Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh, what joy! Shitler's days are numbered, and its his own people that will take him down, even they can't stomach him anymore!"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wont believe it untill its happened. So hurry the f*ck up Amerikee !!" this!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President ". That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this. Do you think that this is likely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?"It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this . E tu brute comes to mind .  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind . "That all comes down to the use of one obscure word that Pence is kniwn to use.. to easy to use tgat just to throw us off the scent.. my mobey is on McGahn, he's out the door soon and to disapprove of some of drumpf's policys.. but i really hope it's Pence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh, what joy! Shitler's days are numbered, and its his own people that will take him down, even they can't stomach him anymore!" I would not bet on it.He will stay in power for as long as he wants to up to the end of a second term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind . "Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then? Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this. Do you think that this is likely?" no.... but it is an interesting concept... because they would then have to take it up to the senate and the senate would have 2 weeks to ratify.... but that would rely on the presidents co-operation... they could "in theory" do it... but then the president could in theory appeal the decision.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!"Seriously. Why do you do this to yourself? "The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger, the paper's publisher, and his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the company's chairman, are the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper" Carlos Slim owns 17% and has no editorial input. None of this indicates if the anonymous source is a credible one. However, considering some of the things that you produce verbatim you should probably have yourself some quiet time  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!"yeah yeah yeah.... if it wasn't someone inside the whitehouse then really why is everyone in the whitehouse so freaked out about it..... see.... i am torn in that i am happy that the "adults" are keeping cheeto jesus from doing all the really truely batshit crazy stuff..... but in a way sad that in effect they are having to hide stuff and disobey orders... because if this was any normal administration that alone would be close to "coup" talk.... saying all that.... still think it was Pence... which would leave trump fuming as the VP is the one person he can't fire!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!
Seriously. Why do you do this to yourself?
"The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger, the paper's publisher, and his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the company's chairman, are the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper"
Carlos Slim owns 17% and has no editorial input.
None of this indicates if the anonymous source is a credible one.
However, considering some of the things that you produce verbatim you should probably have yourself some quiet time "Are you sure because Centaur is an authoritative source on these matters! You must be quoting alternative facts. We need proof who's right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!
Seriously. Why do you do this to yourself?
"The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger, the paper's publisher, and his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the company's chairman, are the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper"
Carlos Slim owns 17% and has no editorial input.
None of this indicates if the anonymous source is a credible one.
However, considering some of the things that you produce verbatim you should probably have yourself some quiet time "Carlos Slim was the single biggest shareholder at the New York Times from 2009 (when he bailed out the company) up until December last year. As the largest shareholder he effectively owned the company. He cashed in on some shares last December as they had risen in value since he bought them in 2009,selling around 8% of his shares to the tune of around $230 million dollars. He still owns around 17% shares in the company. If you think he hasn't had substantial influence in the direction the newspaper has gone over the last 8 to 9 years then you must be extremely naive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!
Seriously. Why do you do this to yourself?
"The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger, the paper's publisher, and his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the company's chairman, are the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper"
Carlos Slim owns 17% and has no editorial input.
None of this indicates if the anonymous source is a credible one.
However, considering some of the things that you produce verbatim you should probably have yourself some quiet time
Carlos Slim was the single biggest shareholder at the New York Times from 2009 (when he bailed out the company) up until December last year. As the largest shareholder he effectively owned the company. He cashed in on some shares last December as they had risen in value since he bought them in 2009,selling around 8% of his shares to the tune of around $230 million dollars. He still owns around 17% shares in the company. If you think he hasn't had substantial influence in the direction the newspaper has gone over the last 8 to 9 years then you must be extremely naive. "Silly boy. How does he "exert influence" on editorial as a shareholder. He has no executive position. What's the worst he can do? Sell his shares. Oh wait. He has according to you so either they weren't doing what he wanted or it's just a business holding. Are you aware of how a company works? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!
Seriously. Why do you do this to yourself?
"The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger, the paper's publisher, and his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the company's chairman, are the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper"
Carlos Slim owns 17% and has no editorial input.
None of this indicates if the anonymous source is a credible one.
However, considering some of the things that you produce verbatim you should probably have yourself some quiet time
Carlos Slim was the single biggest shareholder at the New York Times from 2009 (when he bailed out the company) up until December last year. As the largest shareholder he effectively owned the company. He cashed in on some shares last December as they had risen in value since he bought them in 2009,selling around 8% of his shares to the tune of around $230 million dollars. He still owns around 17% shares in the company. If you think he hasn't had substantial influence in the direction the newspaper has gone over the last 8 to 9 years then you must be extremely naive. "Just a sec let's do the maths. Ok a company is 100% owned - fact. So he sold 8% in December - your facts! He still owns 17% - again your facts! So 17+8 = 25-simple maths. 100 - 25 = 75 simple maths So how can you say he has/had control with 25% of the shares - YOUR FIGURES! !! He is an ivestor only with a reasonable investment but he is certainly not the owner as you originally stated! You need 51% to control a company! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!
