This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Chilcot Report - UK wags the dog
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
an open question to anyone reading this (Score:1)
Does anyone know WTF this guy is talking about? Ever?!?
Re: (Score:1)
So sorry. I forget, baby needs to be spoon fed [imdb.com] every little thing [smh.com.au]. I'll edit the JE later for the rest of you poor souls...
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, celebrity news. I'd be more interested in shit like this [sweasel.com] than <Robin_Leach_accent>love triangles of the rich and famous</Robin_Leach_accent>; rots the brain less. But you carry on; you're safe.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a bit more than that. What was a comedy became a documentary. But you carry on, your nose looks good in brown.
Re: (Score:1)
your nose looks good in brown
?!? Who have I been brown-nosing? And what's it got to do with this?!?
I guess you're just redefining terms again. Here, lemme try one: You're an ostrich. I don't mean the flightless bird, but some unspecified other definition that no one would ever guess. Wow, it's really fun to be fusta!
Re: (Score:1)
Who have I been brown-nosing?
Your sociopathic politicians, babe... Really, celebrity news? Where is there that is so implausible to you in the story? I mean, yeah, you're obviously trolling, but you know... I'm still curious to hear your rationalizations.
Re: (Score:1)
Your sociopathic politicians, babe
I'm obviously looking for non-politicians now, dumbass. Try to follow along a little bit.
trolling
adj.
Whatever fusta says it means (but won't tell us).
Re: (Score:1)
I'm obviously looking for non-politicians now, dumbass.
Uh huh... Then you have to start looking someone who doesn't want the job... Oh shit [yahoo.com]!
Re: (Score:1)
Oh shit [yahoo.com]!
Funny. One more to add on to the pile of reasons why Yahoo is a waste of time.
Then you have to start looking someone who doesn't want the job
Or wants it for other than the usual reasons. But I do like the general idea of lottery-based conscription for filling the positions of political representative. To misappropriate from Bill Buckley, I'd sooner be governed by the first 2000 names in the phone book than 2000 people who want to hold office really bad.
Re: (Score:1)
One more to add on to the pile of reasons why Yahoo is a waste of time.
Oh... So sorry, didn't know the source mattered.. Pick your own then [google.com]
But I do like the general idea of lottery-based conscription for filling the positions of political representative.
I've been pimping that for years. Mr. Smith didn't care for it so much. Don't know why... It really is the fairest way. Takes care of the careerism issue. You do your public service and then retire back to the farm with a suitable severance. All government j
Re: (Score:1)
Pick your own then [google.com]
Trump Derangement Syndrome is quite widespread, evidently.
All government jobs should be this way
I don't know about the military. For that we really should stick with volunteers, as if we ever really need 'em, we don't want too many of them running away on the battlefield. But yes, because you Lefties have made getting a government job a kind of winning the lottery, it definitely ought to be considered making them random drawing only.
It's the behind the scenes bureaucrats and other dead weight we have to turnover.
As well as the legislatures. And the judiciaries. The ruling political class (and their attitude) is (besides
Re: (Score:1)
Trump Derangement Syndrome is quite widespread, evidently.
Yeah, I'm talking to it. Derangement is a good word for his supporters. But since you're just having fun, it's all good. You and I both know his campaign is not of a sound mind (aside from the money brought in), it is simple carny hucksterism. It is a horrible reflection on anyone that takes any of it seriously.
And yes, the entire government needs rapid turnover, and all laws themselves need sunset provisions also, to be renewed where applicable. I b
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood this argument. Let's take one of the most crucial organizations for human civilization and development and churn the fuck out of the staff. Maybe under a more British system where the civil service is staffed, protected and limited by convention it could work, but certainly not in the US.
and all laws themselves need sunset provisions also
While I'm sympathetic to this argument, I'm pretty sure you'd want to at least exemp
Re: (Score:1)
And yes, the entire government needs rapid turnover.
I've never understood this argument
Well, one way or another it will happen. I prefer to do it peacefully. "Blood is a big expense"
The Bill of Rights is a paper tiger, being nibbled away by rats building their nests with everybody cheering them on.
