Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sledgehead

Members
  • Posts

    13,245
  • Joined

Everything posted by Sledgehead

  1. Out of the 48% who voted remain, absolutely nobody would need to object to any aspect of remaining for Leave to still satisfy more people. See the problem you have here? I'd advise to to stick to yer old shtick of casually condoning euthanasia, but for the fact I find it so abhorent, plus it's an incitement to commit a hate crime, which makes it illegal. For peeps who think of themselves as ethically superior, you remainers sure do think and do some dodgy stuff!
  2. Moron am I now? You lot have accused us of being: - uneducated; - naive; - racist; - cheaters. And now I'm a "moron". Doesn't stop you assuming all Asians think the same stuff, and guess what that makes you? In truth I am less racist than you, less dishonest that Confusion_of_theVIs. Let's try for the hat trick: what's your alma mater?
  3. I don't have to: you are the one who needs to explain why you think "Asians" would all think the same way. Don't be too hard on yourself: it can be tough realising that simply believing in one thing does not mean you are instantly "right on". "Remain" was never a belief likely to make you morally or ethically correct. And you are not alone. You may well have self-identified as a racist, having thought Brexiteers racist. But spare a thought for you compatriot, Confusion_of_the_VIs, who assumed only Leavers could cheat at elections ... only to unashamedly self-identify as a ballot-stuffer himself. You aren't morally correct. You are just anywheres.
  4. The evidence is there in plain text. I know, dreadful isn't it: and you thought being a "European" had cured you of that. (where's the rolleyes emotiocon when you need it)
  5. No. You assumed that Asians would have a particular viewpoint . That is clearly racist.
  6. You would disagree with it because you self-identified as a racist in that exchange.
  7. That is merely your, may I say, misfortunately coursely expressed opinion. For somewheres, the language you speak would be deeply hurtful, were it not so desperately expressed, which makes us merely feel you are attempting sensationalism, or merely are misled. NOTHING pleases a somewhere more than encountering a somewhere from another background who has demonstrably committed to their own somewhere. And they are also pretty fond of somewheres everywhere. Not because they are staying well away from their own somehere, but merely because they are THEIR type of people: community sorts. Does that sound fascist to you?
  8. Godwins again eh? You think you know the absolutes on democracy? How's about the other remainers who, when asked about the legitimacy of a 2nd ref reply: "How can more democracy mean no democracy?" Talk about missing the point!
  9. Sorry about the formatting here. This text is supposed to fit between slawek's post and howler's. The point I'm trying to make is that the democracy slawek is asking about is not only geographically distict from the type leavers refer to, it is also temporally distinct. It is perhaps telling that throughout the thousands of posts on this topic, only one poster - thehowler - has identified the intrinsic distinction separating leavers and remainers, namely the trait of being a somewhere vs an anywhere. If you want a picture, here's his only other post on the issue: This distiction plays into all aspects of societal division we now face. Whether it's nimbys or property developers, tourists or locals, migrants who want to come here or migrants who want to leave their own country, traditionalists or adventurers, old or young, itrw or social media. And of course, Leave / Remain. See, it doesn't matter to an anywhere whether democracy in a certain place is the one he wants or delivers the politics he wants: he can always up-sticks and go. And somewheres know this. An anywhere may well say all the right things when he locates himself somewhere, but what about when he is looking to move on (as soon as he arrives). Herein lies the fundamental mistrust at the heart of the argument and thus the politics. And it also explains why somewheres attach less importance to material things - such as the economics of Brexit. To a somewhere, it is community that matters. Anywheres can never be a part of that community, because at the soul of an anywhere is a wanderlust: it's why they imagine that roaming charges would possibly have swung the argument if remain had only made a bigger deal of it. If you don't get somewheres and anywheres, you simply don't get Brexit. And when you do get it, you'll understand what an ill fit any of our parties are for the political situ we are now in.
