Nigel Farage on the Sean Hannity Radio Show
 

For the Brits who want to hear this, he was on American talk radio yesterday. I think he has a man-crush on Mr. Trump. :hee:

Peas in a pod I guess

Of course he has a man crush on him, he sees him as a door to the sort of real political clout he hasn't been able to achieve by himself in the UK. How ironic though, that he's clearly interested in that sort of influence as a personal ambition even when it has absolutely nothing to do with his precious Britain :joker:. True colours, eh...

:clap1: :clap1:

:hehe:

yes the term you're searching for is...winners!:blush:

Racist assholes more like

nope. that foul abusive language of the left says more about them than those you criticise. No one is more ignorant , intolerant, judgemental, biased, sexist, than the loony left...they even hate their own country so much they would allow illegal immigration and potential terrorsts. its not racist to protect your country and your borders , its perfect common sense.

Calling people judgemental then calling people lunatics for their political stance.

Get some self awareness hun x

:hehe:

What true colours, the two countries have always been alies and a good relationship between the two men benefits Britain. These two men have changed political history and have thrown a Hugh spanner in the works to the liberal elites and their increasingly unpopular politically nonsensical views.

But we certainly saw some true colours when the remoaners and Clinton supporters threw their massive tantrums. There really is nothing so sad as a sore loser.

How about a smug gloater? :fan:

How? He holds no political position in Britain? Is it just because he happens to be British? He will be working for America, involving their relationship with the EU (which Britain will not be part of). What does that have to do with Britain?

Hannity and Colmes

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/57541/thum...NITY-large.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannity_%26_Colmes

was better it when it was
Left and Right


But Colmes Left
as Hannity was bullying him.



Alan Colmes it's a good balance when
he comes on the Daytime Shows
they respect him , more



And he has a Radio Show
on Fox Radio , as well
so at least he gets by.

If Brexit and Trump lost we would have had riots. Seems a bit rich to want to repress people from being peacefully unhappy about a result when Violence would have likely occurred had the results been reversed.

Hell, racially charged incidents increased when Brexit and Trump won as the bigots became emboldened by the result. If we have a noticeable rise in violent crime when one side wins, just imagine what would have happened if they lost.

Where is the evidence anything these two have ever said or done has or will benefit Britain?... I see nothing, except the omishambles that is brexit and a megalomaniac in the white house :/

This is NOTHING but PERSONAL CONJECTURE T.S., dressed up as factual statement.

No one KNOWS just what Farage's motives are, but Nigel Farage himself, and what is 'Real Political Clout'? How do we define it?

Is it a long ensconced Prime Minister such as David Cameron, who has ALL the mighty powers of the Establishment, the Corporations, The Civil Service, and 99% of the Media supporting him, in addition to a Bottomless Bucket of Public Money which he can appropriate - seemingly unchallenged - to help fund propaganda literature whenever he sees fit, BUT yet, still CANNOT secure his political objectives?

Is it the 'Leader' of Her Majesty's Opposition Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who leads the LARGEST by far, political party in the UK, and who enjoys support only marginally secondary to Cameron's party, but who is as politically impotent a politician as there has ever been in British Politics?

Or could it be Nigel Farage - who IN SPITE of enjoying NONE of the huge advantages enjoyed by the above, and DESPITE having the full force of the BBC and Channel 4, virtually EVERY British newspaper, and the huge ESTABLISHMENT and CORPORATE propaganda machines VICIOUSLY, UNFAIRLY, and SADISTICALLY ranged against him, single-handedly and from NOWHERE, built Ukip up into the third largest party in the UK, REVERSED decades of voter apathy, RESTORED some measure of DEMOCRACY BACK INTO THE HANDS of the ordinary British People, and SUCCEEDED in his overriding political ambition – to see the UK vote to leave the corrupt European Union.

From being a schoolboy, Farage has spent a LIFETIME in politics. He was a member of the Conservative Party until quitting in protest in 1992 at the corrupt John Major's now thoroughly discredited signing of The Maastricht Treaty - an early sign then of Farage's insight and true integrity, and formed Ukip the year after.

When ANY man retires after a lifetime of hard work (and Farage is one of the hardest working politicians this country has ever seen) has he no rights to do what he likes with his life?

