Referring a simple question to the Father Of Lies (Boris Johnson, in case you've misunderstood) implies that you are more likely to tell hideous fibs than he is...
I don't tell lies. I don't do insults. Is that plain enough for you ?
And you have the self-awareness of a turnip, or an incredibly sophisticated sense of deadpan irony.
Since the latter isn't true, I should probably say so outright.
O I think we have here yet more of the Ridiculous Ramblings of a Pusillanimous Pot-Plant, which really needs to immerse itself in its own compost, in order to cultivate a second brain-cell.
Comprehension of a simple post, and a reasonable question, is clearly not within its capabilities. The sausage sandwich I had for lunch was (before it became a sausage) more intelligent.
O I think we have here yet more of the Ridiculous Ramblings of a Pusillanimous Pot-Plant, which really needs to immerse itself in its own compost, in order to cultivate a second brain-cell.
Comprehension of a simple post, and a reasonable question, is clearly not within its capabilities. The sausage sandwich I had for lunch was (before it became a sausage) more intelligent.
Referring a simple question to the Father Of Lies (Boris Johnson, in case you've misunderstood) implies that you are more likely to tell hideous fibs than he is...
I don't tell lies. I don't do insults. Is that plain enough for you ?
And you have the self-awareness of a turnip, or an incredibly sophisticated sense of deadpan irony.
Since the latter isn't true, I should probably say so outright.
Telford, this might be the wrong thread for this, being in Hell as it is, but could you summarize the key points of "The Prime MInister and other cabinet ministers have described the benefits of the deal far better than I ever could." I'm serious and not trying to yank your chain. You are the one person here who seems to support Brexit wholeheartedly.
Not being British, I get spotty news of what your government is saying about the process. The US media is infamous for its incomplete international reporting. Seeing what the government has done to ready itself for the changes coming, what do you think life will be like in the UK in the near future and a few years down the line?
Sorry, but you'll probably be jumped on but not by me. Thanks for giving it a shot.
Hmm. But he seems to think the government is managing the situation as it stands well enough, while nobody else here seems to think that. I'm still curious about why he is optimistic.
Telford, this might be the wrong thread for this, being in Hell as it is, but could you summarize the key points of "The Prime MInister and other cabinet ministers have described the benefits of the deal far better than I ever could." I'm serious and not trying to yank your chain. You are the one person here who seems to support Brexit wholeheartedly.
Not being British, I get spotty news of what your government is saying about the process. The US media is infamous for its incomplete international reporting. Seeing what the government has done to ready itself for the changes coming, what do you think life will be like in the UK in the near future and a few years down the line?
Sorry, but you'll probably be jumped on but not by me. Thanks for giving it a shot.
I always try and give an honest answer to polite questions. The truth is that I do not have the knowledge to give a comprehensive answer. I therefore resort to Not worrying about things I cannot change
I am not a brexit fanatic. Just someone who thinks that democracy demands that referendum results be acted on.
Democracy demands that a referendum be conducted according to the norms and conventions for a democratically meaningful results - the 2016 vote wasn't, it was an offense against British democracy that may prove the end of British democracy as we know it. For a start, it could easily be the end of the UK (both NI and Scotland on the verge of leaving the UK). It's also allowed a government to try to surrender Parliamentary sovereignty (the courts told them they couldn't do that). We have a deal that still needs to be debated and approved by Parliament, arrived at too late to do that which surrenders yet more of the control we were due to regain to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.
Telford: Democracy is good - it's a real shame we don't have enough of it. In fact all those in power since the 2016 ref went to great lengths NOT to have any more of it. They could have asked whether a soft brexit or hard brexit was preferred (giving the likely outcomes of each option) and asking the people whether leaving is really what they wanted given the bother and cost in relation to "gaining independence" which is illusory.
