Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

cbyrd

There is no guarantee that we will get any funding from the ESM when we do apply.. it's up to the amazing Board of Governors .. plus all the billions we get from them we've to hand up 2.5 billion before we even get a chance to ask for anything..
I think it should be back to growing our own spuds and take up knitting tbh .. can't see how we get a good deal no matter what way we vote.. Looks like
germany will get the best of it..

Also does it not concern anyone that we are voting on an unfinished text?? Germany cannot get a majority in parliament to pass it so they are delaying it til the middle or end of june to add in some extras. . . Why is Enda Kenny pushing us to vote before we know what we're voting for?? what is he a scared little boy afraid of disappointing his big buddy Angela ??? muppet

We will have more austerity, either way because the financial "bubble blower" has finally run out of soapy water, growth is it's current form has come to an end.

Paying back for the excesses of the past decade will be impossible without high growth, high growth is impossible when much of our (the west's) manufacturing industry has been "exported" East.

What is going to create the growth needed to make the conditions of the fiscal compact achievable!!!!

Doc Ruby

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't see any way in which a No vote actually reduces austerity, and I don't think anyone on the No side has come up with any such way.

Thats what I thought alright. So basically we now have evidence that the shinners are lying through their teeth about the treaty, showing the same contempt for the electorate as FG, FF and the rest of the parade.

My takeaway is that a No vote means we'll probably have to live according to our means, which to my mind is a better answer than ongoing loans in the hope of an increasingly unlikely global recovery. A short sharp shock. We can't pull an Iceland but we can at least limit the damage.

Dyr

Hmm Does this mean that Justice Hogan is another on of these people who hasn't bothered to inform themselves on how the EU functions

"Justice Hogan said the argument ultimately rested on the exact measures required by individual EU member states to approve amendments to the EU’s founding treaties, and that it was not sufficiently clear how Irish, European and international laws interacted in this regard.

“It is simply that the issue presented is one of such difficulty and such novelty that it has not been explored in the manner that would need to be explored by the [European] Court of Justice,” Justice Hogan said."


Maybe the high court should recruit some of our resident experts to explain it to them:pac:

the groutch

Wonder is he related to Phil "Hulk" Hogan :rolleyes:

cbyrd

If it's such a good treaty why won't the German Parliament pass it?? why are they adding more text and delaying the vote yet we're going ahead and voting on an unfinished text ??? what is Enda Kenny so bloody scared of??

Mance Rayder

paddyandy wrote: »

I will vote by instinctive feelings because i do not understand much at all .No matter how simply it's explained i'm sure there are opaque areas .

You really shouldn't vote on something you don't understand, its like flipping a coin to see what happens. It is irresponsible.

Mance Rayder

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Okay riddle me this so - the shinners and associates have posters on every streetcorner declaring "vote no, we've had enough austerity" or words to that effect.

But if we can't access the ESM won't austerity just get a lot worse?...

Yes. The no side are campaigning on the promise of a positive outcome that can only be achieved by voting yes, by claiming that very outcome will happen if we vote no.

They are literally campaigning backwards.

Scofflaw

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Thats what I thought alright. So basically we now have evidence that the shinners are lying through their teeth about the treaty, showing the same contempt for the electorate as FG, FF and the rest of the parade.

My takeaway is that a No vote means we'll probably have to live according to our means, which to my mind is a better answer than ongoing loans in the hope of an increasingly unlikely global recovery. A short sharp shock. We can't pull an Iceland but we can at least limit the damage.

A short sharp shock isn't any such thing, except to start off with. The problem with austerity is that it does reduce growth, and the kind of large adjustment that no access to money would require would only be the start, because removing €18bn from the domestic economy all in one year will result in a sharp contraction, business failures, a contraction in the tax base, increased unemployment and an increased welfare bill - which means a new deficit and another round of cutting.

It's not actually a bandage situation, unless you factor in that ripping off the bandage in one "short sharp shock" actually leads to a new round of bleeding, another bandage, and more ripping, more bandages, etc, all in a hilariously uncontrolled way accompanied by strikes and so on. The scarring would be permanent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

cbyrd wrote: »

If it's such a good treaty why won't the German Parliament pass it?? why are they adding more text and delaying the vote yet we're going ahead and voting on an unfinished text ??? what is Enda Kenny so bloody scared of??

The text is not unfinished - what we vote on is what gets ratified. To quote the RefComm:

If we ratify the treaty and then the wording of the treaty is changed afterwards, will the same amendments apply to us?

If we vote yes, we give our Government the power to ratify this specific Treaty. It will come into effect if at least 12 euro area countries ratify it and, if we are one of those countries, it will apply to us. If enough countries do not ratify it, it will not come into effect at all.

Any changes to the Treaty will have to be agreed by all the countries involved, including us. If changes were to be agreed before the Treaty comes into effect (and this is unlikely given the European Council’s decision on 23 May), that changed Treaty would not be the one that was the subject of the referendum and another referendum would probably be needed to allow our Government to ratify the changed treaty.

The Germans are holding out for the same as the French, which is a supplementary growth pact. The Irish government is supporting that call, but we have no way of doing what the German party is doing, because referendums don't work that way - there's a Yes, or a No, and a No just means the Treaty can't be ratified. It's not a bargaining position, it's a legally binding decision.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cbyrd

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Germans are holding out for the same as the French, which is a supplementary growth pact. The Irish government is supporting that call, but we have no way of doing what the German party is doing, because referendums don't work that way - there's a Yes, or a No, and a No just means the Treaty can't be ratified. It's not a bargaining position, it's a legally binding decision.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes but why rush the vote ... why not hold off until it's technically finished.. we are voting yes or no but to what ?? And of course the referendum can be postponed.. all that has to be done is someone stand up and say hold on a minute.. lets wait til we see what else is going to be added on...
Why do most of the German parliament not agree with it as it is ?? if its so wonderful?? why isn't the irish goverment asking these questions too?? after all the referendum was called here before the german parliament decided not to support it as is. . .why are we different ?

Doc Ruby

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem with austerity is that it does reduce growth

If your growth is coming entirely from loans that need to be repaid, its not growth. I thought we'd have learned that lesson from the property bubble, rather than be making the same mistake again at a national level

Scofflaw wrote: »

and the kind of large adjustment that no access to money would require would only be the start, because removing €18bn from the domestic economy all in one year will result in a sharp contraction, business failures, a contraction in the tax base, increased unemployment and an increased welfare bill - which means a new deficit and another round of cutting.

I am familiar with the consequences of having EU loans removed, and I'm not saying it would be pleasant. What I don't buy is this idea that it would cause an unending spiral of economic collapse until we're drinking our guinness out of potholes and knapping flint to cut the shillelaghs from the blackthorn to defend our stashes of edible kelp.

It wouldn't be fun, but we should eventually end up with a leaner, more efficient state and hopefully see off the last of the civil war parties.

On the other hand it is entirely possible for this depression and consequent national debt to continue for a very, very long time to come, all while the public sector blinks out from under the croke park agreement watching the rest of the country burn.

You must admit the entire strategy is to fight a rearguard action on unsustainable bubble level public expenditure in the hopes that the economy picks up again. That, literally, is it, and that for me is not good enough.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The scarring would be permanent.

No such thing when it comes to countries. Japan got nuked and look at them now.

Dyr

Scofflaw wrote: »

The text is not unfinished - what we vote on is what gets ratified. To quote the RefComm:



The Germans are holding out for the same as the French, which is a supplementary growth pact. The Irish government is supporting that call, but we have no way of doing what the German party is doing, because referendums don't work that way - there's a Yes, or a No, and a No just means the Treaty can't be ratified. It's not a bargaining position, it's a legally binding decision.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If changes were to be agreed before the Treaty comes into effect (and this is unlikely given the European Council’s decision on 23 May), that changed Treaty would not be the one that was the subject of the referendum and another referendum would probably be needed to allow our Government to ratify the changed treaty.

The commission appear to be a lot less certain on the issue than you are.

Scofflaw

cbyrd wrote: »

Yes but why rush the vote ... why not hold off until it's technically finished..

It is technically finished.

cbyrd wrote: »

we are voting yes or no but to what ??

To the Fiscal Treaty as it stands. Look on your polling card - the amendment specifies the version of the Treaty as the one done on March 2nd 2012. It can't be applied to any other version.

cbyrd wrote: »

And of course the referendum can be postponed.. all that has to be done is someone stand up and say hold on a minute.. lets wait til we see what else is going to be added on...

No, it can't be postponed. There's absolutely no legal mechanism for changing the date of a referendum except in the case of a general election. Why on earth would you even want the government to be able to postpone referendums?

cbyrd wrote: »

Why do most of the German parliament not agree with it as it is ?? if its so wonderful?? why isn't the irish goverment asking these questions too??

They are.

cbyrd wrote: »

after all the referendum was called here before the german parliament decided not to support it as is. . .why are we different ?

Possibly because we're up the creek and other people aren't. Greece and Portugal have already ratified.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Bambi wrote: »

The commission appear to be a lot less certain on the issue than you are.

No, they're alluding to the possibility that the changes made might no longer require us to have a referendum at all. Which is true, and would cause almighty bitching.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Doc Ruby wrote: »

If your growth is coming entirely from loans that need to be repaid, its not growth. I thought we'd have learned that lesson from the property bubble, rather than be making the same mistake again at a national level

Um, no, that's entirely wrong. The problem with the property bubble was that a house doesn't actually grow - but that doesn't apply to economies, or indeed businesses. If a company borrows money to expand the business, and pays back the loan out of the expanded business, your claim is that this is "not growth", which is very obviously not true.

If you recall, one of the main complaints about the banks at the moment is that they're stifling business growth by not lending - what did you think they were lending for?

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I am familiar with the consequences of having EU loans removed, and I'm not saying it would be pleasant. What I don't buy is this idea that it would cause an unending spiral of economic collapse until we're drinking our guinness out of potholes and knapping flint to cut the shillelaghs from the blackthorn to defend our stashes of edible kelp.

It wouldn't be fun, but we should eventually end up with a leaner, more efficient state and hopefully see off the last of the civil war parties.

On the other hand it is entirely possible for this depression and consequent national debt to continue for a very, very long time to come, all while the public sector blinks out from under the croke park agreement watching the rest of the country burn.

You must admit the entire strategy is to fight a rearguard action on unsustainable bubble level public expenditure in the hopes that the economy picks up again. That, literally, is it, and that for me is not good enough.

There are two separate arguments there - one, that removing €18bn of fiscal stimulus from the economy would not cause a massive shock and a round of contractions, which is simply wrong (you should really go the whole hog and claim it would be a soft landing) - and the other that if we had such a fiscal shock, the result would somehow be the realisation of your political preferences, which is at best arguable.

It's easy to paint a quite contrary scenario, in which the country backtracks towards the Eighties, when, despite acute fiscal pain and hella austerity, civil servants were, if anything, even better protected relative to the general populace than now, and the civil war parties even more entrenched.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

No such thing when it comes to countries. Japan got nuked and look at them now.

You don't think their economy is still scarred from their economic crisis? OK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

paddyandy

Well now we know but are there more tricks up the shinners sleeve ?

Doc Ruby

Scofflaw wrote: »

Um, no, that's entirely wrong. The problem with the property bubble was that a house doesn't actually grow - but that doesn't apply to economies, or indeed businesses. If a company borrows money to expand the business, and pays back the loan out of the expanded business, your claim is that this is "not growth", which is very obviously not true.

Its not a company. Its a government. The loans are being used to pay for public expenditure in lieu of taxes, and in many cases filter out to the wider economy as government employees spend money in shops and so on. But that's a really obviously unsustainable situation, the economy supports the government, not the other way round.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you recall, one of the main complaints about the banks at the moment is that they're stifling business growth by not lending - what did you think they were lending for?

And when the government starts handing out loans that will matter.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are two separate arguments there - one, that removing €18bn of fiscal stimulus from the economy would not cause a massive shock and a round of contractions, which is simply wrong (you should really go the whole hog and claim it would be a soft landing) - and the other that if we had such a fiscal shock, the result would somehow be the realisation of your political preferences, which is at best arguable.

I'm sorry, you appear to have missed the part where I acknowledged it would be far from pleasant. The political thing is debatable, but when it becomes finally painfully obvious that the existing political cadre aren't up to the job of managing a corner shop, it would seem to be a natural thing for people to look for change.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's easy to paint a quite contrary scenario, in which the country backtracks towards the Eighties, when, despite acute fiscal pain and hella austerity, civil servants were, if anything, even better protected relative to the general populace than now, and the civil war parties even more entrenched.

So the infrastructure improvements along with the rest of it are going to vanish into thin air, are they? Public workers will have a tricky time getting entrenched when the money isn't there to pay their wages. I believe the term "every man for himself" will be applicable.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You don't think their economy is still scarred from their economic crisis? OK.

I know their economy was reduced to literal rubble within living memory, and they are now one of the global economic superpowers, to say nothing of Germany. So no, there is no such thing as permanent scarring on a national level. In fact a good shaking out of the dead weight might be no bad thing.

EURATS

Scofflaw wrote: »

Doc Ruby wrote: »

If your growth is coming entirely from loans that need to be repaid, its not growth. I thought we'd have learned that lesson from the property bubble, rather than be making the same mistake again at a national level

Um, no, that's entirely wrong. The problem with the property bubble was that a house doesn't actually grow - but that doesn't apply to economies, or indeed businesses. If a company borrows money to expand the business, and pays back the loan out of the expanded business, your claim is that this is "not growth", which is very obviously not true.

If you recall, one of the main complaints about the banks at the moment is that they're stifling business growth by not lending - what did you think they were lending for?

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I am familiar with the consequences of having EU loans removed, and I'm not saying it would be pleasant. What I don't buy is this idea that it would cause an unending spiral of economic collapse until we're drinking our guinness out of potholes and knapping flint to cut the shillelaghs from the blackthorn to defend our stashes of edible kelp.

It wouldn't be fun, but we should eventually end up with a leaner, more efficient state and hopefully see off the last of the civil war parties.

On the other hand it is entirely possible for this depression and consequent national debt to continue for a very, very long time to come, all while the public sector blinks out from under the croke park agreement watching the rest of the country burn.

You must admit the entire strategy is to fight a rearguard action on unsustainable bubble level public expenditure in the hopes that the economy picks up again. That, literally, is it, and that for me is not good enough.

There are two separate arguments there - one, that removing €18bn of fiscal stimulus from the economy would not cause a massive shock and a round of contractions, which is simply wrong (you should really go the whole hog and claim it would be a soft landing) - and the other that if we had such a fiscal shock, the result would somehow be the realisation of your political preferences, which is at best arguable.

It's easy to paint a quite contrary scenario, in which the country backtracks towards the Eighties, when, despite acute fiscal pain and hella austerity, civil servants were, if anything, even better protected relative to the general populace than now, and the civil war parties even more entrenched.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

No such thing when it comes to countries. Japan got nuked and look at them now.

You don't think their economy is still scarred from their economic crisis? OK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The above(reset poll) appears to speak for itself scofflaw. By the look of it, there was no need for a reset. Nobody here has had their minds changed, despite the effort that was/is being made by a number of members and mods. Fingers crossed the poll is a good representation of the true feeling of the Irish people.

By being a member of the EU, you would have thought that we would have been protected by our much larger "brothers and sisters" in Europe. This was not the case however, as they only protected themselves, and in fact we protected them by paying "our" debts.

We have been fooled before..will we be fooled again?
Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us!!!!

Mance Rayder

EURATS wrote: »

The above(reset poll) appears to speak for itself scofflaw. By the look of it, there was no need for a reset. Nobody here has had their minds changed, despite the effort that was/is being made by a number of members and mods. Fingers crossed the poll is a good representation of the true feeling of the Irish people.

There seem to be a few new usernames popping up and debating in favor of the no side on boards in the past few days, quite possibly the same people under different usernames, also plausible that people are voting multiple times. In fact I would put money on it.

All will be revealed on Friday.

franklyshocked

If the country votes YES, (based on fear), I would petition that ALL members of the Finance department have a large reduction in salary as their job will now be carried out by the European government

Scofflaw

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its not a company. Its a government.

No, it's an economy.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The loans are being used to pay for public expenditure in lieu of taxes, and in many cases filter out to the wider economy as government employees spend money in shops and so on. But that's a really obviously unsustainable situation, the economy supports the government, not the other way round.

Actually, they're mutually supporting. And by borrowing money into the economy - as the government is currently doing - it stimulates the economy. The growth, if well directed, is real, the effects of removing it equally so. The same goes for not taxing.

And when the government starts handing out loans that will matter.

The government does hand out loans, but that's not the point. The point is that your claim that growth involving borrowing isn't growth is nonsense.

What you're really saying, I think, from your other comments, is that borrowing to pay salaries isn't sustainable. And that's true, but the stimulus effect of doing so is still there.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm sorry, you appear to have missed the part where I acknowledged it would be far from pleasant.

I didn't miss it, I just think it's a woefully inadequate description.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The political thing is debatable, but when it becomes finally painfully obvious that the existing political cadre aren't up to the job of managing a corner shop, it would seem to be a natural thing for people to look for change.

And on top of that you have to assume that the change in question is for the better.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So the infrastructure improvements along with the rest of it are going to vanish into thin air, are they? Public workers will have a tricky time getting entrenched when the money isn't there to pay their wages. I believe the term "every man for himself" will be applicable.

Infrastructure improvements do require maintenance.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I know their economy was reduced to literal rubble within living memory, and they are now one of the global economic superpowers, to say nothing of Germany. So no, there is no such thing as permanent scarring on a national level.

The scarring is, however, still visible - which is what I said, not that there would never be economic growth again. Although, to be honest, two economic giants becoming economic giants again is a rather less close analogy to Ireland than one might wish.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

In fact a good shaking out of the dead weight might be no bad thing.

Which again assumes it's the "dead weight" that gets shaken out. The point about "permanent scarring" is that barely-controlled rounds of contractions and austerity will not guarantee or even promote any such result. Instead, it will simply produce distortions of the economy which will probably result in permanent changes. Both you and I actually agree on this - you're just claiming the changes will be good ones, and I don't see how on earth you can promise any such thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mance Rayder

franklyshocked wrote: »

If the country votes YES, (based on fear), I would petition that ALL members of the Finance department have a large reduction in salary as their job will now be carried out by the European government

So you just had to add that in didn't you? because all yes voters are voting based on fear, not on the basis of what is good for Ireland.

Remarks like that are very telling about an individual.

They tell me that no matter what the evidence, your opinion is set from the start and therefore debating with you is pointless.

Scofflaw

EURATS wrote: »

The above(reset poll) appears to speak for itself scofflaw. By the look of it, there was no need for a reset. Nobody here has had their minds changed, despite the effort that was/is being made by a number of members and mods. Fingers crossed the poll is a good representation of the true feeling of the Irish people.

By being a member of the EU, you would have thought that we would have been protected by our much larger "brothers and sisters" in Europe. This was not the case however, as they only protected themselves, and in fact we protected them by paying "our" debts.

We have been fooled before..will we be fooled again?
Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us!!!!

Heh - I don't expect to change people's minds, really. Most people who come to argue on a political thread have a political opinion which isn't open to change.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EURATS

CiscoStudent wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

The above(reset poll) appears to speak for itself scofflaw. By the look of it, there was no need for a reset. Nobody here has had their minds changed, despite the effort that was/is being made by a number of members and mods. Fingers crossed the poll is a good representation of the true feeling of the Irish people.

There seem to be a few new usernames popping up and debating in favor of the no side on boards in the past few days, quite possibly the same people under different usernames, also plausible that people are voting multiple times. In fact I would put money on it.

All will be revealed on Friday.

Havent bothered posting over the last few days, and I only voted once.
I also only have one username so your assumptions are incorrect.
All will be revealed on Friday, that is the only accurate and truthful part of your post!!

EURATS

Scofflaw wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

The above(reset poll) appears to speak for itself scofflaw. By the look of it, there was no need for a reset. Nobody here has had their minds changed, despite the effort that was/is being made by a number of members and mods. Fingers crossed the poll is a good representation of the true feeling of the Irish people.

By being a member of the EU, you would have thought that we would have been protected by our much larger "brothers and sisters" in Europe. This was not the case however, as they only protected themselves, and in fact we protected them by paying "our" debts.

We have been fooled before..will we be fooled again?
Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us!!!!

Heh - I don't expect to change people's minds, really. Most people who come to argue on a political thread have a political opinion which isn't open to change.

cordially,
Scofflaw

To be truthful scofflaw, the amount of posts you have posted and the content of them would indicate otherwise.

Doc Ruby

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it's an economy.

The one doing the borrowing is a government, so calling it the government rather than the economy is more accurate in this context.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, they're mutually supporting. And by borrowing money into the economy - as the government is currently doing - it stimulates the economy.

Which is exactly what I said. If your growth is coming from loans, and will vanish if the loans are removed, its not growth. Its some sort of zombified half life.

In a business context, taking out loans to open new markets or expand the company does lead to real sustainable growth. Where is this sustainable growth meant to come from with these EU loans?

Scofflaw wrote: »

I didn't miss it, I just think it's a woefully inadequate description.

We've survived a lot worse, as have many others. The only question is whether or not its better than the alternative, which is the crux of our disagreement. My point is that I think we can keep borrowing until we are literally unable to repay, at which point we have a default and we owe a hell of a lot more for a hell of a lot longer. I'm taking the longer view here, in saying its preferable to replace that uncertainty and immense risk with a harsh short term adjustment.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And on top of that you have to assume that the change in question is for the better.

Give people a decent choice and they'll vote for it. The problem is the lack of decent choices. And the electorate is very capable of handing out punishments and rewards as it sees fit, look what happened to the Greens and FF.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Infrastructure improvements do require maintenance.

We aren't going back to the 80s, that's fearmongering.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The scarring is, however, still visible - which is what I said, not that there would never be economic growth again. Although, to be honest, two economic giants becoming economic giants again is a rather less close analogy to Ireland than one might wish.

Prewar Germany had a lot more in common with Ireland than you might think. Almost all of their economic growth was based on loans. The point however is that even in extreme cases there is no scarring, unless you mean the odd bunker or bomb crater, which is hardly salient to the discussion.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which again assumes it's the "dead weight" that gets shaken out. The point about "permanent scarring" is that barely-controlled rounds of contractions and austerity will not guarantee or even promote any such result. Instead, it will simply produce distortions of the economy which will probably result in permanent changes. Both you and I actually agree on this - you're just claiming the changes will be good ones, and I don't see how on earth you can promise any such thing.

Its fairly simple - businesses relying on unsustainable income from the government will go under, to be replaced by better businesses or not replaced if they are unneccessary. And that's just the private sector, the public sector is where the most radical changes will take place, which is a good thing.

cbyrd

CiscoStudent wrote: »

There seem to be a few new usernames popping up and debating in favor of the no side on boards in the past few days, quite possibly the same people under different usernames, also plausible that people are voting multiple times. In fact I would put money on it.

All will be revealed on Friday.

i have 2 polling cards for thursday . . maybe i'll use them both.. one yes and one no . . .

prinz

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The point however is that even in extreme cases there is no scarring, unless you mean the odd bunker or bomb crater, which is hardly salient to the discussion..

No scarring in Germany because of the past? :pac: Good one. The fall-out from the guest workers from Turkey, from immigration from ethnic Germans from all over Eastern Europe, many smaller towns that were built back up in a hurry appearing like ugly concrete lego towns, West Germans paying an additional tax that goes to East Germany..and on and on. You think it all just passed off without a hitch?

Scofflaw

EURATS wrote: »

To be truthful scofflaw, the amount of posts you have posted and the content of them would indicate otherwise.

It could well look that way to you, but I learned the folly of the idea in the endless Creationist thread in the Christianity forum long before enduring the two head-to-the-brick-wall sessions that were Lisbon 1 & 2.

I have no objection at all to someone voting No on solid rational grounds (see exchanges with Head The Walls today, for example), but to be honest I dislike seeing anyone doing anything on the basis of misinformation, misdirected emotion, and misuse of logic.

cordially,
Scofflaw