UKIP - The Future - Volume 2

[TKF]

PRTVR said:

league67 said:

While on the subject, do you think it's ok to run posters clearly designed to play on people's fears?

People have fears already, all the poster does is show them in a pictorial media,
Fear as a political tool appears the norm and has been for many years, the lib dems appear to be pushing the fear of massive job losses if we pull out of the EU.

If the cap fits...

[WinstonWolf]

league67 said:

All equally bad. Not better not worse. Beyond criticism. Every single one of them. Please tell me that there is another point 'Oh they were all doing it too'.

league67 said:

While on the subject, do you think it's ok to run posters clearly designed to play on people's fears?

[Bill]

league67 said:

All equally bad. Not better not worse. Beyond criticism. Every single one of them. Please tell me that there is another point apart from; 'Oh they were all doing it too'.

To be fair, the one with Blair was strangely prescient.

[TKF]

league67 said:

Why do you think that voting against equal pay for women is hilarious?

Still waiting for an answer on that one. And the ivory trade question.

Apparently they are "researching".

[don4l]

league67 said:

don4l said:

<snip>

They are all afflicted with extreme cognitive dissonance.

<snip>

Ah finally, you found the box in which to put EVERYONE who disagrees with UKIP/NF. Well done. Such sweeping generalization is obviously true. Simple solutions to simple problems, eh.

Did you watch the broadcast?

Of course not!

Your cognitative disonance will have made it impossible to watch it the whole way through.

If you want to pretend that you did watch it, then you will be able to tell us which bits you agreed with... and also which bits you disagreed with.

You won't be able to do this because you were not able to watch it.

You might think that this post is a "challenge", but it isn't. You still won't be able to watch it, even if it means that you could prove me wrong.

Cognitave dissonance is incredibly strong.

[league67]

WinstonWolf said:

league67 said:

All equally bad. Not better not worse. Beyond criticism. Every single one of them. Please tell me that there is another point 'Oh they were all doing it too'.

league67 said:

While on the subject, do you think it's ok to run posters clearly designed to play on people's fears?

And that would make perfect sense if you could link that up where I said that any other party didn't run posters that play on people's fears.

Unlike you, I don't worship people. In my book people / parties are not beyond questioning. This thread is about UKIP. That does not imply that any other party, other parties, or leaders are beyond questioning.

How do you not get that?

[eharding]

don4l said:

cognitative disonance

don4l said:

Cognitave dissonance.

Come on Grandad, have another stab at it. Third time lucky. Perhaps.

[league67]

don4l said:

league67 said:

don4l said:

<snip>

They are all afflicted with extreme cognitive dissonance.

<snip>

Ah finally, you found the box in which to put EVERYONE who disagrees with UKIP/NF. Well done. Such sweeping generalization is obviously true. Simple solutions to simple problems, eh.

Did you watch the broadcast?

Of course not!

Your cognitative disonance will have made it impossible to watch it the whole way through.

If you want to pretend that you did watch it, then you will be able to tell us which bits you agreed with... and also which bits you disagreed with.

You won't be able to do this because you were not able to watch it.

You might think that this post is a "challenge", but it isn't. You still won't be able to watch it, even if it means that you could prove me wrong.

Cognitave dissonance is incredibly strong.

Is it cognitative or cognitave? Let's get back to your question. I don't watch ANY party broadcasts, the same way I skip the adverts for, well pretty much everything. I'll repeat it, this time imagine it's in huge Times Roman (72p); If you said 'most' that would make more sense, it would make your position more sustainable. Saying 'all', as in 'everyone who disagrees with me' is ridiculous.

Capisce?

[santona1937]

otolith said:

Mojocvh said:

Are you French? because if you are not, I very much doubt that you can actually understand the proper nuances of that "NF" manifesto......

He will fail to hear the sifflets à ultrason pour chiens?

I live/ work in a town not too far from Beziers, which is a strong centre on the Med for the FN. And I do understand the nuances and overtones of the FN manifesto.

[einsign]

For some of the Progressive Liberals on here.

[WinstonWolf]

league67 said:

WinstonWolf said:

league67 said:

All equally bad. Not better not worse. Beyond criticism. Every single one of them. Please tell me that there is another point 'Oh they were all doing it too'.

league67 said:

While on the subject, do you think it's ok to run posters clearly designed to play on people's fears?

And that would make perfect sense if you could link that up where I said that any other party didn't run posters that play on people's fears.