Democracy demands that a referendum be conducted according to the norms and conventions for a democratically meaningful results - the 2016 vote wasn't, it was an offense against British democracy that may prove the end of British democracy as we know it. For a start, it could easily be the end of the UK (both NI and Scotland on the verge of leaving the UK). It's also allowed a government to try to surrender Parliamentary sovereignty (the courts told them they couldn't do that). We have a deal that still needs to be debated and approved by Parliament, arrived at too late to do that which surrenders yet more of the control we were due to regain to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.
Telford: Democracy is good - it's a real shame we don't have enough of it. In fact all those in power since the 2016 ref went to great lengths NOT to have any more of it. They could have asked whether a soft brexit or hard brexit was preferred (giving the likely outcomes of each option) and asking the people whether leaving is really what they wanted given the bother and cost in relation to "gaining independence" which is illusory.
Democracy demands that a referendum be conducted according to the norms and conventions for a democratically meaningful results - the 2016 vote wasn't, it was an offense against British democracy that may prove the end of British democracy as we know it.
I can see the merits of this, OTOH I have come to the conclusion that the 2016 referendum is a bad place to start if you want to litigate offences against democracy in Britain.
You sound like we are supposed to keep voting till we give the answer you want.
No, just that when there is good reason to believe that views have changed, and new information is available, there should be an opportunity to reconsider.
It would be possible to have a democracy where we vote for our MP, and they then serve until they die or decide to retire. Instead we go to the polls every few years and have the opportunity to elect someone else. I think we would probably all say that a democracy where MPs serve for life would be a much poorer version.
You sound like we are supposed to keep voting till we give the answer you want.
You sound like those who got an unexpected result in their favour (after a raft of lies and promises by the Leave side) and were extremely careful to avoid asking the people if that was what they (we) really meant.
So - not democratic.
Why would they be so keen to avoid checking what the public wanted? Were they really honouring the democratic result or anxious that we should not find out what people wanted? Any honest person can see they didn't want the true answer - they got what they wanted and didn't want to lose it.
Telford genuine question. We were not told what kind of leave we were going to have. Why do you believe what we ended up with was the people wanted? It is what we got no one asked us if we wanted what we got?
It would be possible to have a democracy where we vote for our MP, and they then serve until they die or decide to retire. Instead we go to the polls every few years and have the opportunity to elect someone else. I think we would probably all say that a democracy where MPs serve for life would be a much poorer version.
You sound like we are supposed to keep voting till we give the answer you want.
You sound like those who got an unexpected result in their favour (after a raft of lies and promises by the Leave side) and were extremely careful to avoid asking the people if that was what they (we) really meant.
So - not democratic.
Why would they be so keen to avoid checking what the public wanted? Were they really honouring the democratic result or anxious that we should not find out what people wanted? Any honest person can see they didn't want the true answer - they got what they wanted and didn't want to lose it.
The offer of a further referendum was firmly rejected in the 2019 general election.
Telford genuine question. We were not told what kind of leave we were going to have. Why do you believe what we ended up with was the people wanted? It is what we got no one asked us if we wanted what we got?
I do not know wanty the majority who voted Leacve wanted. The post from Furtive Gander and my reply ( posted below) might be helpful.
Personally, I was hoping to remain in a custom union
Telford: Democracy is good - it's a real shame we don't have enough of it. In fact all those in power since the 2016 ref went to great lengths NOT to have any more of it. They could have asked whether a soft brexit or hard brexit was preferred (giving the likely outcomes of each option) and asking the people whether leaving is really what they wanted given the bother and cost in relation to "gaining independence" which is illusory.
It would be possible to have a democracy where we vote for our MP, and they then serve until they die or decide to retire. Instead we go to the polls every few years and have the opportunity to elect someone else. I think we would probably all say that a democracy where MPs serve for life would be a much poorer version.
You sound like we are supposed to keep voting till we give the answer you want.
You sound like those who got an unexpected result in their favour (after a raft of lies and promises by the Leave side) and were extremely careful to avoid asking the people if that was what they (we) really meant.
