UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
steveT350C said:
So yet again the anti-kippers, including the BBC and a lot of MSM, have to scrabble around and resort to using sliced up, edited quotes to create a negative UKIP stance rather than engaging in proper debates about real issues.
Business as usual.
No, they aren't 'sliced up edited quotes'. He said something daft then tried to cover his tracks and made it worse. A bit like Scuffers has been doing with his last few (comedy gold) contributions.Business as usual.
The "real issue" is that Farage is a populist who makes ill-thought out statements which appeal to his reactionary old fart demographic and the old farts lap it up. I love it: The more stratospherically stupid Farage's comments are and the more stupid the responses of his sycophants (like you) become, the more likely that normal rational people will see through him.
Keep up the good work.
King 
said:
said:steveT350C said:
So yet again the anti-kippers, including the BBC and a lot of MSM, have to scrabble around and resort to using sliced up, edited quotes to create a negative UKIP stance rather than engaging in proper debates about real issues.
Business as usual.
No, they aren't 'sliced up edited quotes'. He said something daft then tried to cover his tracks and made it worse. A bit like Scuffers has been doing with his last few (comedy gold) contributions.Business as usual.
The "real issue" is that Farage is a populist who makes ill-thought out statements which appeal to his reactionary old fart demographic and the old farts lap it up. I love it: The more stratospherically stupid Farage's comments are and the more stupid the responses of his sycophants (like you) become, the more likely that normal rational people will see through him.
Keep up the good work.
Scuffers said:
Mojocvh said:
Perhaps a PH probationary period would help sort out the wheat from the chaff?
Good idea..I really do wonder how such people get on in the real world with their apparent inability to read/listen
Greg66 said:
That comment makes literally no sense.
scuffers said:
it does if you have half a brain...
I hope for your sake they don't include an intelligence test.King said:
said:Scuffers said:
Mojocvh said:
Perhaps a PH probationary period would help sort out the wheat from the chaff?
Good idea..I really do wonder how such people get on in the real world with their apparent inability to read/listen
Greg66 said:
That comment makes literally no sense.
scuffers said:
it does if you have half a brain...
I hope for your sake they don't include an intelligence test.Art0ir said:
Meanwhile 54% of the public recognise a bias against ukip in the media.
That's a relief. I thought it was just me and a few other fruit cakes here that thought that. 
http://order-order.com/2014/12/05/public-think-lib...
King said:
said:s2art said:
Looking foolish to who? Almost everybody agrees with Farage, its only the hard of thinking and the professionally outraged that seem to find anything wrong with what he said.
No they don't.Farage's statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, he contradicted himself. Anyone 'agreeing' with it clearly doesn't understand what he actually said.
I'm no more outraged than Gregg66, the whole thing is stupid, but it encapsulates Farage's weakness for shooting his mouth off with no thought for consequences. Have you ever seen a woman performing "ostentatious breast feeding" FFS. It'd be funny if he wasn't seeking political power.
And it's 'looking foolish to whom'.
Not sure if it's already been posted, but http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11275067...
TKF said:
Not sure if it's already been posted, but http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11275067...
I got 83%.Reading King
's drivel made me think of another telegraph article.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
King said:
said:Art0ir said:
Sigh. Another name to add to the "Do not attempt rational debate with" list.
Sigh. Another one unable to argue substantive points resorting to ad hominem insults.You're on my 'continue to point out his weak arguments' list.
Farage said:
"I remarked that perhaps they might ask women to sit in a corner. Did I say I believe they should have to? No. Did I say I personally endorse this concept? No."
Which doesn't even make sense. Like not having his cake and not eating it either. He suggests that *perhaps* they might ask her to sit in the corner.
He says he doesn't believe they should *have* to do this.
He says he doesn't endorse the above concepts.
None of those statements contradict each other, so Im not sure why you say it doesn't make sense.
We are back to you misrepresenting your thoughts/assumptions/presumptions as facts when it isn't true.
You did say you wished to continue pointing out weak arguments. Im assisting you in your task
Greg66 said:
Scuffers said:
here we go again!
OK, remind us again exactly what NF said and what exactly was so wrong about it?
seems to me you are just being the same predictable simpleton that most of the MSM are.
Now, now, half-a-brain. Calm down. OK, remind us again exactly what NF said and what exactly was so wrong about it?
seems to me you are just being the same predictable simpleton that most of the MSM are.
St Nigel has been busy rowing back today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30342953:
"Let me get this clear, as I said on the radio and as I repeat now, I personally have no problem with mothers breastfeeding wherever they want," he said. "If the establishment in question, in this case Claridge's, wants to maintain rules about this stuff, then that is up to them, as it should be.
