but as the realities emerge, the no votors have been vindicated. they aint gonna setle. and nor should they.
Oh dear. I believe you missed the part of my post that had words in it. That's a pattern, right there. Why is it people are obsessed with people's "real names"? It's weird. Anyway ... You really have no idea what I am talking about. That's my fault. I'll try to spell things out a little better. I listen to what a politician says. I listen to what they say, rather than what someone else tells me they said. With me so far? If the politician sounds reasonable - by that, I mean, not insane - I will compare what they are saying about a subject to what other people are saying about that subject. I will also apply my own understanding of how the world works. I have my own biases and try to factor that into my own assessment of what is under discussion. Occasionally, I alter my view as a result of hearing both sides of an argument. I listen to politicians, I don't listen to MSM commentary as far as possible. If commentators who do not regularly trip my BS meter add something to the debate, I will analyse what they say. I may agree with them, I may not. I may attribute value to their contribution, use it as a jumping off point for more research, I may not. No one gets a free pass. In case it isn't already obvious, commentators (disguised as journalists, newsmen, etc) such as Kay Burley, Adam Boulton, Andrew Marr, Cathy Newman ... the usual suspects ... have all tripped my BS meter far too often for me to take them seriously. They are literally not worth the investment of my time. They are discounted. There are commentators they receive my attention, because the times when they make me yell, "Bullshit, Buddy-Boy!" are relatively rare. I do not follow them credulously, uncritically. If I believe they are wrong, it's most often a difference of opinion, not an outright lie, that I rail against. If I do catch them lying, they are junked. TL;DR: look at sources, not commentators. Look for videos of speeches, look for the politician's own words, Tweeted, YouTubed, attributed to them by third-parties where no subsequent denial issued etc. Oh, and do not base your beliefs on polls, editorials and such. Once again, I do not claim to find truth very often. 99% of the time, I only find out where people are propagandising, spinning or outright lying.
On the surface they are, but only briefly, between not existing, being green, being black and not existing again. Seal one in a box and it could be any (Or all) of these. Credit: Schrodinger’s Bannana.
Some may know, the eu is pushed as either all countries agree or nothing is agreed. The eu commission is seeking to change this to a majority vote. This would mean for the very first time within the eu organisation that not every country would have equal representation. As well as the mep elections next week, some of the higher ups are seeking to take over Junkers role so are also publicly showing their intentions for the eu in the hope of being Junkers replacement. An hour ago our old buddy verhofstadt was having an interview with euro news and was asked about the "all countries agree or nothing and all countries have equal representation", on video, his reply
You don't have to believe what Farage says about the EU. I suppose you don't have to believe Verhofstadt, either. In fact, chanting, "Huzzah for the EU!" whilst jamming your fingers in your ears would work. Then you don't have to work out who is lying and who is telling the truth.
