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

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 23 Nov - 12:39

First topic message reminder :

Thread Split! Culture Cup Rules!

by **Pr4wn** Mon 18 Feb - 7:07

El Radar wrote:I must bow to your opinion, school kids striking is pathetic, it affects nobody but themselves. Workers striking affects the means of production which is why it has worked for them in the past.

All the more reason to praise them. They're forgoing their own education in protest against the extinction of life on Earth.

by El Radar Mon 18 Feb - 7:10

That's really going to show the government, they going to return all the plastic riddled electronics they use to?

by Samo Mon 18 Feb - 7:13

I think alot of people dont like it because they’re children so it looks like virtue signalling from the parents. I like to think that the children are actually using the education they’ve been given and realise the threat we’re under.

Its their future, they have more of a stake in it than the rest of us, so we have a responsibility to leave them with as much as chance as possible, and they have a right to hold us to that responsibility.

by **Pr4wn** Mon 18 Feb - 7:24

I find it astonishing that it triggers people. Fair play to the kids for standing up for what they believe in. If the rest of the British public were as principled as these children then maybe Britain wouldn't be in the godawful mess it's in.

by Samo Mon 18 Feb - 7:41

Just look at the types of people its triggering and that tells you all you need to know.

by El Radar Mon 18 Feb - 7:42

So are they giving up all the electronics they use that contain single use plastics? It has nothing to do with principles and it's laughable that you can even type that, it's purely an excuse to get out of school.

by **Pr4wn** Mon 18 Feb - 8:12

What you need to understand is that not everyone is as cynical and unprincipled as you are.

by El Radar Mon 18 Feb - 8:16

Unprincipled based on what exactly? You must be psychic to know what action I take.

by Samo Mon 18 Feb - 8:16

El Radar wrote:So are they giving up all the electronics they use that contain single use plastics? It has nothing to do with principles and it's laughable that you can even type that, it's purely an excuse to get out of school.

I forgot that only people who live in the woods and use no fuel or electricity and live entirely off the grid are allowed to comment on the state of the environment. Muppet.

by El Radar Mon 18 Feb - 8:20

Samo wrote:
El Radar wrote:So are they giving up all the electronics they use that contain single use plastics? It has nothing to do with principles and it's laughable that you can even type that, it's purely an excuse to get out of school.

I forgot that only people who live in the woods and use no fuel or electricity and live entirely off the grid are allowed to comment on the state of the environment. Muppet.

Contributing to the problem whilst doing no actual action to remedy the problem is supposedly something to be commended.

by Samo Mon 18 Feb - 8:22

El Radar wrote:
Samo wrote:
El Radar wrote:So are they giving up all the electronics they use that contain single use plastics? It has nothing to do with principles and it's laughable that you can even type that, it's purely an excuse to get out of school.

I forgot that only people who live in the woods and use no fuel or electricity and live entirely off the grid are allowed to comment on the state of the environment. Muppet.

Contributing to the problem whilst doing no actual action to remedy the problem is supposedly something to be commended.

Going on strike isnt action? I’ll let the miners know that.

by **Pr4wn** Mon 18 Feb - 8:26

Honestly, this has to be a troll. Nobody can be this thick and still be able to type in complete sentences.

by El Radar Mon 18 Feb - 8:32

A troll because you have no answer to any question, you call me unprincipled based on no evidence whatsoever and you're assuming that because I'm against a so called student strike that I'm somehow perfectly happy with the environment being polluted, strike action only works when the sitting government are governed by the unions.

Striking is only action when you are sacrificing something, the miners sacrificed a lot of money and it ultimately didn't get them anywhere, it's as if it's always assumed to be altruistic when it simply isn't.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 8:33

El Radar wrote:
Samo wrote:
El Radar wrote:So are they giving up all the electronics they use that contain single use plastics? It has nothing to do with principles and it's laughable that you can even type that, it's purely an excuse to get out of school.

I forgot that only people who live in the woods and use no fuel or electricity and live entirely off the grid are allowed to comment on the state of the environment. Muppet.

Contributing to the problem whilst doing no actual action to remedy the problem is supposedly something to be commended.

You must be psychic to know that none of them take any actual action.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 18 Feb - 8:35

Duty281 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Labour to split tomorrow apparently....

Good. The end of the rotten, bigoted, anti-semitic Labour Party as a serious electoral force.

Think it is better to see how Brexit turns out before jumping to any conclusions..

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Mon 18 Feb - 10:43

Fun #LabourSplit fact: 5 of the 7 who have resigned nominated Liz Kendall in the 2015 leadership election. She came last with 4% of the vote

by GSC Mon 18 Feb - 11:16

Guess they now know what a non runner looks like

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 11:26

Pr4wn wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Labour to split tomorrow apparently....

