Peter Dow's political defence -v- "criminal tweets" charge

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

 

The problem with your average pig is that he/ she is beyond stupid. They consider their own perspective to be in the majority. And then they act out of tune with the real majority. In not a way that I find acceptible anyway. Don't get me wrong, not all coppers fall in to this category. There are some who are greater than the strain to conform. Thank fuck.

[eFestivals]

Apart from France, which is about the same as the UK, name one other from my list which is not better in GDP per capita than the UK.

as I said, GDP is turnover, it doesn't equate to the wealth of the people, in just the same way that the company with the highest turnover doesn't necessarily have the biggest profits.

The amount of money means fuck all. It's what that money allows you to get that counts.

Purchasing power parity is the thing that counts for how wealthy a person is.

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PPPGDP

Meanwhile, fuck all about that is to do with republicanism.

And it's fantasy to believe as country will get richer just because you think it should be richer. If we could think ourselves richer everyone would be doing it.

You're sucking up one of Salmond's better obfuscating lines. He once pointed out that following a change of constitutional status, many new states (as an iScotland would be) have a fantastic growth rate.... however, what he missed from the bullshit he gave was that for those same states their economies had mega-crashed prior to their independence, and so in fact it wasn't 'new growth' it was simply those economies returning to the natural levels.

It's all about good policies, and they're capable of being delivered by any constitutional status, tho it's also a fact that no one actually knows what 'good policies' are ... as proven by the constant disagreement of economists. What is good economics is a political view that you then create an economic basis for, and not the other way around.

 

Edited November 6, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Surely a contradiction in the space of 10mins.

You have always thought it was all about money, greed, selfishness 

It`s a shame that you cannot understand what continues to drive the working class folks of Scotland to move away from "our" Tory masters.

Oh, and how many threads on here do you need to put the boot in 

Have you not noticed how many nutters - including you - are still running around Scotland saying "the oil is a bonus" (and not an essential 17% of iScottish govt funding as explicitly stated in the white paper), and thus claiming that Scotland would be richer?

So on the indy side you have the fruitcakes saying iScotland will richer - even against the word of your independence leader - and on the other side you have those who know it will be poorer and who do not wish to be poorer (I've little doubt plenty of those would have voted yes if they weren't economically literate).

If we go with the truth by all available facts - that iScotland will very definitely be poorer - would the number of 'yes' supporters shrinking substantially? Yes it would.

So no contradiction. It's all about the money.

What did you personally say when the oil, price crashed? That it's not yet March 2016. What will you be saying in March 2016, comfy?

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

> Just caught up with this thread Peter. It`s a pity that Neil has chosen to turn it into yet another SNP bad thread I see you still can't understand the difference between the economic fact of Scotland's financial position, and the fruitcake stuff some Scots will say to try and con other people. If the SNP and their supporters aren't bad, comfy, why do they always have to lie about Scotland's economic position? Where's the $113 oil price, that your independence *requires* to work? Salmond claimed it was impossible for the price to fall. The facts have proven him a fantasist. You claimed it would be that price next March. The facts will prove you a fantasist. Snippers everywhere still claim "oil is a bonus". The facts of the white paper prove them fantasists. If you accept the facts and put away your fantasies, I no longer keep laughing at you and pointing out that you're a fantasist.

[LJS]

since your update, odd things happen when you try & quote & reply

 

I'll try agsin

Edited November 6, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

Have you not noticed how many nutters - including you - are still running around Scotland saying "the oil is a bonus" (and not an essential 17% of iScottish govt funding as explicitly stated in the white paper), and thus claiming that Scotland would be richer?

So on the indy side you have the fruitcakes saying iScotland will richer - even against the word of your independence leader - and on the other side you have those who know it will be poorer and who do not wish to be poorer (I've little doubt plenty of those would have voted yes if they weren't economically literate).

If we go with the truth by all available facts - that iScotland will very definitely be poorer - would the number of 'yes' supporters shrinking substantially? Yes it would.

So no contradiction. It's all about the money.

What did you personally say when the oil, price crashed? That it's not yet March 2016. What will you be saying in March 2016, comfy?

 

 

 

 

> Just caught up with this thread Peter. It`s a pity that Neil has chosen to turn it into yet another SNP bad thread I see you still can't understand the difference between the economic fact of Scotland's financial position, and the fruitcake stuff some Scots will say to try and con other people. If the SNP and their supporters aren't bad, comfy, why do they always have to lie about Scotland's economic position? Where's the $113 oil price, that your independence *requires* to work? Salmond claimed it was impossible for the price to fall. The facts have proven him a fantasist. You claimed it would be that price next March. The facts will prove you a fantasist. Snippers everywhere still claim "oil is a bonus". The facts of the white paper prove them fantasists. If you accept the facts and put away your fantasies, I no longer keep laughing at you and pointing out that you're a fantasist.

