The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I for one am delighted that Khan popped up to tell us what is currently happening in Scottish politics.

yep, most snippers are very happy with the lies about what Khan said, as this thread gets to show.

After all, most people won't read his actual words, but they'll see the lying headlines about his words.

A better Scotland is sure to come from liars and those who knowingly back the liars.

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you need new non-xenophobic ears.

 

because it's not 100% standard to pre-release conference speeches? PMSL.

How do we know that Corbyn & McDonnell fucked over Clive Lewis? Because his speech was pre-released.

How do we know what May is going to say to the Scottish tories (is it today? Or tomorrow?). Because her speech has been pre-released.

100% standard.

Or an anti-Scottish conspiracy.

You decide.

 

Again I have never claimed there was anything unusual about his speech being pre-released. Pretty much any speech is pre -released now Because it allows the party to spin it more effectively. My point is the remarkable way that a speech which according to you didn't suggest any link between Scottish Nationalism and racism was widely reported as doing just that You have spun my words all over the place to avoid answering this point.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, most snippers are very happy with the lies about what Khan said, as this thread gets to show.

After all, most people won't read his actual words, but they'll see the lying headlines about his words.

 

why were the headlines lying. Neil. Were they written by grievance fuelled snippers?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Nice attempt at deflection, Neil. My point was very clearly not about what he said but about how it was reported & why it was reported that way. I'm still waiting for you to address that

And my point is that how it's been reported is one big lie - as even you recognise.

because as you admit, he didn't say what's been reported. What's being reported is Sturgeon's lying take of what she claims he meant.

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

you mean a sentence like this?  

" Good try Neil, sadly you English comprehension & maths has let you down again. 4 out of 7 clearly stating that Khan had linked Scottish Nationalism with a couple more just sneaking in a hint of racism."

That only demonstrates that 4 out of 7 are the thick as pigshit I said, or are deliberate liars as you're being.

meanwhile i'll remind you that 23% of Scots think tht nothing of the vow was delivered, a vow that promised "significant new powers" and which has delivered control of income tax, a proportion of VAT money raised in Scotland, the transfer of welfare powers (that the SNP don't want :lol:) a and more.

And argument can be made that the vow hasn't be fulfilled, but only the brain dead or liars could claim none of it had happened.

When there's such a clear and high degree of the stupid or liars, asking the stupid or liars only shows them as stupid or liars.

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Where i  say that the headlines were clearly stating that Khan had made the link. I was not stating that Khan had made the explicit link.

The headlines are about others claiming he's made that link.

Reading his words makes clear to all but the brain dead or liars that it never happened.

Lies for the stupid. Yep, it'll be that better Scotland. :lol:

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Now that I've explained that simple sentence to you, maybe you'll be able to reply.

 

[LJS]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you need new non-xenophobic ears.

 

 

I'll just sit back & wait for you to link to a few examples of Nicola talking about "English Tories"

I'll make myself comfortable. it might be a while.

Or were you paraphrasing her?

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Again I have never claimed there was anything unusual about his speech being pre-released. Pretty much any speech is pre -released now Because it allows the party to spin it more effectively. My point is the remarkable way that a speech which according to you didn't suggest any link between Scottish Nationalism and racism was widely reported as doing just that You have spun my words all over the place to avoid answering this point.

the press were "briefed" with the text of what he planned to say. the press reported what he planned to say without any of them saying he was calling Nats racists.

It's only when the liars claimed "he's called us wacists' all that bullshit started.

The clue is in the 'row' headlines. It take two to make a 'row'. 

Meanwhile, where's the missing £9bn? Oh, you don't want to talk about the important parts of Scotland's future, do you?

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'll just sit back & wait for you to link to a few examples of Nicola talking about "English Tories"

I'll make myself comfortable. it might be a while.

Or were you paraphrasing her?

she' talks about 'english tories' and 'tories in england', as a pretence that there's not one-quarter of Scots that are also tories and to fuel the idea of the hated other.

Edited March 3, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

why were the headlines lying. Neil. Were they written by grievance fuelled snippers?

no, they were reports of complaints made by lie-fuelled snippers. It's them who fuel the false grievances.

Will you discuss what Khan actually said? Nope. 

Is there a reason why?

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

the press were "briefed" with the text of what he planned to say. the press reported what he planned to say without any of them saying he was calling Nats racists.

It's only when the liars claimed "he's called us wacists' all that bullshit started.

The clue is in the 'row' headlines. It take two to make a 'row'. 

Meanwhile, where's the missing £9bn? Oh, you don't want to talk about the important parts of Scotland's future, do you?

If you powers of comprehension are so poor that you are unable to understand what these headlines say, I feel sorry for you. 

The headlines mostly say 2 things. 

1)there was a row

2)Khan linked Scottish nationalism with racism.

That is what they say. It's a fact, Neil.

Why are you denying it?

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

she' talks about 'english tories' and 'tories in england', as a pretence that there's not one-quarter of Scots that are also tories and to fuel the idea of the hated other.

does she?

I'll have another coffee while I wait for the links to come flooding in.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

no, they were reports of complaints made by lie-fuelled snippers. It's them who fuel the false grievances.

Will you discuss what Khan actually said? Nope. 

Is there a reason why?

We discussed what Khan actually said on the general news forum at the weekend.

Relatively few people will have read what he actually said. A lot more will have seen the headlines.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

The headlines mostly say 2 things. 

1)there was a row

2)Khan linked Scottish nationalism with racism.

That is what they say. It's a fact, Neil.

Why are you denying it?

a row takes someone to say something, and someone else to dispute.

As you seem keen on facts today, that's also a fact.

Which makes the reports about snippers complaints of what Khan said and not about what he said.

