Conquer Club

I corrected / expanded on you fix. You’re welcome.

mrswdk wrote:Fixed that for you.

tzor wrote:

The ram wrote:As a REAL Englishman I would like a war.. why should we negotiate with Europe. Time for action!

The last time the "English" got into trouble with the continent, not only did they loose big time, but they wound up having to integrate French into the language. it ended with English troops marching riding through Berlin, on American Jeeps and Equipment and backed by American troops, and occupying supporting the American occupation of Germany for four years.

spurgistan wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Several polls conducted in recent days prove that the British public support Boris Johnson's deal:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50123223

The MPs deliberately obstructing it have been proven to be nothing more than self-interested snivelling traitors and they all deserve to be locked up in HMP Brixton accordingly.

the article wrote:According to YouGov, slightly more (23%) believe it would be a bad deal for Britain than think it would be a good one (17%). As many as 45% feel they do not know enough to give a view either way.

Similarly, Survation reports while 25% think it would be good for Britain as a whole, 27% believe it would be bad. And just 17% believe the UK would benefit most from the deal, while 28% think the EU would.

The point is not whether it's a good deal or a bad deal. The point is that there was a referendum, which the government promised to respect, and in that referendum the people voted for Brexit. Parliament needs to stop dragging its ass and deliver Brexit.

I personally think that Brexit was a stupid, stupid idea, and I've said that from day one. But it's not about what I think, or what you think, or Honourable Member from Islington North thinks. Sometimes the people vote for something really stupid, and they have every right to get it. Democracy means you take the bad with the good. You respect vote results. You don't have Big Brother saying, "oh, you voted wrong. I'm going to nullify the results."

Britain has long been a shining example of stable democracy in action, and to see Parliament twisting and turning to try to find some way to renege on their promise is doing massive long-term harm to respect for democracy.

Dukasaur wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Several polls conducted in recent days prove that the British public support Boris Johnson's deal:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50123223

The MPs deliberately obstructing it have been proven to be nothing more than self-interested snivelling traitors and they all deserve to be locked up in HMP Brixton accordingly.

the article wrote:According to YouGov, slightly more (23%) believe it would be a bad deal for Britain than think it would be a good one (17%). As many as 45% feel they do not know enough to give a view either way.

Similarly, Survation reports while 25% think it would be good for Britain as a whole, 27% believe it would be bad. And just 17% believe the UK would benefit most from the deal, while 28% think the EU would.

The point is not whether it's a good deal or a bad deal. The point is that there was a referendum, which the government promised to respect, and in that referendum the people voted for Brexit. Parliament needs to stop dragging its ass and deliver Brexit.

I personally think that Brexit was a stupid, stupid idea, and I've said that from day one. But it's not about what I think, or what you think, or Honourable Member from Islington North thinks. Sometimes the people vote for something really stupid, and they have every right to get it. Democracy means you take the bad with the good. You respect vote results. You don't have Big Brother saying, "oh, you voted wrong. I'm going to nullify the results."

Britain has long been a shining example of stable democracy in action, and to see Parliament twisting and turning to try to find some way to renege on their promise is doing massive long-term harm to respect for democracy.

People who agree with democracy:

• Dukasaur
• mrswdk
• Noel Gallagher
• At least 17.2 million of the British public

People who hate democracy:

• Chuka Umunna
• Jo Swinson
• Charles Manson

Dukasaur wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Several polls conducted in recent days prove that the British public support Boris Johnson's deal:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50123223

The MPs deliberately obstructing it have been proven to be nothing more than self-interested snivelling traitors and they all deserve to be locked up in HMP Brixton accordingly.

the article wrote:According to YouGov, slightly more (23%) believe it would be a bad deal for Britain than think it would be a good one (17%). As many as 45% feel they do not know enough to give a view either way.

Similarly, Survation reports while 25% think it would be good for Britain as a whole, 27% believe it would be bad. And just 17% believe the UK would benefit most from the deal, while 28% think the EU would.

The point is not whether it's a good deal or a bad deal. The point is that there was a referendum, which the government promised to respect, and in that referendum the people voted for Brexit. Parliament needs to stop dragging its ass and deliver Brexit.

I personally think that Brexit was a stupid, stupid idea, and I've said that from day one. But it's not about what I think, or what you think, or Honourable Member from Islington North thinks. Sometimes the people vote for something really stupid, and they have every right to get it. Democracy means you take the bad with the good. You respect vote results. You don't have Big Brother saying, "oh, you voted wrong. I'm going to nullify the results."

Britain has long been a shining example of stable democracy in action, and to see Parliament twisting and turning to try to find some way to renege on their promise is doing massive long-term harm to respect for democracy.