Seriously. Why do you do this to yourself?
"The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger, the paper's publisher, and his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the company's chairman, are the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper"
Carlos Slim owns 17% and has no editorial input.
None of this indicates if the anonymous source is a credible one.
However, considering some of the things that you produce verbatim you should probably have yourself some quiet time
Carlos Slim was the single biggest shareholder at the New York Times from 2009 (when he bailed out the company) up until December last year. As the largest shareholder he effectively owned the company. He cashed in on some shares last December as they had risen in value since he bought them in 2009,selling around 8% of his shares to the tune of around $230 million dollars. He still owns around 17% shares in the company. If you think he hasn't had substantial influence in the direction the newspaper has gone over the last 8 to 9 years then you must be extremely naive.
Just a sec let's do the maths. Ok a company is 100% owned - fact.
So he sold 8% in December - your facts!
He still owns 17% - again your facts!
So 17+8 = 25-simple maths.
100 - 25 = 75 simple maths
So how can you say he has/had control with 25% of the shares - YOUR FIGURES! !! He is an ivestor only with a reasonable investment but he is certainly not the owner as you originally stated! You need 51% to control a company!
"The other individual shareholders each had less than him. He was the largest individual shareholder from 2009 up until December last year. He is the 2nd largest shareholder now owning 17%. If Carlos Slim owned 25% and there were say 7 other individual shareholders owning 10% each and one individual holding 5%, who does that leave as the biggest individual shareholder on 25%? The answer is of course Mexican billionaire Carlos slim, who also happens to be a Clinton fan boy and the Clinton family paymaster. His donations to the Clinton foundation are well documented. Just look back at the stories the NYT ran during the Presidential election campaign in 2016 when he owned 25%, it's more than obvious the newspaper has a Clinton leaning bias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an alternative reality info wars is a respectable news organisation and the NYT is fake news put out propaganda .This is the agenda of the far right .War is peace ,up is down ,and if you tell that lie long enough the fuck wits will believe it. It's all about control of the narrative . Although our forum right wing idiot is pretty shit at it. "You're a fine one to talk about war and peace Bob, it seems whenever the subject of Putin or Russia comes up its always you baying for blood saying we should go to war with them along with your other libtard buddies like CLCC. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!
Seriously. Why do you do this to yourself?
"The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger, the paper's publisher, and his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the company's chairman, are the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper"
Carlos Slim owns 17% and has no editorial input.
None of this indicates if the anonymous source is a credible one.
However, considering some of the things that you produce verbatim you should probably have yourself some quiet time
Carlos Slim was the single biggest shareholder at the New York Times from 2009 (when he bailed out the company) up until December last year. As the largest shareholder he effectively owned the company. He cashed in on some shares last December as they had risen in value since he bought them in 2009,selling around 8% of his shares to the tune of around $230 million dollars. He still owns around 17% shares in the company. If you think he hasn't had substantial influence in the direction the newspaper has gone over the last 8 to 9 years then you must be extremely naive.
Just a sec let's do the maths. Ok a company is 100% owned - fact.
So he sold 8% in December - your facts!
He still owns 17% - again your facts!
So 17+8 = 25-simple maths.
100 - 25 = 75 simple maths
So how can you say he has/had control with 25% of the shares - YOUR FIGURES! !! He is an ivestor only with a reasonable investment but he is certainly not the owner as you originally stated! You need 51% to control a company!
The other individual shareholders each had less than him. He was the largest individual shareholder from 2009 up until December last year. He is the 2nd largest shareholder now owning 17%.
If Carlos Slim owned 25% and there were say 7 other individual shareholders owning 10% each and one individual holding 5%, who does that leave as the biggest individual shareholder on 25%? The answer is of course Mexican billionaire Carlos slim, who also happens to be a Clinton fan boy and the Clinton family paymaster. His donations to the Clinton foundation are well documented. Just look back at the stories the NYT ran during the Presidential election campaign in 2016 when he owned 25%, it's more than obvious the newspaper has a Clinton leaning bias.
"If he only owned 25% stake then he most definitely did not own the newspaper, 75% would have been outside his control. But like what happens on here very often, change facts to suit the narrative | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!
Seriously. Why do you do this to yourself?
"The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger, the paper's publisher, and his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the company's chairman, are the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper"
Carlos Slim owns 17% and has no editorial input.
None of this indicates if the anonymous source is a credible one.
However, considering some of the things that you produce verbatim you should probably have yourself some quiet time
Carlos Slim was the single biggest shareholder at the New York Times from 2009 (when he bailed out the company) up until December last year. As the largest shareholder he effectively owned the company. He cashed in on some shares last December as they had risen in value since he bought them in 2009,selling around 8% of his shares to the tune of around $230 million dollars. He still owns around 17% shares in the company. If you think he hasn't had substantial influence in the direction the newspaper has gone over the last 8 to 9 years then you must be extremely naive.
