Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Unions are like cops....Everyone hates them until they need one..

It was written by the Guardian's 'economics editor' and published in the Guardian.

How does this not consitute a Guardian article again??

Because, as was stated in the article (which you did skim read, to be fair ) the research to come to that conclusion was done by the University of Greenwich and not the Guardian.

University of Geenwich???

If ever there was a anti-fatcat, anti-white-tie'n'tails, pro Marxist University, Greenwich has got to be it!

SecretFly wrote:

University of Geenwich???

If ever there was a anti-fatcat, anti-white-tie'n'tails, pro Marxist University, Greenwich has got to be it!

But that doesn't mean any 'research' they do/did is incorrect. You know the University of Greenwich well do you? Member of staff there perhaps?

Keep up, navy.

It reads better if you read the last few pages of this thread quickly... taking particular note of TopHat's responses.

Jesus, you guys are tough hombres to get through to.

Pr4wn wrote:Because, as was stated in the article (which you did skim read, to be fair ) the research to come to that conclusion was done by the University of Greenwich and not the Guardian.

They were HIS opinions. And they were reflected clearly HIS beliefs and stand points as demonstrated by the other articles he's written for the Guardian.

All writers source 'facts' to support THEIR arguments. He picked some research by a fairly low ranking London Uni. It was still the Guardian's economics editor writing an economics piece for the Guardian that was a bunch of trash.

But because it was in the Guardian of course it was the bastion of righteousness......

Not at all. He pointed to peer-reviewed research. Something that you haven't showed yourself as being capable of doing.

He picked what he wanted to support his pre-defined arguments/position.

Because he writes for the Guardian and support your line of opinion you can't see anything he writes as anything but 100% unchallengeable truth.

I look forward to posting some stuff by over-opinionated biaised muppets like Littlejohn, Moir and Hopkins at the Daily Fail sometime soon.....

It's an opinion piece, so of course it's his opinion?

He chose to back up his opinion with peer-reviewed research that supports his argument. I fail to see what he did wrong.

You, on the other hand have, in many lines, managed to say absolutely nothing of use. You clearly disagree with his views on the selling-off of Britain's assets to fund the austerity ideology but you've provided nothing to support this argument at all.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I'm interested in the ability to accuractely analysis matters of economics. Not someone's politicl leanings. Which is why AS is more credible in what it produces than your Guardian chum who is little more than a mouthpiece.

Just saw this, what a classic! You didn't answer the damned questions! You sound like Cameron!

Pr4wn wrote:It's an opinion piece, so of course it's his opinion?

He chose to back up his opinion with peer-reviewed research that supports his argument. I fail to see what he did wrong.

You, on the other hand have, in many lines, managed to say absolutely nothing of use. You clearly disagree with his views on the selling-off of Britain's assets to fund the austerity ideology but you've provided nothing to support this argument at all.

It's his opinion but you're reporting it on here like it's some kind of fact???

And no, the bits I read weren't opinions supported by facts, they were just opinions.

Like I said, I look forward to quoting Littlejohn, Moir and Hopkins in the future.......

Since when did I say or imply that any of it was fact? I said that I agree with what he's saying.

You are, of course, commenting on a piece that you haven't actually read.

I've scan read it, the first few paras in particular, checked his Guardian profile and sniffed the bullsh!t a mile off.

You're that good

And of course you agreed with it. What next, Duty saying he agrees with Nigel Farag...??

Swing States - (RCP)
----------------

Florida - Clinton 43 - Trump 42
Ohio - Clinton 43 - Trump 41
Pennsyl - Clinton 47 - Trump 41
Colorado - Clinton 37 - Trump 48
Virginia - Clinton 41 - Trump 37...........

SecretFly wrote:Keep up, navy.

It reads better if you read the last few pages of this thread quickly... taking particular note of TopHat's responses.

Jesus, you guys are tough hombres to get through to.

Let's try again. Just because UoG might be left-of-centre, doesn't make their 'research' any less correct. And again, you on their staff are you? Answer the question now instead of spouting some flowery oh-so-clever flannel, as usual.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Keep up, navy.

It reads better if you read the last few pages of this thread quickly... taking particular note of TopHat's responses.

Jesus, you guys are tough hombres to get through to.

Let's try again. Just because UoG might be left-of-centre, doesn't make their 'research' any less correct. And again, you on their staff are you? Answer the question now instead of spouting some flowery oh-so-clever flannel, as usual.

I'm not one to defend Secret, but I think what he's getting at is I was attacking the Guardian piece as tedious predictable left-wing Guardianista tosh written by a over-opinionated numpty that doesn't know what he's talking about.

So Prawn pointed out that his opinion was supported by Greenwich Uni research, so Secret was laughing at me by inferring that the extrapolation of my argument was that Greenwich Uni must also be tedious left-wing etc, something he dismisses (& I couldn't comment on).

