On 13/06/2016 14:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/06/16 13:45, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/06/2016 13:36, Tim Streater wrote:

Everyone knows what is meant

Do you actually believe that to be true?

even if you don't.

What kippers say changes to suit the weather so its impossible for
anyone to be sure what they mean. They don't even know themselves.

More waffle and blather.

You are starting to sound like Cameron.



Cameron doesn't know his arse from his elbow anyway ...
This is what he said on 2nd June 2009 ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f42GWqPG6pc

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/06/16 13:45, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/06/2016 13:36, Tim Streater wrote:

Everyone knows what is meant

Do you actually believe that to be true?

even if you don't.

What kippers say changes to suit the weather so its impossible for
anyone to be sure what they mean. They don't even know themselves.

More waffle and blather.

You are starting to sound like Cameron.


Please get the spelling right, Camoron!

On 14/06/16 08:36, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:22:24 -0700, harry wrote:

UKIP was against it.
The only party with a leader that tells the truth.

"I'm going to resign now the election is over"

Which he promptly did.


--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

Dave Plowman (News) wrote


And the EU is the largest trading block in the
world.


But, Much of it has no money! The rest is about to go broke
when we leave. Look up the risk profile of the German banks after Brexit.

On 14/06/16 09:13, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:07:37 +0100, tim... wrote:

UKIP was against it.
The only party with a leader that tells the truth.

"I'm going to resign now the election is over"

but he did

Well...
"I'm going to resign. I will. It's not an empty threat. Plead for me to
stay. Please? Umm, PLEASE? Oh, well, if you're going to be like that, I
won't resign."

(It's hardly his fault that the party doesn't have two ha'penny to rub
together to create a new credible leader)

And then he sacked the nearest there was to an alternative, just to feel
a bit safer.

Mind you, the average kipper wouldn't be particularly amenable to a
female party leader.

You would be suroprised.

Every time someone passed judegment on UKIP I have to rub my eyes and
wonder who this 'UKIP' is because its certainly not the party I've been
a member of for years.

And then I realise what people lie Adrian toss words like Xenophobe,
bigot, little englander around.

It's because that's what they themselves are.

Sacred to meet foreigners without the 'protection' of the EU.
Unable to see common sense 'our country first people without going into
an orgy of virtue signalling denial.
Stuck in some 1970s Little englander vision of england as a tiny little
country that cant survive without being propped up by germany...

--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In traweb.com,
lid wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

It means we get to set the numbers. It means that laws affect this
country are made in this country. Simples.



Really? And to think that laws in other countries don't affect the UK is
just silly. How about the USA immigration laws? do they affect the UK?


Which particular laws made by the EU do you think will not affect the UK
if we leave?

Just suppose we leave the EU and the EU makes a law banning the import of
all UK goods and services.

That won't be a UK law, therefore won't have any effect on the UK.

Or is there a tiny flaw in that?



Yes, the EU would go broke! They are already, just kicking the cans
down the road.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On Monday, 13 June 2016 12:05:40 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

wrote in message
web.com...


Which particular laws made by the EU do you think will not affect
the UK if we leave?

The stupid **** that bans the state from subsidising infrastructure,
mandates the closing of coal fired power stations,. requires Britain
to allow any EU citizen that wants to move to Britain to do that, etc
etc etc.


Those are the issues showing up now. Give someone unstoppable power for
decades and a long list of new issues will crop up. We have little idea
what they will be. In the very short term they'll involve airheaded
diktats re hoovers, kettles, toasters etc, so the future of such
legislation is looking idiotic.

You've got to the crux of the matter. Send our country into a lengthy
recession from which it may never recover so you can buy a faster toaster.



The country is already headed for a recession. Voting LEAVE may
avoid it as we will control our own destiny. Remaining is a certain
recipe for disaster. Remain=Lower wages, more UK unemployment, higher
housing costs, collapse of the NHS, loss of national identity, higher EU
taxes( we're already lined up for another 5B pounds this year) just to
name a few.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On Monday, 13 June 2016 13:35:22 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

"Tim wrote in message
.. .

In ,
tabbypurr wrote:

On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:


Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Oh boy. It means we can vote political parties out of office if we
don't like what they do.