Some retired men take up Golf, painting, travelling the world, gardening etc, but how many men who do so would refuse an offer of a job with the President of The United States of America?

And having for so long elected to serve his country in politics instead of serving himself, at much cost to his income, has Farage no rights, to think about a lucrative position which is above board and legal?

Compare Farage with any one of HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of other serving and ex-serving British Politicians of ALL Parties - Prime Ministers among them - who have CORRUPTLY LINED their own pockets by LOBBYING for huge Multi National Corporations AGAINST the interests of the same British People who elected them, only to then take very lucrative jobs with those same corporations once leaving (or being FORCED to leave) politics.

NO ONE KNOWS just what Farage's new post entails, therefore no one can state with anything but pure SPECULATION, that the duties of such a post will not afford Farage the opportunity to continue to pursue the two political loves of his life - exposing the corrupt EU, and strengthening the UK's position in the world.

I would delight in any Tibb member rationally, logically, reasonably and amicably and FACTUALLY discussing just WHY they HATE Farage so much. WHAT has he ACTUALLY done to deserve such hatred and contempt?

I'm HERE to discuss.

In the meantime; I will predict; that just as history has proved how corrupt men like HEATH, BLAIR, MAJOR and others REALLY were, then it will ONE DAY exonerate the much wrongfully maligned Nigel Farage.

All ifs and buts, the only violence I have seen has been from the Clinton supporters.

For all their attempted taking the moral high ground those spewing all their liberal ideology have been the ones acting like thugs.

Clearly the thought of the 'other side' fighting back at the negative effects their Wooly-headed views are having on our countries has put them into panic mode - hence the emergence of said true colours.

Brexit is NOT any 'omnishambles' - It is the result of a DEMOCRATIC REFERENDUM of those British Citizens who could be bothered to actively participate, and it is the post referendum skullduggery by Foreign Corporations with HUGE vested interests in REMAINING in the Gravy Train which is the EU, which is THE real problem.

The corrupt EU has had 40 + years in which to entangle us and bind us in its very, very, complex and convoluted, bureaucratic and legal tentacles, and NO disentanglement is, or was, EVER going to be a simple, overnight matter of 'electing to separate'.

No matter how true in essence, the explanatory statements from Gina Miller: "We are taking this challenge to clarify the procedural steps necessary for the UK to trigger Article 50 in line with the UK constitution" and "We will be making the argument that the correct constitutional process of parliamentary scrutiny and approval as well as consultation with the devolved administration in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the Welsh Assembly needs to be followed. Otherwise the notice to withdraw from the European Union would be unlawful and subject to legal challenge." is but a cloak which masks the very real motives behind this challenge.

To any IMPARTIAL logical UK citizen who TRULY believes in DEMOCRACY - Nigel Farage has done more single-handedly to wrench control of our democracy away from the rich elites who have manipulated it for decades, and place it back in the hands of the electorate.

Gina Miller and her corporate cronies are merely attempting to reverse the above.

Absolutely and irrefutably CORRECT Brillopad.

Thanks Kirk, given the quality of all your posts I am glad we are on the same 'side'. You know your stuff! Amazing posts.

...when it comes to violent acts I doubt that any 'true colours' have emerged at all..these are just negative/aggressive people who will act and have acted with physical violence as their communication regardless of political beliefs..it's an individuality thing, I think we all know that though...

Just because you choose not to see something, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

There was a reported increase of racial violence after Brexit and incidents in America since Trump's victory has increased dramatically. No amount of reaching and pretending that peaceful protests are somehow considered acts of violence is going to change that.

And just because you choose to see what you want to see does not mean it is.

Racial violence - what does that mean - does it show us who instigated such violence? I repeat the violence I have seen was from Clinton supporters who were doing a lot more than peaceful protest. No amount of wishful thinking and biased interpretation will change that.