Just a sec let's do the maths. Ok a company is 100% owned - fact.
So he sold 8% in December - your facts!
He still owns 17% - again your facts!
So 17+8 = 25-simple maths.
100 - 25 = 75 simple maths
So how can you say he has/had control with 25% of the shares - YOUR FIGURES! !! He is an ivestor only with a reasonable investment but he is certainly not the owner as you originally stated! You need 51% to control a company!
The other individual shareholders each had less than him. He was the largest individual shareholder from 2009 up until December last year. He is the 2nd largest shareholder now owning 17%.
If Carlos Slim owned 25% and there were say 7 other individual shareholders owning 10% each and one individual holding 5%, who does that leave as the biggest individual shareholder on 25%? The answer is of course Mexican billionaire Carlos slim, who also happens to be a Clinton fan boy and the Clinton family paymaster. His donations to the Clinton foundation are well documented. Just look back at the stories the NYT ran during the Presidential election campaign in 2016 when he owned 25%, it's more than obvious the newspaper has a Clinton leaning bias.
"So do you know how a publicly owned company works? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard " Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump has tweeted ."Treason?" Like Cesar he senses they knives are out and somebody very close to him is out to destroy him and tell all to the world. This is a real constitutional crisis . There has apparently even been talk among Cabinet officers about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President .
That's interesting but I just checked the 25,th amendment, it would appear you'd need over half the cabinet plus the vice President to invoke this.
Do you think that this is likely?
It has been suggested the vice president is the one behind all this .
E tu brute comes to mind .
Ah, is this the 'anonymous source' coming from within the White House you're referring to then?
Remind us which newspaper it was that broke the story? Could it have been the NYT, owned by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who also happens to be one of the biggest donors to the Clinton foundation and is bosom buddies with the Clinton family. Sorry if i take your so called 'anonymous source' with a gargantuan pinch of salt!
Seriously. Why do you do this to yourself?
"The paper is owned by The New York Times Company, which is publicly traded but primarily controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through a dual-class share structure.It has been owned by the family since 1896; A.G. Sulzberger, the paper's publisher, and his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the company's chairman, are the fourth and fifth generation of the family to helm the paper"
Carlos Slim owns 17% and has no editorial input.
None of this indicates if the anonymous source is a credible one.
However, considering some of the things that you produce verbatim you should probably have yourself some quiet time
Carlos Slim was the single biggest shareholder at the New York Times from 2009 (when he bailed out the company) up until December last year. As the largest shareholder he effectively owned the company. He cashed in on some shares last December as they had risen in value since he bought them in 2009,selling around 8% of his shares to the tune of around $230 million dollars. He still owns around 17% shares in the company. If you think he hasn't had substantial influence in the direction the newspaper has gone over the last 8 to 9 years then you must be extremely naive.
Just a sec let's do the maths. Ok a company is 100% owned - fact.
So he sold 8% in December - your facts!
He still owns 17% - again your facts!
So 17+8 = 25-simple maths.
100 - 25 = 75 simple maths
So how can you say he has/had control with 25% of the shares - YOUR FIGURES! !! He is an ivestor only with a reasonable investment but he is certainly not the owner as you originally stated! You need 51% to control a company!
The other individual shareholders each had less than him. He was the largest individual shareholder from 2009 up until December last year. He is the 2nd largest shareholder now owning 17%.
If Carlos Slim owned 25% and there were say 7 other individual shareholders owning 10% each and one individual holding 5%, who does that leave as the biggest individual shareholder on 25%? The answer is of course Mexican billionaire Carlos slim, who also happens to be a Clinton fan boy and the Clinton family paymaster. His donations to the Clinton foundation are well documented. Just look back at the stories the NYT ran during the Presidential election campaign in 2016 when he owned 25%, it's more than obvious the newspaper has a Clinton leaning bias.
So do you know how a publicly owned company works? "You are seriously deluded if you think Carlos Slim doesn't hold a major influence over the NYT. There wouldn't be a NYT if it wasn't for Carlos Slim. The company was looking at bankruptcy in 2009 and nearly went to the wall until Carlos slim came along and bailed them out. He saved the newspaper from going under. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself?" Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. " And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. " Bless | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. " Fair comment. I don’t argue with those posters because, aside from the name calling, I largely agree with them. I pointed it out on you because these comments are directed - to use your phrase - at my side. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny. "I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.
I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us. "The EU is in the pocket of big business and multinationals and is run by rich elites and yet you support it. So what you say you are against on one hand you are actually in favour of on the other. I want our country to get out from this cesspit, and yet you appear to want to keep us firmly stuck in it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.
I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us.
