OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

I read your posts properly, and I notice in this instance that once again your 'interesting piece of research' isn't cited, my general assumption in such cases is'if it ain't cited its false news'. On a couple of occasions I've called you out on this and you've gone a bit quiet.

Tbf Andy, Swale usually fights his corner pretty well and is a very long way from being the worst when it comes to going a 'bit quiet' or into 'hiding' when challenged. I'm still awaiting responses after being 'called out' on a couple of occasions by one particular contributor.
Always quick to accuse...rather slower to react when the accusation is questioned.

[swaledale]

I read your posts properly, and I notice in this instance that once again your 'interesting piece of research' isn't cited, my general assumption in such cases is'if it ain't cited its false news'. On a couple of occasions I've called you out on this and you've gone a bit quiet.

I generally give up tbh, can't be arsed but for you Andy.-

https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../...-or-yours-is-h...

[Andy_Faber]

I generally give up tbh, can't be arsed but for you Andy.-

https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../...-or-yours-is-h...

appreciate the sentiment although the link didn't work. Seriously though, a bit of backup to some of your deeply held convictions would help the debate

[swaledale]

Well google it!

Point taken I will endeavour to provide some back up to my points of view for those that will be bothered to read it.

[ramAnag]

Moving on...and I'm not backing this up with anything at all...but watching Andrew Marr this morning, Rachel Johnson and Owen Jones - the one who looks about fourteen but knows his stuff - talked total sense imo. Think we must have got the siblings horribly mixed up, Boris the bumbling buffoon somehow becomes foreign secretary - just terrifying at the moment - while Rachel, the infinitely more articulate and intelligent - though obviously less Machiavellian one - is wasted as a journalist. Still at least she's made the right party choice.

[swaledale]

there is a saying that the best leaders are not those who want the job

“Because sometimes the best leaders are the ones who have no interest in leading. Those are often the ones who are most interested in doing what is right, not what is popular.”
― Joelle Charbonneau, Independent Study

[ramAnag]

Good quote Swale...very apposite. Think Andy might want a page reference though.

[Trickytreesreds]

Jesus Swale, I despair at your rants at times.

You don't agree that Abbott makes racist remarks?
1. Black mothers are better?
2. White people are all about divide and conquer?
3. Blonde blue eyed Finnish nurses
4.Black mums love their kids more than white mums?
5. If there are redundancies, then white people should be laid off first?

FFS Swale, how you defend this outed racist(this is how you spell it) is beyond me.

[swaledale]

Jesus Swale, I despair at your rants at times.

You don't agree that Abbott makes racist remarks?
1. Black mothers are better?
2. White people are all about divide and conquer?
3. Blonde blue eyed Finnish nurses
4.Black mums love their kids more than white mums?
5. If there are redundancies, then white people should be laid off first?

FFS Swale, how you defend this outed racist(this is how you spell it) is beyond me.

Of course its beyond you, after all your liberal open minded view of the world has been demonstrated many times in your well researched and erudite posts!

Its ironic when a racist xenophobe complains about racism!

[Andy_Faber]

Its ironic when a racist xenophobe complains about racism!

Swale, the last three people you have had prolonged disagreement with on this forum you have resorted to calling names - specifically a prick, a prat and a xenophobe. You've recently agreed to stop pedalling your 'facts' as such without suggesting the source, now try putting an end to the name-calling eh? Its a sure sign of someone unsure of his line of reasoning

[swaledale]

Swale, the last three people you have had prolonged disagreement with on this forum you have resorted to calling names - specifically a prick, a prat and a xenophobe. You've recently agreed to stop pedalling your 'facts' as such without suggesting the source, now try putting an end to the name-calling eh? Its a sure sign of someone unsure of his line of reasoning

No actually i said I'd provide a source for you, If people suspect that what I say aren't facts then they are welcome to get off their lazy arses and do their own research, for your information i don't peddle anything, i just provide a counter argument to the fake *******s that is often posted on here. Nowhere have i agreed to provide a source, simply because my information is gathered from a variety of sources and not just the fake news and biased crap in some media and a lot of the internet.

