Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[JohnD]

of course not the case in London where the migrant vote kept it red.

Hawk just hates foreigners

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

Hawk just hates foreigners

You're not foreign....

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

Poor old bitter Tories.

Nowhere near as bitter as Corbin's unwashed voters..

 

[Brigadier]

Poor old bitter Tories.

Gotta be paid for by someone.

Oh, wait.....the magic money tree will sort it all out!

 

[JohnD]

You're not foreign....

FireIce hates everybody

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

FireIce hates everybody

I don't know what that guy feels but I love everyone though I do feel pity for you...let us hope that medical science finds a cure for you

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

She won...

In gaining 22 new Scottish Tory MPs, it might be more accurate to say the SNP lost.

In fact, if SNP had retained their seats the result would be very, very different:
Tory 296 seats, Labour 262, SNP 46. This would have suggested a Labour/SNP coalition with 308 seats.

So, NO! She did not win, Ruth Davidson won in Scotland, who incidentally is gay, and says she puts LGBT rights above politics, and her party who are now in Alliance with a homophobic party, the DUP.
Will there be a new seperate Scottish Tory party soon?
Or will it be a coalition of chaos? Scottish Tories, rUK Tories and DUP?

Incidentally, John, What do you have to laugh about in Scotland?

I did say it would not bode well for NI politics. I think I may have to ratchet that statement up a notch or two.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

of course not the case in London where the migrant vote kept it red.

A typical arse end type comment. You have no idea how many migrants are eligible to vote, or how they voted! Or indeed if they voted at all!

I can add my own arse end type comment:
It was the richer, more affluent, more educated, more globally aware, younger voters in London that retained socialist principles! Those that learn their global awareness from social media and internet based news coverage rather than the Daily Wail.

 

[Brigadier]

........ Those that learn their global awareness from social media and internet based news coverage rather than the Daily Wail.

The sort of "news" sources that you so scornfully deride, as and when it suits your agenda.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

The sort of "news" sources that you so scornfully deride, as and when it suits your agenda.

Support your suggestion, if you can.
Most (nearly all, or even all) of my references have been internet based news sources.
Sure I did discuss the merits of social media about the so-called Birmingham based long running debacle, which was completely absent from the news and apparently only appeared on FaceBook.
But FaceBook is not the only available social media, there is always DIYnot! And arse end's fantasy!

Incidentally, there is a good guide to assessing the credibility of social media here:
http://guides.library.jhu.edu/c.php?g=202581&p=1335031
Or to be more accurate, assessing the credibility of the specific article(s) on social media.

 

[Brigadier]

I stand by my point.

It is the critique of the source, not the source itself, that is the essential element.

But of course, your first reaction is to attempt to shout down or belittle the respondent.

And you accuse others of playground tactics.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I stand by my point.

We can all "stand by our point", but it does little to support our hypothesis.

It is the critique of the source, not the source itself, that is the essential element.

Errr, could you explain that a little better, please?
If you had said, "it is the critique of the source, not the information itself...." It might have made sense.
Or even, "it is the critique of the information, not the source itself ........."
It might have been more understandable, sensible, and debatable.

But of course, your first reaction is to attempt to shout down or belittle the respondent.
And you accuse others of playground tactics.

I could now accuse you of hypocrisy:

The sort of "news" sources that you so scornfully deride, as and when it suits your agenda.

For which you refuse to provide any supporting evidence.

 

[Brigadier]

Is YouTube not social media?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Is YouTube not social media?

Of course, so is twitter, so are many more.
Which is why it is important to consider the credibility of the contributor, the comments, the relevancy, etc.
As suggested in this advice:

Incidentally, there is a good guide to assessing the credibility of social media here:
http://guides.library.jhu.edu/c.php?g=202581&p=1335031
Or to be more accurate, assessing the credibility of the specific article(s) on social media.

Because individual contributors, or their contributions can be refuted, or discredited, it does not discredit the whole social media!
It is just like reading the Daily Wail, and judging each article on its merits!
But the regular average Daily Wail reader do not appear to do that.
BTW, I am referring, of course, to all tabloids, not just the DM.

 

[Brigadier]

So, we agree then!