Verbal

I'm going to give this one go, and if it doesn't work I'll leave you to play duelling dullards with SOG. The point about consumer protection is apposite because of the context. That includes the fact that Trump appointees (Mulvaney, mostly) have been busily gutting consumer protection in the US in order to suck up to big business/donors. By contrast, the EU has been a bastion of consumer protections. An American citizen and a European citizen now have radically different levels of protection. Copyright is another area where the EU has far exceeded the US in protected intellectual property against big business. Since 2001, when the EU essentially defined authorship in terms of who created a work over and above who paid for it, actual copyright holders have been able to gain some redress from the rampant theft of the big players on the internet, like Google (Youtube). To give an example from my own experience, I now receive royalty payments through three collecting agencies which would not have happened but for the EU insisting that those who exploit my work actually pay for it. Now it may well be that in attempting to firm up copyright law (it's a deeply difficult and complex business) it may have gone too far. Just as many are complaining that GDPR has gone too far. But even those like Berners Lee, who have the moral and intellectual heft to make these arguments, understand full well why the EU is tackling this. To reiterate, to roll copyright law into an argument about consumer protection is nonsensical. If you have a distinct point to make about copyright law - and nothing you've written suggests you understand a word of it - then make it. It in no way diminishes the point about EU consumer protections being far stronger than US protections. If you doubt that, ask the people of Flint, Michigan. It doesn't diminish it because it has nothing to do with it.

So would you like to point out exactly where anything in ecuk's post suggested that the EU is confined to making decisions about consumer protection? If you want to make a point about copyright, make it. Don't confuse the issue by playing false-equivalence whataboutery.

Either you've deliberately thrown a dead cat at ecuk's post or you don't know the basic differences between consumer protection and copyright - which is a bit like comparing goats and trumpets.

It's funny how Brexit Jihadists deny so vehemently that they're ugly xenophobes, while actually being ugly xenophobes. Are you too stupid to have a debate about the EU without resorting to the some of the hoariest of anti-Irish stereotypes?

That can't be true. If it happened we'd unleash the Cake Jihad.

What Rees-Mogg wants is a no deal deal. His combination of 'red lines' and 'frictionless trade' isn't in conflict with May. It's in conflict with reality - specifically international law governing trade. Quite simply the WTO doesn't allow it. On which subject - congratulations to all (like me) who've predicted Norway+ (CU) as the outcome. Seems Oliver Robbins has introduced the May cabinet to that selfsame reality. (see the lead in today's Times).

Don't expect an answer. It must be difficult to type with all those burnt fingers.

I'd like to point out that my lords and masters are Bilderberg, while shurlock's are the Rothschilds. Different agendas, sunshine.

I think you're being unfair to Jihadi John. Apart from getting all his figures wrong and quoting at length from a swivel-eyed rant in a cult-leading rag owned by tax-dodging exiles, he has a point. Which appears to be that achieving the Jihadist wet dream crashing out of the EU with no deal...requires a deal (with aviation and Euratom, etc, etc). I'm sure that's what he meant.

And f**k the Americans. How dare they say exactly the same as those traitors BMW, Nissan and Airbus.

It's one thing to blunder into a Jew-hating trope. Quite another to double down on it. Shalom, putz. https://hailtothegynocracy.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/jew-puppet-master-2.jpg

Digging out old Jew-hating tropes isn't a good look.

This kind of belligerent ignorance leads me to think that there's sadly only one way the Jihadists will be forced to give up their delusions - and that's for thousands of workers in supply chain industries, including car, aviation, aerospace, to lose their jobs, along with others already suffering from real cuts in wages to suffer worse. Even then, the hive mind will blame the remoaners for failing to deliver 'their' Brexit.

Yes, but f**k BMW. There - problem solved.