Really so name calling eh? - well in Tricky's case its actually a factual label based purely on the racist, xenophobic stuff he posts, anyone of average intelligence, no matter what ones political views can see that if they wish to.

I called you a prick because you were being a smart arse in refusing to answer my reasonable request for clarification - not because i was losing any argument and if I called someone a prat then they were most likely acting or posting like one.

So your theory rather falls down at the first hurdle as I haven't resorted to calling people names, I have dome that consciously and deliberately and IMO appropriately to.

[Andy_Faber]

[QUOTE=swaledale;

So your theory rather falls down at the first hurdle as I haven't resorted to calling people names, I have done that consciously and deliberately and IMO appropriately too.[/QUOTE]

So, let me just get this straight, you haven't called people names, but you have. Are you Diane Abbott's spin doctor?

[swaledale]

So, let me just get this straight, you haven't called people names, but you have. Are you Diane Abbott's spin doctor?

Read the post, I said I haven't resorted to calling people names which was the thrust of your post, as if in desperation because I'm losing an argument I then resort, that is turn to, calling people names, whereas as i quite clearly explained it was not me resorting to calling a person a name it was a conscious decision.

Hopefully that clears that up or do I need to dumb down for the audience?

No one could be Diane Abbott's spin doctor, though in her defence the inability to tell the facts or to put a slant on things according to ones political agenda is equally applicable to politicians of all persuasions even "strong and stable leader" May as her "red white and blue brexit" comment speaks absolute tosh at times!

[Andy_Faber]

Read the post, I said I haven't resorted to calling people names which was the thrust of your post, as if in desperation because I'm losing an argument I then resort, that is turn to, calling people names, whereas as i quite clearly explained it was not me resorting to calling a person a name it was a conscious decision.

Hopefully that clears that up or do I need to dumb down for the audience?

No one could be Diane Abbott's spin doctor, though in her defence the inability to tell the facts or to put a slant on things according to ones political agenda is equally applicable to politicians of all persuasions even "strong and stable leader" May as her "red white and blue brexit" comment speaks absolute tosh at times!

there we agree. Abbott and May share the problem of trying to defend the indefensible, the problem for labour is that Abbott tried to explain and ****ed it up big time, May has been coached to avoid ****ing up first, give proper answers second. On a related subject, I'm really surprised that labour, and even more so the SNP, didn't make a big issue that they tried to treat PMQ's as a genuine device of parliament, whereas the Tories merely jeered, sneered and guffawed like tits at Mays set-piece and drainingly unfunny put-downs.

[swaledale]

there we agree. Abbott and May share the problem of trying to defend the indefensible, the problem for labour is that Abbott tried to explain and ****ed it up big time, May has been coached to avoid ****ing up first, give proper answers second. On a related subject, I'm really surprised that labour, and even more so the SNP, didn't make a big issue that they tried to treat PMQ's as a genuine device of parliament, whereas the Tories merely jeered, sneered and guffawed like tits at Mays set-piece and drainingly unfunny put-downs.

Therein lies the problem with what I call authentic politicians, having been shot down for calling them straight - they will get things wrong and appear unpolished, whereas your polished performers are basically performing robots - every Tory Mp tries to get "strong and stable leadership" into every answer, even if its where does one go for a **** round here!

Was it not that young SNP MP Mairi black (apologies if spelling is wrong) who said she didn't want to stand again because parliament is so archaic and full of mysterious archane procedures which makes getting anything done quickly impossible?

Now thats the voice of the young, because if you want to get an idea across or even considered, it takes a good deal or debate and compromise, which takes time and they find that tedious! but equally there is a lot of unnecessary and frankly ridiculous stuff that goes on in parliament which is not conducive to good government.

Not sure that may necessarily gives proper answers but she does avoid putting foot in mouth too many times, whereas with Abbott and Corbyn, sometimes they seem to be permanently biting their toes!