Unlike you, I don't worship people. In my book people / parties are not beyond questioning. This thread is about UKIP. That does not imply that any other party, other parties, or leaders are beyond questioning.

How do you not get that?

Wanting a change in politics does not equate to worship. How did you not get that?

[league67]

Bill said:

To be fair, the one with Blair was strangely prescient.

I had to look up that word. But please, whatever you do, don't get me started on that vacuous twunt.

[otolith]

league67 said:

All equally bad. Not better not worse. Beyond criticism. Every single one of them. Please tell me that there is another point apart from; 'Oh they were all doing it too'.

You need another point? They will do it again, too. It's the way the game is played.

[WinstonWolf]

league67 said:

Bill said:

To be fair, the one with Blair was strangely prescient.

I had to look up that word. But please, whatever you do, don't get me started on that vacuous twunt.

Whoah, now hold on just a goddamn minute, you do realise what my old name on here was???

[PRTVR]

TKF said:

PRTVR said:

league67 said:

While on the subject, do you think it's ok to run posters clearly designed to play on people's fears?

People have fears already, all the poster does is show them in a pictorial media,
Fear as a political tool appears the norm and has been for many years, the lib dems appear to be pushing the fear of massive job losses if we pull out of the EU.

If the cap fits...

The problem is still the same,
Last year there was a situation where a team of polish workers were brought in, the local lads were told that they would do their job for minimum wages and if they wanted to keep their jobs they would have to work for the same pay, the fears that people have are real.

[otolith]

santona1937 said:

I live/ work in a town not too far from Beziers, which is a strong centre on the Med for the FN. And I do understand the nuances and overtones of the FN manifesto.

Your hearing should be impeccable, then - though of course the point of dog whistles is that only your supporters really pick up on them.

[NicD]

DT reports:

Rebellion is brewing against the political elite that has ruined Europe
'The idiot in Brussels' and his like may keep their jobs for now, but trust is evaporating fast

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...

[don4l]

league67 said:

don4l said:

league67 said:

don4l said:

<snip>

They are all afflicted with extreme cognitive dissonance.

<snip>

Ah finally, you found the box in which to put EVERYONE who disagrees with UKIP/NF. Well done. Such sweeping generalization is obviously true. Simple solutions to simple problems, eh.

Did you watch the broadcast?

Of course not!

Your cognitative disonance will have made it impossible to watch it the whole way through.

If you want to pretend that you did watch it, then you will be able to tell us which bits you agreed with... and also which bits you disagreed with.

You won't be able to do this because you were not able to watch it.

You might think that this post is a "challenge", but it isn't. You still won't be able to watch it, even if it means that you could prove me wrong.

Cognitave dissonance is incredibly strong.

Is it cognitative or cognitave? Let's get back to your question. I don't watch ANY party broadcasts, the same way I skip the adverts for, well pretty much everything. I'll repeat it, this time imagine it's in huge Times Roman (72p); If you said 'most' that would make more sense, it would make your position more sustainable. Saying 'all', as in 'everyone who disagrees with me' is ridiculous.

Capisce?

It is, of course, cognitave,

I apologise for my spelling mistake. I don't use a spell checker.

I said that you would not be able to watch this UKIP broadcast.

It seems that I was correct.

[santona1937]

otolith said:

santona1937 said:

I live/ work in a town not too far from Beziers, which is a strong centre on the Med for the FN. And I do understand the nuances and overtones of the FN manifesto.

Your hearing should be impeccable, then - though of course the point of dog whistles is that only your supporters really pick up on them.

my main point being that with similar policies to UKIP the FN took Beziers with 45 % of the vote, and Perpignan with around 40%.
The PS ( left socialists) has been practically wiped out as a political force, and the FN has picked up votes upon which for many years the left could count , primarily amongst the blue collar workers.
AS this is a thread about the future of UKIP it is quite possible that UKIP could end up the 3rd political party, and the Lib Dems fade away.

[league67]

don4l said:

It is, of course, cognitave,

I apologise for my spelling mistake. I don't use a spell checker.

I said that you would not be able to watch this UKIP broadcast.

It seems that I was correct.

This is getting tedious. Yes, you are almost correct. I make a choice not to watch political broadcasts. OF ANY PARTY. So, if you said, 'you would not be able to watch Tory, Lib-Dem or Labour party broadcast, you would be equally correct. No more no less. I have no interest in self-advertising. If you said; 'you would not be able to watch <insert random horror movie here>' in that case you'd be completely correct.

(This is partly answer to you, hopefully, partly to whoever was posting those sad campaign posters.)