I find this very idealistic, Kirk. You could break it all down and say that, yes, removing us from the larger entity gives us more control but the reality is... a very few things that do not affect the day to day lives of the electorate will be altered by the government when outwith EU control and there will be decades of economic uncertainty, upheaval and decline in the process. And in the real world, NO control at all is in the hands of the electorate, it is instead firmly in the hands of the Tory elite governments, with currently no end in sight to that situation. Trying to paint it as a victory for the "man on the street" is just insane... that man has NO more control than he ever did. Westminster has more control than before. So what? Because they are British Elite instead of European Elite? :shrug:

Peaceful Protests? That river in Egypt must be one almighty crowded place what with all the people in this world who are in Denial. :hee:

PORTLAND THURSDAY NIGHT

Police in Portland, Ore. declared that a once peaceful protest was a riot after demonstrators were seen attacking drivers and committing acts of vandalism during their march against Donald Trump’s election Thursday night.

Portland police said at least 29 people were arrested in the riot and that more information would be given on the charges Friday morning.

Sections of Interstate 5 and Interstate 84 were temporarily closed.

Protesters in Portland’s Pearl District were breaking windows of several businesses and some were arming themselves with rocks from a construction site, police said.

At the peak of Portland’s demonstration late Thursday, about 4,000 people took to the streets, confronting drivers, spray-painting buildings and smashing electrical boxes with baseball bats

PORTLAND - FRIDAY

Police in riot gear stood firm across one downtown street until after 8 p.m. when protesters threw glass bottles at the police.

By 10 p.m., the police had deployed tear gas, flash grenades and rubber bullets,

PORTLAND - SATURDAY

Portland, Oregon, has been the site of the most violent anti-Trump demonstrations with a shooting and the arrest of 71 people on Saturday.

LOS ANGELES - WEDNESDAY

28 people were arrested Wednesday for blocking traffic during a demonstration that also saw vandalism to some buildings and a news truck.

INDIANAPOLIS - SATURDAY

In Indianapolis, two police officers were injured by protesters throwing rocks Saturday evening, according to a tweet from the Indianapolis Metro Police Department's official account.

Seven people were arrested as police tried to keep peace in downtown Indianapolis.

MIAMI - FRIDAY

Earlier Friday in Miami, hundreds of demonstrators clogged a major thoroughfare, the MacArthur Causeway, halting traffic for more than an hour shortly after dusk. They eventually moved downtown and by 9 p.m. had blocked northbound lanes on Interstate 95.

CHICAGO

In Chicago, 49-year-old David Wilcox, was viciously beaten by a group of young men and women in Chicago. The attackers screamed phrases such as “You voted Trump” and “Don’t vote Trump.”

PEACEFUL PROTEST?

It looks more like Violent Anarchy to me.

Except you only need to look on Google to see that I'm right and that racially motivated incidents have been on the rise since the election.

I only know of one reported incident involving Hillary supporters so trying to paint that incident as indicative of all Hillary Supporters is ridiculous. One incident is not a pattern.

One quick Google search has led to several articles about the Portland incidents, most of the arrested individuals were from out of state and didn't even vote. The violent incidents were likely the result of people simply looking for a fight rather caring about or wishing to protest the Election.

I can't see anything about any supposed acts of vandalism on the LA protests, making out that blocking traffic is akin to an act of violence is rather silly though.

Here's an article you should read about the Indianapolis protests. Not exactly the anarchy you were making it out to be, huh?

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2...olis/93797920/

Here's a few other articles for you to read :)


http://time.com/4569129/racist-anti-...-donald-trump/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rump-president

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...-say/93681294/

You state there has been 'an increase in racially motivated incidents since the election' - but where is the proof of who exactly instigated any such 'incident'.

I for one won't simply be taking your word for that as your views are clearly not unbiased.

I've just posted three separate stories above your post. :)

I have read the three examples you provided but I'm sorry I see no real proof in any of it. It is mainly hearsay, second-hand accounts of allegations made, one woman was actually discredited for having made false allegations. Who is to say others did not do the same? What is it they say motive, opportunity etc - all the ingredients are there.

It is also perfectly feasible that some did things like painting messages on churches etc in order to blame Trump supporters. There is a lot of anger out there on both sides and a lot of motivation to blame others. Without solid evidence most should be taken with a pinch of salt.

We saw Clinton protestors causing chaos on TV smashing windows etc which you described as 'peaceful protest' so find it pretty ironic that you just expect others to give any credibility to such vague accounts.

Ah, so you're rejecting those articles because they don't suit your version of events. Okay.

