If I don't agree with some of the nonsense that has been written on here then I make it clear
People bring facts and evidence and show you the receipts.
Which you then label as nonsense!
That in itself beggars belief. How can it be "nonsense" if it is substantiated by evidence and therefore makes sense? Answer: these substantiated facts (not "opinions") cannot be labelled as "nonsense", except by someone who is playing loose with observable reality in order for their own "opinion" not to be found to be built on nothing but fresh air and quicksand.
but I am not intolerant so that is the primary difference between myself and ideologists like yourself.
LOL. good one, Tony. Particularly as you are normally very, very insulting of particular people - and always, always, always without any substantiation, evidence or basis within observable reality. Just your "opinion". Which you are welcome to. However, if your opinion doesn't tally with observable reality and evidence based substantiation, then prepare for your opinion to be challenged
with the use of facts, evidence and reality based observations. Not just
counter opinions, but actual facts and evidence.
Whenever anyone has taken you to task, they have always provided the substantiation as to why the opinion that you have formed is
not based upon any evidence, truth or any
credible analysis.
Anyway, having written above that you can be very, very insulting, without any evidence based substantiation....
this is quite literally what you then go on to do in the very next paragraph:
Quite frankly it really beggars belief when back here at home we have a bunch of intolerant political incompetents who it seems are determined to destroy the UK's business competitiveness and even create mass unemployment all for the sake of a flawed ideology.
Before criticising the leaders of other nations and the people who vote for them, I'd argue you should address the problems closer to home.
You
say that you are "not intolerant". Yet anyone who reads this ^^ paragraph will probably, like me, reach a differing conclusion. Since it appears that you most certainly
are intolerant, right there in black and white on the public internets.
You say "determined to destroy the UK's business". <- Not substantiated by facts or evidence.
It must be a perspective thing, because I say "determined to rebuild the UK's public services that have been systematically destroyed by the previous government's dogmatic ideological approach and intent over the past 14 years".
I invite you to provide any credible
material or credible
evidence (not just your dogmatic unfounded opinions) which would contradict that viewpoint. Go ahead and impress me with your body of evidence which must exist for you to harbour such strong dogmatic opinion. Impress me with your skillful and adroit analytical skills and lead me through your evidence to a conclusion which reinforces your claims. Or not. Your choice.
But until you do provide that deft analysis, know that if it is just
opinion that you bring, it is your
opinion that will be challenged (not you personally, not your character, and not your 'self', just your
opinion) and it will be challenged
using all the available clues from credible sources and knitted together to form a convincing and strong evidence-based substantiation as to why your particular unfounded opinion is, well, unfounded... At which point you are, of course, still free to keep harbouring that unfounded opinion, even after it has been directly refuted by fact. This is your prerogative. And that is fair. Absurd, mind. But still your prerogative.
Not unlike the people who (...
back on topic...) swore blind that Trumps "economic plan" was credible and very positive for them. Only later to realise that it actually isn't. Despite it being spelled out to them on national TV in the presidential debates. And even then, my prediction is that many of them will stubbornly cling to their prior
opinion, even when it transpires to be refuted in reality.
Yep, folks, today I have been re-visiting some of the information presented directly to audiences in those debates prior to the election, and it is clear to me that Harris spoke well of her plan. Sadly, the majority of voters took the word of a known liar over someone who spoke truth, simply because they "support a particular Team" or "hold a particular unfounded assumed opinion". Saddening.