Good. The end of the rotten, bigoted, anti-semitic Labour Party as a serious electoral force.

You really are pathetic. A needlessly inflammatory, defamatory and trolling comment.

Prove to me that the Labour party is bigoted.

The fact that you need to say things like this, while throwing your toys out of the pram when people like Julius call you out on your BS really does show the level of your debate.

When you are able to use reason, you might be able to call others out on the level of their debate. Currently, when someone disagrees with you, you often have a hissy fit and label it as 'trolling' or similar (you're doing such a thing with a different poster currently). Needless to say, this isn't conducive to a proper conversation, and is probably against the rules of the forum. Julius did not 'call me out', he misrepresented and lied about my viewpoints (multiple times), and I called him out on it (so the other way round).

The Labour Party is bigoted because it openly supports violent, anti-democratic groups such as the wrongly named 'Hope Not Hate' and 'Unite Against Fascism', and because it is institutionally anti-semitic.

by El Radar Mon 18 Feb - 11:29

Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Labour to split tomorrow apparently....

Good. The end of the rotten, bigoted, anti-semitic Labour Party as a serious electoral force.

You really are pathetic. A needlessly inflammatory, defamatory and trolling comment.

Prove to me that the Labour party is bigoted.

The fact that you need to say things like this, while throwing your toys out of the pram when people like Julius call you out on your BS really does show the level of your debate.

When you are able to use reason, you might be able to call others out on the level of their debate. Currently, when someone disagrees with you, you often have a hissy fit and label it as 'trolling' or similar (you're doing such a thing with a different poster currently). Needless to say, this isn't conducive to a proper conversation, and is probably against the rules of the forum. Julius did not 'call me out', he misrepresented and lied about my viewpoints (multiple times), and I called him out on it (so the other way round).

The Labour Party is bigoted because it openly supports violent, anti-democratic groups such as the wrongly named 'Hope Not Hate' and 'Unite Against Fascism', and because it is institutionally anti-semitic.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 11:39

Duty281 wrote:Julius did not 'call me out', he misrepresented and lied about my viewpoints (multiple times), and I called him out on it (so the other way round).

You couldn't take a joke and had a hissy fit.

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 12:15

Always happy to call you out of your lies, Julius, but keep pretending otherwise all the same.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 12:58

I'm happy for you to disagree with me Duty. It means I'm most likely on very solid moral ground.

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 13:09

I'm not disagreeing with you, Julius, I'm stating truthfully that what you have said is outright fiction. Someone who lies as often as you is on no sort of moral ground whatsoever.

by **Hero** Mon 18 Feb - 13:10

One day perhaps for Duty and HH/Radar...

Political round up............. - Page 3 Lhs3qg10

by **Hero** Mon 18 Feb - 13:13

Duty281 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you, Julius, I'm stating truthfully that what you have said is outright fiction. Someone who lies as often as you is on no sort of moral ground whatsoever.

Hi Mr Pot I'm Mr Kettle.
Though in fairness you don't outright lie, you're just very economical with the facts to your choosing.

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 13:18

Hero wrote:
Duty281 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you, Julius, I'm stating truthfully that what you have said is outright fiction. Someone who lies as often as you is on no sort of moral ground whatsoever.

Hi Mr Pot I'm Mr Kettle.
Though in fairness you don't outright lie, you're just very economical with the facts to your choosing.

Such as? Please give quotations and examples.

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 13:19

Hero wrote:One day perhaps for Duty and HH/Radar...

Political round up............. - Page 3 Hitlerbook

by **Hero** Mon 18 Feb - 13:22

Duty281 wrote:
Hero wrote:
Duty281 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you, Julius, I'm stating truthfully that what you have said is outright fiction. Someone who lies as often as you is on no sort of moral ground whatsoever.

Hi Mr Pot I'm Mr Kettle.
Though in fairness you don't outright lie, you're just very economical with the facts to your choosing.

Such as? Please give quotations and examples.

To quote yourself...

Well it has been my consistent belief for years - and still is my belief now - and will likely exist in one of the many, many pages on this sub-forum.

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 13:26

Hero wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Hero wrote:
Duty281 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you, Julius, I'm stating truthfully that what you have said is outright fiction. Someone who lies as often as you is on no sort of moral ground whatsoever.

Hi Mr Pot I'm Mr Kettle.
Though in fairness you don't outright lie, you're just very economical with the facts to your choosing.

Such as? Please give quotations and examples.

To quote yourself...