Dearie me Neil, I thought you'd have worked out by now that me & comfy (and many many others) aren't in it for the money. I know it's inconvenient for you, but if you'd happened to pay any attention, we weren't in it for the money when oil was £100 a barrel (or whatever it was) .

Banging on about GERS & oil & £15bn is irrelevant to me & many many people who voted yes which is why banging on & on about GERS & oil & £15bn is not working for unionist politicians. Like you, they don't get it.

 

Have a nice day.

[Comfy Bean]

Have you not noticed how many nutters - including you - are still running around Scotland saying "the oil is a bonus"

 

 

 

 

Your right Neil. Where would we be if we had not been burdened with all that oil over the years. It`s a curse as you say 

[eFestivals]

since your update, odd things happen when you try & quote & reply

 

I'll try agsin

I know, it's not great.

There's been about 6 further upgrades since I installed this upgrade (with 4 of those just this week), and one of those further upgrades fixes many of the edit box issues.

I'm currently working thru the issues of those further upgrades on the egigs forums & site (and have been all week), and as soon as I've got those sorted I'll roll the upgrades out on efests. Doing it this way ensures that here stays as usable as possible and online as much as possible ... if I'd have done here first, there would have been a lot of downtime here.

Edited November 6, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Where's the $113 oil price, that your independence *requires* to work? Salmond claimed it was impossible for the price to fall. The facts have proven him a fantasist. You claimed it would be that price next March. The facts will prove you a fantasist. Snippers everywhere still claim "oil is a bonus". The facts of the white paper prove them fantasists. If you accept the facts and put away your fantasies, I no longer keep laughing at you and pointing out that you're a fantasist.

I never, ever ( as in not once ) claimed that oil would be $113 a barrel in March 2016. You know that and for whatever reason you are bullshitting 

Can I ask you to please quote me saying that, perhaps in the Indy thread, just once and I will be more than happy to apologies. Neither of us need hold our breath for this quote but it`s only fair I give you the opportunity to back up what you are saying here.

I am more than happy that you continue to laugh at me for believing Scotland can be an Independent Country. You are unable to see what it was / is for me and many many others and continue to bang on about greed, money etc. It`s a shame you feel like that but there is nowt I can do about how YOU see it so carry on with your laughing 

Peter - I apologies for my part in derailing your thread. As I said yesterday, we seem to need about 3 threads on here for Neil to put the boot into the Indy cause. I wish you all the best going forward and standing up for what you believe in. 

 

[eFestivals]

Dearie me Neil, I thought you'd have worked out by now that me & comfy (and many many others) aren't in it for the money.

But you are.

Against what the best available facts say, you have stated many times that you believe that there'll be no bad impact onto the Scottish economy by going indy, despite the fact that Scotland will lose £8Bn+ of money that comes to it right now.

You've said that you believe that somehow that missing £8Bn+ will be magicked out of their air and Scotland will stay as rich as it currently is.

If it's not about the money, why are you lying about the money?

 

Banging on about GERS & oil & £15bn is irrelevant to me & many many people who voted yes which is why banging on & on about GERS & oil & £15bn is not working for unionist politicians. Like you, they don't get it.

It's not irrelevant. You believe in magick money that will fall from the sky and save Scotland from destitution.

You say it's not about the money and you're doing it for the poor .... and yet you intend to make those poor poorer, because that's what happens when a country no longer has the wealth it has currently.

If it's not about the money why are you lying about the money?

When you're prepared to campaign for indy on an honest basis, get back to me. Only then will you prove it's not about the money to you.

It's all very well hoping that things might get better, but it's equally likely that things will get worse. The quality of an economy is directly related to the quality of economic decisions (and nothing to do with where they're taken or the nationality of the people taking them) - but no one knows what is a good economic decision. At best you can make a guess and then keep your fingers crossed it works as you hope.

 

[russycarps]

 

 

Dearie me Neil, I thought you'd have worked out by now that me & comfy (and many many others) aren't in it for the money. I know it's inconvenient for you, but if you'd happened to pay any attention, we weren't in it for the money when oil was £100 a barrel (or whatever it was) .

Banging on about GERS & oil & £15bn is irrelevant to me & many many people who voted yes which is why banging on & on about GERS & oil & £15bn is not working for unionist politicians. Like you, they don't get it.

 

Have a nice day.

so you're happy for the poor to get poorer then. Independence at any cost. Glad you admit it.