Such as invading Iraq and using billions of taxpayers money to bail
out the banks, so as to keep paying bankers their million pound
bonuses you mean ?


Do you have any clue how much worse it would be if we have no vote
whatsoeevr over our lawmakers?

That can often be difficult to assess. They seem to spend a great deal of
time doing patch up laws which often don't work, rather than anticipating
what needs to be done.


It means we have some control over our lives.

Such as choosing which of two Old Etonians will be our next Prime
Minister you mean ?


As opposed to having someone in control thousands of miles away that has
nothing but indifference& mild resentment against Britain, is making
laws primarily for others' benefit, and frankly couldn't care less. And
who we can never remove. If you can't work out which is better you
should take your brain back for a refund.

If there were mild resentment against the UK in the EU, just who do you
think is to blame for that? There always has been a vocal minority in the
UK who've done everything in their power to try and make the EU fail and
bad mouth it at every turn. To the extent where all EU legislation bad.
All UK legislation good. No logic - just the usual bigotry.



Plus getting shot of all the Polish plumbers and builders while at the same time


I hope not. Out of the EU we actually have a choice on these things.

And deciding just who out of the current EU immigrants can stay would take
years. Not something the majority of the outer racists will be willing to
stomach. They want them all gone the very next day.


Quite good. You managed to get the lefts two mostfavourite
terms of abuse into that reply. Not much content however!

dennis@home wrote:
On 14/06/2016 08:20, harry wrote:

Yes it does.


Well you are bankrupt now anyway as Boris has committed the leavers to
keep paying all the EU funded stuff until 2020.

This is from a bunch of people who have no control over what the
government spends so it must be a personal commitment by the leavers.


The leavers will be the government. I'm watching with interest to
see how many of Camorons MP supporters jump ship in the next week or so!

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/06/16 09:13, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:07:37 +0100, tim... wrote:

UKIP was against it.
The only party with a leader that tells the truth.

"I'm going to resign now the election is over"

but he did

Well...
"I'm going to resign. I will. It's not an empty threat. Plead for me to
stay. Please? Umm, PLEASE? Oh, well, if you're going to be like that, I
won't resign."

(It's hardly his fault that the party doesn't have two ha'penny to rub
together to create a new credible leader)

And then he sacked the nearest there was to an alternative, just to feel
a bit safer.

Mind you, the average kipper wouldn't be particularly amenable to a
female party leader.

You would be suroprised.

Every time someone passed judegment on UKIP I have to rub my eyes and
wonder who this 'UKIP' is because its certainly not the party I've
been a member of for years.

And then I realise what people lie Adrian toss words like Xenophobe,
bigot, little englander around.

It's because that's what they themselves are.

Sacred to meet foreigners without the 'protection' of the EU.
Unable to see common sense 'our country first people without going
into an orgy of virtue signalling denial.
Stuck in some 1970s Little englander vision of england as a tiny
little country that cant survive without being propped up by germany...


That's because he's a remainer. Really, we should feel sorry for
him as he tosses his toys out of the pram!

dennis@home wrote

Well you are bankrupt now anyway as Boris has committed
the leavers to keep paying all the EU funded stuff until 2020.

Nothing even remotely like bankrupt given that that is only
a small subset of what currently goes to the EU every year.

This is from a bunch of people who have no
control over what the government spends

He will do once he replaces Cameron.

so it must be a personal commitment by the leavers.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 14/06/16 10:28, Capitol wrote:
The leavers will be the government. I'm watching with interest to see
how many of Camorons MP supporters jump ship in the next week or so!

Indeed. Its beginning to look as though brexiteers are edging ahead.

How many remainer career backbenchers will 'confess they did it because
they were forced to' and actually in their hearts they wanted out all along?

I wonder if it will end like the Euro debate, simply never mentioned
again., or whether it will be a referendum every year until we vote to
stay in...


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 14/06/2016 08:16, harry wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 11:04:43 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/06/2016 09:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:09:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The main issue is about sovereignty.

That may be the issue for you but not for everyone.
Anyway you don't mean sovereignty, you mean race.

No Denise, You mean race.

Only remainers talk about race.

Brexiteers talk about immigration numbers, about economics and about
sovereignty.