So - not democratic.
Why would they be so keen to avoid checking what the public wanted? Were they really honouring the democratic result or anxious that we should not find out what people wanted? Any honest person can see they didn't want the true answer - they got what they wanted and didn't want to lose it.
The offer of a further referendum was firmly rejected in the 2019 general election.
No, no it wasn't. Most votes went to pro-referendum / pro-remain parties.
It is I think more respectful and more in the spirit of good manners to insult someone out of honest exasperation than to be passive-aggressively polite out of a dishonest adolescent sulk.
It would be possible to have a democracy where we vote for our MP, and they then serve until they die or decide to retire. Instead we go to the polls every few years and have the opportunity to elect someone else. I think we would probably all say that a democracy where MPs serve for life would be a much poorer version.
You sound like we are supposed to keep voting till we give the answer you want.
You sound like those who got an unexpected result in their favour (after a raft of lies and promises by the Leave side) and were extremely careful to avoid asking the people if that was what they (we) really meant.
So - not democratic.
Why would they be so keen to avoid checking what the public wanted? Were they really honouring the democratic result or anxious that we should not find out what people wanted? Any honest person can see they didn't want the true answer - they got what they wanted and didn't want to lose it.
The offer of a further referendum was firmly rejected in the 2019 general election.
No, no it wasn't. Most votes went to pro-referendum / pro-remain parties.
It is I think more respectful and more in the spirit of good manners to insult someone out of honest exasperation than to be passive-aggressively polite out of a dishonest adolescent sulk.
I don't understand this. When you make a post you have as much time as you like to calm down and avoid this exasperation. I have no idea what this passive aggressive is. It never existed when I was at school.
@Telford - I suspect you know very well that you are not only acting in a passive-aggressive manner (as has often been pointed out to you), but that you are also being deliberately disingenuous.
Disingenuous
/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs/
Adjective:
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Passive-aggressive behaviours are those that involve acting indirectly aggressive rather than directly aggressive. Passive-aggressive people regularly exhibit resistance to requests or demands from family and other individuals often by procrastinating, expressing sullenness, or acting stubborn.
There. I hope those two rapidly-Googled definitions will be of some assistance to you. No need to thank me!
Most votes went to pro-referendum / pro-remain parties.
But none of them won the election.
If the 2019 election is to be taken as some form of pseudo-referendum then the pro-EU/referendum grouping clearly won. Of course, it was an election and not a referendum, so that's a meaningless analysis. It's also equally meaningless to suggest that a majority of seats under FPTP represents any form of mandate for the deal we have (or, even for Brexit). So, if you stop your meaningless claims that 2019 is support for the deal others will stop the meaningless counter claim. Because 2019 WAS NOT A REFERENDUM.
@Telford - I suspect you know very well that you are not only acting in a passive-aggressive manner (as has often been pointed out to you), but that you are also being deliberately disingenuous.
Disingenuous
/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs/
Adjective:
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Passive-aggressive behaviours are those that involve acting indirectly aggressive rather than directly aggressive. Passive-aggressive people regularly exhibit resistance to requests or demands from family and other individuals often by procrastinating, expressing sullenness, or acting stubborn.
There. I hope those two rapidly-Googled definitions will be of some assistance to you. No need to thank me!
Most votes went to pro-referendum / pro-remain parties.
But none of them won the election.
If the 2019 election is to be taken as some form of pseudo-referendum then the pro-EU/referendum grouping clearly won. Of course, it was an election and not a referendum, so that's a meaningless analysis. It's also equally meaningless to suggest that a majority of seats under FPTP represents any form of mandate for the deal we have (or, even for Brexit). So, if you stop your meaningless claims that 2019 is support for the deal others will stop the meaningless counter claim. Because 2019 WAS NOT A REFERENDUM.