Why are you denying it?

Tell you what, let's discuss Khan's actual words, and then you can show me how the row is justified by his words. 

I've been asking all week, but you're strangely reluctant.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

We discussed what Khan actually said on the general news forum at the weekend.

that would be where you admitted he hadn't said it.

 

Quote

Relatively few people will have read what he actually said. A lot more will have seen the headlines.

No shit sherlock.

Which is why the row is considered to valuable to those like you. You can push a lie onto the stupid.

Edited March 3, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

a row takes someone to say something, and someone else to dispute.

As you seem keen on facts today, that's also a fact.

Which makes the reports about snippers complaints of what Khan said and not about what he said.

Why are you denying it?

I'm not denying there was a row. 

You are the facts of how Khan's remarks were reported.

Why are you doing that, Neil?

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Tell you what, let's discuss Khan's actual words, and then you can show me how the row is justified by his words. 

I've been asking all week, but you're strangely reluctant.

 

 No you haven't. And anyway it's merely a device to deflect from the incumbent truth that you are lying about the reporting of his words.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

does she?

I'll have another coffee while I wait for the links to come flooding in.

tell you what, I'll list all of the anti-english xenophobic from the Nats - you know, the stuff which doesn't exist :lol: - as I carry out the task you've set me....

I can start with the leading website for Scottish indy. 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-definition-of-redundancy/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/meet-the-ultra-yoons/comment-page-1/

More to come - that doesn't exist, of course.

[eFestivals]

sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble finding Nicola's versions, they're too buried by the countless indy-supporting Scots being xenophobic in exactly the same way.

Which is odd for something which doesn't exist.

I have work to do, I'll get back to you with more of that non-existent xenophobia later on.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

tell you what, I'll list all of the anti-english xenophobic from the Nats - you know, the stuff which doesn't exist - as I carry out the task you've set me....

I can start with the leading website for Scottish indy. 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-definition-of-redundancy/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/meet-the-ultra-yoons/comment-page-1/

More to come - that doesn't exist, of course.

Has Nicola moved to Bath?

I missed the bit that quotes her talking about English Tories.

I liked the second link though. I'll keep it for the next time you bang on about cybernat abuse.

[LJS]

Just now, eFestivals said:

sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble finding Nicola's versions, they're too buried by the countless indy-supporting Scots being xenophobic in exactly the same way.

Which is odd for something which doesn't exist.

I have work to do, I'll get back to you with more of that non-existent xenophobia later on.

You'll have a quote for me claiming there are no xenophobic Scots too?

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm not denying there was a row. 

You are the facts of how Khan's remarks were reported.

The reports like that are of the 'row', and not about Khan's remarks.

Show me an article that's *only* reporting his words which says he's calling all Nats racists.

And I'll show you a jounalist who should be unemployed.

 

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

Why are you doing that, Neil?

 No you haven't. And anyway it's merely a device to deflect from the incumbent truth that you are lying about the reporting of his words.

Why am I asking you for a discussion on Khan's words? In the hope you'll put away your bullshit.

What does your refusal to discuss show? That you only have bullshit and won't let it go.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Has Nicola moved to Bath?

Has Scottish indy got a strong xenophobic side?

You've been claiming no. Those put that lie to bed.

Now we can move on to St Nicola. As I said, i'll get back to you with that.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

You'll have a quote for me claiming there are no xenophobic Scots too?

in which case you should have no problem with what you falsely say Khan was getting at.

If there's racists and xenophobes as a large part of scottish indy - and WoS's continuing success shows there is - what is claimed of his words was spot on.

But he didn't say those words anyway.

But what is denied exists all the same. 

Oh dear. :lol:

 

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The reports like that are of the 'row', and not about Khan's remarks.

Show me an article that's *only* reporting his words which says he's calling all Nats racists.

And I'll show you a jounalist who should be unemployed.

You do understand that a headline can contain 2 statements? 

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Why am I asking you for a discussion on Khan's words? In the hope you'll put away your bullshit.

What does your refusal to discuss show? That you only have bullshit and won't let it go.

Yet again you are making up your own question & then answering it yourself.

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Has Scottish indy got a strong xenophobic side?

Absolutely & categorically, no.

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You've been claiming no. Those put that lie to bed.

No they don't.

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Now we can move on to St Nicola. As I said, i'll get back to you with that.

I'm waiting.

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

in which case you should have no problem with what you falsely say Khan was getting at.

I'm talking about how & why Khan's remarks were reported. You are suspending your understanding of the English language in your attempt to avoid addressing this 

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If there's racists and xenophobes as a large part of scottish indy -

There aren't

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and WoS's continuing success shows there is -

It doesn't.

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

what is claimed of his words was spot on.

It wasn't

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But he didn't say those words anyway.

It was reported that he did. That is the FACT you won't face 

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But what is denied exists all the same. 

Oh dear.

 

Oh dear lol indeed 

[eFestivals]

35 minutes ago, LJS said:

You do understand that a headline can contain 2 statements? 

and if it does that's also about the 'row'. 

Khan talked about all kinds of divisive politics.
Nats said "how dare you call us racists"
Papers reported "Nats are unhappy that Khan seems to have called them racists".

I ask you gain: show me a story that's *only* reporting Khan's trailed-speech, and show me where those as reporting that he's calling anyone racist. I've not seen one.

There's a reason why you never do, and that's because the 'racism' stuff has all come from misrepresentations.

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yet again you are making up your own question & then answering it yourself.

because you won't ever answer them yourself. :lol:

There's a reason why you run away from discussion about deficit, currency, racism, and very many other things, and it's not because I'm scared of the facts.

never mind, eh?