|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 9, 2017 18:35:28 GMT
Have you read it? No need to answer, of course you haven't, you cribbed that info from elsewhere. nice ad hominem. The eU clearly doesnt give much of a fuck about its own citizens No ad hominem at all. You implied you'd read the Lisbon Treaty when everyone knows that's a lie.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 9, 2017 18:36:15 GMT
tpfkar Sure, in the ways of Internet gross halfwittery. I believe the irreligious have a moral responsibility not to criticize religion.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 9, 2017 18:43:12 GMT
nice ad hominem. The eU clearly doesnt give much of a fuck about its own citizens No ad hominem at all. You implied you'd read the Lisbon Treaty when everyone knows that's a lie. first of all dont pretend like you have, second of all you know someone cant debunk something when they care so much about trivial issues like this.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 9, 2017 18:51:35 GMT
tpfkar Can always count on you for the deep and incisive analysis. Not to mention that even if these numbers were true, it would probably be a good thing; since it would mean that the EU believes that banks need more regulation than citizens.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 9, 2017 18:54:18 GMT
tpfkar Sure, about the trivial idiots who think that a count of references without considering the character or weight of each reference is dispositive of anything. I believe the irreligious have a moral responsibility not to criticize religion.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 9, 2017 19:03:06 GMT
tpfkar Can always count on you for the deep and incisive analysis. Not to mention that even if these numbers were true, it would probably be a good thing; since it would mean that the EU believes that banks need more regulation than citizens. Whenever they are mentioned it is always about helping them. I genuinly encourage you to read it for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 9, 2017 19:17:34 GMT
Not to mention that even if these numbers were true, it would probably be a good thing; since it would mean that the EU believes that banks need more regulation than citizens. Whenever they are mentioned it is always about helping them. I genuinly encourage you to read it for yourself. I just did. And as expected, you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 9, 2017 19:20:30 GMT
No ad hominem at all. You implied you'd read the Lisbon Treaty when everyone knows that's a lie. first of all dont pretend like you have, second of all you know someone cant debunk something when they care so much about trivial issues like this. I'm not pretending I have. I haven't. Quit whining about being caught in a lie, you illiterate moron.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 9, 2017 19:21:14 GMT
Not to mention that even if these numbers were true, it would probably be a good thing; since it would mean that the EU believes that banks need more regulation than citizens. Whenever they are mentioned it is always about helping them. I genuinly encourage you to read it for yourself. Stop lying. You haven't read it and have no idea about the context.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 9, 2017 19:44:18 GMT
Whenever they are mentioned it is always about helping them. I genuinly encourage you to read it for yourself. I just did. And as expected, you are wrong. no way you reaD it that fast
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 9, 2017 19:47:05 GMT
I just did. And as expected, you are wrong. no way you reaD it that fast I didn't have to read the whole thing. I just had to find a passage where it's not about helping the banks.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 9, 2017 19:48:43 GMT
no way you reaD it that fast I didn't have to read the whole thing. I just had to find a passage where it's not about helping the banks. i never claimed every single thing introduced in it protects banks.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 9, 2017 19:51:19 GMT
I didn't have to read the whole thing. I just had to find a passage where it's not about helping the banks. i never claimed every single thing introduced in it protects banks. I should have clarified: I just had to find a passage mentioning banks where it's not about helping them. And that contradicts your statement: "Whenever they are mentioned it is always about helping them."
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 9, 2017 19:54:10 GMT
i never claimed every single thing introduced in it protects banks. I should have clarified: I just had to find a passage mentioning banks where it's not about helping them. And that contradicts your statement: "Whenever they are mentioned it is always about helping them." congrats you founD one passage
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 10, 2017 1:10:50 GMT
Right, can we explain to Jeremy Corbyn that losing by 60 seats to worse campaign on the worst manifesto by a Tory party I can remember, isn't an achievement?
Theresa May told us she would, ignore human rights, ignore internet privacy, crackdown on freespeech, increase regulation of the internets. Take meals from schoolchildren, take houses from old people to pay for their healthcare and kill foxes. She fluffed every debate, explained nothing and got torn to pieces by Yvette Cooper.