Well it has been my consistent belief for years - and still is my belief now - and will likely exist in one of the many, many pages on this sub-forum.

You don't need to trawl back through the forum, examples will do.

by El Radar Mon 18 Feb - 13:27

I don't conform to the liberal minority so I must therefore be a Nazi, tend find accusations such as that incredibly insulting to the millions who died at the hands of fascism but what do I know?

by **Hero** Mon 18 Feb - 13:28

Don't recall the context on it but one of the main ones recently was using a snippet from a government report to put forward your viewpoint when the report itself then went into far more detail and actually disproved what you were saying. When questioned on it you as usual went silent and moved onto different propaganda.

by **Hero** Mon 18 Feb - 13:29

El Radar wrote:I don't conform to the liberal minority so I must therefore be a Nazi, tend find accusations such as that incredibly insulting to the millions who died at the hands of fascism but what do I know?

You get upset at Mitchell and Webb? perhaps the internet isn't the place for you.

by **Hero** Mon 18 Feb - 13:31

El Radar wrote:I don't conform to the liberal minority so I must therefore be a Nazi, tend find accusations such as that incredibly insulting to the millions who died at the hands of fascism but what do I know?

And you were previously banned from the site for your rather far right views that moved into hate speech so really don't try to play that card.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 13:31

Duty281 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you, Julius, I'm stating truthfully that what you have said is outright fiction. Someone who lies as often as you is on no sort of moral ground whatsoever.

Of course it's fiction. I said all along it was fiction. It was obviously fiction - that's what a joke is - fiction. It's a shame you can't see matters with a more perceptive eye - it would probably be better for your blood pressure.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 13:33

Hero wrote:Don't recall the context on it but one of the main ones recently was using a snippet from a government report to put forward your viewpoint when the report itself then went into far more detail and actually disproved what you were saying. When questioned on it you as usual went silent and moved onto different propaganda.

Yes, I recall that one - that was a classic Smile

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 13:34

Hero wrote:Don't recall the context on it but one of the main ones recently was using a snippet from a government report to put forward your viewpoint when the report itself then went into far more detail and actually disproved what you were saying. When questioned on it you as usual went silent and moved onto different propaganda.

Don't recall putting forward any viewpoints from government reports recently. If we could have some more detail, I'd be happy to answer it (I don't usually go 'silent', but if a question is put forth along with a string of insults, I would ignore it, admittedly).

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 13:45

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Hero wrote:Don't recall the context on it but one of the main ones recently was using a snippet from a government report to put forward your viewpoint when the report itself then went into far more detail and actually disproved what you were saying. When questioned on it you as usual went silent and moved onto different propaganda.

Yes, I recall that one - that was a classic

Excellent, you'll be able to give us the detail we need.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 13:49

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Hero wrote:Don't recall the context on it but one of the main ones recently was using a snippet from a government report to put forward your viewpoint when the report itself then went into far more detail and actually disproved what you were saying. When questioned on it you as usual went silent and moved onto different propaganda.

Yes, I recall that one - that was a classic

Excellent, you'll be able to give us the detail we need.

If I attached any importance to it, I would. It was about 3 or 4 weeks ago. Police figures I think. There was something similar a while before that, but it's not like I commit them to memory.

by **Hero** Mon 18 Feb - 13:49

Duty281 wrote:
Hero wrote:Don't recall the context on it but one of the main ones recently was using a snippet from a government report to put forward your viewpoint when the report itself then went into far more detail and actually disproved what you were saying. When questioned on it you as usual went silent and moved onto different propaganda.

Don't recall putting forward any viewpoints from government reports recently. If we could have some more detail, I'd be happy to answer it (I don't usually go 'silent', but if a question is put forth along with a string of insults, I would ignore it, admittedly).

It's a couple of months back I think now and I'm certainly not wading through posts to locate it sorry. It was noted at the time you were doing a 'Duty'. I will though say this, whilst my views are different to yours I have over the years admired how you stick to your guns against what is often a barrage of opposing ones, I don't know what you do in real life but you would make a very good politician, not one I'd agree with but a good one nonetheless.

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 13:56

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Hero wrote:Don't recall the context on it but one of the main ones recently was using a snippet from a government report to put forward your viewpoint when the report itself then went into far more detail and actually disproved what you were saying. When questioned on it you as usual went silent and moved onto different propaganda.

Yes, I recall that one - that was a classic

Excellent, you'll be able to give us the detail we need.

If I attached any importance to it, I would. It was about 3 or 4 weeks ago. Police figures I think. There was something similar a while before that, but it's not like I commit them to memory.