The EU is in the pocket of big business and multinationals and is run by rich elites and yet you support it. So what you say you are against on one hand you are actually in favour of on the other. I want our country to get out from this cesspit, and yet you appear to want to keep us firmly stuck in it. "I’m attempting, although it may be futile, to actually discuss with you. The EU is far from perfect, and has a lot of problems. The uk government is very far from perfect and has just as many problems. Leaving the EU concerns me for a lot of reasons from big issues such as the short and long term damage to the economy, the knock on effects that will have to the NHS, the education system, pensions etc etc. Issues around increased power for the Tories to start removing legislation around environmental protection, around workers rights etc. Right through to smaller issues such as people, especially young people not having the option to freely work in European countries, as I was able to when I was younger. Leaving the EU will leave us more exposed to the will of big business and the elites. One of their main tactics they used was to goad people into voting against their own interest by creating scapegoats for the problems. Such as UKIP blaming immigrants for things they have nothing to do with such as NHS shortages, housing issues etc etc. I assume this is where you call me a “libtard” or some such, I roll my eyes and head off to enjoy the rest of my evening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.
I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us.
The EU is in the pocket of big business and multinationals and is run by rich elites and yet you support it. So what you say you are against on one hand you are actually in favour of on the other. I want our country to get out from this cesspit, and yet you appear to want to keep us firmly stuck in it. "...and the UK isn't, and we'll be better placed to exert influence on multinational corporations when we've left the largest trading block in the world and we would fine Microsoft? The future you are think is coming is a fantasy. The EU is a cesspit? Drama queen. The EU suffers from corruption like every large organisation. Don't run away like a bitch. Fight it. Improve it. Benefit from being a leading player in one of the most powerful economic and political groupings on the planet. 40 years. 100 years. How long did it take to create the UK? Your dreams are small. Your ambition for our country is small. Also, I've never called anyone Gammon. I don't generalise about people. I posted a article about them. It is quite funny. What's to be offended at unless you identify with it in some way? I am not insulting you by calling you names Centaur. Children do that. You make yourself look foolish every time you post so I needn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.
I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us.
The EU is in the pocket of big business and multinationals and is run by rich elites and yet you support it. So what you say you are against on one hand you are actually in favour of on the other. I want our country to get out from this cesspit, and yet you appear to want to keep us firmly stuck in it.
I’m attempting, although it may be futile, to actually discuss with you.
The EU is far from perfect, and has a lot of problems. The uk government is very far from perfect and has just as many problems.
Leaving the EU concerns me for a lot of reasons from big issues such as the short and long term damage to the economy, the knock on effects that will have to the NHS, the education system, pensions etc etc. Issues around increased power for the Tories to start removing legislation around environmental protection, around workers rights etc.
Right through to smaller issues such as people, especially young people not having the option to freely work in European countries, as I was able to when I was younger.
Leaving the EU will leave us more exposed to the will of big business and the elites. One of their main tactics they used was to goad people into voting against their own interest by creating scapegoats for the problems. Such as UKIP blaming immigrants for things they have nothing to do with such as NHS shortages, housing issues etc etc.
I assume this is where you call me a “libtard” or some such, I roll my eyes and head off to enjoy the rest of my evening."People (remainers) always make this comparison between the EU and our own Parliament. The scale of lobbying that goes on in the EU by big business and multinationals compared to our own parliament is not comparable. It's completely out of control in the EU. Plus if as you say we have problems in our own country with our own Parliament we really don't need to add to it with additional problems in the EU. I say better to leave and get our own house in order. Your concerns about the Tories doing this and that after Brexit don't really stack up, if the tories want to stay in power they will have to keep the public on side. If they don't keep the public on side then the public won't support them, we the electorate have the power to kick them out at the ballot box. On your last point about me calling you a libtard, I won't do that I'll just leave it to you and EasyUk to poke fun at "Gammon" on the 'How to argue' thread'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.
I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us.
The EU is in the pocket of big business and multinationals and is run by rich elites and yet you support it. So what you say you are against on one hand you are actually in favour of on the other. I want our country to get out from this cesspit, and yet you appear to want to keep us firmly stuck in it.
I’m attempting, although it may be futile, to actually discuss with you.
The EU is far from perfect, and has a lot of problems. The uk government is very far from perfect and has just as many problems.
Leaving the EU concerns me for a lot of reasons from big issues such as the short and long term damage to the economy, the knock on effects that will have to the NHS, the education system, pensions etc etc. Issues around increased power for the Tories to start removing legislation around environmental protection, around workers rights etc.
Right through to smaller issues such as people, especially young people not having the option to freely work in European countries, as I was able to when I was younger.
Leaving the EU will leave us more exposed to the will of big business and the elites. One of their main tactics they used was to goad people into voting against their own interest by creating scapegoats for the problems. Such as UKIP blaming immigrants for things they have nothing to do with such as NHS shortages, housing issues etc etc.
I assume this is where you call me a “libtard” or some such, I roll my eyes and head off to enjoy the rest of my evening.
