General Erection - 12th December 2019

[philpvfc]

13 hours ago, mr.hobblesworth said:

More lies. Most dishonest election campaign ever from the tories. Utter scum.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/01/facebook-bans-tories-distorted-party-advert-with-laura-kuenssberg

Possibly is the most dishonest but unfortunately it has come to that to beat Corbyn at his own game. 

[Jacko51]

9 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

I don’t want to go through all these pages but you are forever sharing links from left wing bull <ovf censored> material. 

I remember last election when I listened to what you had to say and decided not to vote Conservative based off your crap. All you said would happen did not, I cannot remember all the <ovf censored> you said but I can remember you saying if the Conservatives get in we will see fox hunting legalised again, which turned out to be a lie as it was never even put to the vote.

you are a member of the Labour Party with access to loads of left wing fake news and unfortunately you share a lot of it on hear.

If you want to reach a rational conclusion in any debate you have to look at both sides of the argument rather than restrict yourself to reading stuff that agrees with you.  That's why I read the Daily Heil!

[philpvfc]

Just now, Jacko51 said:

If you want to reach a rational conclusion in any debate you have to look at both sides of the argument rather than restrict yourself to reading stuff that agrees with you.  That's why I read the Daily Heil!

Agree.

[philpvfc]

I tend do read BBC news and Sky News which are pretty well middle ground. BBC news is very pro remain, Sky gives a lot fairer report.

[philpvfc]

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

An online test to see which party to vote for based on your preferences. 

Although I don’t affiliate myself with any party the test showed I had a small agreement with Liberal and equally large agreement with the Brexit Party and Conservative and not one agreement with Labour. You may recognise some of the party answers before you complete but best to keep a neutral mind before deciding.

 

 

[Regal Beagle]

59 minutes ago, mr.hobblesworth said:

Show me some fake news I posted please.

He has me ignored because he doesnt like it when I call out discrimination apparently?

But what about that demonstrably fake rabbi letter you posted last week? 

[mr.hobblesworth]

1 hour ago, mr.hobblesworth said:

Show me some fake news I posted please.

Ah, so I haven't posted fake news claiming it's factual, just pointed out tory lies? Cool. I don't know whether I'd like to buy you a drink or pour one over you head! 

[philpvfc]

13 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

He has me ignored because he doesnt like it when I call out discrimination apparently?

But what about that demonstrably fake rabbi letter you posted last week? 

 

[philpvfc]

3 minutes ago, mr.hobblesworth said:

Ah, so I haven't posted fake news claiming it's factual, just pointed out tory lies? Cool. I don't know whether I'd like to buy you a drink or pour one over you head! 

You can certainly buy me one and you can try and pour one over my head.

[Bycarsbill]

1 hour ago, philpvfc said:

Says mr Fake news himself

 

1 hour ago, mr.hobblesworth said:

Show me some fake news I posted please.

Like your insistence on peddling Labour's line about tax rises only for the top 5%.  This myth has been shown to be totally inaccurate by virtually every rational, objective commentator and economist--and I don't just mean on here!

[Bycarsbill]

2 hours ago, mr.hobblesworth said:

Unlike yourself too with your constant regurgitation of lies and misinformation.

Unlike yourself you mean?  You are probably one of the the biggest fake news broadcasters on here.  Far too much of what you spew out is purely opinion based, just as is the case with most fake-news.  Unfortunately, a good deal of social media is now based (and Mr. Trump is one of the biggest exponents of this) purely on biased opinion instead of specific fact. Don't know whether you caught David Mitchell on the Graham Norton show last Friday? Watch it if you can--he summed it up very neatly!

The Sage in terms of political leaning is very much on your wing, but unlike you (see the posts between him and me above) he and I try to deal as much as possible in facts and not just opinion.  As we both acknowledge, we are probably never going to see eye to eye with our different opinions about the two leaders and political parties, but at least we can agree to disagree in a civilised way without resorting to name-calling and childish insults as you tend to do all too often--particularly, I note, when you're losing an argument. If you'd like to challenge any of my specific economic facts above, then please feel free to do so.

[Regal Beagle]

2 hours ago, Bycarsbill said:

 

Like your insistence on peddling Labour's line about tax rises only for the top 5%.  This myth has been shown to be totally inaccurate by virtually every rational, objective commentator and economist--and I don't just mean on here!

Also confirmed as false by....corbyn and McDonnell in recent interviews.

[Andyregs]

23 hours ago, geosname said:

As it's off topic I will give this last reply.

The article does not state precisely how the information is gathered or compared, the meat they specifically talk about is beef, pork, poultry. I doubt it considers other types of none produced meat, rat, snake, dog, turtle, scorpions, locusts, silk worm, ants, land crabs and many others, all of which are consumed here and many other eastern countries..... meat is not a luxury here, the comment that it is is incorrect.

No it’s not incorrect. You just gave a localised anecdote. 

[TheSage]

4 hours ago, philpvfc said:

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

A bit of fun but takes a while to do it seriously.

Seems I'm a Lib-Dem with a bit of a Green and Red tint.

[TheSage]

19 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

Also, is th NY times the same one whose largest individual shareholder, Carlos Slim, bankrolled Hillary Clinton's campaign against Trump and has endorsed every single democrat candidate for over 70 years?

Is there any reason why your source is better than mine?

It was a simple statement of fact, not a point scoring anti-Tory diatribe. I wasn't seeking to make a political point. I was only repeating the broad thrust of the editorial that suggested that politics in the UK has descended into the gutter, with which I agree.