There is nothing wrong with asking for a "renewal of vows" so to speak, to "reinforce the foundation". As it is, it needs lots of repair. I know, now is not the time for a convention with the rednecks in charge, but is has to happen if disaster is to be avoided.
would require that all incumbent politicians receive at least 60-80% of the vote to stay in office
Historically speaking, this is a really bad idea for lots of reasons.
A little help here. Are you saying it
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn. You and the idiots calling the Dallas cop killings a Civil War need to stop watching so much teevee.
The Bill of Rights is a paper tiger, being nibbled away by rats building their nests with everybody cheering them on.
Not seeing it, and you're not showing it, so that can safely be ignored too.
Can you provide a teensy example perhaps?
California springs to mind. Let's not forget the US Const
Re: (Score:1)
Please! What "civil war"? I think it's you that is watching too much TV and squealing like the flyback transformer that's ready to explode. A "civil war" might last, what, all of an hour and a half [youtube.com] this time around? It would be simple extermination.
Not seeing it
Well, of course you're not. Your detachment is noted...
Best of luck with that.
I'm not saying I expect anything, but for those who do expect any kind of so-called improvement in the "human condition", there is no other way. Like everything else, it b
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't so much miss my point as blow right past in a stolen car...
Your detachment is noted...
Ah yes, something else that doesn't exist is being squirreled away by you. But you're not a nut, no sir.
Oh jeeze! another football for you to kick aro
Re: (Score:1)
This is so good (we actually agree on something?!?) I have to take it bit by bit (and enjoy it, because it'll probably never happen again).
And yes, the entire government needs rapid turnover,
You do realize don't you that your side would lose a lot of what you'd gained so far? For example an EPA staffed with Average Joes probably aren't going to be so rabid and kooky about the environment.
and all laws themselves need sunset provisions also, to be renewed where applicable.
Man I like the new fusta! I thought it was an interesting and good idea when Newt was Speaker and had or wanted to have some days in the House where they examined and repe
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I am against arbitrary term limits. If enough people want to guy to stay on, he should be allowed to stay, it's not complicated. 80% is a good number. It has meaning, and unlike the simple majority, it's more difficult to fake.
Dang, you're sounding like a Right-winger.
Not even close. Your labels do not apply. They are simple misnomers.
bla bla bla, Right?
Wrong...the rich will just lose some of the control it has over the government.
The idea requires some actual participation, and besides they could nev
Re: (Score:2)
Also impossible to achieve.
But hey, you already live in fantasy land, so what's one more broken dream, huh?
If you really ever paid attention to my posting history,
ROFLMAO!!! Moron berates others for things he won't do himself!
I really hope I get to solve the mystery of whether you're a low-grade paid troll or an OAP drooling into his sippy cup.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I am against arbitrary term limits. If enough people want to guy to stay on, he should be allowed to stay,
That is the part that I struggle with in being for term limits; subverting the will of the voters. The question in my mind is, a district or whatever should have the right to send whomever they want to represent them, but do they have the right to foist the *same* person on the rest of us, for long periods of time?
Put another way, I understand my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins. But do I have the right to *constantly* swing my fist millimeters from your face?
Not even close.
Just an FYI, everyone in the
Re: (Score:1)
Also impossible to achieve.
Which is fine, then the incumbents get thrown out. where's the problem?
I really hope I get to solve the mystery of whether you're a low-grade paid troll...
I wish! I wouldn't to leave the house every afternoon to chase down more mad money. Really, what "mystery"? You can came for a good time and stuck around. I'm happy to be of service.
drooling into his sippy cup.
Is that what that is?! All this time I've been pissing into it in the middle of the night so I wouldn't have to get up.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but what? Incumbent gets majority, but not your magic number, so they get thrown out and then what? Christ that's the dumbest thing you've ever come up with.
Re: (Score:1)
I already told you simple majorities aren't good enough. The situation explains itself. Call it dumb all you want. It only means you're full of it
Re: (Score:2)
I got that part, asshole, it's right there in the sentence. What I'm asking is are you seriously advocating a system where you have to have an election multiple times until everyone gives up and votes overwhelmingly for whoever's left standing? That shit wouldn't work for town dogcatcher and you want this for national politics?