But 2016 still suffers from a lack of definition that would be unthinkable for any nation that holds advisory referendums as a matter of course, or indeed the closest the UK had come to an advisory referendum (the vote on adopting AV). It might carry the name 'referendum', but the 2016 vote falls a long way below a democratic exercise that a referendum should be. Can anyone yet tell me what 'leave' was a vote for (it was clearly against EU membership)? The answers I've seen have often been mutually contradictory, even from senior members of the same campaign group let alone between members of the different Leave campaign groups, or empty phrases. Do those who campaigned for remaining in the Single Market (a British invention forced on the EU by Mrs T) think this deal comes close to that promise? Will those who campaigned for remaining in the customs union dip into their pockets to pay businesses the expense of filling in customs forms?
Thanks. Never mentioned when I was at school but we didn't do such subjects. It's only on the Interweb that I have been anonymously accused of such an heinous crime.
But 2016 still suffers from a lack of definition that would be unthinkable for any nation that holds advisory referendums as a matter of course, or indeed the closest the UK had come to an advisory referendum (the vote on adopting AV). It might carry the name 'referendum', but the 2016 vote falls a long way below a democratic exercise that a referendum should be. Can anyone yet tell me what 'leave' was a vote for (it was clearly against EU membership)? The answers I've seen have often been mutually contradictory, even from senior members of the same campaign group let alone between members of the different Leave campaign groups, or empty phrases. Do those who campaigned for remaining in the Single Market (a British invention forced on the EU by Mrs T) think this deal comes close to that promise? Will those who campaigned for remaining in the customs union dip into their pockets to pay businesses the expense of filling in customs forms?
What you say is strictly speaking true but Parliament accepted the result and acted accordingly.
Thanks. Never mentioned when I was at school but we didn't do such subjects. It's only on the Interweb that I have been anonymously accused of such an heinous crime.
Did you stop learning new information after you left school ?
Thanks. Never mentioned when I was at school but we didn't do such subjects. It's only on the Interweb that I have been anonymously accused of such an heinous crime.
Did you stop learning new information after you left school ?
Certainly not. I studied things I was interested in.
Exactly - grammar schools select those who pass an arbitrary test at an arbitrary age. Which biases selection to those of families able to provide greatest support for their children (which could be as simple as a quiet space to do homework). Elitest.
Telford's school didn't do a very good job when it came to teaching him spelling...so I suppose trying to educate him a little further is bound to be a non-starter.
ION, and perhaps of more importance, January 1st draws near, and I expect The Thin Deal will be duly signed (or whatever) in good time for our Most Dearly Beloved @Doc Tor (PBUH) to put this effing thread to bed...
ION, and perhaps of more importance, January 1st draws near, and I expect The Thin Deal will be duly signed (or whatever) in good time for our Most Dearly Beloved @Doc Tor (PBUH) to put this effing thread to bed...
The Treaty is apparently due to be signed in Brussels on Wednesday morning by the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council. It will then be flown to London by the RAF for our Prime Minster to add his signature, probably before the conclusion of the Parliamentary debate.
Exactly - grammar schools select those who pass an arbitrary test at an arbitrary age. Which biases selection to those of families able to provide greatest support for their children (which could be as simple as a quiet space to do homework). Elitest.
When I passed the exam, my father was an iron moulder and my mother was a housewife. My parents never helped me at all apart from providing me with a uniform and dinner money. I did, however, have a very good junior school teacher .
Telford's school didn't do a very good job when it came to teaching him spelling...so I suppose trying to educate him a little further is bound to be a non-starter.
50 odd years since I left school but I do know that you should have put a comma after spelling rather than 3 full stops.
Ahhhhh, that explains why it’s so like having an argument with my father. Essentially, tone policing and pedantry become a substitute for actually debating an issue.
Ahhhhh, that explains why it’s so like having an argument with my father. Essentially, tone policing and pedantry become a substitute for actually debating an issue.
Comments
And you have the self-awareness of a turnip, or an incredibly sophisticated sense of deadpan irony.
Since the latter isn't true, I should probably say so outright.