Not that that disputes the argue you are also now making.

I'll do the same for you sometime, TopHat.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Keep up, navy.

It reads better if you read the last few pages of this thread quickly... taking particular note of TopHat's responses.

Jesus, you guys are tough hombres to get through to.

Let's try again. Just because UoG might be left-of-centre, doesn't make their 'research' any less correct. And again, you on their staff are you? Answer the question now instead of spouting some flowery oh-so-clever flannel, as usual.

I'm not one to defend Secret, but I think what he's getting at is I was attacking the Guardian piece as tedious predictable left-wing Guardianista tosh written by a over-opinionated numpty that doesn't know what he's talking about.  

So Prawn pointed out that his opinion was supported by Greenwich Uni research, so Secret was laughing at me by inferring that the extrapolation of my argument was that Greenwich Uni must also be tedious left-wing etc, something he dismisses (& I couldn't comment on).

Not that that disputes the argue you are also now making.

Christ! No wonder no-one has clue what he's on about....

I think we'll seriously have to do a check on what disciplines we all come from - I detect a whole heap of accountant and engineer types on these pages.

Teaboy right here, sir!!!!!!!!!!!!

You'll do Dave.
Making tea is an artform.... I take mine with no milk or sugar.

SecretFly wrote:
Making tea is an artform.... I take mine with no milk or sugar.

Nobody's all evil, or all good

The expenses scandal from the 2015 General Election is reaching a tipping point. The police have been granted a 12 month extension into investigating South Thanet:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3620246/Judge-declares-Tory-MP-s-General-Election-defeat-Nigel-Farage-VOID-throws-bid-block-police-extending-expenses-probe.html

And Master Clegg may have misbehaved as well, it seems:

http://order-order.com/2016/06/01/revealed-how-nick-clegg-cooked-the-books-for-17652/

Overall, there are currently 12 different police forces in the UK investigating election expenses from 2015.

Pish. Wouldn't make a difference. Bit like the truly awful article in the Mirror and others about how 'just a couple of seats' could have overturned Tory election victory.

Duty, give it a rest.

"I will resign if I don't become an MP".... "I've resigned"... "No, my party needs me". The guy is a muppe. He went on a rambling shouty speech about the Germans and yet his very own wife is German.

He's not about immigration of Europe, he's an out and out bigoted racist who doesn't want to let ethnic minorities in and "wants our country back innit". Perhaps those in South Thanet simply saw sense and would prefer to be represented by someone who doesn't jump in to bed with racist ultra-nationalists parties in order to 'gang up' on other MEPs?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Keep up, navy.

It reads better if you read the last few pages of this thread quickly... taking particular note of TopHat's responses.

Jesus, you guys are tough hombres to get through to.

Let's try again. Just because UoG might be left-of-centre, doesn't make their 'research' any less correct. And again, you on their staff are you? Answer the question now instead of spouting some flowery oh-so-clever flannel, as usual.

I'm not one to defend Secret, but I think what he's getting at is I was attacking the Guardian piece as tedious predictable left-wing Guardianista tosh written by a over-opinionated numpty that doesn't know what he's talking about.  

So Prawn pointed out that his opinion was supported by Greenwich Uni research, so Secret was laughing at me by inferring that the extrapolation of my argument was that Greenwich Uni must also be tedious left-wing etc, something he dismisses (& I couldn't comment on).

Not that that disputes the argue you are also now making.

Seeing as I work on site at Greenwich Uni, I can tell you it's half-Chinese, half-wouldn't-know-who-Corbyn-was-if-he-was-lecturing-their-class.

What are the latest Remain / Leave stats? I saw Martin Lewis's site had a poll up and Leave was topping every single available option.

The Muppets were right popular in my day. I blame the EU for forcing them out of fashion.

38 degrees are refusing to provide the evidence of the misogynist abuse that forced them to take down the Laura Kuenssberg petition and a cursory search of the web cache has provided a single tweet. There are suggestions that they were leaned on but no one has named any particular source. Their press guy was apparently getting tetchy when asked to provide the evidence

ShahenshahG wrote:38 degrees are refusing to provide the evidence of the misogynist abuse that forced them to take down the Laura Kuenssberg petition and a cursory search of the web cache has provided a single tweet. There are suggestions that they were leaned on but no one has named any particular source. Their press guy was apparently getting tetchy when asked to provide the evidence

Who are 38 Degrees and what's the issue...??