People (remainers) always make this comparison between the EU and our own Parliament. The scale of lobbying that goes on in the EU by big business and multinationals compared to our own parliament is not comparable. It's completely out of control in the EU. Plus if as you say we have problems in our own country with our own Parliament we really don't need to add to it with additional problems in the EU. I say better to leave and get our own house in order.
Your concerns about the Tories doing this and that after Brexit don't really stack up, if the tories want to stay in power they will have to keep the public on side. If they don't keep the public on side then the public won't support them, we the electorate have the power to kick them out at the ballot box.
On your last point about me calling you a libtard, I won't do that I'll just leave it to you and EasyUk to poke fun at "Gammon" on the 'How to argue' thread'. "So now you're above insults? Have I made a dent in your approach?!? Say it ain't so! haha. I'll reply to your comment about the Tories being voted out when they start to fuck people over with their new found freedom after the EU shackles are removed, I refer you to the recent points I made about the referendum, to demonstrate how easy it is form them to fool people into voting against their own interests using fear and misinformation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.
I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us.
The EU is in the pocket of big business and multinationals and is run by rich elites and yet you support it. So what you say you are against on one hand you are actually in favour of on the other. I want our country to get out from this cesspit, and yet you appear to want to keep us firmly stuck in it.
...and the UK isn't, and we'll be better placed to exert influence on multinational corporations when we've left the largest trading block in the world and we would fine Microsoft?
The future you are think is coming is a fantasy.
The EU is a cesspit? Drama queen.
The EU suffers from corruption like every large organisation. Don't run away like a bitch. Fight it. Improve it. Benefit from being a leading player in one of the most powerful economic and political groupings on the planet.
40 years. 100 years. How long did it take to create the UK?
Your dreams are small. Your ambition for our country is small.
Also, I've never called anyone Gammon. I don't generalise about people. I posted a article about them. It is quite funny.
What's to be offended at unless you identify with it in some way?
I am not insulting you by calling you names Centaur. Children do that. You make yourself look foolish every time you post so I needn't."Nice speech, did you get that from Sadiq Khan? As it sounds remarkably similar to what he said on the BBC live debate at Wembley during the referendum. Lost count how many times he said "I'm not a quitter, I fight to change it/improve it". He lost the debate and the referendum making that argument, yet you foolishly think you can 'win' now making the same argument. Cameron tried to change and reform the EU in his renegotiation before the referenfum, he was pissing in the wind. You also lost the referendum by doggedly sticking to argument around the economy, and here you are still sticking doggedly to argument around the economy. As Einstein once said "the definition of Insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
The future you imagine for the EU is one of fantasy. It is a shrinking block, it's percentage of global wealth is decreasing and it's economic growth is the slowest of any continent in the world bar Antarctica. It is becoming less relevant on the world stage. It has an ongoing debt and migration crisis which it is unable to solve. The UK economy is equivalent to 19 of the other EU nations economies combined, and the EU has just lost the UK because of its lack of willingness to compromise/reform. Other European countries are becoming increasingly Eurosceptic. The EU is a joke and the European project is dying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.
I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us.
The EU is in the pocket of big business and multinationals and is run by rich elites and yet you support it. So what you say you are against on one hand you are actually in favour of on the other. I want our country to get out from this cesspit, and yet you appear to want to keep us firmly stuck in it.
...and the UK isn't, and we'll be better placed to exert influence on multinational corporations when we've left the largest trading block in the world and we would fine Microsoft?
The future you are think is coming is a fantasy.
The EU is a cesspit? Drama queen.
The EU suffers from corruption like every large organisation. Don't run away like a bitch. Fight it. Improve it. Benefit from being a leading player in one of the most powerful economic and political groupings on the planet.
40 years. 100 years. How long did it take to create the UK?
Your dreams are small. Your ambition for our country is small.
Also, I've never called anyone Gammon. I don't generalise about people. I posted a article about them. It is quite funny.
What's to be offended at unless you identify with it in some way?
I am not insulting you by calling you names Centaur. Children do that. You make yourself look foolish every time you post so I needn't.