Christ on a bike! Its like the Torys had a bet to see how fucking terrible they could be and still win.
And for some reason the media and retards on social media are acting like Labour did well. This was an abject performance by the Labour party. They benefited from the collapse of UKIP and apparently promising free shit to 18-24 year olds gets them to vote, no matter how unrealistic those promises might be.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 10, 2017 7:43:27 GMT
Right, can we explain to Jeremy Corbyn that losing by 60 seats to worse campaign on the worst manifesto by a Tory party I can remember, isn't an achievement? Theresa May told us she would, ignore human rights, ignore internet privacy, crackdown on freespeech, increase regulation of the internets. Take meals from schoolchildren, take houses from old people to pay for their healthcare and kill foxes. She fluffed every debate, explained nothing and got torn to pieces by Yvette Cooper. Christ on a bike! Its like the Torys had a bet to see how fucking terrible they could be and still win. And for some reason the media and retards on social media are acting like Labour did well. This was an abject performance by the Labour party. They benefited from the collapse of UKIP and apparently promising free shit to 18-24 year olds gets them to vote, no matter how unrealistic those promises might be. You sound very angry that Jezza did so well, all the predictions were that this would be a Thatcher style landslide for the Tories and his brand of socialism would be to blame. It didn't turn out like that and a hung parliament was better than any of us Labour voters hoped for, Corbyn did so much better than expected because voters, particularly young voters, like him, recognise that he's honest and that he actually believes in his polices, he made the NHS the centre of his campaign which was a no brainer and all this despite the disgraceful muck slinging of the gutter right wing press. It feels like a victory to us because it is, it's evidence that the electorate will vote for a Socialist party, the Labour party got over 40% of the popular vote, with other left wing parties (SNP, PC) getting another ~ 5%. We now have a a strong and stable socialist opposition I don't know why you're complaining about Labour Party policies regarding young people (their natural constituency), isn't that what political parties do, have policies that help their voters? Isn't that what the Tories have always done? At least the Labour party make an effort to be for the many not the few, something the Tories have never concerned themselves with. If you look at the results, the swing to Labour was greatest in areas that voted Remain not Brexit, my MP won with a 37000 majority, well up on 2015. This vote has muddied the Brexit waters and I predict it's going to go very badly for May's minority government. BTW, how do you feel about May getting into bed with the homophobic, misogynist, young earth creationist DUP, in her pathetic attempt to cling to power? I would LMFAO if it was someone else's country. It looks like the Scottish Tories saved May by winning 12 (?) seats and they're led by Ruth Davidson, who is about to marry her (same sex) partner, something she wouldn't be able to do in Northern Ireland. (S)he who sups with the Devil etc comes to mind
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2017 8:55:41 GMT
Right, can we explain to Jeremy Corbyn that losing by 60 seats to worse campaign on the worst manifesto by a Tory party I can remember, isn't an achievement? Theresa May told us she would, ignore human rights, ignore internet privacy, crackdown on freespeech, increase regulation of the internets. Take meals from schoolchildren, take houses from old people to pay for their healthcare and kill foxes. She fluffed every debate, explained nothing and got torn to pieces by Yvette Cooper. Christ on a bike! Its like the Torys had a bet to see how fucking terrible they could be and still win. And for some reason the media and retards on social media are acting like Labour did well. This was an abject performance by the Labour party. They benefited from the collapse of UKIP and apparently promising free shit to 18-24 year olds gets them to vote, no matter how unrealistic those promises might be. You presume that the vast majority of seats are actually contested in a UK general election Thor. They're not. Over half of British parliamentary seats are considered "safe". That's 25 million constituents who knew on Thursday morning who their MP would be on Friday morning. Campaigning,manifestos and poor performance make very little difference in these seats and never will. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11527109/Has-your-constituency-already-been-won-in-the-2015-general-election-Find-our-here.htmlSo what you have are elections being decided by marginal seats. There a roughly 100 of them in the country. Because Milliband's Labour lost so many key marginal seats in 2015 it would have been an uphill struggle for any Labour leader to win back so many of those seats in one general election and so it proved. I think the current system is absurd but to give you an idea here's the breakdown of the actual numbers of people who voted and who they voted for: So the Tories gained 800,000 more votes than Labour and managed to secure 56 more seats. Does that seem even remotely right to you Thor? Here's the reality most people don't react to campaigns they vote the way they always have regardless of who or what policies they're voting for. The only reason the Tories ever win is because the left splits its votes between the Lib Dems(SDP),SNP and Labour. If we were to go to a two party system like America with Labour and Tories(One on the Left and One on the right both not occupying the centre) then all the character assassinations,muck racking and fear mongering of the Tories wouldn't save them they'd never win another election again. So you've been quite unfair to Corbyn who did what no Labour leader has done since Blair and that's mobilise the young vote which is the key to winning the next election. And of course Labour costed their plans to give "free stuff" to young people in their manifesto by raising income tax on high earners(£80,000+) and an increase in corporation tax. The Tories decided unwisely to stop giving free stuff to pensioners which explained their poor performance. Oh and if Corbyn did so badly explain this:
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 10, 2017 13:21:54 GMT
Right, can we explain to Jeremy Corbyn that losing by 60 seats to worse campaign on the worst manifesto by a Tory party I can remember, isn't an achievement? Theresa May told us she would, ignore human rights, ignore internet privacy, crackdown on freespeech, increase regulation of the internets. Take meals from schoolchildren, take houses from old people to pay for their healthcare and kill foxes. She fluffed every debate, explained nothing and got torn to pieces by Yvette Cooper. Christ on a bike! Its like the Torys had a bet to see how fucking terrible they could be and still win. And for some reason the media and retards on social media are acting like Labour did well. This was an abject performance by the Labour party. They benefited from the collapse of UKIP and apparently promising free shit to 18-24 year olds gets them to vote, no matter how unrealistic those promises might be. You sound very angry that Jezza did so well, all the predictions were that this would be a Thatcher style landslide for the Tories and his brand of socialism would be to blame. It didn't turn out like that and a hung parliament was better than any of us Labour voters hoped for, Corbyn did so much better than expected because voters, particularly young voters, like him, recognise that he's honest and that he actually believes in his polices, he made the NHS the centre of his campaign which was a no brainer and all this despite the disgraceful muck slinging of the gutter right wing press. It feels like a victory to us because it is, it's evidence that the electorate will vote for a Socialist party, the Labour party got over 40% of the popular vote, with other left wing parties (SNP, PC) getting another ~ 5%. We now have a a strong and stable socialist opposition I don't know why you're complaining about Labour Party policies regarding young people (their natural constituency), isn't that what political parties do, have policies that help their voters? Isn't that what the Tories have always done? At least the Labour party make an effort to be for the many not the few, something the Tories have never concerned themselves with. If you look at the results, the swing to Labour was greatest in areas that voted Remain not Brexit, my MP won with a 37000 majority, well up on 2015. This vote has muddied the Brexit waters and I predict it's going to go very badly for May's minority government. BTW, how do you feel about May getting into bed with the homophobic, misogynist, young earth creationist DUP, in her pathetic attempt to cling to power? I would LMFAO if it was someone else's country. It looks like the Scottish Tories saved May by winning 12 (?) seats and they're led by Ruth Davidson, who is about to marry her (same sex) partner, something she wouldn't be able to do in Northern Ireland. (S)he who sups with the Devil etc comes to mind I'm not sure how you conclude I'm unhappy Corbyn did well? I'm not happy at being stuck with a Tory government that wants to target the weakest once more. Corbyn didn't do well, that is what I'm saying. I'm also not sure why you think this is evidence people will vote for a socialist government. Because they didn't. Labour are further away from power than they were in 2005. I didn't. I said their policies were fantasy. Firstly I don't think that all university tuition should be free anyway. Things like STEM, medicine, law should be paid for, but bullshit like gender studies, American Studies, creative writing, et al, no. Pay for that shit yourself. Secondly, Labours plan to fund this lot was nonsense. You cannot wack up Corporation Tax by 40% and increase the minimum wage and remove zero hour contracts at the same time and expect companies to soak up the hit to profits, they will simply sack staff, close branches etc. Companies have an obligation to share holders to protect profits. Tax on the middle class would simply hurt the economy. At present a person on £80,000 will pay about £30,000 in tax and NI. Labour would have increased that to £32,000. On 80k you don't have money to throw around. Those people will stop spending. And isn't it interesting that MP's just miss out on this higher tax band...And how many people on £80k plus have not worked their arses off to get that salary? Pilots, Doctors, Lawyers etc. How much do we expect them to actually pay? I don't want a socialist government that takes money from the "rich" it's definition of which is dubious at best to support the poor. I want one that works to give the working class the opportunity to get that 80k job and not be taxed to death when they get there. Doesn't that suggest a protest vote by remainers? I don't think it has muddied anything. UKIPS vote collapsed. They went from 3,800,000 votes in 2015 to 500,000 in 2017, you simply had a redistribution of those 3,300,000 votes, mostly back to Labour in the North. I'm not at all happy about it. IT's frankly embarrassing that we have a party in power with their ideas. I fully expect May to be gone soon and I also fully expect Boris Johnston to take over. Brilliant....