The media loves a good riot, look at the London Riots and the protests after every police shooting in the US. All started peacefully, all got hijacked by people looking to fight and riot and the media tarred the protesters with the same brush as the rioters because it made for a more interesting story.

Fact, Incidents of racial violence and discrimination has gone up in the US since the election. Fact, the same thing happened in the wake of Brexit. You can dispute it all you like but I could keep bringing out articles that proves what I'm saying all night long.

That depends on your definition of proof. It isn't quantity that counts - only quality. You can bring out as many articles as you like but unless they provide definitive proof of significant involvement in Hate crimes perpetrated by Trump supporters you have no case.

Yeah, respected publifications aren't good enough sources, let me go find one of those youtube videos with a clickbait title like 'SJW HILLARY SUPPORTERS ARE RETARDED!'. That's surely a better source....

Keep denying what you know is true, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Oh it is, every day we are learning something new as thankfully the covert negotiations that aim to rid us of any semblance of a civilised society with our NHS, workers rights, justice system and public services are being leaked.

Free us from foreign corporations?... Who do you think the govt have to frack the **** out of the UK, and site their nuclear dumps here? :/

This idealistic 'great British brexit off' isn't going to happen the way many envisaged, there will be no croquet on the lawn...no jolly hockey sticks and no bluebirds over the white cliffs of dover.
It will be hard, unfair and unconstitutional, calling those who are attempting to see to it the law forces the govt to adhere to the rules are not 'cronies' or 'enemies of the people' or whatever else the brown shirts label them as.

Are laws only for plebs? To keep us in check not for the elite in government?....:/
English laws for English people, that's what we wanted isn't it?... Except when it prevents May et all from steamrollering over our bill of rights.

Before I address the main body of your post proper - and specifically your comments on my post - you will forgive me if I first address the articles which you provided 4 links to:

Only the first article is relevant to my post with the other 3 being concerned with a totally separate issue.

So that I am not distracted or deflected then, by the 3 irrelevant articles, I will concern myself specifically with that first article, which you appear to have posted the link to, in some belief that it rebuts some of the facts in my post.

However, it really does NOT rebut any of the points in my post when analysed, and as a piece of so called credible journalism, it is a transparently biased and wholly duplicitous piece of crud.

And, that duplicity begins before the main article proper even begins.

"Seven people were arrested after a peaceful assembly at the Statehouse"

Now, we are not told until much later just what those 7 people were arrested for, but just to immediately subliminally persuade us that it was not for any violent or anti-social crimes, the authors slip in those two little words - "Peaceful Assembly".

Peaceful - peaceful
ˈpiːsfʊl,-f(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
free from disturbance; tranquil.

2.
not involving war or violence.

And while the word 'Assembly' is correct, in that it means 'a group of people gathered together in one place for a common purpose' does it not conjure up - even unconsciously - thoughts of Assembly at school where we stood and knelt as children for the reading of prayers?

Peace and Prayer then - Not a bad combination of words to convince us unconsciously that there was no violence or anti-social behaviour at all in Indianapolis.

So perhaps those 7 people were arrested for 'Wearing LOUD clothes in a QUIET area?

This propaganda-laden, biased rag is also duplicitous about the number of 'Peaceful' protesters' who were present, deceitfully using a phrase which suggests it was around 500, when it was actually nearer 3,000 according to numerous other non-partisan media sources:

"More than 500 people gathered at the Indiana Statehouse on Saturday" is the IndyStar version, but the following is more typical of other media reports:

"Around 3,000 protesters first came together around 5 p.m. on the south lawn of the Statehouse. They stayed there for roughly an hour and a half, roughly 500 started marching toward Monument Circle. After lapping the Circle a few times, they broke off with one group going north from the Circle, and a second going south."

Anyway, before we start to believe the B.S. propaganda of this skewed article that this was a 'Peaceful Assembly", lets look at the caption ON the actual video just above the one dealt with above:

"7 arrested" and "2 Police Officers Receive Minor Injuries".

Again, there is NO explanation yet of just WHAT injuries these 2 officers suffered or HOW they were caused at this 'Peaceful Assembly', so perhaps these 2 officers were so caught up in all those vibes of 'Brotherly Love' that they 'Squeezed too tightly when hugging each other'?