So you see no inherent difference whatsoever between, say, a German or
a Norwegian or an American moving to the UK compared to a Turk or a
Pakistani or a Lithuanian?

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

It means we get to set the numbers. It means that laws affect this
country are made in this country. Simples.


Really?
And to think that laws in other countries don't affect the UK is just
silly.
How about the USA immigration laws? do they affect the UK?

Which particular laws made by the EU do you think will not affect the UK
if we leave?

None of them unless we CHOOSE to let them.
We need to set our own immigration laws in exactly the same way as the
USA or anywhere else does.

So you are admitting that in practice it makes no difference other than we
get no say in the EU laws we still have to follow.

More of your lies. There is no reason why Britain that had left
the EU would have to follow any EU laws on immigration.

dennis@home wrote
harry wrote

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Sovereignty is the ability to run or own country as we wish.

Like North Korea?

Like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, India etc etc etc.

If we don't like the government, we can get rid of it.

You opposed the war in Iraq and that was the only
government you had a hope of getting rid of.

Because not enough agreed with him on that.

No matter how many agree with him on that with the clowns
currently running the EU, there is no way to get rid of them.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:38:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The leavers will be the government. I'm watching with interest to see
how many of Camorons MP supporters jump ship in the next week or so!

Indeed. Its beginning to look as though brexiteers are edging ahead.

How odd. I thought brexit had long been the majority view?

But, if you're looking only at Tory MPs, then the only defection's been
the other way.

"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:22:24 -0700, harry wrote:

UKIP was against it.
The only party with a leader that tells the truth.

"I'm going to resign now the election is over"

but he did

Didnt notice the chains that UKIP used to prevent him from leaving.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

But how many people voted Labour in the expectation
that it would be a Labour Government who would invade
Iraq, carry on with deregulation and bail out banks to the
tune of billions while allowing the bonus culture to remain ?

Irrelevant. The point is that when they **** up badly enough,
they are free to pull the plug on them the next time they vote.
And they did just that.

Except they didn't **** up.

Corse they did. They stupidly deregulated the banks so that when
the **** hit the fan the worst of them had to be bailed out by govt.

NOT ONE of the retail banks in Canada or Australia or New Zealand
imploded spectacularly or needed to be bailed out by govt.

Labour pursued the exact same policies a Conservative government would
have implemented if in office.

BULL****.

Post Election, nothing changed at all.

BULL**** on the cuts to benefits and the bedroom tax alone.

All that happened was that his Old Etonian education had equipped David
Cameron with the importance of switching off Sky News throat mikes before
calling erstwhile supporters bigoted women. And the importance of not
looking like an unelectable nerd incapable of defending his own
goverment's record.

The voters clearly felt otherwise, TWICE.

In the 80's and 90's a startling suggestion emerged that the way to win
elections was to appeal to the middle ground.

That had happened LONG before that.

Both in manifestos and subsequent policies.
The core voters will still vote for you whatever you do, its the swing
voters who dictate elections.

Its always been that way, nothing to do with the 80s and 90s.

And so that's what happened. While oldsters might still like to think
they're replaying battles from the 70's and 80's, to young people New
Labour and the Conservatives - all they've ever really had experience of -
are indistinguishable.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Foot was nothing even
remotely like Thatcher or Churchill. Neither is Corbyn.

As far as they're concerned voting changes nothing.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

As indeed it can't as most policy questions are decided by global economic
factors totally outside any UK Govt's control in any case.

What I said.

The old adage of "at least you're able to vote them out of office" simply
no longer applies.

Even sillier than you usually manage. They just did
that with Labour and they won't actually be stupid
enough to vote Labour back into govt until Corbyn
has been given the bums rush and a few other clowns
have been too, just like with what happened after Foot.

You're still going to get the same policies just different presentation.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Corbyn.

And have a look at the result SNP got in Scotland sometime.

and its the wrinklies who might well swing this vote.

I don’t believe that. IMO they are much more likely to not bother to vote
because they don’t care that much about politics.

Just a few words of advice.

All flushed where it belongs.

On 14/06/2016 10:28, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 14/06/2016 08:20, harry wrote:

Yes it does.


Well you are bankrupt now anyway as Boris has committed the leavers to
keep paying all the EU funded stuff until 2020.

