The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[Hairyloon 10]

Liar.

A quick check of the relevant posts will reveal to any interested party that you lied about what Churchill had said about democracy and then tried to weasel out of it.

 

You are looking at entirely the wrong posts my friend. I suggest that you go back for another read.

I have plagiarised his speeches several times and you keep coming back against his arguments and saying that I don't believe in democracy.

 

Play the ball, not the man: it does not matter who makes the argument. They are his arguments, they are what he believed ergo what you believe is democracy is not what Churchill believed is democracy.

 

As I said, you clearly don't understand the concept.

 

QED

[Obelix 11]

Liar.

A quick check of the relevant posts will reveal to any interested party that you lied about what Churchill had said about democracy and then tried to weasel out of it.

 

Your sarcasm detector appears to be broken.....

[Hairyloon 10]

Your sarcasm detector appears to be broken.....

 

Actually not. See above.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 17:36 ----------

 

So the cons got 36% at the last two elections...

36% of the vote, on about 40% turnout.

[unbeliever 10]

Your sarcasm detector appears to be broken.....

 

Yours in fact. He was being genuine.

You really should not defend him. He's unworthy.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 17:51 ----------

 

You are looking at entirely the wrong posts my friend. I suggest that you go back for another read.

I have plagiarised his speeches several times and you keep coming back against his arguments and saying that I don't believe in democracy.

 

Play the ball, not the man: it does not matter who makes the argument. They are his arguments, they are what he believed ergo what you believe is democracy is not what Churchill believed is democracy.

 

As I said, you clearly don't understand the concept.

 

QED

 

It's not a new trick. Redefine something and then suggest that your opponents are stupid for not using your definition.

The Emperor has no clothes.

[Hairyloon 10]

Yours in fact. He was being genuine.

You really should not defend him. He's unworthy.

 

Yet you are indefensible. Why not address the points that Churchill made, rather than just claiming they are fake democracy?

[unbeliever 10]

Yet you are indefensible. Why not address the points that Churchill made, rather than just claiming they are fake democracy?

 

I made no such claim.

Yet again you pretend I said something I did not.

Your deceit knows no bounds.

[Hairyloon 10]

I made no such claim.

Yet again you pretend I said something I did not.

Your deceit knows no bounds.

 

Ah, so you suggest that the words have a different meaning because I said them?

That must be the purest of ad hominem arguments. I salute you for it.

[Yorkshire 53 10]

Most 'Brexiteers', including myself, thought coming out of the EU was a good result to help end the alleged 'One World Government' policy of the bankers etc., the EU supposedly being a first stage in this; The 'NWO' being a widely held belief.

 

However, I soon became concerned again when I read that 'Brexit' is alleged to be what the EU/IMF etc. actually want ! That sounds crazy, but the article states that, due to the EU's failures and unpopularity, they are prepared to abandon it and are now going for splintering all nations up into smaller break-away regions; the encouragement of the break up of the UK seemingly one case in point.

 

The logic being that in this way, the smaller units will lack the strength of the larger original states and, in times of crisis, economic / financial / social, have to turn to the UN, the intended head of the NWO, which itself would have a 'make-over' to lose its present negative regard. In other words, " This isn't going as planned, let's try this." But then, why would the EU politicians, already prostituted to the bankers, be 'instructed' to carry on supporting it ?

 

Conspiracy theory or whatever, and I did say 'allegedly', it's a consideration worth throwing into the mix. Maybe we should have stayed in the EU to see its inevitable collapse, then the 'Remainers' bluff would have been well and truly called.

[I1L2T3 10]

Yours in fact. He was being genuine.

You really should not defend him. He's unworthy.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 17:51 ----------

 

 

It's not a new trick. Redefine something and then suggest that your opponents are stupid for not using your definition.

The Emperor has no clothes.

 

Are you taking the mick?

 

That exactly what you do. Jesus wept

[chalga 10]

Most 'Brexiteers', including myself, thought coming out of the EU was a good result to help end the alleged 'One World Government' policy of the bankers etc., the EU supposedly being a first stage in this; The 'NWO' being a widely held belief.

 

However, I soon became concerned again when I read that 'Brexit' is alleged to be what the EU/IMF etc. actually want ! That sounds crazy, but the article states that, due to the EU's failures and unpopularity, they are prepared to abandon it and are now going for splintering all nations up into smaller break-away regions; the encouragement of the break up of the UK seemingly one case in point.

 

The logic being that in this way, the smaller units will lack the strength of the larger original states and, in times of crisis, economic / financial / social, have to turn to the UN, the intended head of the NWO, which itself would have a 'make-over' to lose its present negative regard. In other words, " This isn't going as planned, let's try this." But then, why would the EU politicians, already prostituted to the bankers, be 'instructed' to carry on supporting it ?

 

Conspiracy theory or whatever, and I did say 'allegedly', it's a consideration worth throwing into the mix. Maybe we should have stayed in the EU to see its inevitable collapse, then the 'Remainers' bluff would have been well and truly called.

 

There you go then,that's the 'ever closer union' argument so beloved of Brexiteers finally put to rest.

[mafya 246]

It seems to me that you've taken to evading questions yourself with posts along the lines of "I'm indifferent" or "I'm enjoying watching the (imaginary) suffering of my victorious opponents".

Now you're getting emotional because I've called you on it.

 

Either engage in the debate or don't. Jumping out with a comment when you feel like it and then answering with "I'm indifferent" or other such nonsense when challenged is not cricket.

You're clearly not indifferent. It's just something you've taken to saying as a tactic.

 

Thank you for the abuse by the way. It's always nice to have the moral high ground handed to one on a silver platter.

 

I wouldn't bother with these remainers as they have become bitter and angrier and you are the one brexiter seriously debating the issue with them but it seems they get some kind of pleasure out of being nasty and insulting towards you.

This is my observation and I'm sure others have noticed it too, leave them to simmer in their own nastiness....

[Litotes 63]

I wouldn't bother with these remainers as they have become bitter and angrier and you are the one brexiter seriously debating the issue with them but it seems they get some kind of pleasure out of being nasty and insulting towards you.

This is my observation and I'm sure others have noticed it too, leave them to simmer in their own nastiness....

 

The concern of the remainers is that the leavers don't fully understand the implications of their decision. And that when they do, they won't admit that they were wrong but have taken the UK down a one-way street.

 

The leavers now appear to be trying to lay the blame for the failings of brexit on the remainers for not supporting their (IMHO misguided) decision and proposing that the future chaos will be their fault.

 

Therefore the remainers are not happy about: being forced to commit suicide and then getting blamed for it.