Let's skip to the article proper, and the first of the "Five truths that dispel rumors about the anti-Trump rally in Indianapolis":

1. The Indianapolis rally was organized by locals.

"IndyStar heard claims that professional protesters were being bused into Indianapolis and other cities. Trump himself fired off a tweet blaming "professional protesters" for the demonstrations against his presidential victory. We found no evidence of out-of-town agitators."

The Indianapolis rally MAY well have been organised by 'locals', but the EVIDENCE that billionaire and Trump enemy George Soros PAID professional agitators and political activists to infiltrate these 'rallies' with the INTENTION of creating lawless acts and trying to escalate the protest into a violent riot, is both preponderous and wholly convincing, so the fact that the IndyStar could 'find no evidence of out-of-town agitators, says more about their inefficient investigative qualities than it does about the facts that 'out-of-town agitators were INDEED present.

Here's another quote by Indianapolis Police Chief Riggs:

"We believe that we have some instigators that arrived in our city," trying to start a riot, Riggs said.

The above said - that does not preclude resident Indianapolis Protesters from also engaging in the violence which I STATED occurred but which FACT you DENY.

Oh - wait a moment! Much FURTHER down the article - almost hidden - are the following revelations:

"Lukas Palmer 22, Washington Indianapolis - charged with BATTERY ON PUBLIC SERVICE OFFICIAL WITH INJURY and DISORDERLY CONDUCT."

"Cody Clark 22, Lafayette Indianapolis - charged with BATTERY ON PUBLIC SERVICE OFFICIAL WITHOUT INJURY and DISORDERLY CONDUCT and RESISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT. "

Battery! Oh, I guess these two didn't read the script which said it was a 'Peaceful Assembly'.

2. The arrested protesters were Hoosiers

No argument there - They were.

3. No one was seriously hurt

"One police officer was elbowed in the face while making an arrest. Police used pepper pellets and chemical spray to disperse unruly marchers."

I love the B.S. in this piece of propaganda - 'No one was SERIOUSLY hurt' - OK. That's fine then, but define 'seriously' and what about the other police officer and the Public Service officials who were injured - 2 by assault?

I wonder if 'Pepper Pellets' and 'Chemical Spray' is Standard Police Response Tactics when confronted by 'Peaceful Assemblies'?

All you Baptist Ministers and your congregations better 'Lock Those Church Doors Brethren' once you're inside on a Sunday Morning, because once those cops HEAR that Gospel Music they're likely to come STORMING IN and whup your ass with Pepper Bullets and Chemical Spray.

NEXT:

4. There was no property damage

"There were reports of rock-throwing and chants of "Kill the police," but police said no property was damaged during the protests".

Whoopee!! No Property Damage - that's it then, all the proof that we need that this was just a 'Peaceful Assembly' with NO VIOLENCE - if we conveniently IGNORE the INCITEMENTS TO MURDER POLICEMEN and the VIOLENT HURLING OF ROCKS AT THEM.

5. Metropolitan police assisted and protected the marchers

"Police officers blocked traffic while the protesters marched from the Statehouse to the Soldiers and Sailors Monument. The streets remained closed from about 5-8 p.m., when officers asked protesters to move onto the sidewalks.

"We wanted to make sure their first amendment rights were protected, even to the point where we shut down traffic," Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Troy Riggs said."

More attempts at subliminal persuasion to suit this rag's biased agenda - "PROTECTED THE MARCHERS" - FROM WHOM?

There was NO Counter Protesters present in any confrontational position and therefore no need to 'protect' the 'marchers' from anything or anyone - the only violence issued from the 'marchers' themselves - Here's another quote from Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Troy Riggs which the rag IndyStar conveniently omitted to report:

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Troy Riggs said:

"At one point, Trump supporters showed up to counter-protest but officers asked them to leave so they didn't make the situation more tense, and they agreed to go".

The entire phrasing of the article is deceitful, because FAR from the Police gleefully cooperating with the protesters in some type of pre-agreed amicable pact as the article suggests, the police had NO other CHOICE but to ESCORT them - not for the protesters safety, but for the sake of ENSURING as little lawlessness and disruption to the lives of non-participant residents as possible.

Here's more from the Indianapolis Police Department:

"The north group splintered off further, entering the roadway. Drivers had to stop to avoid hitting anyone.