This is from a bunch of people who have no control over what the
government spends so it must be a personal commitment by the leavers.


The leavers will be the government. I'm watching with interest to
see how many of Camorons MP supporters jump ship in the next week or so!


The government will be whomever gets elected next and they have no
reason to support what the leavers promise.

However a guarantee to pay the cash sounds like a contract to me and it
isn't with the government.

On 14/06/2016 09:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time someone passed judegment on UKIP I have to rub my eyes and
wonder who this 'UKIP' is because its certainly not the party I've been
a member of for years.

You don't know what the UKIP supporters are like around here.
Therefore you can't possibly write off what others say.
You are just showing how closed your mind is to any reality that gets in
the way of your beliefs. Sounds like you are very religious to me.

On Monday, 13 June 2016 20:09:37 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:07:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

This vacuum cleaner rule is pretty stupid when you actually know what
the rules say..

More a case of the whinging is pretty stupid.

The EU didn't just reduce the power input they also change the
regulations so that said vacs had to suck up more dirt. That is they
said they had to be better vacs and use less power. So what do people
want a 2000w one or a 600 watt one that cleans better?

Simple. Some people want a 2kw **** one, on principle, simply because
somebody's said they can't have one.

I'll bet the people who are complaining loudest don't even do the damn
hoovering.

We don;t hoover we dyson ;-P

On 14/06/16 11:24, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/06/2016 09:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time someone passed judegment on UKIP I have to rub my eyes and
wonder who this 'UKIP' is because its certainly not the party I've been
a member of for years.

You don't know what the UKIP supporters are like around here.

And it appears neither do you.

Therefore you can't possibly write off what others say.

Well Denise, isnt tat exactly what you are doing?

You are just showing how closed your mind is to any reality that gets in
the way of your beliefs. Sounds like you are very religious to me.


Densie, you must not think that what you see in a mirror, is me.



--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 14/06/2016 11:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/06/16 11:24, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/06/2016 09:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time someone passed judegment on UKIP I have to rub my eyes and
wonder who this 'UKIP' is because its certainly not the party I've been
a member of for years.

You don't know what the UKIP supporters are like around here.

And it appears neither do you.

Therefore you can't possibly write off what others say.

Well Denise, isnt tat exactly what you are doing?

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not be bigots from
the NF but you don't accept that some are.
I am right and you are a liar.


You are just showing how closed your mind is to any reality that gets in
the way of your beliefs. Sounds like you are very religious to me.


Densie, you must not think that what you see in a mirror, is me.

Its a good job I don't I couldn't live with being you.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Really? That 1001 watt Hoover you are so desperate to buy is made in
the UK? They will set up a special production line just to supply the
UK if we leave?

This vacuum cleaner rule is pretty stupid when you actually know what
the rules say..

The EU didn't just reduce the power input they also change the
regulations so that said vacs had to suck up more dirt. That is they
said they had to be better vacs and use less power. So what do people
want a 2000w one or a 600 watt one that cleans better?

You do need to realise that it is a basic human right to waste energy?
Part of the hunter gatherer thing. The man with the biggest bonfire has
also the biggest cock.

And we've got lots of big pricks on here.

--
*It's this dirty because I washed it with your wife's knickers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

But how many people voted Labour in the expectation
that it would be a Labour Government who would invade
Iraq, carry on with deregulation and bail out banks to the
tune of billions while allowing the bonus culture to remain ?

Irrelevant. The point is that when they **** up badly enough,
they are free to pull the plug on them the next time they vote.
And they did just that.

Except they didn't **** up.

Corse they did. They stupidly deregulated the banks

So which part of the following 15 word sentence did you have the
most problems with ?

Labour pursued the exact same policies a Conservative government would have
implemented if in office.

Whether deregulating banks was a good idea or not is irrelevant.
In order to get elected Labour needed to follow the exact same
centrist/right agenda as was initiated by Thatcher.

The Conservatives biggest electoral weapon is fear. Older
voters are primarily motivated by fear, which is why in
order to get elected at all Labour needed to distance themselves
as far as possible from their previous policy positions.



michael adams

....

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:07:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

This vacuum cleaner rule is pretty stupid when you actually know what
the rules say..