Believe it or not, the issue is that China is a teensy bit bigger than Brexitland. Their market for aircraft sales is enormous - hence both Airbus and Boeing compete in China partly by setting up finishing plants (mostly painting the exteriors and fitting the soft interiors). The plants exist there for the same reason Mercedes and BMW have plants in the southern US - to increase sales and market share in an economy (does this really need saying?) that dwarfs Britain's. There's also a plant in China that furnishes wings for Airbus planes (as well as Chinese-built aircraft) - and they are actively campaigning for the British work, and have been ever since the referendum. They don't need eight years, or any time at all, to develop the skilled workforce to do this. And they'll get it if it comes to a straight fight between them and post 'Full British Brexit' (TM BoJo) UK. There just aren't any incentives to do otherwise, outside of colossal government subsidies. When you finally get to grips with how a modern economy works, this will all become clear to you.

Or the extended version: F**k business F**k the the aerospace industry F**k the car industry F**k the pharmaceuticals indsutry F**k the City F**k the supply chain federations F**k the haulage industry F**k jobs F**k inward investment F**k regional investment F**k the pound F**k the north F**k the Good Friday agreement F**k Scotland F**k EU nationals in the UK F**K UK nationals in Europe Still, at least BoJo's Brexit jihadist acolytes will help further his career.

Jeez, we're all the way back to Kennedy now. You really are into the crack cocaine of whataboutery, and seem petrified that your child-kidnapping idol has been made to look like a third-rate copy of a third-rate dictator. Again.

Don't pretend that you wrote that.

Probably not. Source: Donald Trump. He's been clear that he believes - and his acolytes believe this as an article of faith - that the Democrats WANT illegal immigration, because they want what his 'base' thinks inevitably comes with it: violence, gang warfare, crime and, by implication, miscegenation. You can't have it both ways. Obama was a two-term president, by the way, not just a 'senator' - as much as it offends that a black man inhabited the White House. And perhaps you could find some equivalent speech from Obama or Clinton where the following language is used: Mexicans (just to take one group) are 'animals', 'rapists' and 'murderers' who 'infest' the US. Trump knows full well the history of the word 'infest'. He knows how it was used by the Nazis to describe Jews, and by white western-US politicians in the 19th century to describe the Chinese. It is the kind of language that fuels violence and retribution against anyone who looks different. This is WAY beyond the language of speeches calling for more law enforcement on borders. Still, if you and Lord Crap want to look stupid enough to believe in a straightforward equivalence, you be my guest.

Christ, this is desperate. You're posting the self-serving waffle of a Brexit jihadist MP caught out by the sudden realisation that vast numbers of his own constituents' livelihoods may well go up in smoke. No wonder he wants the gullible to believe in arcane conspiracy theories. His own job depends on it.

Good question, although a bit over-polite. The truth - such a difficult concept for the far right - is that children have been separated from parents on the Canadian border, but (1) it's not Canadian government policy to do so; (2) the numbers have been falling for the last three years; and (3) the numbers are tiny compared to Trump's child-snatching aggression. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/canada-detention-children-united-states-1.4709632

Quite. While Trump stoops to the lowest point yet in his presidency, the topic of concern on here is one poster's bloviating narcissism. It seems Trump's immigrant wife Melania is intent on deepening the crisis with her 'I don't care' jacket, while Trump's sex object, his own daughter, continues to upload deeply insensitive happy-family images to Instagram. What a time to be alive.

Christ. Talk about triggered.

The stupidity of Trumpettes, part 1,000,455 On Friday, a man blocked the road to the Hoover Dam with a security truck and demanded the release of the Justice Deprtment's internal report on Hillary's emails. The report had already been published. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/15/us/hoover-dam/index.html

The anti-Nostradamus strikes again. Shouldn't the swivel-headed OP have predicted that his hero would eventually stoop as low as to start traumatising and jailing children as a matter of government policy? Still, he can redeem himself with some new predictions for 2018: what follows after Mueller's investigation and the mid-terms? I'll grant Jihadi John one thing. Trump is unique. He doesn't want to be. He wants to join the large club of authoritarian strongmen. He's actually a new political excrescence: the authoritarian weakman. With his limited powers, confined to issuing executive orders and random pardons, alienating allies and gleefully snuggling up to torturer-murderers (Duterte, Kim, Putin) he rails against the very thing he can't be: a dictator, free of any constraints - especially prosecutorial investigations and courtroom rulings against his wildest actions. Poor Trump.