Re: (Score:1)
You already have several. Just make it part of the primary. Where you don't have primaries, you have runoffs. Same difference. Might be too "simple" for you though. You're just sooo, complex, and smart! But you should try it, you'll like it
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's have a process you can barely get half of your countrymen to take notice of in the first place, that already spans 2 years and billions of dollars, and extend it.
I've been studying alternative voting systems and related subjects for decades now and this is the dumbest proposal I've ever seen, and you have strong competition
And then you've got the nerve to call it simple! Take that shit to a politics seminar then call me with how fast th
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, let's have a process you can barely get half of your countrymen to take notice///
That's sounds like personal problem. That's nobody's fault but their own.
Studying and implementing are two different things. People only resist because of the "inconvenience" of trying something different, nothing to do whether the idea can work or not. Of which you play a grand part. So you make shit up, like it can't work, or it's stupid, whatever bullshit you can dream up. Very typical of your average reactionary. You s
Re: (Score:2)
I am shocked, SHOCKED that a purity pony like yourself has no time for real world concerns when designing his utopian schemes.
So you make shit up, like it can't work, or it's stupid, whatever bullshit you can dream up.
Your faulty memory betrays you yet again. You made the proposal (80%!), I responded with an anodyne reply that it can't work, and in return you came up with no studies, white papers or real world implementatio
Re: (Score:1)
I responded with an anodyne reply that it can't work, and in return you came up with no studies, white papers or real world implementations to back up your absurd claim, and I'm the shit-stirrer?
No, you simply trolled. As for real world implementations, you haven't shown a single one. Your "studies" don't cut it. You all are to "busy" to try anything. Sorry, you are the conservative. and a very reactionary one, judging by the excitement you display.
ROFLMAO!
Glad you liked it!
Fuck off
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to. You proposed an idea, I laughed at it, because on the face of it it's ludicrous, and the best you've been able to do since then is your rubber/glue schtick. You ain't got shit but a dumb idea and you know it. And as usual, your stubbornness just makes you look dumber.
Sorry, you are the conservative. and a very reactionary one, judging by the excitement you display.
Take your low grade psychoanalysis somewhere whe
Re: (Score:1)
I don't need to. You proposed an idea, I laughed at it...
Exactly... Thinking is hard, isn't it? Anyway, thanks for confirming...
Take your low grade psychoanalysis somewhere where it will be appreciated.
Who ever expected you to appreciate it? The denials are very predictable. Doesn't change the fact though... You are what you are, living proof that "stupid is as stupid does".
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, thanks for confirming...
Haven't confirmed shit other than your idea is so dumb you can't even bring yourself to defend it.
Who ever expected you to appreciate it? The denials are very predictable. Doesn't change the fact though... You are what you are, living proof that "stupid is as stupid does."
Re: (Score:1)
Haven't confirmed shit...
How sweet life is on that river in Egypt...
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't bother to support said idea with any links or even arguments - check
Makes fun of everybody else fro not 'getting it' - check.
There you go, you can just cut and paste for your next several comments. You're welcome.
Re: (Score:1)
You are the Eternal September...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry for the delay, I had to go take a shit... Now, what were you babbling about again?
Re: (Score:2)
Now, have the courage of your conviction that this is beneath you and fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
Another winner... Thanks.. You really are the best. You always come through
Now, since this JE is about to expire, I shall concede last word to you, the Champ.
Hasta lumbago, toots.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck do you bother when you obviously can't be bothered? Something fucking wrong with you man.
I shall concede last word to you
Naaaah. You want it so bad for yourself, so you'll be back as usual.
you, the Champ.
More passive-aggressive bullshit from the whiner.
LOL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is celebrity news.
Still a perfectly plausible explanation for the war, especially when compared to the official story. You gotta be a real sucker to believe any of that crap.
The Brits aren't wagging, they're wanking. Look at his replacements. If he were thrown into the street, penniless, "rep" might be something more than being a simple millennial buzzword. It's "teen spirit".