Nice speech, did you get that from Sadiq Khan? As it sounds remarkably similar to what he said on the BBC live debate at Wembley during the referendum. Lost count how many times he said "I'm not a quitter, I fight to change it/improve it". He lost the debate and the referendum making that argument, yet you foolishly think you can 'win' now making the same argument. Cameron tried to change and reform the EU in his renegotiation before the referenfum, he was pissing in the wind. You also lost the referendum by doggedly sticking to argument around the economy, and here you are still sticking doggedly to argument around the economy. As Einstein once said "the definition of Insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
The future you imagine for the EU is one of fantasy. It is a shrinking block, it's percentage of global wealth is decreasing and it's economic growth is the slowest of any continent in the world bar Antarctica. It is becoming less relevant on the world stage. It has an ongoing debt and migration crisis which it is unable to solve. The UK economy is equivalent to 19 of the other EU nations economies combined, and the EU has just lost the UK because of its lack of willingness to compromise/reform. Other European countries are becoming increasingly Eurosceptic. The EU is a joke and the European project is dying."Never heard Sadiq Khan's speech. I don't quote verbatim without thought as you do. I understand. You're a quitter. The UK has done incredibly well at negotiating in the EU. We have been on the losing end of a tiny minority of votes. We host the most prestigious EU regulatory bodies. We are one of the three most influential countries in the most powerful economic and political block on the planet. We have a huge rebate not available to anyone else. Cameron did not negotiate. He made demands. Just as we are tying to do now. He failed. We are failing to negotiate now. The EU lost the UK because it allowed itself to be blamed for our fuck ups as well as their own. The EU lost the UK because it suited the British government to have a scapegoat. The EU lost the UK because we as a country are completely ignorant of how it works or what it does. Because of people like you full of anger and misinformation. The UKs growth rate has collapsed since the Leave vote. Why is that? Was it the EU that did it? Mature economies grow at a slower rate than poor nations because poor countries have much much further to go. So, if an economy is small a relatively small absolute increase in output represents a large increase in GDP. If you have a large economy you need a large increase in output in absolute terms to record even a small gain. Yet Germany is China's biggest trading partner from within the EU. What's holding us back now? We can talk about sovereignty too if you like. Will the UK Supreme Court have sovereignty over WTO trade disputes? Doesn't matter though as the judges who sit in it are traitors and should be replaced by more reliable ones right? How about immigration? More non EU than EU even now. Why do you think total numbers will change? How will "choosing" to take just as many immigrants make any difference? We're already asking for "highly skilled" fruit pickers from outside the EU. Is there anything else you care about? You quoting Einstein is simultaneously amusing and somewhat distasteful considering your contempt for facts, data and experts. Too blind to know when you're winning so you choose choose to lose. The other European countries want more European help. They only object to non EU immigrants. That's what the current anger is about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.
I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us.
The EU is in the pocket of big business and multinationals and is run by rich elites and yet you support it. So what you say you are against on one hand you are actually in favour of on the other. I want our country to get out from this cesspit, and yet you appear to want to keep us firmly stuck in it.
...and the UK isn't, and we'll be better placed to exert influence on multinational corporations when we've left the largest trading block in the world and we would fine Microsoft?
The future you are think is coming is a fantasy.
The EU is a cesspit? Drama queen.
The EU suffers from corruption like every large organisation. Don't run away like a bitch. Fight it. Improve it. Benefit from being a leading player in one of the most powerful economic and political groupings on the planet.
40 years. 100 years. How long did it take to create the UK?
Your dreams are small. Your ambition for our country is small.
Also, I've never called anyone Gammon. I don't generalise about people. I posted a article about them. It is quite funny.
What's to be offended at unless you identify with it in some way?
I am not insulting you by calling you names Centaur. Children do that. You make yourself look foolish every time you post so I needn't.
Nice speech, did you get that from Sadiq Khan? As it sounds remarkably similar to what he said on the BBC live debate at Wembley during the referendum. Lost count how many times he said "I'm not a quitter, I fight to change it/improve it". He lost the debate and the referendum making that argument, yet you foolishly think you can 'win' now making the same argument. Cameron tried to change and reform the EU in his renegotiation before the referenfum, he was pissing in the wind. You also lost the referendum by doggedly sticking to argument around the economy, and here you are still sticking doggedly to argument around the economy. As Einstein once said "the definition of Insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
The future you imagine for the EU is one of fantasy. It is a shrinking block, it's percentage of global wealth is decreasing and it's economic growth is the slowest of any continent in the world bar Antarctica. It is becoming less relevant on the world stage. It has an ongoing debt and migration crisis which it is unable to solve. The UK economy is equivalent to 19 of the other EU nations economies combined, and the EU has just lost the UK because of its lack of willingness to compromise/reform. Other European countries are becoming increasingly Eurosceptic. The EU is a joke and the European project is dying.
Never heard Sadiq Khan's speech.
I don't quote verbatim without thought as you do.
I understand. You're a quitter.
The UK has done incredibly well at negotiating in the EU. We have been on the losing end of a tiny minority of votes. We host the most prestigious EU regulatory bodies. We are one of the three most influential countries in the most powerful economic and political block on the planet. We have a huge rebate not available to anyone else.
Cameron did not negotiate. He made demands. Just as we are tying to do now. He failed. We are failing to negotiate now.
The EU lost the UK because it allowed itself to be blamed for our fuck ups as well as their own. The EU lost the UK because it suited the British government to have a scapegoat. The EU lost the UK because we as a country are completely ignorant of how it works or what it does. Because of people like you full of anger and misinformation.
The UKs growth rate has collapsed since the Leave vote. Why is that? Was it the EU that did it?
Mature economies grow at a slower rate than poor nations because poor countries have much much further to go. So, if an economy is small a relatively small absolute increase in output represents a large increase in GDP. If you have a large economy you need a large increase in output in absolute terms to record even a small gain.
