
Your reply ^^^^^^ is racist and xenophobic and you are a mysoginistic homophobic bigot.
- Status