Thankfully we, and the brave 55%, do not want the poor to get poorer and the caring vote won.

 

 

[eFestivals]

 

so you're happy for the poor to get poorer then. Independence at any cost. Glad you admit it.

he might admit it here*, he certainly wouldn't admit it to someone he was trying to convince to support indy - because I've challenged him several times to say he would, and he's always ducked the question.

(*tho he doesn't actually admit it, he only suggests he realises that's what it means without ever saying it explicitly)

Edited November 6, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

he might admit it here, he certainly wouldn't admit it to someone he was trying to convince to support indy - because I've challenged him several times to say he would, and he's always ducked the question.

Yes, it's an amazing turnaround.

Imagine voting for something as hugely important as independence and thinking the financial implications are "irrelevant".

It's absolutely terrifying that people like this held millions of people's futures in their hands.

 

[eFestivals]

Imagine voting for something as hugely important as independence and thinking the financial implications are "irrelevant".

It's absolutely terrifying that people like this held millions of people's futures in their hands.

This ^^^

Especially when snippers say they're doing it for the poor, while knowing they wouldn't accept being made poorer to help those poor even if iScotland's economy wasn't going to take a big hit by going indy. Polling in Scotland makes that irrefutably clear.

Meanwhile, the same people dismiss 'fifi le bon"'s statement of covering all of any tax credit loss for the poor, while lauding Sturgeon for not saying she'd cover it.

(* a little bit of sexism there, which would be condemned if about Sturgeon)

Talk about double standards! ... social bullying is where it's at for the snippers.

Edited November 6, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

he might admit it here*, he certainly wouldn't admit it to someone he was trying to convince to support indy - because I've challenged him several times to say he would, and he's always ducked the question.

(*tho he doesn't actually admit it, he only suggests he realises that's what it means without ever saying it explicitly)

complete bollocks

[LJS]

Yes, it's an amazing turnaround.

Imagine voting for something as hugely important as independence and thinking the financial implications are "irrelevant".

It's absolutely terrifying that people like this held millions of people's futures in their hands.

 

Who said they were irrelevant?

 

I certainly didn't.

 

Don't let me stop you making shit up though.

[LJS]

This ^^^

Especially when snippers say they're doing it for the poor, while knowing they wouldn't accept being made poorer to help those poor even if iScotland's economy wasn't going to take a big hit by going indy. Polling in Scotland makes that irrefutably clear.

Meanwhile, the same people dismiss 'fifi le bon"'s statement of covering all of any tax credit loss for the poor, while lauding Sturgeon for not saying she'd cover it.

(* a little bit of sexism there, which would be condemned if about Sturgeon)

Talk about double standards! ... social bullying is where it's at for the snippers.

you're really losing it now.

 

What planet are you on today?

 

& who the fuck is Fifi le bon?

[russycarps]

Who said they were irrelevant?

 

I certainly didn't.

 

Don't let me stop you making shit up though.

Banging on about GERS & oil & £15bn is irrelevant to me

well this is awkward...

[eFestivals]

complete bollocks

Then you can say it now.

"I, LJS, promise to make clear to anyone I campaign for indy to that there's a significant risk of making Scotland significantly poorer. The best available facts suggest this will be the case."

Go on, you can say it ... or you can prove that indy is all about the money by not saying it.

(you've ducked saying this before. I'm pretty sure you'll duck it again).

[eFestivals]

& who the fuck is Fifi le bon?

really? PMSL.

 

[eFestivals]

 

 

well this is awkward...

PMSL

[gary1979666]

 

& who the fuck is Fifi le bon?

Isn't she married to the guy from Duran Duran?!

[eFestivals]

Then you can say it now.

"I, LJS, promise to make clear to anyone I campaign for indy to that there's a significant risk of making Scotland significantly poorer. The best available facts suggest this will be the case."

Go on, you can say it ... or you can prove that indy is all about the money by not saying it.

(you've ducked saying this before. I'm pretty sure you'll duck it again).

anyone surprised....?

[russycarps]

anyone surprised....?

when the going gets tough, the raving nationalists remember they've got to nip in to town to do their christmas shopping. Or something. Anything!

 

[LJS]

Then you can say it now.

"I, LJS, promise to make clear to anyone I campaign for indy to that there's a significant risk of making Scotland significantly poorer. The best available facts suggest this will be the case."

Go on, you can say it ... or you can prove that indy is all about the money by not saying it.

(you've ducked saying this before. I'm pretty sure you'll duck it again).

I wouldn't let you put anything in my mouth ... not even words. You know my position. I couldn't have made it clearer. I feel no need to repeat myself  - perhaps you should follow my lead.

:)