Essentially. 38 degrees is a petition site, one of the petitions was to get Kuenssberg's position reviewed for bias after her performance on a recent election night. The petition got 35k signatures and then 38 degrees took it off citing lots of sexist abuse. Cameron went on about it in parliament and some labour mp's used it as a stick to beat the corbyn supporters with similar to the anti semitism rubbish prior to the local elections. But theres one comment and one tweet they've found in the web cache. So there seems to be no evidence and the guy from the petition sites press office is getting a little tetchy when asked to provide evidence or even confirm that there was more than one comment and one tweet of abuse. Guardian being the whiny backers for any sexist crusade (be it true or false) they are, gave him a whole page to justify why he took the decision to remove the petition but didn't actually provide any evidence.

Would the issue be less about the woman political editor Kuenssberg and more about clarifying whether she herself is working under a higher editorial control at the BBC?
It reminds me of that time when the former BBC political editor, Nick Robinson made the famous claim about Alex Salmond: "He didn't answer".  Again, was Nick Robinson doing things his way or was someone even higher up stage managing the 'truth' through that campaign?

SecretFly wrote:Would the issue be less about the woman political editor Kuenssberg and more about clarifying whether she herself is working under a higher editorial control at the BBC?
It reminds me of that time when the former BBC political editor, Nick Robinson made the famous claim about Alex Salmond: "He didn't answer".  Again, was Nick Robinson doing things his way or was someone even higher up stage managing the 'truth' through that campaign?

https://aspiblog.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/bbc-producer-deletes-blog-where-he-admits-political-manipulation-before-pm-questions/

You might have something there but I don't think anyone is fighting for journalistic integrity

ShahenshahG wrote:Essentially. 38 degrees is a petition site, one of the petitions was to get Kuenssberg's position reviewed for bias after her performance on a recent election night. The petition got 35k signatures and then 38 degrees took it off citing lots of sexist abuse. Cameron went on about it in parliament and some labour mp's used it as a stick to beat the corbyn supporters with similar to the anti semitism rubbish prior to the local elections. But theres one comment and one tweet they've found in the web cache. So there seems to be no evidence and the guy from the petition sites press office is getting a little tetchy when asked to provide evidence or even confirm that there was more than one comment and one tweet of abuse. Guardian being the whiny backers for any sexist crusade (be it true or false) they are, gave him a whole page to justify why he took the decision to remove the petition but didn't actually provide any evidence.  

Yeh, googled it quickly but struggled to make head nor tail of it.

What I did gather is that I definitely don't like 38 Degrees. Hard-left liberal 'social activists'.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Essentially. 38 degrees is a petition site, one of the petitions was to get Kuenssberg's position reviewed for bias after her performance on a recent election night. The petition got 35k signatures and then 38 degrees took it off citing lots of sexist abuse. Cameron went on about it in parliament and some labour mp's used it as a stick to beat the corbyn supporters with similar to the anti semitism rubbish prior to the local elections. But theres one comment and one tweet they've found in the web cache. So there seems to be no evidence and the guy from the petition sites press office is getting a little tetchy when asked to provide evidence or even confirm that there was more than one comment and one tweet of abuse. Guardian being the whiny backers for any sexist crusade (be it true or false) they are, gave him a whole page to justify why he took the decision to remove the petition but didn't actually provide any evidence.  

Yeh, googled it quickly but struggled to make head nor tail of it.

What I did gather is that I definitely don't like 38 Degrees.  Hard-left liberal 'social activists'.

Bunch of idiots the lot of 'em.

Still failing to comprehend how stupid Americans really are. They absolutely hate Obama, who outflanked Hilary to the left, with a pretty big passion and yet are beating the drum for Sanders. Who incidentally is living in cuckoo land, as are all pure socialists. Free healthcare, free education, free everything - all needs to be paid for by the taxpayer. The problem is as Maggie pointed out "the problem with socialism is at some point you run out of other peoples money". Socialist spend spend spend way above their countries means.

Coxy001 wrote: The problem is as Maggie pointed out "the problem with socialism is at some point you run out of other peoples money".

The very same law applies to runaway Capitalism.  Were you out of town when the World Economy collapsed a few years ago?  Banks were doing magician tricks with other people's money.  Now you see it - now you don't.  It wasn't socialism that had millions of people the world over running to banks to collect savings that no longer existed.

SecretFly wrote:

Coxy001 wrote: The problem is as Maggie pointed out "the problem with socialism is at some point you run out of other peoples money".

The very same law applies to runaway Capitalism.  Were you out of town when the World Economy collapsed a few years ago?  Banks were doing magician tricks with other people's money.  Now you see it - now you don't.  It wasn't socialism that had millions of people the world over running to banks to collect savings that no longer existed.

And despite the satirical sketches we often see about financial collapse, I don't recall too many stories about bankers hurling themselves from the upper floors of skyscrapers...more's the f*cking pity....but by all means, blame those with a desire to want to make life better for the poor. The very rich won't miss £5k, the poor would love it

SecretFly wrote:

Coxy001 wrote: The problem is as Maggie pointed out "the problem with socialism is at some point you run out of other peoples money".

