Printable View
Riiight so no facts then. Thought so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
And you don’t need to prove anything you say as the proof will unfold itself...aha that’s a good one, really it is!
You remind me of the doomsayers who predict the world will end on a certain date...no need to justify any of it as the world will end anyway so that will be proof enough.
Gee whiz, this is hard work.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
A fact is defined as "a thing that is known or proved to be true."
So you can't by definition state facts about future events. But you can determine likely outcomes based on known things. It was likely that Hibs would beat Elgin last week because we've got measurably better, stronger fitter players, professionals who have better training facilities and who don't also have other jobs to hold down. Hibs losing was a possibility, but you'd have to say that us winning was the most likely outcome.
So it is with post-Brexit trading. We know we won't have trade deals via the EU, and given the Tories' fascination with Trump, naked capitalism and the whole "free trade" ideal, it is likely that we will turn our attention towards the West and the US. Key Tory leaders have already indicated this, and some of them have been to the US to develop links. The US has demonstrably lower food hygiene standards than the EU, so in order to trade foodstuffs with them we'll need to lower our standards. So it is with the Tories attitude towards the NHS, which they want to de-fund and turn towards the US health insurance model.
So you're right, no facts to back up this viewpoint. But it seems the most likely outcome.
Whitaboot "At 6pm tonight if I divide 4 by 2 the correct answer will be 2"? Is that no a fact likes? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
No if you drop deid at 5:57pm :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Never say never.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
if they can change the definition of a kilogram then squares and square roots might be next.
https://www.sciencealert.com/after-1...oing-to-change
I'd say there's an extremely highly probability that 4 divide by 2 will be 2 (especially as Im cutting pizza tonight) but i'll cope if those pesky scientists go and change things
And assuming there is a 6PM tonight and those idiots with nukes haven't blown us all up.
Great post.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
It's instructive that the OP was about Donald Trump, and this thread has now started talking about what constitutes a fact. Trump is the most anti fact, anti science world leader since Pol Pot. He denies the reality of man made climate change, repeatedly. He denies the reality that vaccines are safe, and do not, as he claims, cause autism. He denies the reality that Obama was born in the US, and has repeated the Infowars smear that the passport was somehow forged. He is the first American leader to just lie and lie and get away with it by a press corps that seems to have forgotten its purpose.
On the other hand, the FACT that investors are currently looking at trade deals with countries that have less stringent environmental and safety controls than the EU, which are likely to be a)less expensive and b) result in poorer quality goods and services for all of us is indisputable. It only becomes a FACT when the deals are signed but it doesn't make them less inevitable.
I am sure I was told it was a fact peddled by Unionists that if I voted No in the first IndyRef it was a fact I would be voting to remain in the EU and I was therefore lied to and mislead by the No campaign.
As we have established nobody was telling any lies at the time as the future was not known.
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
Promises broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Yet it is a fact of life that anyone currently alive is going to die one day in the future ... including Mr T :greengrin
Sorry but that's nonsense!Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
If we voted YEs then we would have left the EU. We voted no and remained part of the EU.
However there was a democratic vote that then took us out the EU.
A lie peddled by Unionist was that if we voted No Glasgow shipyards would be getting the contract to build 13 Type 42 Destroyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
We voted No
The number was then immediately cut to three Type 42 Destroyers.
This was just a bold faced lie.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47036119Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
It's just the start, but you'll denounce it as "scare mongering". As that's the go to response when it comes to facing up that Brexit is going to be no utopia.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47036119
Damn, I guess this makes it 1-1. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
What? US lobbyists lobbying, who would have thunk it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Yet if you read what the article says you get this wee nugget:
“We have noted with concern statements by certain UK officials indicating a desire to exclude the agricultural sector from the negotiation and an intention of maintaining regulatory harmonisation with the European Union”
A statement that means absolutely nothing in a no-deal scenario which will result in the US becoming our largest import market for goods. Maintaining the current EU food standards wouldn't allow for that, which would result in food shortages. So they would have no choice but to rip up the current standards in place of the US model.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Aww come on. To suggest that a no deal Brexit automatically means food shortages that could only be relieved by a shotgun wedding with US agri is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
You have suggested the UK was desperate to rip up current standards yet the very people that have been engaged in direct talks with UK officials have stated the opposite.
A UK/US cozy up was the plan the whole time. UK officials stating one thing in the media and backing something quite different in the background is hardly an uncommon practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
It's not a plan they want the general public to be aware of. But something they'll ease the general public into over the coming years without barely saying a word on it.
You have went from there being food shortages and immediate need for US food to a silent plan that the public won’t even be aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Let’s just leave this one here.
1. The US food sector is trying to get a foothold in the UK market post Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
2. The US food sector has lower standards than the EU.
3. In the event of no deal, there WILL be food shortages.
All these are demonstrable facts. Which lead to a logical conclusion. I'm not sure why you are taking such a mocking tone with Fife, if anyone deserves a 'cmon now' or 'thats nonsense' directed at them, it's you.
4. Trump announcing that if we tie ourselves to an EU trade agreement we'd not have one with the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
5. US vetoing of UK trying to move over to WTO rules on same basis as the EU are currently engaged in them.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 30, 2019
Back on the thread title here's an extract from a tweet today by the President. Who should be going back to school?
Move along. Nothing to sea hear. Man's a jeanyus and an inspriat... inspura... credit to his nationQuote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
I have just watched the "state of the union" speech. Looked like pantomime season, Democrat women dressed in white all applauding Trump. Fair enough if they feel it but like I say, it looked really weird, the whole thing did tbh, not really paid attention before but am intrigued as to the protocol for this event.
That is a known fact. You would be repeating something that has been proven to be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Does everyone remember that lager advert featuring cartoon vikings? How did it go again?Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeTeam
Let me think, Troll, troll, troll, troll
Check out @mattzarb’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/mattzarb/status/...540894720?s=09
The link below is to an article in the Guardian.
it suggests that the Mueller investigation into collusion with the Russians etc might be the least of Trump’s worries.
The Southern District New York attorney’s office is investigating whether laws were broken when fundraising took place for his inauguration. The potential charge sheet is really serious, subpoenas appear to have been issued.
The SDNY district attorneys, as the article describes, are pretty much some of the most talented prosecutors in the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-prosecutors
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_UnionQuote:
Originally Posted by HomeTeam
Greenland had to trigger article 50 to leave the Eu after it won independence from Denmark, so why would an independent Scotland have been any different? All the citizens would stil have been citizens of the Eu living with Eu laws
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
An eloquent takedown of the entire political setup in the US. The world is being ****ed over by corporate manipulation