A question to Brexiters ...

[darmstadt]

I don't consider any one an objective news source, don't play that game, go back through history and go from there. If all you do is look at MSM you'll be doomed to stay ignorant.
As the ole saying goes; "Listen to news and you 'll be misinformed, don't and you'll be ill informed."

Ah, another Breitbart, Zerohedge, RT, Infowars, et. al. believer

[bulltraderpt]

Ah, another Breitbart, Zerohedge, RT, Infowars, et. al. believer

Sorry, what does that mean?

Play the comment not the man, otherwise it'd better to be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

[Old Greg]

I don't consider any one an objective news source, don't play that game, go back through history and go from there. If all you do is look at MSM you'll be doomed to stay ignorant.

As the ole saying goes; "Listen to news and you 'll be misinformed, don't and you'll be ill informed."

So what is the point of labelling a particular news source as not objective? Isn't that somthing of a tautology?

[darmstadt]

Sorry, what does that mean?

Play the comment not the man, otherwise it'd better to be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

So where do you get your news from then?

[bulltraderpt]

So what is the point of labelling a particular news source as not objective? Isn't that somthing of a tautology?

Well, it's not is it? There is a slant to it, is there not?

As it is, you didn't counter, or acknowledge my initial point to the article (which I clearly gave) did you?

As for it being a "tautology"; I have only stated my thought on the Guardian (article) once, not twice.

[bulltraderpt]

So where do you get your news from then?

It's a difficult one this as what suits certain audiences is given more prominence in certain 'news outlets' than others.

But if pushed, I'd go with the thought that MSM outlets can't cover incidences / situations / issues in a couple of hundred words, so I go for interviews and an attempt and in depth analysis over several hours where points are thrashed out in debates etc, hence the well worn saying (not mine), to your initial quote.

[Old Greg]

Well, it's not is it? There is a slant to it, is there not?

As it is, you didn't counter, or acknowledge my initial point to the article (which I clearly gave) did you?

As for it being a "tautology"; I have only stated my thought on the Guardian (article) once, not twice.

OK. I have all the info that I need about you.

[glebe digital]

go back through history and go from there. If all you do is look at MSM you'll be doomed to stay ignorant.

But all 'history' is subjective, so you're doomed -whatever that means- in any case.

[sasguru]

I also suspect those in the so called piece have ancestors who have actually given to their various societies unlike the economic migrants coming in.

So the point is null and void when you look at it objectively.

Since you want to look at the world objectively, I would suggest that since much of the UK's wealth is built on plunder from various areas around the world, that means that the ancestors of a wider variety of people from around the world have contributed to the UK's wealth than you think. And that applies to any ex-colonial society.

[Old Greg]

Since you want to look at the world objectively, I would suggest that since much of the UK's wealth is built on plunder from various areas around the world, that means that the ancestors of a wider variety of people from around the world have contributed to the UK's wealth than you think. And that applies to any ex-colonial society.

And not just plunder. There was also the policy of deindustrialisation. Particularly in India.