"Rep", please, stop with the mass media drama... put some teeth into the word. At least tweak his arm a little or have the Queen
Re: (Score:2)
Nice binary there. You're going to win the argument every time if you're going to control the choices like that. There's a reason Blair's nickname is Poodle.
People win and lose elections and court cases for celebrity or lack thereof.
Speaking as someone who's worked in the legal field, it's cute that you think that.
and the sad clown would
Re: (Score:1)
Speaking as someone who's worked in the legal field, it's cute that you think that.
Well, of course, you have to believe that. How else are you going to prop up false credibility in a business run by sharks? And it explains why you like to over complicate the simplest of things. Color is nice, but more often than not, grayscale is sufficient so as to avoid wasted effort that is nothing but featherbedding.
I'm only half Canuck.
Top or bottom?
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, slashdot, where nerds get to claim to have superior knowledge of fields hey have zero experience in. Never change.
And it explains why you like to over complicate the simplest of things.
That's actually contra so many legal principles you should print this as proof of your ignorance.
How else are you going to prop up false credibility in a business run by sharks?
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
Top or bottom?
Left side.
Re: (Score:1)
legal principles
Smells like teen spirit again. "Legal principles" have yet to break out of the lab. But with you, there's no acknowledging basic laws of physics that prevail over all, *Might makes "right"*.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
The "law" is written by gangsters. Our subservience is the "credibility".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Western" law? People are the same everywhere, with only minor cultural variations.
"refinement"? No. it is cobbling, trying to counter the side effects of previous law. You're just laying more cable on top the old until it spills out of the tray. What has happened over the thousands of years? We have only changed the the spoken language. Not too many people read Sanskrit anymore.
You sir, are just pimping your business.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't possibly be this stupid. [wikipedia.org] You're literally arguing (and losing) over basic terminology.
"refinement"? No. it is cobbling, trying to counter the side effects of previous law.
You're kinda making point there, bucko...
You're just laying more cable on top the old until it spills out of the tray.
OIC. So yeah, that's not how it works, not at all.
We have only changed the the spoken language.
Re: (Score:1)
You're literally arguing (and losing) over basic terminology.
See the word "cultural" in my post? Do you notice how many times it is mentioned in your link? Do try to follow the existing connection between the dots... One god has many names. But maybe that is beyond you, so you can wave it off as nonsense.
So yeah, that's not how it works, not at all.
Yeah it is. The conflicts on the books (within the IRS alone) are only obscured by your own visual difficulties.
and now you're contradicting yourself.
Well, poin
Re: (Score:2)
I know you think you had a point beyond your petty nitpicking, but it got lost in your sentence fragments and ellipses. Write better, moron, and maybe you won't have to get so huffy being misunderstood.
Yeah it is. The conflicts on the books (within the IRS al
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, why don't you go out and play? Quit being such a baby
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Running away"... from what again? Your childish little taunts, trying to make my dick hard? Please!
Re: (Score:2)
Not really surprised you forgot already though.
Re: (Score:1)
Having to own up...
I already have... you're just trying to get me excited with your trolling. Ain't gonna happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that your ever worsening gambit of figuring out other people's motivations. If I wanted you excited, I'd create a fake poll showing Jill Stein polling above 1%.
If you were just another idiot spouting off his idiotic ideas, no one would care, we're stocked the fuck up here. It's the way you engage at the most su
Re: (Score:1)
Me? harrass?? You seem to be mistaken. I figure you came back here because you just restocked your amphetamine stash or something.
If I wanted you excited, I'd create a fake poll showing Jill Stein polling above 1%
Oh! Could you please?! Yeah, that would really work.. what a goof!
And superficial... That's a good one! The brain stem is hardly superficial.. That's the cortex's job. Yours is working overtime, trying to bury the most basic and profound.
Fuck away off now.
*cough* Oh, shit! I forgot, where are we?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of your problem right there. You stop figuring for 5 seconds your life might actually improve.
Yours is working overtime, trying to bury the most basic and profound.
Yeah, shit like that. Does you more harm than good.
Re: (Score:1)
You got some good shit this time, huh?