Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

I have olive skin myself. I like my olive skin. I like other colour skins too. That is because I'm not a racist pillock. That is because I'm bright enough to realise it's not a good idea to put my hand in the blender, to know that overrun is one word, and to work out that your rhetorical flourish: "but please keep posting as you do..." makes zero fucking sense in the context of what you idiotically were hoping to achieve. You people are exactly as dumb as you appear to be.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

Incidentally, a cheaper pound is currently helping rich foreigners buy up yet more property as their dollars are going much further. So if you were so inane as to think that Brexit was a clever method of addressing the depredations of the Tories' economic policies, this is but one straw in the wind that suggests you are going to be sadly disabused of that notion. At least, you'd be disabused of it if you didn't prefer to live in an evidence-free world.

Comment Re:What is wrong with simple-majority? (Score 1) 621

Welcome to non-sequitur land, where AC muppets respond to everything said to them with irrelevancies. The reason I'm angry is that people who are hard-of-thinking like you *not only* keep on making shitty decisions that affect me, but you keep on thinking you're doing things you're not. Like getting rid of me ("Good riddance"). I'm not going anywhere. I didn't imply I was. So why would you think I was? Oh, that's right, because you live in an infantile world where your wishes affect the universe. It's so depressingly stupid and facile.

Comment Re:What is wrong with simple-majority? (Score 1) 621

Oh Jesus wept.

When I said "Where's the satisfaction in setting yourself such low standards?" I was referring to the standard of your argument, not the simple majority bar. I was pointing out that a false dichotomy is the sort of thing that my ten year old was taught to avoid in debating club this year.

It turns out that not only are you incapable of making a coherent argument, your reading comprehension is awful too. Are you related to IDS or Leadsom? You appear to have the same intellectual capacity as those two geniuses.

The fact that you think C19 is jargon and requires a Google search is an excellent example of precisely how stupid you are.

Can you not think of any reasons yourself why a simple majority might be a too-low bar for constitutionally significant decisions? The fact that Scotland is bound by a decision its polity disagrees with, for example? Or that the decision puts a militarised border back into NI, thus imperilling the peace there? Or that more fundamentally, a constitutionally significant change ought to have the coherent support of the population to avoid long-term division, which is the reasoning behind super-majorities? Of course you can't think of reasons like this by yourself. It requires insight, empathy and intelligence, which immediately rules you out.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

UKIP didn't do what I said. UKIP had leave as central to its manifesto, but it didn't say what model of Brexit it was proposing, nor did it win the election, which was what I said. I'm well aware of what it did, and I am all too keenly aware that if the Tory government had not proposed a referendum, UKIP might have had a higher share of vote, the Tories might have lost seats, and Labour might have been in power, and the country would not now be staring down the barrel of an almighty constitutional, economic and social shitshow.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

I note that in your oh-so-witty retort, you don't make time to retract the idiocy of your prior assertion that a GE approach to Brexit would have required "rally 75% of the populace to get 50.00001% of elected officials to agree with the majority". Instead, you make further unrelated and equally stupid attacks on what I wrote, including the hilarious notion that a cheap pound is good for the British economy because manufacturing exports benefit. Congratulations, you are every bit as stupid as you seem.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

Wow, posters tonight are really spectacularly dumb.

In case you hadn't noticed, the current Conservative administration was elected with 36.9% of the vote (11.3m votes), cf Brexit vote of 52% (17m votes). And it is free to do more or less as it wishes, because the British model is an elective dictatorship where the government of the day can pass any legislation it likes so long as it can command the confidence of the House.

So winning a GE is actually considerably *easier* than winning a simple majority in a referendum, in the sense of the votes and vote share required to get over the bar. However, the effort would have been harder where it actually counted: the Tories would have had to put forward a manifesto, which would have entailed some level of scrutiny of their Brexit plan, which would have been absolutely fucking marvellous, because it would have ensured there was some kind of fucking plan rather than this shitshow we're currently enduring. The pound would not have dropped like a rock, NI would not be sliding toward militarised borders, Scotland would not be heading for secession, at least one of the two major parties would have kept their leader, etc etc. And there would probably have been less racism too, both during and after the campaign.

I wasn't proposing this alternative to make it easier for Remain to win, you almighty cockwomble, I was proposing it because a Parliamentary democracy happens to be a less shite way of ensuring workable policy emerges than a plebiscite.

Jesus fucking Christ, you people are the absolute limit. You are so fucking sure of yourselves but you absolutely will not listen to what is actually being said to you. How you can handle knives and forks without stabbing your own eyes out, either by wilful idiocy or out of shame at the horror that is your tiny tiny mind is beyond me.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

Me and mine will be fine. We're relatively rich. We have options. But the country as a whole... not so much. I'm guessing you're unlikely to be fine, as I struggle to believe someone that dumb could earn more than the median wage. Mind you, look at Leadsom. And Corbyn. You're certainly no dumber than them. The state of Britain today.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

I've just re-read my post.

I wrote: "a specific Brexit approach (e.g. Norway-style) as part of its manifesto"

To which you respond: "You can't elect a government on a single agenda"

I mean how fucking dumb can you be to not understand what the word "part" means? My kids understood that word when they were three. Yet here you are, able to type, unable to master basic fucking comprehension skills. Hang your head in shame.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

OK, that's just really fucking dumb.

Where in my post did I say that leaving the EU should be the only thing in a party's manifesto. Given that even UKIP, most of whom are too dumb to wipe the drool off their own mouths, had a manifesto that referred to issues other than the EU, I think the Tories could probably have rustled up something slightly more comprehensive.

And *of course* Scotland and NI would still have wanted to split. The difference would have been that the party that won would have had to explain and defend its approach to Scotland and NI in advance during the election campaign, which would have *forced them to think about the fucking issue and propose a half-way sane policy*, instead of this risible shit-in-the-bed-and-then-run-away approach we've seen post-referendum. The Scottish and NI political parties would have been involved in discussions -- someone would have thought about the NI border. We wouldn't have the party in power and the official opposition acting like headless fucking muppets for weeks after the vote.

You don't realise anything. You think you do, but you really fucking don't. You're too fucking stupid. You don't understand the first thing about representative democracy, about the nature of the British polity, about why the US is set up as a republic, about why the Swiss are shitting their pants about their own idiotic direct democracy and the impossibility of reconciling their voters' wishes and their voters' actual interests, etc. You need to crawl back into your box, shut the lid behind you, and take a vow of silence, because everything you think is stupid and wrong.

Comment Re:But now part of the historical narrative? (Score 1) 621

So what? I don't give a shit if it would have never happened. That would have been an excellent thing. It would not have unleashed this vile torrent of racism that we are currently enduring. It was a stupid fucking decision to have a referendum and an even more stupid fucking decision to allow it to be advisory only and thus allow a ridiculous bar that doesn't entail getting the consent of all four home countries, and a risibly idiotic decision by the country as a whole to leave the EU. And your *personal* decision to vote Leave, assuming you made such a decision, on the basis that it "stops the gravy train" is so laughably fucking dumb as to warrant an endless stream of contempt, given that the decision has destroyed more wealth in the subsequent few days than we ever handed to Brussels in 40 fucking years.

Slashdot Top Deals

I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do? -- Raoul Duke