BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Don't disagree - Trump "let's get out of here boys" isn't right - but then neither is the EU for sitting on it's hands and letting the inevitable happen.Rick Chasey wrote:Slowbike wrote:
Without wanting to sound like Trump - why should they be "the last defence" in anywhere but their own country?Rick Chasey wrote:I do feel quite strongly that this US ratified disaster in Turkey is a watershed moment where the US is no longer the last defence of barbarism (its own breaches in Vietnam etc notwithstanding).
Shouldn't the UN be sorting this - you know ... the United Nations - or even NATO?
I'd argue that the EU should have a far better leverage over the current situation ... money talks?Turkey is the EU's 5th largest trading partner, both in exports and imports. The EU is by far Turkey's number one import and export partner, as well as source of foreign direct investment (FDI).
Because some things are worth fighting for?
Come on this is obvious.
EU does not come out of this situation well, but you need to take the full context. The US has been heavily involved in this fight up untill now. 10,000 odd kurds have died helping spearhead the *US* fight against ISIS and general intervention in the area.
To give them up to Turks who have made it explicit they are looking to clense the area of Kurds is obviously terrible for all sorts of reasons.
Turkey is a member of NATO -
So if NATO cannot keep it's own members in check - what is the point of it's existence?In accordance with the Treaty, the fundamental role of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means. NATO is playing an increasingly important role in crisis management and peacekeeping0 -
That's the point I'm making. There will a new world order and it's not gonna be based around internationally recognised rules if the big players in it don't play by them.
I'm making a big macro point here.0 -
tough guy rick has me on mute, announces some things are worth fighting for. Just not by him.
would someone ask Rick what he means by somethings are worth fighting for? cause trump doesn't think American lives are worth wasting in Syria anymore. Rick thinks they are but isn't prepared to do anything personally. (other than comment of course)0 -
Perhaps since you mean you think its other people worth dying you'd be prepared to sacrifice your entire salary to pay for a soldier to go to Syria Rick or do you think other people should shoulder that burden as well?
Perhaps you could donate your pension to support a dead soldiers family, the equity in your house?
I suspect your elective interventions are less palatable when the cost is personal.0 -
I'll take that as a compliment RolfRolf F wrote:Alejandrosdog wrote:sadly most call me a Russian or a racist then block me. it suits the feeble ones hear only voices they agree with.
To be fair, most people here disagree with Stevo but I doubt they block him. If they are blocking you, you might want to have a think about why.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.0 -
I get quite a few people insisting I answer their questions but they seem to miss the point that there's no obligation for me to do that. So I sift out the plainly irrelevant/misguided ones or those that have already been answered - like the one yesterday. As I clearly explained a few times...Rolf F wrote:Is the defendants last words before he received his twelve stretch.
I do find it funny how you complain about peoples approach to argument when, of all the folk here, you have achieved mastery of never actually bothering to answer properly to any point made to you (did you ever actually admit to having put your vote in for Boris as PM?). Perhaps better to have a tangent debate than no debate at all.
Credit where it is due though. Your little number two fan seems really impressed with you today.
And no, I didn't vote for Boris as PM."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Except that in the cases I refer to, it starts out as a specific debate and then usually widens out when the other person is losing the argument or can't make a decent case on the specific issue. Sure, there are plenty of times for a debate on wider issues but what I'm talking about here is people who can't argue very well trying to move the goalposts.KingstonGraham wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:In case you hadn't noticed, there is a tendency by many on here when debating a specific issue to go off on a tangent and say things like 'oh, but we have to consider other things/what about the wider issue/etc'. Usually when they're losing the argument about the specific issue.
"Solving" a narrow issue and declaring a winner without considering wider issues is a bit esoteric."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I get quite a few people insisting I answer their questions but they seem to miss the point that there's no obligation for me to do that. So I sift out the plainly irrelevant/misguided ones or those that have already been answered - like the one yesterday. As I clearly explained a few times...Rolf F wrote:Is the defendants last words before he received his twelve stretch.
I do find it funny how you complain about peoples approach to argument when, of all the folk here, you have achieved mastery of never actually bothering to answer properly to any point made to you (did you ever actually admit to having put your vote in for Boris as PM?). Perhaps better to have a tangent debate than no debate at all.
