Took the words right out of my mouth

[odeon]

It would have been brilliant if you'd gotten the start tag right.

[benjimanbreeg]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out.  Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.

Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.

The proof is the history of the world.  You think powerful crooks should have more power because we're too thick to know what's good for us, but they know what's good for us and have the best intentions.  Could you be anymore naive?  I'd suggest you ought to start reading some books by Noam Chomsky. 

[benjimanbreeg]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times.

Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.

'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in   
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro 
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes 
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing 

[Al Swearegen]

It would have been brilliant if you'd gotten the start tag right.

Absolutely.  I had no realised you were after ninja cat images. I had forgotten about them. They are fun though. I may get them firing again. Just for you

[Al Swearegen]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times.

Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.

'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in   
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro 
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes 
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing 

That's a fact

[odeon]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out.  Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.

Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.

The proof is the history of the world.  You think powerful crooks should have more power because we're too thick to know what's good for us, but they know what's good for us and have the best intentions.  Could you be anymore naive?  I'd suggest you ought to start reading some books by Noam Chomsky.

Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?

Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.

[odeon]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times.

Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.

'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in   
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro 
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes 
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing 

Experts did not necessarily thought "remain" would win, but they did warn you about the consequences.
Experts were divided, with some suggesting the Euro, others not, IIRC. There was no agreement.
Experts certainly didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. This is just wrong.
Experts certainly didn't all suggest attacking all those countries in the Middle East was even remotely a good thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You probably need to do your homework.

[odeon]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times.

Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.

'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in   
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro 
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes 
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing 

That's a fact

What is?

[benjimanbreeg]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out.  Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.

Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.

The proof is the history of the world.  You think powerful crooks should have more power because we're too thick to know what's good for us, but they know what's good for us and have the best intentions.  Could you be anymore naive?  I'd suggest you ought to start reading some books by Noam Chomsky.

Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?

Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.

Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for. 

[odeon]

Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?

Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.

Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for.

And you are doing it again.

[benjimanbreeg]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times.

Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.

'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in   
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro 
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes 
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing 

Experts did not necessarily thought "remain" would win, but they did warn you about the consequences.
Experts were divided, with some suggesting the Euro, others not, IIRC. There was no agreement.
Experts certainly didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. This is just wrong.
Experts certainly didn't all suggest attacking all those countries in the Middle East was even remotely a good thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You probably need to do your homework.

What are you talking about?  There wasn't a shed of preparation from the 'experts', as they were all sure we'd stay in.  Across the spectrum the result is described as a "shock".  You seem to be just disagreeing for the sake of it.
We've never said we were talking about all 'experts' and if we were, plenty of 'experts' said we'd be better off coming out of the European Union. 
Again, you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of it, British 'Intelligence' produced a report with the WMD claim. 
And again...  Multiple 'experts' made these claims.  And yes, some 'experts' claimed it would cause disaster.  Are you just picking and choosing with the benefit of hindsight as to who you see as 'experts'?   

[benjimanbreeg]

Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?

Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.

Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for.

And you are doing it again.

OK, then you must have completely fooled me.  What are you asking for?

[odeon]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times.

Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.

'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in   
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro 
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes 
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing 

Experts did not necessarily thought "remain" would win, but they did warn you about the consequences.
Experts were divided, with some suggesting the Euro, others not, IIRC. There was no agreement.
Experts certainly didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. This is just wrong.
Experts certainly didn't all suggest attacking all those countries in the Middle East was even remotely a good thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You probably need to do your homework.

What are you talking about?  There wasn't a shed of preparation from the 'experts', as they were all sure we'd stay in.  Across the spectrum the result is described as a "shock".  You seem to be just disagreeing for the sake of it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-live-updates-brexit-polls-how-to-vote-what-happens-to-uk-economy-ifs-niesr-lse-a7093111.html

This is just the "final warning" of these three institutions. There were quite a few of such warnings and to miss all of them you need to have been avoiding the media like the plague for the last six months at the very least.

There are many, many other examples.

We've never said we were talking about all 'experts' and if we were, plenty of 'experts' said we'd be better off coming out of the European Union. 

"Plenty", in this case, was what Financial Times somewhat charitably labelled a "sizable minority". They say around 75% of the financial experts warned against the effects of leaving.

So we are talking about a majority a lot larger than the 52%.

Again, you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of it, British 'Intelligence' produced a report with the WMD claim. 

Hans Blix, the UN Chief Inspector at the time, claims that to this day, neither the US nor the UK have presented their evidence to him. See Wikipedia for more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War).

He and his team provided a report presented well before the invasion, providing evidence of the contrary, however, something that could hardly be ignored by the two countries.

Are you deliberately ignoring this? Or, for that matter, deliberately ignoring the recent findings re Mr Blair?

And again...  Multiple 'experts' made these claims.  And yes, some 'experts' claimed it would cause disaster.  Are you just picking and choosing with the benefit of hindsight as to who you see as 'experts'?   

As for the rest, "attacking all those countries in the Middle East" is such a generic phrase that it's utterly pointless. Which countries? When? IIRC, while the Gulf War was widely supported, the Iraq invasion never was.

Your ignorance shows. It's quite painful, in fact. How old were you at the time of these two wars? How much did you read and watch about them at the time and how much did you have to look up now?

Did I say "powerful crooks should have more power"?

Again, try discussing the topic at hand, preferably without putting words in my mouth.

Not in as many words, but it's what you are asking for.

And you are doing it again.

OK, then you must have completely fooled me.  What are you asking for?

Look, if you can't remember the discussion, you should probably stop posting. Try going back and rereading the thread before posting more nonsense.

[Al Swearegen]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times.

Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.

'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in   
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro 
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes 
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing 

That's a fact

What is?

What the "experts" believed. I wonder what the people would have said if referendums were held. In these instances the experts were wrong in 100% of these cases I reckon the public would have got it a lot closer (even if you think people are too stupid to know what is in their best interests).

[odeon]

'Experts' thought we were going to vote to stay in   
'Experts' wanted us to join the Euro 
'Experts' 'believed' Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them in 45 minutes 
'Experts' said attacking all these countries in the Middle East would be a good thing 

That's a fact

What is?

What the "experts" believed. I wonder what the people would have said if referendums were held. In these instances the experts were wrong in 100% of these cases I reckon the public would have got it a lot closer (even if you think people are too stupid to know what is in their best interests).

I love it when you make my arguments for me.