Comprehension of a simple post, and a reasonable question, is clearly not within its capabilities. The sausage sandwich I had for lunch was (before it became a sausage) more intelligent.
So you now resort to insulting root vegetables
Not being British, I get spotty news of what your government is saying about the process. The US media is infamous for its incomplete international reporting. Seeing what the government has done to ready itself for the changes coming, what do you think life will be like in the UK in the near future and a few years down the line?
Sorry, but you'll probably be jumped on but not by me. Thanks for giving it a shot.
Hmm. But he seems to think the government is managing the situation as it stands well enough, while nobody else here seems to think that. I'm still curious about why he is optimistic.
I always try and give an honest answer to polite questions. The truth is that I do not have the knowledge to give a comprehensive answer. I therefore resort to Not worrying about things I cannot change
I am not a brexit fanatic. Just someone who thinks that democracy demands that referendum results be acted on.
I agree about the BIB but not the rest.
I can see the merits of this, OTOH I have come to the conclusion that the 2016 referendum is a bad place to start if you want to litigate offences against democracy in Britain.
No, just that when there is good reason to believe that views have changed, and new information is available, there should be an opportunity to reconsider.
You sound like those who got an unexpected result in their favour (after a raft of lies and promises by the Leave side) and were extremely careful to avoid asking the people if that was what they (we) really meant.
So - not democratic.
Why would they be so keen to avoid checking what the public wanted? Were they really honouring the democratic result or anxious that we should not find out what people wanted? Any honest person can see they didn't want the true answer - they got what they wanted and didn't want to lose it.
You repeat lies, even after the lies have been pointed out to you. Honestly, for someone who prides himself on not telling lies, it's not a good look.
The offer of a further referendum was firmly rejected in the 2019 general election.
I never claim to be perfect.
I do not know wanty the majority who voted Leacve wanted. The post from Furtive Gander and my reply ( posted below) might be helpful.
Personally, I was hoping to remain in a custom union
I agree about the BIB but not the rest.
I forgot to say that I don't agrtee with you. I never deliberately repoeat lies.
No, no it wasn't. Most votes went to pro-referendum / pro-remain parties.
Everyone is the hero of their own story.
For someone who may not have set out to deliberately shitpoast and be performatively stupid, you do a very good job at both.
Yes you are
Bravo !!!!
I don't understand this. When you make a post you have as much time as you like to calm down and avoid this exasperation. I have no idea what this passive aggressive is. It never existed when I was at school.
Disingenuous
/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs/
Adjective:
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Passive-aggressive behaviours are those that involve acting indirectly aggressive rather than directly aggressive. Passive-aggressive people regularly exhibit resistance to requests or demands from family and other individuals often by procrastinating, expressing sullenness, or acting stubborn.
There. I hope those two rapidly-Googled definitions will be of some assistance to you. No need to thank me!
It is quite unusual for @Alan Cresswell to SHOUT.
But 2016 certainly was.
Thanks. Never mentioned when I was at school but we didn't do such subjects. It's only on the Interweb that I have been anonymously accused of such an heinous crime.
What you say is strictly speaking true but Parliament accepted the result and acted accordingly.
So, unless Telford is exceedingly ancient, well within his lifetime. Clearly he went to the wrong school.
Or just wasn't paying attention. You can lead a horse...
I attended Grammar school and we did not do subjects like psychology.
Did you stop learning new information after you left school ?
Certainly not. I studied things I was interested in.
It was not elite education. It was free eduaction open to anyone who passed the 11+
ION, and perhaps of more importance, January 1st draws near, and I expect The Thin Deal will be duly signed (or whatever) in good time for our Most Dearly Beloved @Doc Tor (PBUH) to put this effing thread to bed...
The Treaty is apparently due to be signed in Brussels on Wednesday morning by the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council. It will then be flown to London by the RAF for our Prime Minster to add his signature, probably before the conclusion of the Parliamentary debate.