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 10, 2017 13:36:08 GMT
I don't want a socialist government that takes money from the "rich" it's definition of which is dubious at best to support the poor. I want one that works to give the working class the opportunity to get that 80k job and not be taxed to death when they get there. labour are not socialist
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 10, 2017 13:38:44 GMT
Right, can we explain to Jeremy Corbyn that losing by 60 seats to worse campaign on the worst manifesto by a Tory party I can remember, isn't an achievement? Theresa May told us she would, ignore human rights, ignore internet privacy, crackdown on freespeech, increase regulation of the internets. Take meals from schoolchildren, take houses from old people to pay for their healthcare and kill foxes. She fluffed every debate, explained nothing and got torn to pieces by Yvette Cooper. Christ on a bike! Its like the Torys had a bet to see how fucking terrible they could be and still win. And for some reason the media and retards on social media are acting like Labour did well. This was an abject performance by the Labour party. They benefited from the collapse of UKIP and apparently promising free shit to 18-24 year olds gets them to vote, no matter how unrealistic those promises might be. You presume that the vast majority of seats are actually contested in a UK general election Thor. They're not. Over half of British parliamentary seats are considered "safe". That's 25 million constituents who knew on Thursday morning who their MP would be on Friday morning. Campaigning,manifestos and poor performance make very little difference in these seats and never will. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11527109/Has-your-constituency-already-been-won-in-the-2015-general-election-Find-our-here.htmlSo what you have are elections being decided by marginal seats. There a roughly 100 of them in the country. Because Milliband's Labour lost so many key marginal seats in 2015 it would have been an uphill struggle for any Labour leader to win back so many of those seats in one general election and so it proved. I think the current system is absurd but to give you an idea here's the breakdown of the actual numbers of people who voted and who they voted for: So the Tories gained 800,000 more votes than Labour and managed to secure 56 more seats. Does that seem even remotely right to you Thor? Here's the reality most people don't react to campaigns they vote the way they always have regardless of who or what policies they're voting for. The only reason the Tories ever win is because the left splits its votes between the Lib Dems(SDP),SNP and Labour. If we were to go to a two party system like America with Labour and Tories(One on the Left and One on the right both not occupying the centre) then all the character assassinations,muck racking and fear mongering of the Tories wouldn't save them they'd never win another election again. So you've been quite unfair to Corbyn who did what no Labour leader has done since Blair and that's mobilise the young vote which is the key to winning the next election. And of course Labour costed their plans to give "free stuff" to young people in their manifesto by raising income tax on high earners(£80,000+) and an increase in corporation tax. The Tories decided unwisely to stop giving free stuff to pensioners which explained their poor performance. Oh and if Corbyn did so badly explain this: Okay...IF Corbyn had won the 7 seats he LOST, he could have formed a government by getting the support of the: SNP Lib Dems DUP Why are we considering this an achievement? Basically He would have needed the support of practically everyone in Parliament that wasn't the Tory party to form a government if he had done better and the torys done worse. This election result is down to the abject horror show of the Conservative campaign and that link shows that the Torys were just 287 votes from a majority government. So May was 287 votes away from a majority Corbyn 2200 votes away from a four party coalition.
|
|