Re: Sam
Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 6:28 pm
[quote]"Quote:
Do you really think it likely that he bought his house in Brussels and then stayed in a hotel in Brussels for 4 years. Do you not think he might have mentioned that? The allowance was purely for Brussels costs."
I don't know if it's likely or not.
Oh come on, Sam. I know you know nothing about business. That's crystal. Of course it isnt likely![/quote]
You 'don't know if it's likely or not' and then you say 'of course it's not likely!' And you call me confused! Yes, people can indeed make their minds up - about who's confused at least.
[quote]By the way if you had read the story properly instead of a slipshod fashion you would have realised that the allowance was for DAYS attendance in Brussels i.e. those days over 4 years Cleggie turned up in Brussels for the EU parliament. So your cheap jibe about Murdoch press and hotel prices was silly.[/quote]
Eh? It was you that mentioned him spending the whole 4 years in a hotel, not me. I'm glad you're now agreeing with me that your point here was indeed silly. You're catching up!
[quote]About the rest I can see you make NOT ONE SINGLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE ISSUE RE MP EXPENSES in your previous message. Just joking asides.[/quote]
That's because it was a later point that you brought up when you got nowhere with the point about the house in Brussels. Again, you kept moving the debate on to other points because you had nowhere to go. I never had any disagreement over that so making out I did is just another attempt to make it look as though I was 'wrong' in some way. That's what you said/implied further up the thread, right? That I was 'wrong'?
[quote]Very poor, Sam. Now you just bleat about me starting on Brussels and then widening it to include other additional examples of his hypocrisy. Several messages after you made no comment whatsoever about me including that other stuff.[/quote]
Well, I pointed out your 'moving the goalposts' etc, but it didn't seem to compute and you carried on regardless. Should I have complained in every post thence? What's important, though, is the fact that you did.
[quote]At least you know about business and personal accounts now eh![/quote]
Not really. I still cannot work out how one single account automatically implies guilt, or even makes it more likely.
[quote]This has run its course now don't you think?[/quote]
This ran it's course before it had started, to be fair. You have nothing on Clegg regarding using expenses to pay off mortgages and so this whole thread was about what you'd assumed in your mind. You knew this hence the chopping and changing emphasis.
[quote]Anyone reading this thread can make their own mind up.[/quote]
I doubt anyone has the patience to follow our debate, David! It's just us, I'm sure. But, if one is brave enough they surely will see you've produced absolutely nothing of substance regarding Nick Clegg using expenses to pay off a mortgage. Like I've said time and again, it's all rumour, hearsay and supposition. Maybe you'll find some mud that sticks, maybe you will find that hole in the chicken coup fence....who knows. Right now, though, you have nothing more than when you started. Sorry.
[quote]I have nothing more to say. And reading your last message you appear to have nothing more to say, but whether you realise that, I somehow doubt it, based on previous experience.[/quote]
Well, of course I don't have nothing else to say. You've come up with nothing new regarding your original complaint and I have nothing else to defend that position. That's because neither of us know, do we? I'm just looking at the gaps and waiting for them to be filled and you've chosen to fill those gaps with cynicism......probably because Clegg's sudden rise to prominence irks you in some way. It must be that because you've acquired an unhealthy obsession in digging up dirt about Nick Clegg, which I've not seen from you in all the months before that first TV debate.
You talk about experience; experience of my debating habits, which amuses me. You see, from my experience of you, you seem to have a habit about complaining about other people wanting the last word but seem mighty keen on getting that last word for yourself. And you talk of Nick Clegg being a hypocrite! Now, that's not a complaint from me, just an observation. What do you say to this?
[quote]However I suppose I can take heart from your statement earlier in the thread
"while I might be in agreement with you over some of these 'claims'
Thanks Sam, he is a hypocrite isn't he?[/quote]
Ha ha ha! Why, you did me there, David. Lol.
[quote]Over to you Sam, for your Perrinesque, final word![/quote]
I think you know more about Keith than you're letting on, David. !happy!