Even though protesters violated city ordinances by crossing into the street and blocking traffic, Metro Police said they focused on stopping traffic to keep the protesters safe and didn’t arrest or cite anyone for violating those ordinances.


Not much difference from the shamefully biased reporting of the rag you are using for rebuttal is there Dezzy?

Here's another quote from Chief Riggs not reported in the IndyStar:

"Demonstrators threw rocks at police in Indianapolis, slightly injuring two officers, according to police chief Troy Riggs.

And COMPARE the rest of the above article's claims with this reportage from more than one source:

"Some protesters began chanting threats including "Kill the Police," and officers moved in to arrest seven demonstrators.

Police briefly fired pepper balls into the crowd during the confrontation."

I stated that those who claimed that the 'protests' which I specifically listed were 'peaceful' were in DENIAL.

You rebutted my statement.

Well, the TRUTH IS OUT THERE Dezzy - One just has to search for it with an open mind and a degree of REAL objectivity.

Now, on to your totally erroneous misrepresentation of my post:

"One quick Google search has led to several articles about the Portland incidents, most of the arrested individuals were from out of state and didn't even vote. The violent incidents were likely the result of people simply looking for a fight rather caring about or wishing to protest the Election.

I can't see anything about any supposed acts of vandalism on the LA protests, making out that blocking traffic is akin to an act of violence is rather silly though.

"Here's an article you should read about the Indianapolis protests. Not exactly the anarchy you were making it out to be, huh?


Nope - You are the one being 'rather silly', by posting a link to an article which you chose to rebut my post, but which repeatedly 'shoots itself in the foot' and actually INDICTS the rioters and endorses the claims in my post.

AND in also ERRONEOUSLY responding to claims which you perceived to be in my post that are simply NOT there:

a) I never stated ANYWHERE in my post, ANYTHING about just WHERE the arrested 'protesters' were from.

I KNEW that of the 112 people arrested in Portland, over half of them were from 'Out Of The State', and that at least 69 of them were not registered to vote in the state, and that 34 of them did not vote in the Presidential Election.

I knew all of this because I had RESEARCHED and collated such FACTS for an article I was going to post on George Soros - the billionaire agitator behind The Ferguson Riots, The Charlotte riots and the anarchy present in some of these Anti-Trump protests.

But I did NOT include such details in my post because they are totally irrelevant to my valid claim that these were NOT 'Peaceful Protests'.

In light of ALL the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE - written testimony AND Video recordings, in addition to the number of arrests made and the CATEGORY of OFFENCES behind those arrests, then THERE IS NO possible way that any impartial, reasoned and REASONABLE person would STILL CLAIM that the 'protests' mentioned in my post were PEACEFUL.

So I should not even be answering your response to my post.

However:

Look at what you write in rebuttal of my claim that the violent riots were more akin to anarchy than 'Peaceful Protest':

"The violent incidents were likely the result of people simply looking for a fight rather caring about or wishing to protest the Election."


You are actually AGREEING with me.

'Violent incidents by those there with a DIFFERENT agenda than protesting about the Election'

This is ANARCHY. Not PEACEFUL PROTEST.

These agitators were paid to go to Portland and incite violence, to create lawlessness and try to invoke a riot.

You then write:

"I can't see anything about any supposed acts of vandalism on the LA protests, making out that blocking traffic is akin to an act of violence is rather silly though."

b) I NEVER said ANYWHERE in my post that 'blocking traffic' in LA - or anywhere else for that matter - was an act of violence.

I listed such acts because my post was also about the anti-social aspects of the riots and protests as distinct from 'Peaceful Protest'.

THERE IS NOTHING 'PEACEFUL' OR 'SOCIABLE' ABOUT MOB ACTIONS WHICH CLOSE INTERSTATES FOR OVER AN HOUR - NOT FOR ALL THOSE MOTORISTS WHOSE LIVES ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON AND INTERRUPTED, ANYWAY.

c) The fact that YOU personally cannot find anything about any acts of vandalism on the LA Protests just means that you did not invest the same amount of time and diligence on researching as I have,

In fact, you open your rebuttal response with the very words:

"One quick Google search".

Well, I'm afraid Dezzy, that 'One quick Google Search' has failed to win your argument for you, and I STAND BY every word in my post.



.