  10. The irony here is that the person you were addressing was not worried about No-Deal disrupting his / her supply of Viagra.
  11. Meanwhile in America, Africa, China, Japan etc, ie non-EU countries, calls are still £1 per minute, because they don't have technological progress anywhere but europe - well, that's a remainer view anyhow.
  12. Labour, similar, only diff is civil war has already begun, hence TIGGERs. Corbyn won't even share a room with Chucky. How much more split can you get? Diff is, Labour are hijacked by marxists. Couple of pics with Corby glad-handing Modura should have anyone with 20p in the bank / dreams of having 20p in the bank giving his crowd a wide birth.
  13. No , individual states can't blow their own asset bubbles (which their electorate vote for), instead localised asset bubbles are IMPOSED on them by the EU to please moribund EU economies and those in financial crisis. This is why the Bundesbank has been at loggerheads with EU QE: In this country, our Bank is supposed to be independent, but has recently, under the leadership of a Canadian, succumbed to doing the executives bidding. This should be an aberation. In europe, central banks like the Bundesbank have even less chance of being independent and will increasingly become irrelevant as the ECB conducts the EU 27's political agenda. The fact that Germany had zirp effectively forced on it along with Greece (which needed it) tells you all you need to know. I thought everybody understood this.
  14. This post says it all. If you don't get why, you are a remainer. If you do, you are a leaver.
  15. Have a little empathy. People are getting worked up in England cos they might have to pay roaming charges.
  16. They've essentially told us they can't make their minds up... after 33 months of a concerted attempt to block us leaving. The grown-ups decided 33 months ago. Do you really wanna risk the electorate voting 48-52 (the other way)? Then neither parliament nor the people will appear decisive: total and utter chaos will ensue. What governement of any form would risk that! Then again Cameron held an unnecessary ref that went against him an dcaused chaos. May doubled down and held an unnecessary GE, it went against her and increased the chaos. Two self-inflicted wounds. Some superstitious sorts might say a 3rd was inevitable, and that is exactly wh at a 2nd ref would be: the ultimate, crowning ****-up! When you are in a hole, stop digging!
  17. Rejection of revocation got more votes than I expected, as there was no reason for MP's in Remain supporting constituencies to declare their hand at this stage. Actually I wasn't thinking that at all. What I was actually thinking was: 1 - what a great example of confirmation bias 2 - this guy needs to get out more
  18. Like i say, with all pantomimes, the answer is behind us. We have ALREADY voted. There is no deadlock: the remainers constructed one out of thin air, bit like the e-petition. They asked us, we told them. <- and that dot is a full stop. What you have is not patience. It's prurience. When will you tire of this tantric parliamentary self-abuse and listen to the public who in every vox pop we see say "just leave!"
  19. C'mon, we vote, we decide: clear winner. Parliament don't like it. They seize control. Hold some Vindicative Votes: no majority. Ooo, what shall we do? No decision in sight! What a pantomime ... if only everyone could recognise it, for then they'd remember that there is an answer:- It's (33 months) behind you!
  20. They like their facts reliable. Like the e-petition. And the 77,000sigs identified as fake that appeared on a prior petition , one hosted when the VIs weren't nearly as lathered up as they are now. And as with Zucks, that amount of 77k fakes is the fig the petition custodians communicated. That's not to say that they'd be out of a job if it were higher , no , perish the thought. They reckon they've made changes, none of which go an inch to stopping fraud, as proven by an earlier admission by Confusion_of_the_VIs that he himself stuffed the ballot. But that's okay. It's not like anyone tales it seriously. Well, there is that guy called Tusk - some EU guy, probably nobody - who quoted the 6 mill fig as if it were credible, but like I say, nobody takes it seriously ...
  21. Anyone following the mass debate over the Vindicative Votes? Me neither. Taking an interest now is utterly prurient. I'm no voyeur.
  22. So cheating started when you lost the vote did it? What a lesson to teach your children. Yiou should be thoroughly ashamed. You should change your moniker to Cheating_of_the_VIs: that sums you up.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.