Search results

Post of the thread so far SB :thumbsup:

Get yer spell checker on, Grammar Skool Boy! :)

Well, lets try to help you make a little more meaning of it all by spelling it out. Firstly, the simple one-off trading relationship formalised by the NAFTA agreement is radically different to the complex relationship forged between the EU countries through a series of treaties spread over 60...

Nonsense, there are myriad factors determining where a person decides to live. You haven't the slightest inkling of his personal circumstances and motivations but irrespective of this you blindly assume that he's a hypocrite and therefore make the startling leap that his opinion is invalid. Wow...

Because the value of my opinion as an individual on the US (or yours come to that) is not validated or constrained by the party that happens to hold power in Britain or by Britain's current relationship with the EU. Similarly, it is illogical to suggest his opinion as an individual about the EU...

Of course you were being sloppy when you cherry picked. He's conveying a political message, of course he would use the language of politics to convey his objective conclusions, of course it's not the language he'd use when postulating theoretic physics.

Similar factors that led to the rise of UKIP and ultimately Brexit; absence of true statesmen within the political elite, a mixture of lack of critical thinking/gullibility/apathy amongst the populace, first past the post political system, press inspired but also natural tendency for large scale...

So you're suggesting that if the US state suddenly permitted free movement of Canadians across their border then an individual citizen's opinion would dramatically increase in value? Unbelievable.

That's very sloppy, you've cherry picked part of one sentence to prove a very weak point. Of course his intellectual capability has a direct bearing on the quality of his opinion on any subject on which he is informed.

Equating NAFTA with the EU is like comparing apples with pears. So what if the US wouldn't stand for freedom of movement with their NAFTA partners, wouldn't stand for rulings on US matters by representatives of Mexico and Canada , and wouldn't stand for laws that affected the U S being enacted...

Not 'arf!

The results of a number of our recent plebiscites more than lend support your belief however, ignoring binary absolutes, objectivity rather than subjectivity is a far truer measure of value.

Of course they are however, the degree of objectivity and/or subjectivity they employ is directly proportional to their intellect, rationality, accumulated knowledge, sense of perspective, personal experience and powers of reasoning.

Corrected for you.

The worth of an individual's opinion is judged by their intellect, rationality, accumulated knowledge, sense of perspective, personal experience, powers of reasoning and the quality of their argument. Not the place on the earth where they were born.

and yet the harsh reality is that you and people like yourself have never had a say in anything. And you never will.

Spot on. On most threads RotR comes across as Mary and you always appear on cue just like his little lamb.

Irony eh? But it's really good that you know I'll refute any of the extremist diatribe reeled out from your Gospel of Hate. NSC's very own reincarnated Ayatollah, Al-Fredmitzen-ne-Bush-y.

More echoes of the Ayatollah; you are cut from the same cloth as the extremists against which you rail. Another truism I know but there are none so blind as those that will not see.