Yet Germany is China's biggest trading partner from within the EU. What's holding us back now?
We can talk about sovereignty too if you like. Will the UK Supreme Court have sovereignty over WTO trade disputes?
Doesn't matter though as the judges who sit in it are traitors and should be replaced by more reliable ones right?
How about immigration? More non EU than EU even now. Why do you think total numbers will change? How will "choosing" to take just as many immigrants make any difference? We're already asking for "highly skilled" fruit pickers from outside the EU.
Is there anything else you care about?
You quoting Einstein is simultaneously amusing and somewhat distasteful considering your contempt for facts, data and experts.
Too blind to know when you're winning so you choose choose to lose.
The other European countries want more European help. They only object to non EU immigrants. That's what the current anger is about." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" libtard Good work captain, how can we possibly argue against such eloquence. If you could refrain from meaningless insults and making stuff up it might be possible to have some kind of meaningful dialogue with you. Or are you so full of rage at the EU, non-racists, people who care about their fellow humans, etc, that you can’t control yourself? Don't pretend that your lot don't use insults on here. Bob's favourite Trumpazees, EasyUk just posted a comment about "Gammon" on his 'how to argue' thread. Then there is the token Nazi slur. When you start to call out those insults on an equal footing then you may have a point otherwise you're only calling out insults on one side. And to top it off Dave, you just posted on the 'how to argue' thread saying you thought the "Gammon" insult was funny. The moral high chair that you think you sit on is nothing more than an illusion, you've just exposed yourself thinking that these insults are funny.
I do find it funny, to me your attitude is so silly, I struggle to understand why your anger is directed at people who should be on your side. The anger should be directed at people in power. People that make the country work for big businesses, and the rich elites, and that fuck over the rest of us.
The EU is in the pocket of big business and multinationals and is run by rich elites and yet you support it. So what you say you are against on one hand you are actually in favour of on the other. I want our country to get out from this cesspit, and yet you appear to want to keep us firmly stuck in it.
...and the UK isn't, and we'll be better placed to exert influence on multinational corporations when we've left the largest trading block in the world and we would fine Microsoft?
The future you are think is coming is a fantasy.
The EU is a cesspit? Drama queen.
The EU suffers from corruption like every large organisation. Don't run away like a bitch. Fight it. Improve it. Benefit from being a leading player in one of the most powerful economic and political groupings on the planet.
40 years. 100 years. How long did it take to create the UK?
Your dreams are small. Your ambition for our country is small.
Also, I've never called anyone Gammon. I don't generalise about people. I posted a article about them. It is quite funny.
What's to be offended at unless you identify with it in some way?
I am not insulting you by calling you names Centaur. Children do that. You make yourself look foolish every time you post so I needn't.
Nice speech, did you get that from Sadiq Khan? As it sounds remarkably similar to what he said on the BBC live debate at Wembley during the referendum. Lost count how many times he said "I'm not a quitter, I fight to change it/improve it". He lost the debate and the referendum making that argument, yet you foolishly think you can 'win' now making the same argument. Cameron tried to change and reform the EU in his renegotiation before the referenfum, he was pissing in the wind. You also lost the referendum by doggedly sticking to argument around the economy, and here you are still sticking doggedly to argument around the economy. As Einstein once said "the definition of Insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
The future you imagine for the EU is one of fantasy. It is a shrinking block, it's percentage of global wealth is decreasing and it's economic growth is the slowest of any continent in the world bar Antarctica. It is becoming less relevant on the world stage. It has an ongoing debt and migration crisis which it is unable to solve. The UK economy is equivalent to 19 of the other EU nations economies combined, and the EU has just lost the UK because of its lack of willingness to compromise/reform. Other European countries are becoming increasingly Eurosceptic. The EU is a joke and the European project is dying.
Never heard Sadiq Khan's speech.
I don't quote verbatim without thought as you do.
I understand. You're a quitter.
The UK has done incredibly well at negotiating in the EU. We have been on the losing end of a tiny minority of votes. We host the most prestigious EU regulatory bodies. We are one of the three most influential countries in the most powerful economic and political block on the planet. We have a huge rebate not available to anyone else.
Cameron did not negotiate. He made demands. Just as we are tying to do now. He failed. We are failing to negotiate now.
The EU lost the UK because it allowed itself to be blamed for our fuck ups as well as their own. The EU lost the UK because it suited the British government to have a scapegoat. The EU lost the UK because we as a country are completely ignorant of how it works or what it does. Because of people like you full of anger and misinformation.
The UKs growth rate has collapsed since the Leave vote. Why is that? Was it the EU that did it?
Mature economies grow at a slower rate than poor nations because poor countries have much much further to go. So, if an economy is small a relatively small absolute increase in output represents a large increase in GDP. If you have a large economy you need a large increase in output in absolute terms to record even a small gain.