Do you really think it likely that he bought his house in Brussels and then stayed in a hotel in Brussels for 4 years. Do you not think he might have mentioned that? The allowance was purely for Brussels costs."
I don't know if it's likely or not.
Oh come on, Sam. I know you know nothing about business. That's crystal. Of course it isnt likely![/quote]
You 'don't know if it's likely or not' and then you say 'of course it's not likely!' And you call me confused! Yes, people can indeed make their minds up - about who's confused at least.
[quote]By the way if you had read the story properly instead of a slipshod fashion you would have realised that the allowance was for DAYS attendance in Brussels i.e. those days over 4 years Cleggie turned up in Brussels for the EU parliament. So your cheap jibe about Murdoch press and hotel prices was silly.[/quote]
Eh? It was you that mentioned him spending the whole 4 years in a hotel, not me. I'm glad you're now agreeing with me that your point here was indeed silly. You're catching up!
[quote]About the rest I can see you make NOT ONE SINGLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE ISSUE RE MP EXPENSES in your previous message. Just joking asides.[/quote]
That's because it was a later point that you brought up when you got nowhere with the point about the house in Brussels. Again, you kept moving the debate on to other points because you had nowhere to go. I never had any disagreement over that so making out I did is just another attempt to make it look as though I was 'wrong' in some way. That's what you said/implied further up the thread, right? That I was 'wrong'?
[quote]Very poor, Sam. Now you just bleat about me starting on Brussels and then widening it to include other additional examples of his hypocrisy. Several messages after you made no comment whatsoever about me including that other stuff.[/quote]
Well, I pointed out your 'moving the goalposts' etc, but it didn't seem to compute and you carried on regardless. Should I have complained in every post thence? What's important, though, is the fact that you did.
[quote]At least you know about business and personal accounts now eh![/quote]
Not really. I still cannot work out how one single account automatically implies guilt, or even makes it more likely.
[quote]This has run its course now don't you think?[/quote]
This ran it's course before it had started, to be fair. You have nothing on Clegg regarding using expenses to pay off mortgages and so this whole thread was about what you'd assumed in your mind. You knew this hence the chopping and changing emphasis.
[quote]Anyone reading this thread can make their own mind up.[/quote]
I doubt anyone has the patience to follow our debate, David! It's just us, I'm sure. But, if one is brave enough they surely will see you've produced absolutely nothing of substance regarding Nick Clegg using expenses to pay off a mortgage. Like I've said time and again, it's all rumour, hearsay and supposition. Maybe you'll find some mud that sticks, maybe you will find that hole in the chicken coup fence....who knows. Right now, though, you have nothing more than when you started. Sorry.
[quote]I have nothing more to say. And reading your last message you appear to have nothing more to say, but whether you realise that, I somehow doubt it, based on previous experience.[/quote]
Well, of course I don't have nothing else to say. You've come up with nothing new regarding your original complaint and I have nothing else to defend that position. That's because neither of us know, do we? I'm just looking at the gaps and waiting for them to be filled and you've chosen to fill those gaps with cynicism......probably because Clegg's sudden rise to prominence irks you in some way. It must be that because you've acquired an unhealthy obsession in digging up dirt about Nick Clegg, which I've not seen from you in all the months before that first TV debate.
You talk about experience; experience of my debating habits, which amuses me. You see, from my experience of you, you seem to have a habit about complaining about other people wanting the last word but seem mighty keen on getting that last word for yourself. And you talk of Nick Clegg being a hypocrite! Now, that's not a complaint from me, just an observation. What do you say to this?
[quote]However I suppose I can take heart from your statement earlier in the thread
"while I might be in agreement with you over some of these 'claims'
Thanks Sam, he is a hypocrite isn't he?[/quote]
Ha ha ha! Why, you did me there, David. Lol.
[quote]Over to you Sam, for your Perrinesque, final word![/quote]
I think you know more about Keith than you're letting on, David. !happy!