Credit where it is due though. Your little number two fan seems really impressed with you today.
And no, I didn't vote for Boris as PM.
I'd argue that the tory party's biggest problem at the moment is that tory party voters like Stevo aren't tory party members.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
orraloon wrote:
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.
And making a point that the liberals find too uncomfortable to answer.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Except that in the cases I refer to, it starts out as a specific debate and then usually widens out when the other person is losing the argument or can't make a decent case on the specific issue. Sure, there are plenty of times for a debate on wider issues but what I'm talking about here is people who can't argue very well trying to move the goalposts.KingstonGraham wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:In case you hadn't noticed, there is a tendency by many on here when debating a specific issue to go off on a tangent and say things like 'oh, but we have to consider other things/what about the wider issue/etc'. Usually when they're losing the argument about the specific issue.
"Solving" a narrow issue and declaring a winner without considering wider issues is a bit esoteric.
I don't think there are any goalposts. The only win is helping someone think differently or someone helping you think differently.
I know you have made me think again plenty of times, but never when you narrow the argument for the sake of the win.0 -
I suppose that's a good thing but I rarely intentionally try to narrow the goalposts, more like keep them where they were placed when the match started.KingstonGraham wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Except that in the cases I refer to, it starts out as a specific debate and then usually widens out when the other person is losing the argument or can't make a decent case on the specific issue. Sure, there are plenty of times for a debate on wider issues but what I'm talking about here is people who can't argue very well trying to move the goalposts.KingstonGraham wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:In case you hadn't noticed, there is a tendency by many on here when debating a specific issue to go off on a tangent and say things like 'oh, but we have to consider other things/what about the wider issue/etc'. Usually when they're losing the argument about the specific issue.
"Solving" a narrow issue and declaring a winner without considering wider issues is a bit esoteric.
I don't think there are any goalposts. The only win is helping someone think differently or someone helping you think differently.
I know you have made me think again plenty of times, but never when you narrow the argument for the sake of the win."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yap, yap, yappity yap.Alejandrosdog wrote:orraloon wrote:
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.
And making a point that the liberals find too uncomfortable to answer.0 -
Well you could have tried to show he was wrong by answering his point...orraloon wrote:
Yap, yap, yappity yap.Alejandrosdog wrote:orraloon wrote:
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.
And making a point that the liberals find too uncomfortable to answer."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Well you could have tried to show he was wrong by answering his point...orraloon wrote:
Yap, yap, yappity yap.Alejandrosdog wrote:orraloon wrote:
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.
And making a point that the liberals find too uncomfortable to answer.
Humour it? Waste of good pixels.0 -
Robert88 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Well you could have tried to show he was wrong by answering his point...orraloon wrote:
Yap, yap, yappity yap.Alejandrosdog wrote:orraloon wrote:
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.
And making a point that the liberals find too uncomfortable to answer.
Humour it? Waste of good pixels.
When struggling to cope change tack and attempt
To ridicule. Well done. And you did it so well too.
Your next step is to get the other feeble minded to join in. Mob rule wooop well done . Oh and a few complaints to admin should do the trick too.
Pathetic. But still no answer to the point.
I suspect your frustration and disgust is not with me but with yourselves0 -
Same point to you as I made to Orraloon above. Better to engage than to be condescending: after all, if the argument is easy to win, then do it.Robert88 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Well you could have tried to show he was wrong by answering his point...orraloon wrote:
Yap, yap, yappity yap.Alejandrosdog wrote:orraloon wrote:
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.
And making a point that the liberals find too uncomfortable to answer.
Humour it? Waste of good pixels."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
orraloon wrote:
Awwwww bless. Can we just agree you have no answer?0 -
I get quite a few people insisting I answer their questions but they seem to miss the point that there's no obligation for me to do that. So I sift out the plainly irrelevant/misguided ones or those that have already been answered - like the one yesterday. As I clearly explained a few times...Stevo 666 wrote:
Well you could have tried to show he was wrong by answering his point...orraloon wrote:
Yap, yap, yappity yap.Alejandrosdog wrote:orraloon wrote:
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.