"I remarked that perhaps they might ask women to sit in a corner. Did I say I believe they should have to? No. Did I say I personally endorse this concept? No."
A-ha. So it's ok for a private establishment to ask a breast feeding woman to sit in the corner.
And he thinks it's OK for the woman to refuse.
Well, at least that should please everyone. Or no one.
The reality is that he's got himself into a frightful muddle over what is really a completely inconsequential non-story, precisely because, as I said earlier, he does not have a keen control over what leaves his mouth. You might consider that a strength of his. I consider it marks him out as something of a clown.
Greg66 said:
Scuffers said:
right, so what he actually said is OK then?
(in my books I really don't see a problem with what he said, even if you try and misunderstand it)
was I interpret his comments is it's a free country and people are free to make their own decisions without having to have our politicians make rules for such things.
If the establishment owners wish to have a policy on this, then that's up to them, if customers don't like it, they are not forced to enter said premises (how is this any different from places that enforce dress codes?)
you seem to be intent on being offended?
hence my feeling you're a simpleton.
To coin a phrase that I last heard used by my late father, you really are as dim as a Toch H lamp, aren't you? (in my books I really don't see a problem with what he said, even if you try and misunderstand it)
was I interpret his comments is it's a free country and people are free to make their own decisions without having to have our politicians make rules for such things.
If the establishment owners wish to have a policy on this, then that's up to them, if customers don't like it, they are not forced to enter said premises (how is this any different from places that enforce dress codes?)
you seem to be intent on being offended?
hence my feeling you're a simpleton.
I haven't said I'm offended.
What he actually said was stupid, as he appears to recognise now.
It's a shame you don't.
And I'm going to assume. in your favour, that the bit in bold is just careless thinking or careless expression on your part, because otherwise it's about two steps away from endorsing the "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish"-type signs of old outside certain establishments.
Edited by Greg66 on Friday 5th December 21:33
Where you fall down with this logic is the attempted equating of those prejudiced against (Blacks, Irish) who had no power or ability to challenge said position with ladies in this case, but rather importantly they have a very large degree of power to enforce how much dosh Claridges gets out of them. The "ladies who lunch" being in fact a major economic demographic of the Claridge lunchtime custom. Ergo Scuffers point is absolutely, 100% entirely valid as it is the persecuted parties who DO hold the ultimate power of sanction here. Which segues us nicely into King's point on the last page of whether this is a PR own goal for Claridge...have they alienated their female clientele?
My instinct personally says no. The ladies of sufficient economic firepower who indulge at Claridges invariably by and large view life differently to others. I suspect they would prefer to side with Claridges than with the lady. I stress this is my instinct, I accept I may be entirely wrong and that Claridges will suffer economically as a result of this.
DJRC said:
Except its not really is it?
Where you fall down with this logic is the attempted equating of those prejudiced against (Blacks, Irish) who had no power or ability to challenge said position with ladies in this case, but rather importantly they have a very large degree of power to enforce how much dosh Claridges gets out of them. The "ladies who lunch" being in fact a major economic demographic of the Claridge lunchtime custom. Ergo Scuffers point is absolutely, 100% entirely valid as it is the persecuted parties who DO hold the ultimate power of sanction here. Which segues us nicely into King's point on the last page of whether this is a PR own goal for Claridge...have they alienated their female clientele?
My instinct personally says no. The ladies of sufficient economic firepower who indulge at Claridges invariably by and large view life differently to others. I suspect they would prefer to side with Claridges than with the lady. I stress this is my instinct, I accept I may be entirely wrong and that Claridges will suffer economically as a result of this.
far ,far, too rational a post for a ukip thread Where you fall down with this logic is the attempted equating of those prejudiced against (Blacks, Irish) who had no power or ability to challenge said position with ladies in this case, but rather importantly they have a very large degree of power to enforce how much dosh Claridges gets out of them. The "ladies who lunch" being in fact a major economic demographic of the Claridge lunchtime custom. Ergo Scuffers point is absolutely, 100% entirely valid as it is the persecuted parties who DO hold the ultimate power of sanction here. Which segues us nicely into King's point on the last page of whether this is a PR own goal for Claridge...have they alienated their female clientele?
My instinct personally says no. The ladies of sufficient economic firepower who indulge at Claridges invariably by and large view life differently to others. I suspect they would prefer to side with Claridges than with the lady. I stress this is my instinct, I accept I may be entirely wrong and that Claridges will suffer economically as a result of this.
steveT350C said:
So yet again the anti-kippers, including the BBC and a lot of MSM, have to scrabble around and resort to using sliced up, edited quotes to create a negative UKIP stance rather than engaging in proper debates about real issues.
Business as usual.
well it is a far more important an issue than say a tory mp being accused of rape Business as usual.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff