B
Bodd
Wow was that your considered reply.
Thank you, you said enough![/QUOTE
How rude I put allot of time and effort into that
Wow was that your considered reply.
Thank you, you said enough![/QUOTE
How rude I put allot of time and effort into that
You have possibly heard it from other posters who see you unhappy about your situation but spend too much time on forums to do anything about your unhappiness.A 'new' (lol) member commenting in a familiar way on other's site usage...
Now I wonder where we've see that before
Vote remain had government backing and double the funding and still they lost.
Indeed, I posted mine back to the Tories without a stamp.. I don't know if they were ever charged for it. Probably notAnd they used an American president to make a statement which probably held more sway than the extra £500k that leave allegedly, possibly, mightve spent.
Lets be honest though, a lefleat produced by any government is not likely to be believed, so the remain leaflet probably benefited remain.
And they used an American president to make a statement which probably held more sway than the extra £500k that leave allegedly, possibly, mightve spent.
I suppose you know better than the investigation that took place? You have evidence to the contrary or are you starting up another conspiracy which does seem to be the preserve of the right - Seth Rich mark 2.
It does seem the preserve of the loony right of rejecting reality for conspiracy theory.
Another moaning quitter. Get over it Rogercon.
You are conflating.
Vote leave committed a crime.
You or anybody else has no idea the amount of influence the additional £500k made. Im suggesting that one of the most influential leaders in world made a statement that had more influence than vote leaves illegal, overspending.
I have no proof, nor do I have proof Obama was asked to do it by Cameron, but thats my theory.
Either way it seems more like reality than rejecting reality. And certainly no conspiracy theory.
Its all just conjecture.
extra £500k that leave allegedly, possibly, mightve spent.
Way to misunderstand what I wrote. My point was you made the claim that the overspend was an allegation - and not proven - well it has been.
You are the one conflating the impact of the overspend.
[QUOTE="Kankerot, post: 4181528, member: 236922"
The referendum was advisory in nature .
[QUOTE="Kankerot, post: 4181528, member: 236922"
The referendum was advisory in nature .
Oh really .............. I'm at a loss for words to describe such a dumb idiotic statement ...........All this
political discord .......but why it was only an advisory .........same as it's only advisory next time there's an election and you vote .....its only advisory !!
Wake up you're dreaming.