More a case of the whinging is pretty stupid.

The EU didn't just reduce the power input they also change the
regulations so that said vacs had to suck up more dirt. That is they
said they had to be better vacs and use less power. So what do people
want a 2000w one or a 600 watt one that cleans better?

Simple. Some people want a 2kw **** one, on principle, simply because
somebody's said they can't have one.

I'll bet the people who are complaining loudest don't even do the damn
hoovering.

Of course. But they do want to choose the machine their wife is then
forced to use.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , tim...
wrote:
Compare this with the typical European country model where no-one
even takes laws seriously. For a long list of reasons. And that's
their own country's laws.

Ever been to Germany? That is the largest EU country. Where they
are far more law abiding in general than the UK.

they're the exception

Thought we were?

you seem to be referring to different things

I've included all the bits of a post I'm commenting on. The whole idea of
interleaved posting.

the previous point you made was about the population and now you are
confusing that with the original point about "the government"

I'm not confusing anything.


The EU gangs up on the UK by insisting only the UK follows its diktats.

no-one claims the EU gangs up on us to do it. We just seem to do it
willingly.

There are lots of countries in the EU - very different in culture, etc.
The view often expressed is that all EU legislation is detrimental to the
UK. But then can't be to the majority of the EU countries, otherwise it
could not have been voted through.

Other EU countries can do as they wish.

Other countries pontificate and try to weasel their way out of rules
they don't like

You're back to that generalization. That the UK is somehow more law
abiding than any other EU country. I just pointed out Germany tends to be
more ok with regulations than we are.

Doesn't that seem odd to you?

try looking at the club-med countries

I have. Last time I was there, Spain (or the part of it I was in)
seemed to ignore the smoking indoors in a public place stuff. Like in
bars. I'm sure they ignore other such laws too.

Yep that was what we were trying to tell you - you seem to have got it

But other EU countries obey their smoking bans at least as well as 'we' do.

It's so good to get back to the UK and find everyone obeying the speed
limit on the motorway...

I didn't say our population was perfect (that's our government)

No. You are simply cherry picking the bits that suit your argument. And
then making them generalizations.

--
*No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a **** driver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
None of them unless we CHOOSE to let them. We need to set our own
immigration laws in exactly the same way as the USA or anywhere else
does.


So you are admitting that in practice it makes no difference other than
we get no say in the EU laws we still have to follow.

The USA immigration laws are obviously perfect in practice. So no need for
that wall at the Mexican border, then?

--
*Prepositions are not words to end sentences with *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:35:58 +0100, tim... wrote:

The EU gangs up on the UK by insisting only the UK follows its diktats.

no-one claims the EU gangs up on us to do it. We just seem to do it
willingly.

Other EU countries can do as they wish.

Other countries pontificate and try to weasel their way out of rules
they don't like

So your beef appears to be with the UK government.

It is an odd argument.

The EU makes a law nobody likes (HTF did Brussels pass it then?)

All EU countries other than the UK ignore it.

So the EU is at fault.

--
*If you think this van is dirty, you should try having sex with the driver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:05:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not be bigots from
the NF but you don't accept that some are.

wait, two, three
"But UKIP are the only party who explicitly bar ex-BNP etc members"

That's because they're the only ones who need to.

On 14/06/16 12:38, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:05:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not be bigots from
the NF but you don't accept that some are.

wait, two, three
"But UKIP are the only party who explicitly bar ex-BNP etc members"

That's because they're the only ones who need to.

Yet another bigoted lie from the other resident lefty****


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:57:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not be bigots
from the NF but you don't accept that some are.

wait, two, three
"But UKIP are the only party who explicitly bar ex-BNP etc members"

That's because they're the only ones who need to.

Yet another bigoted lie from the other resident lefty****

chuckle
You're so predictable. It's almost as if there's a tiny handful of stock
phrases that you resort to when you realise you're bang to rights on
something.

BTW, I'm still not a lefty.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 14/06/2016 09:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time someone passed judegment on UKIP I have to rub my eyes and
wonder who this 'UKIP' is because its certainly not the party I've been
a member of for years.

You don't know what the UKIP supporters are like around here.
Therefore you can't possibly write off what others say.
You are just showing how closed your mind is to any reality that gets in
the way of your beliefs. Sounds like you are very religious to me.

