Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 That doesn't explain how you leapt from a lack of trust of politicians to "anarchist". Politicians have given us plenty of evidence that they are not trustworthy. They have hidden agendas, they cheat, lie and steal. They are just as human as everyone else. There is a word, some. You should try using it sometime instead of seeing politicians as some monolithic block like a tap room philosopher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 You don't have to, however the amount of criticism and outright abuse you've had on here over the years compared to criticism of me speaks for itself. I'm not sure what it shows to be honest. Does avoiding being criticised mean that you don't engage in controversial debates? Or that you agree with majority, or that you don't enjoy debate, or that you're not very good at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 There is a word, some. You should try using it sometime instead of seeing politicians as some monolithic block like a tap room philosopher. If you start from a position of cynicism you won't be disappointed. But I'm glad that you acknowledge that they aren't all the same. Does that mean that it might be valid for someone to dismiss or criticise a politician in some cases? Would you like to withdraw or modify this statement? Who are you to refer to Bercow as a nomark? Ever won an election? Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Bore off thickie and do some research as to why not all MP's who fiddled expenses ended up in prison. erm could it be the funny handshake brigade? could it be that a judge feels that it was just one mistake regarding several invoices ? or could it be that the judge might be wanting to play golf with them at the weekend :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 erm could it be the funny handshake brigade? could it be that a judge feels that it was just one mistake regarding several invoices ? or could it be that the judge might be wanting to play golf with them at the weekend :hihi: Ah, a conspiracy theory. Without research, knowledge or proof the dim fall back on conspiracy theories. You'll be telling us Bush organised 911 next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 If you start from a position of cynicism you won't be disappointed. But I'm glad that you acknowledge that they aren't all the same. Does that mean that it might be valid for someone to dismiss or criticise a politician in some cases? Would you like to withdraw or modify this statement? I thought most people acknowledged that, hence the majority of the electorate voting in general elections to the mystification of some of the Joe Sludge's on here. No I wouldn't care to withdraw it. Just dismissing an MP as a nomark is ridiculos without some big knowledge or evidence that makes their constituency irrelevant. Not that he was dismissing our much loved speaker anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Ah, a conspiracy theory. Without research, knowledge or proof the dim fall back on conspiracy theories. You'll be telling us Bush organised 911 next. do you have proof that they dont belong to the same funny handshake brigade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 do you have proof that they dont belong to the same funny handshake brigade? The burden of proof isn't on me. You've made a serious allegation and the burden of proof is on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 The burden of proof isn't on me. You've made a serious allegation and the burden of proof is on you. i havent made any serious allegations i gave you some examples of what the reasons could be that they wernt sent to jail . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 i havent made any serious allegations i gave you some examples of what the reasons could be that they wernt sent to jail . Yet you're asking me to prove the MP's aren't protected by a masonic conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.