The very same law applies to runaway Capitalism.  Were you out of town when the World Economy collapsed a few years ago?  Banks were doing magician tricks with other people's money.  Now you see it - now you don't.  It wasn't socialism that had millions of people the world over running to banks to collect savings that no longer existed.

No it doesn't. And your supporting rhetoric is entirely fallacious. And ignorant.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Coxy001 wrote: The problem is as Maggie pointed out "the problem with socialism is at some point you run out of other peoples money".

The very same law applies to runaway Capitalism.  Were you out of town when the World Economy collapsed a few years ago?  Banks were doing magician tricks with other people's money.  Now you see it - now you don't.  It wasn't socialism that had millions of people the world over running to banks to collect savings that no longer existed.

No it doesn't. And your supporting rhetoric is entirely fallacious. And ignorant.

So you're saying they'll never run out of other people's money to sp*nk away on bad investments, hookers and champagne enemas?

I'm saying as long as people percieve they will get a return they will continue to give money to banks in order for them to invest on their behalf.

Unless you mean current account deposits, which are protected by UKG anyway so irrelevant.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Coxy001 wrote: The problem is as Maggie pointed out "the problem with socialism is at some point you run out of other peoples money".

The very same law applies to runaway Capitalism.  Were you out of town when the World Economy collapsed a few years ago?  Banks were doing magician tricks with other people's money.  Now you see it - now you don't.  It wasn't socialism that had millions of people the world over running to banks to collect savings that no longer existed.

No it doesn't. And your supporting rhetoric is entirely fallacious. And ignorant.

Yes it does.

DAVE667 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Coxy001 wrote: The problem is as Maggie pointed out "the problem with socialism is at some point you run out of other peoples money".

The very same law applies to runaway Capitalism.  Were you out of town when the World Economy collapsed a few years ago?  Banks were doing magician tricks with other people's money.  Now you see it - now you don't.  It wasn't socialism that had millions of people the world over running to banks to collect savings that no longer existed.

And despite the satirical sketches we often see about financial collapse, I don't recall too many stories about bankers hurling themselves from the upper floors of skyscrapers...more's the f*cking pity....but by all means, blame those with a desire to want to make life better for the poor. The very rich won't miss £5k, the poor would love it

Try reading the papers more then, there have been several.

Coq D'Argent is London's number 1 suicide hot spot now!!

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Coxy001 wrote: The problem is as Maggie pointed out "the problem with socialism is at some point you run out of other peoples money".

The very same law applies to runaway Capitalism.  Were you out of town when the World Economy collapsed a few years ago?  Banks were doing magician tricks with other people's money.  Now you see it - now you don't.  It wasn't socialism that had millions of people the world over running to banks to collect savings that no longer existed.

No it doesn't. And your supporting rhetoric is entirely fallacious. And ignorant.

Yes it does.

No, it's just your normal pony twaddle. If I'm really really bored later I might waste some time pulling apart your ignorant bullsh!t.

SecretFly wrote:

Coxy001 wrote: The problem is as Maggie pointed out "the problem with socialism is at some point you run out of other peoples money".

The very same law applies to runaway Capitalism.  Were you out of town when the World Economy collapsed a few years ago?  Banks were doing magician tricks with other people's money.  Now you see it - now you don't.  It wasn't socialism that had millions of people the world over running to banks to collect savings that no longer existed.

How's socialism going for Venezuela? Last time I checked there were millions there who can't even afford bread as it costs more than a small car here.

It's one thing to blame unregulation for the world economy collapsing - one individual sector I might add. Versus the blight and misery that socialism brings. And I'm not talking some Denmark style socialism - am talking the hard loony left type of socialism that Corbyn and Sanders would impose on their respective citizens.

And capitalism has proven to spunk all over socialism.... Proof is in the pudding as to why people elect the massive majority of governments who are roughly fairly centrist. When you elect a socialist bunch of tools then what happens my friend is the country simply runs out of money aka Venezuela.

Duty281 wrote:And in Austria, postal votes have defeated Hofer, it would seem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/08/austria-far-right-launches-challenge-to-presidential-election-re/

Now look, just because one city had a turn-out of 147%, it doesn't mean that the result isn't valid.

And just because an extra 200,000 postal votes were conjured out of thin air, it doesn't mean that the result isn't valid.

And just because, of those magic 200,000 postal votes, Hofer only got 13% of them in a tight-race, it doesn't mean that the result isn't valid.

So there!

That lot make Farage look normal.

Yeah, how dare those bas*ards care about their country and its people.

Savages.

Please nobody feed this troll.

Yeah, how dare anyone have a different point of view on a debate forum?!

Utterly disgraceful.