Jump to content

xbl

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    10,470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by xbl

  1. And speaking of thoroughly disagreeing, where are those pension figures? Here are the 2012 released figures from the UK Government. Which Reynard claims are older than his figures. When will Reynard release his source?
  2. Its in continuous decline! Still, I look forward to you claiming that you supported Yes all along, and that anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
  3. Not like you to obsess over pointless hypotheticals that are unlikely to ever actually matte.....oh.
  4. Sturgeon and Carmichael have no official role in the Yes/FEAR campaigns either. They are equivalent opposite numbers though, which is why the Edinburgh declaration was signed by Sturgeon and Moore. There is a logical match up in almost every way, but the Unionists have nobody who is an opposite number to Salmond. The closest they have is Cameron, and I think its quite reasonable that he says no to a debate as they aren't exact opposite numbers. Certainly Darling can f**k off though. He's a nobody back bencher. He can debate his opposite number, or maybe Sturgeon, after she's run out of Lib Dems to eviscerate.
  5. And speaking of joining in the laughter with everyone else, how about those pension figures?
  6. Meanwhile, how about those pension figures?
  7. And speaking of rope, when will you be revealing the source of these pension figures? We can't expect to take you seriously if you can't provide something that you claimed you already had.
  8. Speaking of engaging, how about those pension figures?
  9. And you never did explain the source of your pension figures. Where are they? When will we see them?
  10. Yep. Once again, the fantasist strides forth. I love it on those days when he has nothing to say but "YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE" repeated over and over. The moral and intellectual bankruptcy at the heart of his argument. If he had something worthwhile to say, he would have said it by now.
  11. Also, if its for the Scots to decide, why do the British Government keep sticking their nose in?
  12. They don't have a candidate. After all, if the chair of the No campaign is Darling, then he should be challenging his opposite number, Dennis Canavan, chair of the Yes campaign. This is why we see the two chief exec Blairs (Jenkins and McDougall) go up against each other. Likewise, the Scottish Government figure in charge of the referendum is Nicola Sturgeon, and she goes up against the British Government figure in charge of the referendum. This used to be Michael Moore, and after she dismantled him, it was Carmichael. So we have opposite numbers debating at several levels. So the closest to a logical opposite number to Salmond is Cameron, and I accept the Unionist argument that they are not truly opposite numbers, because I agree that Cameron has no obligation to debate. No problem with that. But it DOES mean that the Unionists don't have a candidate to debate Salmond.
  13. You've been informed of all this stuff over and over, and yet you keep asking exactly the same questions in that glaikit, uninformed, wide eyed way that you do. Well guess what, you've been informed many times. Continuing the same act does you no credit whatsoever, and so until you sort yourself out, you will be lumped in the Ad Lib camp. He doesn't have to. I've said it in the past, he's under no obligation to do so. After all, if the Prime Minister of the CDU thinks Scotland is nothing to do with him, then I have no problem with that. Must be a hammer blow to tame Unionist types like you though, your dear leader doesn't care about you.
  14. Yep. Deluded dreamer in action. As demonstrated by his "YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE" spiel. It reminds me a lot of when the Euro collapsed. As argument after argument got dismantled by reality, he clung on to just screaming out "IT IS GOING TO COLLAPSE!!!" Well guess what? It didn't. Mitt Romney didn't become President, the SNP won the 2011 election, we are having a referendum, and the Euro is still going. Think on that when the liars and deflectors try their spiel. Just think on how disconnected to reality they are. I can imagine that they watched Sturgeon debate with Carmichael, and then pretended they never bothered to watch it, but heard that Carmichael won. Liars should be mocked. Clearly not a moment too soon. Why is nobody challenging these liars? Why are they given the run of the forum?
  15. Oh look, Ad Lib completely failing to keep any Unionists honest. Instead, he allies himself with known fantasists and liars (HB and Reynard) to engage in pointless and dishonest deflection to try and keep the heat off. Truly an embarrassment. Has he declared himself back in the Unionist camp yet? After all, Reynard followed a similar journey of pretending he was a Yes supporter, and even took umbrage when I pointed out the truth. Lo and behold, he re-declared for No. Just waiting for Ad Lib to do the same. As for the rest of you. Why engage with Reynard? He's a liar and an idiot passing himself off as some sort of uber pundit, but he is completely unable to do anything other than lie and hide when challenged. Him and HB are just Deegas with less typos. Why waste your time doing anything other than mocking them?
  16. You're a dishonest wee fucker aren't you? I know for a fact that this has been raised many times, and answered many times. Don't waste your breath trying to claim ignorance, because we both know thats a lie. Why should Salmond sully himself debating with some junior nobody? The opposite numbers thing has been explained to you many times now. If Darling wants to debate, he can debate his opposite number. If he wants to debate with somebody in the government (assuming he represents the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, and lets face it, Labour do up here), then he can debate with the Minister in charge of the referendum. Now, if you ask such a stupid question, yet again, after near a year of having it answered slowly, patiently, and in slow words, then we are going to do nothing but laugh at you. Take a telling.
  17. Thats an awful lot about me and not an awful lot about you. Once again, good job standing up for your mentor.
  18. I've only got 1 warning point though, and that was for hoping that hypothetical children were raped by an abstract non-corporeal concept.
  19. Incidentally, for someone who took a flakey that I didn't defend you quite as vigorously as you expected, you're doing a good job of standing up for your mentor.
  20. Appreciated Keith. Not your fault, so no point in having a go at the mods it seems. I guess Div has to have someone to do his dirty work for him.
  21. This is one incredibly desperate post. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me what rule my post broke?
  22. What? What on earth are you dribbling on about? Is this one of those Unionist "both sides as bad as the other" bits of nonsense? Because if it is, my respect for you is about to plummet. I'll give you a chance though. As for Swampy. Last time out, he was NOT told why he was banned. He was given no explanation, no justification, and even the mods couldn't work out what post caused a problem. As for my post. Was I warned for it? I was not. Was I banned for it? I was not. Why? Because it didn't break any rules, despite what you might have fervently wished. Although that said, it appears that the rules now consist of "because", and the mods are powerless and get circumvented.
  23. Can they not answer for themselves? If they don't care about Swampy being banned, why are they on here?
×
×
  • Create New...