I think you're referring to crime figures, perhaps? Someone said crime is at record levels, I said the crime survey showed crime was in decline, and the discussion went around in circles.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 14:04

IIRC you linked to an article which you claimed supported your view, when it did no such thing, and when that was pointed out, you failed to address that point.

Similar to the other one that Hero pointed out. There's a pattern. You make a claim, it gets pointed out that it verifiably isn't the case, and you fail to acknowledge it. As Hero says - it is the classic stance of a politician. Fair dos.

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 14:09

Hero wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Hero wrote:Don't recall the context on it but one of the main ones recently was using a snippet from a government report to put forward your viewpoint when the report itself then went into far more detail and actually disproved what you were saying. When questioned on it you as usual went silent and moved onto different propaganda.

Don't recall putting forward any viewpoints from government reports recently. If we could have some more detail, I'd be happy to answer it (I don't usually go 'silent', but if a question is put forth along with a string of insults, I would ignore it, admittedly).

It's a couple of months back I think now and I'm certainly not wading through posts to locate it sorry. It was noted at the time you were doing a 'Duty'. I will though say this, whilst my views are different to yours I have over the years admired how you stick to your guns against what is often a barrage of opposing ones, I don't know what you do in real life but you would make a very good politician, not one I'd agree with but a good one nonetheless.

That's very sweet of you. thumbsup

Alas, I am unable to find what you describe after a quick skim through. I did post a link to a European Parliament document about the Irish border issue, which a couple of posters took issue with, but at no point did I avoid anything that they said (this was back in early November).

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 14:15

JuliusHMarx wrote:IIRC you linked to an article which you claimed supported your view, when it did no such thing, and when that was pointed out, you failed to address that point.

Similar to the other one that Hero pointed out. There's a pattern. You make a claim, it gets pointed out that it verifiably isn't the case, and you fail to acknowledge it. As Hero says - it is the classic stance of a politician. Fair dos.

Yes, I linked to something from Full Fact which stated a certain point of view. A couple of posters disagreed and that was that. There weren't any questions asked, it was just a disagreement of opinion and a natural conclusion to the (short) conversation.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 14:24

You misrepresented Full Fact, by quoting one sentence out of context to support your view, when the full article did not support your view. When this was pointed out you failed to acknowledge that. It's not the first time you've acted in that way.

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 14:33

JuliusHMarx wrote:You misrepresented Full Fact, by quoting one sentence out of context to support your view, when the full article did not support your view. When this was pointed out you failed to acknowledge that. It's not the first time you've acted in that way.

My view is/was that police-recorded crime is generally thought to be an unreliable measure. I posted a link from Full Fact to support that. That's all. Such a view is not a controversial one - just type in 'police recorded crime is inaccurate' on to your preferred search engine.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 14:40

That's not how you spun it though. Your out-of-context spin was that the Full Fact link supported your preferred measure as being reliable - whereas the Full Fact link did not support that.

Perhaps I should now go off on one about lies and how very dare you?

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 14:54

Incorrect. I posted the link to show that police-recorded crime is an unreliable measure.

Duty281 wrote:https://fullfact.org/crime/crime-england-and-wales/

Yes, the levels of police recorded crime are going up, but this is generally taken to be an unreliable measure.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb - 15:07

So why didn't you point out that other recording measures are also generally taken to be unreliable? Answer - because it didn't support your 'truth'.

Edit - if it is 'good' (in the absolute sense) to point out others' incorrect statements (and I believe it is good when you, Duty, do that), then it must surely also be good to be as honest and accurate with your own. If not, then when others point out your inaccurate statements, that must also surely be good. That is why I question your morality. You don't seek to be totally honest and accurate, you deliberately seek to hide and conceal with subterfuge. Much as politicians do, in fact.

by Samo Mon 18 Feb - 15:11

Im still waiting on examples of your ‘consistent belief’ that a short term economic damage was a negative of Brexit

by Duty281 Mon 18 Feb - 15:25

JuliusHMarx wrote:So why didn't you point out that other recording measures are also generally taken to be unreliable? Answer - because it didn't support your 'truth'.

Edit - if it is 'good' (in the absolute sense) to point out others' incorrect statements (and I believe it is good when you, Duty, do that), then it must surely also be good to be as honest and accurate with your own. If not, then when others point out your inaccurate statements, that must also surely be good. That is why I question your morality. You don't seek to be totally honest and accurate, you deliberately seek to hide and conceal with subterfuge. Much as politicians do, in fact.

Because the point in question was specifically about police recording measures of crime. I don't have a 'truth'. There are problems with the crime survey, but this is generally taken to be the most accurate measure. I equally strive to be honest and accurate with my own statements, I do not 'hide and conceal'.

by Sponsored content