Turnip is the only UKIP member in his village. So his only communication
with others is via the party literature and press etc.

It is strikingly obvious he's never been to a meeting in an area with lots
of UKIP supporters. They'd eat him for breakfast.

--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:57:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not be bigots
from the NF but you don't accept that some are.

wait, two, three
"But UKIP are the only party who explicitly bar ex-BNP etc members"

That's because they're the only ones who need to.

Yet another bigoted lie from the other resident lefty****

chuckle
You're so predictable. It's almost as if there's a tiny handful of stock
phrases that you resort to when you realise you're bang to rights on
something.

BTW, I'm still not a lefty.

;-) The laugh is Rees-Turnip has proably never even met a true lefty.
There are certainly non on here.

I did know a few from my union days - at conferences, etc. Actually rather
rare.

--
*I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:16:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not be bigots
from the NF but you don't accept that some are.

wait, two, three
"But UKIP are the only party who explicitly bar ex-BNP etc members"

That's because they're the only ones who need to.

Yet another bigoted lie from the other resident lefty****

chuckle
You're so predictable. It's almost as if there's a tiny handful of
stock phrases that you resort to when you realise you're bang to rights
on something.

Except I am not banged to rights am I Adrian?

Oh, yes.

No one actually believes that ex BNP members don't exist in the labour
party and the tory party

Nobody ever said they didn't.

But UKIP are the only party close enough to their position to feel a
blanket ban warranted.

On 14/06/16 13:40, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:16:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not be bigots
from the NF but you don't accept that some are.

wait, two, three
"But UKIP are the only party who explicitly bar ex-BNP etc members"

That's because they're the only ones who need to.

Yet another bigoted lie from the other resident lefty****

chuckle
You're so predictable. It's almost as if there's a tiny handful of
stock phrases that you resort to when you realise you're bang to rights
on something.

Except I am not banged to rights am I Adrian?

Oh, yes.

No one actually believes that ex BNP members don't exist in the labour
party and the tory party

Nobody ever said they didn't.

But UKIP are the only party close enough to their position to feel a
blanket ban warranted.

That makes no sense at all

Its just another spin and lie


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 12:39:01 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:05:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

No it is not! I accept that some UKIP supporters may not be bigots from
the NF but you don't accept that some are.

wait, two, three
"But UKIP are the only party who explicitly bar ex-BNP etc members"

That's because they're the only ones who need to.

Are you sure that's true or is it that they are as good at covering such things up as Jimmy, stuart, cyril covering up their paedo tendancies ?

Some are just better at covering things up

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:58:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But UKIP are the only party close enough to their position to feel a
blanket ban warranted.

That makes no sense at all

Yes, dear. Of course it doesn't.

Its just another spin and lie

Yes, dear. Of course it is.

On 14/06/16 15:37, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:58:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But UKIP are the only party close enough to their position to feel a
blanket ban warranted.

That makes no sense at all

Yes, dear. Of course it doesn't.

Its just another spin and lie

Yes, dear. Of course it is.

Good. I think if anyone is watching this thread, they will draw their
own conclusions about your behaviour, which is all that is needed


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:57:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But UKIP are the only party close enough to their position to feel a
blanket ban warranted.

That makes no sense at all

Yes, dear. Of course it doesn't.

Its just another spin and lie

Yes, dear. Of course it is.

Good. I think if anyone is watching this thread, they will draw their
own conclusions about your behaviour, which is all that is needed

Yes, they certainly will draw conclusions about the arguments each of us
are putting forward, and how the other responds.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:57:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But UKIP are the only party close enough to their position to feel a
blanket ban warranted.

That makes no sense at all

Yes, dear. Of course it doesn't.

Its just another spin and lie

Yes, dear. Of course it is.

Good. I think if anyone is watching this thread, they will draw their
own conclusions about your behaviour, which is all that is needed

Yes, they certainly will draw conclusions about the arguments each of us
are putting forward, and how the other responds.

Wonder just why Turnip is so concerned about it being said ex BNP members
are in UKIP. Their aims are very similar. As with all the right wing
they're more likely to squabble over the name and leadership than policies.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.