Yet Germany is China's biggest trading partner from within the EU. What's holding us back now?
We can talk about sovereignty too if you like. Will the UK Supreme Court have sovereignty over WTO trade disputes?
Doesn't matter though as the judges who sit in it are traitors and should be replaced by more reliable ones right?
How about immigration? More non EU than EU even now. Why do you think total numbers will change? How will "choosing" to take just as many immigrants make any difference? We're already asking for "highly skilled" fruit pickers from outside the EU.
Is there anything else you care about?
You quoting Einstein is simultaneously amusing and somewhat distasteful considering your contempt for facts, data and experts.
Too blind to know when you're winning so you choose choose to lose.
The other European countries want more European help. They only object to non EU immigrants. That's what the current anger is about."Rather than being a quitter sometimes you have to realise when something is so far gone that it is a lost cause, better to cut your losses and walk away. You would make for a terrible gambler if you don't know when to cut your losses and walk away from the table. The EU is a lost cause and has been for some time now. I've also been fighting to get the UK out of the EU for nigh on 20 years, that alone suggests I'm no quitter and will persevere with something worth while. The EU is not a worth while cause to persevere with. You appear passionate about the EU and yet you say you never heard Sadiq Khans speech at the live televised BBC Wembley stadium debate during the referendum? Seems Strange you didn't see it or hear it, or were you one of these arrogant remainers who thought you already had the result in the bag and so you didn't need to engage or bother watching any of the live debates? Anyway as I said Sadiq Khan lost the debate and the referendum making the exact same arguments you made earlier. By Einstein's definition you are insane. As for what you think the EU is now, you should change your language to that of past tense because it's all in the past. The EU isn't any of those things you listed anymore and will be even less significant when the UK leaves in March. The trajectory of the EU is in a downwards spiral across the board and it is very clear. You say that UK economic growth has collapsed since the leave vote, but remain predicted a deep and immediate recession in the 2 years following a vote to leave which has not happened, the UK has proven to be resilient and has remained in positive growth territory. The UK economic growth rate is also currently higher than that of the Eurozone. I don't have a contempt for all experts I just respect different experts to the ones you respect. You are too blind to see when you're losing, and you still continue to back a loser. And if you think the anger in Europe directed at the EU institutions in Brussels is only to do with non EU immigration you are seriously deluded. Have a chat to some people on the breadline in Greece to see what they are angry about, or the high levels of unemployment in Spain and Portugal or the debt crisis in Italy, the EU is failing the people of Europe on multiple levels beyond immigration alone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am starting to think trump is presiding over the end times of the American era. In January, at the World Economic Forum, in Davos,a case for Chinese global leadership was well received by the rich and powerful.In March, Canada formally joined a Chinese-led regional development bank .Foreign leaders have begun to reshape alliances, bypassing the United States. As a CIA asia Pacific expert said recently "The Chinese fundamentally seek to replace the United States as the leading power in the world" The rest if the world is no longer opposed to this and only because of trump . "Agree with this - but the UK was the major power before the US and now it's China time to take over - or in the near future! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am starting to think trump is presiding over the end times of the American era. In January, at the World Economic Forum, in Davos,a case for Chinese global leadership was well received by the rich and powerful.In March, Canada formally joined a Chinese-led regional development bank .Foreign leaders have begun to reshape alliances, bypassing the United States. As a CIA asia Pacific expert said recently "The Chinese fundamentally seek to replace the United States as the leading power in the world" The rest if the world is no longer opposed to this and only because of trump .
Agree with this - but the UK was the major power before the US and now it's China time to take over - or in the near future!"Sooner or later the Chinese people will demand better pay and working conditions. This happens in all major economies, and it will push the cost of manufacturing in China right up. America has the infrastructure existing already to produce their goods as cheap as is possible, without the use of slave labour. Trump will make America great again, even Detroit is now feeling the positive affects of the renaissance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am starting to think trump is presiding over the end times of the American era. In January, at the World Economic Forum, in Davos,a case for Chinese global leadership was well received by the rich and powerful.In March, Canada formally joined a Chinese-led regional development bank .Foreign leaders have begun to reshape alliances, bypassing the United States. As a CIA asia Pacific expert said recently "The Chinese fundamentally seek to replace the United States as the leading power in the world" The rest if the world is no longer opposed to this and only because of trump .
Agree with this - but the UK was the major power before the US and now it's China time to take over - or in the near future!
Sooner or later the Chinese people will demand better pay and working conditions. This happens in all major economies, and it will push the cost of manufacturing in China right up.
America has the infrastructure existing already to produce their goods as cheap as is possible, without the use of slave labour.
Trump will make America great again, even Detroit is now feeling the positive affects of the renaissance. "Are you referring to Ford not bringing its manufacturing back to the US despite Trump’s tweets? Or are you referring to the residents of Flint still not having safe water to drink, two years after it being declared a federal emergency? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
