Lighten up there Woosh we are all aware of how the world works and Zlatan was on his Swamp clearing crusade again.
We are old enough to have developed a thick skin too or we should never have become Engineers in the first place.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
We are old enough to have developed a thick skin too or we should never have become Engineers in the first place.
I meant posting with the same respect for laws, same on internet media as printed media. We can perfectly exchange points of view without verbal violence. For example, you may say 'this point of view is xenophobic' but you can't say the poster is. Otherwise you should go post on breibart or the canary.
Difference being OG I insult you as an individual and with ample evidence for the insult...I dont cart blanche insult all leavers...ir all tories...but well spotted..no flies on you...!
Unless you are talking about me or OG ?
And OG if my memory serves me ( which it rarely does) it wasn't Tw@t it was Pr!ck,there is a big difference but I,ve met a few who don't care which...
And I did apologise... I think..( only occasionally before you say it)
Last edited:
neither.
I watched with interest the BBC reportage on Cambridge Analytica and the campaign to elect Donald Trump. The keypoint is that the campaign uses internet platforms (FB, Twitter, Google etc) to convince voters. The reason they can do so with appropriate messages is because those internet media are given a legal exception, not being treated as publishers. They don't have to remove offensive material and fake news or bot accounts.
You see? my confidence in your ability to defeat yourself in an argument (even a circular one)remains a perfect score.
Always a pleasure watching these one man debates of yours.
Sincere Congratulations are in order, top man.
Au Contraire mon ami That has never stopped the Daily Mail or Express in the past, now has it?
But essentially I agree about Cambridge Analytica
Fascinating, I see you are still able to defeat yourself in a circular argument, but can you clarify that last line for me?
Is it case of either/or both when only occasionally thinking or Apologising?
And look where and what that has got us..be careful OG ...you nearly agreed with Zlatan...offered evidence to support his circular argument ???
Nearly agreed with Zlatan as in the context Zlatan being me?
I was under the impression I was responding to Woosh.
Possibly ??
I realised your reply was to Woosh...but the point reflected an agreement with my premise.
That's pretty deep for you, are you wearing a snorkel?
Ever since you built that submarine it's been hard to tell if your arguments are not merely coming at us from every side, but from below the surface too.
this morning's example of fake news to keep the faithful on side from the Daily Mail
"
Brexit migration blueprint revealed: Massive Home Office leak of 'extremely sensitive' plans shows end of free movement for EU workers heading to Britain
"Officials have produced at least six subsequent versions, the source added. The measures are likely to be watered down as part of Brexit talks.
Campaigners for controlled migration and Tory MPs hailed the proposals, saying they reflected the public’s demands for an end to mass immigration."
Comical really, the effort being put into giving the illusion that the EU are being browbeaten by our demands.
Even more comical is the notion that this Government has either the intention or ability to control immigration.
It can't even over the ones it already has complete power over can it?
We will simply end up having to recruit from non EU refugees as the EU people are already either leaving or not applying for work here.
Ignore the "Chaff" for the fans of Celebrity Gossip on this front page, the serious message it carries is a warning
And this is only the beginning.
"
Brexit migration blueprint revealed: Massive Home Office leak of 'extremely sensitive' plans shows end of free movement for EU workers heading to Britain
- Entire 82-page document on Britain's immigration proposals was leaked tonight
- The document insists in future immigration must benefit Britain as a whole
- It makes clear free movement will be axed immediately after Brexit happens
- The proposals are tougher than many had expected Britain to suggest imposing
"Officials have produced at least six subsequent versions, the source added. The measures are likely to be watered down as part of Brexit talks.
Campaigners for controlled migration and Tory MPs hailed the proposals, saying they reflected the public’s demands for an end to mass immigration."
Comical really, the effort being put into giving the illusion that the EU are being browbeaten by our demands.
Even more comical is the notion that this Government has either the intention or ability to control immigration.
It can't even over the ones it already has complete power over can it?
We will simply end up having to recruit from non EU refugees as the EU people are already either leaving or not applying for work here.
Ignore the "Chaff" for the fans of Celebrity Gossip on this front page, the serious message it carries is a warning
And this is only the beginning.
Last edited:
The intention of the latest Propaganda is to give the impression that the Government is somehow going to convince us all of the following
But the parts that are original aren't good
And the parts that are good aren't original
Sorry but if this is the best they can come up with we are in trouble.
It was bad enough that we invented "Zero Hours Contracts" they are socially destructive, yet now we have gone one stage further,
"Zero Future Contracts" for immigrant workers, so why bother to come?
The last time there was a scheme like this they were chained to an oar and known technically as Galley Slaves.
Big incentive as a career choice!
- Where trained personnel are required out own people will be given that training without increasing taxation or cost to employers
- If necessary Employers will be somehow forced into paying for training but we the Taxpayer won't
- Lazy Brits will be encouraged to work in the fields, which will be greeted by enthusiasm by the very people who voted en masse for Brexit.
- Despite the fact that the Government has a track record on controlling immigration that makes it look as if it would be easier to hold back an invasion by the Red Army, somehow they will do this instantly when we leave the EU
- Despite evidence to the contrary we will still be inundated with applicants with the skills needed when and where we need them, only too glad to come and work here as casual labour.
