Not addressing this point specifically and replying to BLW for no good
reason other than, well, I was here anyway...

Isn't it interesting that any argument involving UKIP basically settles
out to a homogenous blend of:

1 Argumentum ad ignorantiam

2 Guilt by association

3 Argumentum ad populum

4 and a sprinkling of argumentum ad hominem


And these are used by both sides!

1 - Noone knows how competent UKIP would be in power until they actually
prove themselves (one way or another)

2 - Some swivel eyed loons were senior UKIP members (and there might
still be some). All groups, political or otherwise are guaranteed to
have a certain number of undesirables even if it is not in line with the
group's stated position. Look at the 2 main parties for plenty of examples.

3 - Guaranteed in any political debate.

4 - well...



I say, if you like UKIP, vote for them. They clearly are not the EDL.
And if you think they are all swivel eyed loons, don't.