And making a point that the liberals find too uncomfortable to answer. 0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I get quite a few people insisting I answer their questions but they seem to miss the point that there's no obligation for me to do that. So I sift out the plainly irrelevant/misguided ones or those that have already been answered - like the one yesterday. As I clearly explained a few times...Rolf F wrote:Is the defendants last words before he received his twelve stretch.
I do find it funny how you complain about peoples approach to argument when, of all the folk here, you have achieved mastery of never actually bothering to answer properly to any point made to you (did you ever actually admit to having put your vote in for Boris as PM?). Perhaps better to have a tangent debate than no debate at all.
Credit where it is due though. Your little number two fan seems really impressed with you today.
And no, I didn't vote for Boris as PM.
Thanks for the clarification re Boris!
Of course you don't need to answer questions - but it does make you sound like the sort of MP interviewed on TV that refuses to answer the question and who everyone wants to kick! And, of course, if you don't answer questions it kind of craps up the debate and puts you in a weak position when you want to have a go at how others are contributing to the debate!
@ Adog - nope, not planning on moving to Scotland. Just because you understand and sympathise with another point of view doesn't mean you agree with it (you should try this approach sometime - you might find that even people who don't agree with you can be nice to know) and it isn't a justification to emigrate (nor donate your salary to a cause).Faster than a tent.......0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Same point to you as I made to Orraloon above. Better to engage than to be condescending: after all, if the argument is easy to win, then do it.Robert88 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Well you could have tried to show he was wrong by answering his point...orraloon wrote:
Yap, yap, yappity yap.Alejandrosdog wrote:orraloon wrote:
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.
And making a point that the liberals find too uncomfortable to answer.
Humour it? Waste of good pixels.
I do apologise if I sounded condescending; I only meant to be insulting.0 -
Robert88 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Same point to you as I made to Orraloon above. Better to engage than to be condescending: after all, if the argument is easy to win, then do it.Robert88 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Well you could have tried to show he was wrong by answering his point...orraloon wrote:
Yap, yap, yappity yap.Alejandrosdog wrote:orraloon wrote:
Wouldn't worry about it, the dog is just yapping away as per usual.Rick Chasey wrote:If you're replying to me dog I have you on mute so save your efforts.
And making a point that the liberals find too uncomfortable to answer.
Humour it? Waste of good pixels.
I do apologise if I sounded condescending; I only meant to be insulting.
Id say you were more immature than insulting.0 -
Well since you asked Rolf, there was never any real debate about the short term impact of a no deal Brexit and I've said that before on here. So the answer was already there. I also patiently explained that I was talking about long term forecasts but that didn't seem to change the questioners persistence. I guess he figured I was someone who voted to leave who was trying to say that there was no short term economic downside and he was mistakenly looking to 'score a point'.Rolf F wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I get quite a few people insisting I answer their questions but they seem to miss the point that there's no obligation for me to do that. So I sift out the plainly irrelevant/misguided ones or those that have already been answered - like the one yesterday. As I clearly explained a few times...Rolf F wrote:Is the defendants last words before he received his twelve stretch.
I do find it funny how you complain about peoples approach to argument when, of all the folk here, you have achieved mastery of never actually bothering to answer properly to any point made to you (did you ever actually admit to having put your vote in for Boris as PM?). Perhaps better to have a tangent debate than no debate at all.
Credit where it is due though. Your little number two fan seems really impressed with you today.
And no, I didn't vote for Boris as PM.
Thanks for the clarification re Boris!
Of course you don't need to answer questions - but it does make you sound like the sort of MP interviewed on TV that refuses to answer the question and who everyone wants to kick! And, of course, if you don't answer questions it kind of craps up the debate and puts you in a weak position when you want to have a go at how others are contributing to the debate!
That said, he does have form for having a bit of attitude with me so I thought he could benefit from thinking about it and doing a bit of searching on the thread
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
(won't take credit for this)
There was once a party called DUP
Who were against Ireland's unity
"No" they did squeal
On seeing May's deal
Then Johnson drew a border in the sea.0 -
Surely the DUP would never vote for it?0
-
A lot depends on whether there is a legitimate concept of consent.0
-
The NI only backstop won't be the thing that prevents it passing.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
TailWindHome wrote:The NI only backstop won't be the thing that prevents it passing.
What will then?0