But the parts that are original aren't good
And the parts that are good aren't original
Sorry but if this is the best they can come up with we are in trouble.
It was bad enough that we invented "Zero Hours Contracts" they are socially destructive, yet now we have gone one stage further,
"Zero Future Contracts" for immigrant workers, so why bother to come?
The last time there was a scheme like this they were chained to an oar and known technically as Galley Slaves.
Big incentive as a career choice!
Last edited:
So, when all else is failing and the government desperately need further support, the PM decides to play the race card.
Her fascist party has been floundering under the weight of a task simply beyond the intellect of her appointed 'negotiators' so it's important to keep the troops onside and what better way is there than to re-create the bogeyman that had such great appeal for the racist hordes previously stirred up by Farage and Co?
She has decided to make a stand on the race issue because foreign workers are an easy target, completely disregarding the desperate shortages all across the NHS already as a direct result of the ramifications of 'Brexit'.
Of course, the simpletons and flag-waving morons who were given a pseudo-patriotic cause by the rhetoric of the 'Brexit' rabblerousers around the time of the referendum will love this initiative from May. We should not be surprised though as she has already demonstrated with her purchase of the Irish loyalist support that there are no depths to which she will not stoop in order to retain power and keep the job for which she is grossly ill-suited.
In short, the new plan is to blame it all on foreign migrants.......which is pretty much the same as the old plan.
Tom
Who will pay for this spending bonanza?
Just a few months ago, Labour lost a general election for the third time in succession. Yet the party increased its share of the vote under Jeremy Corbyn when it was widely expected to be destroyed. The Left has taken this as an endorsement of their policies to tax the better-off and increase public spending.
What is perturbing is that other parties are taking their lead from Labour. Theresa May is planning to remove the limit on public sector pay rises and Tory ministers rarely make the case any longer for living within our means. In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has taken this to a new level. Outlining the Scottish government’s programme for the year, the First Minister proposed both ending the public sector pay cap and extending free personal care to some under-65s. In addition, she is considering introducing a basic citizen’s income. It is hard to understand where the money is going to come from for these promises, apart from the taxpayers of a United Kingdom from which the SNP wants to extricate itself.
The idea of a basic income is not new. It has been tested on a small scale in Canada and Finland. The Swiss rejected it in a referendum last year. Fifty years ago, Milton Friedman, the economist, championed a similar proposal, the negative income tax, targeted at the poor.
“The idea of a negative income tax is to treat people who are poor in the same way we treat people who are rich,” Friedman said. “Both groups would have to file tax returns and both groups would be treated in a parallel way.” But the aim would be to replace welfare benefits, not supplement them. Is that what Miss Sturgeon has in mind?
In 2015/16, the budget deficit in Scotland – the difference between total revenue and public spending – was around £15 billion, or about 10 per cent of the country’s GDP. By comparison, the deficit in the whole of the UK was 3.8 per cent. Miss Sturgeon has evidently given up on the idea of an independent Scotland, since it could not afford any of the policies she proposed yesterday. Moreover, the SNP calculates that it needs to embrace a Left-wing programme to counter any resurgence from Labour after the resignation of its Scottish leader, Kezia Dugdale.
Yet if all the parties now take the outcome of the election as a signal to spend money we don’t have then bankruptcy is not far away.
Any thoughts?
Just a few months ago, Labour lost a general election for the third time in succession. Yet the party increased its share of the vote under Jeremy Corbyn when it was widely expected to be destroyed. The Left has taken this as an endorsement of their policies to tax the better-off and increase public spending.
What is perturbing is that other parties are taking their lead from Labour. Theresa May is planning to remove the limit on public sector pay rises and Tory ministers rarely make the case any longer for living within our means. In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has taken this to a new level. Outlining the Scottish government’s programme for the year, the First Minister proposed both ending the public sector pay cap and extending free personal care to some under-65s. In addition, she is considering introducing a basic citizen’s income. It is hard to understand where the money is going to come from for these promises, apart from the taxpayers of a United Kingdom from which the SNP wants to extricate itself.
The idea of a basic income is not new. It has been tested on a small scale in Canada and Finland. The Swiss rejected it in a referendum last year. Fifty years ago, Milton Friedman, the economist, championed a similar proposal, the negative income tax, targeted at the poor.
“The idea of a negative income tax is to treat people who are poor in the same way we treat people who are rich,” Friedman said. “Both groups would have to file tax returns and both groups would be treated in a parallel way.” But the aim would be to replace welfare benefits, not supplement them. Is that what Miss Sturgeon has in mind?
In 2015/16, the budget deficit in Scotland – the difference between total revenue and public spending – was around £15 billion, or about 10 per cent of the country’s GDP. By comparison, the deficit in the whole of the UK was 3.8 per cent. Miss Sturgeon has evidently given up on the idea of an independent Scotland, since it could not afford any of the policies she proposed yesterday. Moreover, the SNP calculates that it needs to embrace a Left-wing programme to counter any resurgence from Labour after the resignation of its Scottish leader, Kezia Dugdale.
Yet if all the parties now take the outcome of the election as a signal to spend money we don’t have then bankruptcy is not far away.
Any thoughts?
free market economy and immigration control?
it can't be done. Not even in a dictatorship.
we just borrow from our banks, which borrow from froreign banks, and ultimately, from all the big countries' central banks printing paper money.