But a minority of people think it's a good deal. It's the people's will that it's a bad deal. Parliament not voting for a deal people don't like is government acting the way it's supposed to. Right now it's Boris trying to force a Brexit deal most people don't like down their throats because it would be bad for him politically if they don't.

spurgistan wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Several polls conducted in recent days prove that the British public support Boris Johnson's deal:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50123223

The MPs deliberately obstructing it have been proven to be nothing more than self-interested snivelling traitors and they all deserve to be locked up in HMP Brixton accordingly.

the article wrote:According to YouGov, slightly more (23%) believe it would be a bad deal for Britain than think it would be a good one (17%). As many as 45% feel they do not know enough to give a view either way.

Similarly, Survation reports while 25% think it would be good for Britain as a whole, 27% believe it would be bad. And just 17% believe the UK would benefit most from the deal, while 28% think the EU would.

The point is not whether it's a good deal or a bad deal. The point is that there was a referendum, which the government promised to respect, and in that referendum the people voted for Brexit. Parliament needs to stop dragging its ass and deliver Brexit.

I personally think that Brexit was a stupid, stupid idea, and I've said that from day one. But it's not about what I think, or what you think, or Honourable Member from Islington North thinks. Sometimes the people vote for something really stupid, and they have every right to get it. Democracy means you take the bad with the good. You respect vote results. You don't have Big Brother saying, "oh, you voted wrong. I'm going to nullify the results."

Britain has long been a shining example of stable democracy in action, and to see Parliament twisting and turning to try to find some way to renege on their promise is doing massive long-term harm to respect for democracy.

But a minority of people think it's a good deal. It's the people's will that it's a bad deal. Parliament not voting for a deal people don't like is government acting the way it's supposed to. Right now it's Boris trying to force a Brexit deal most people don't like down their throats because it would be bad for him politically if they don't.

Publications of the private, for-profit company YouGov, PLC do not have the force and effect of law. If they did, Hillary Clinton - a woman who is a New York Times-declared conspiracy theorist - would be U.S. president.

The only legally valid poll on Brexit occurred in 2016 and it had a sample size of 46,500,0001.

Exactly. Stop snivelling, spurg.

mrswdk wrote:Exactly. Stop snivelling, spurg.

Then why'd you post that article?

No snivelling from me going on in this thread. I stand on the side of democracy. You stand on the side of weasely usurpers.

But it's not too late for you to admit your mistake.

mrswdk wrote:I stand on the side of democracy.

There is something transinfinitely ironic about the voice of Poo on the "side of democracy."

tzor wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I stand on the side of democracy.

There is something transinfinitely ironic about the voice of Poo on the "side of democracy."

Open your eyes and you shall see.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50175914

...so has Boris picked a cosy ditch to die in yet?

Two Remain Traitor MPs have successfully and correctly been removed from the House of Commons following public democratic pressure:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50246969

No more delay, Brexit today!

mrswdk wrote:Two Remain Traitor MPs have successfully and correctly been removed from the House of Commons following public democratic pressure:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50246969

No more delay, Brexit today!

Pretty sad when you're proud of the fact that British politics is degenerating to Third-World standards.

If by 'Third-World standards' you mean people not lying down and taking it when their politicians actively seek to undermine democracy and ignore the wishes of the population then yes.

This sort of thing is pretty normal for a developed nation really. Consider Australia, where the Prime Minister changes every 5 minutes and the last female one was mocked in Parliament for being a woman, or Taiwan, where policy-makers regularly engage in all out brawls in the middle of their Parliament. The previous president of Korea was forced out of office for being corrupt, the current Prime Minister of Canada has retained their office while being corrupt, the behaviour of the current President of the US is well-documented. The Israeli Parliament openly encourages illegal land-grabbing from other nations and the German and Austrian legislatures is rapidly filling up with neo-Nazis. Yadda yadda.

mrswdk wrote:If by 'Third-World standards' you mean people not lying down and taking it when their politicians actively seek to undermine democracy and ignore the wishes of the population then yes.

This sort of thing is pretty normal for a government that follows the British model. Consider Australia, where the Prime Minister changes every 5 minutes and the last female one was mocked in Parliament for being a woman, or Taiwan, where policy-makers regularly engage in all out brawls in the middle of their Parliament.

In fact this sort of thing is pretty normal for any government anywhere. The previous president of Korea was forced out of office for being corrupt, the current Prime Minister of Canada has retained their office while being corrupt, the behaviour of the current President of the US is well-documented.

No, by 'Third-World standards' I mean people yelling obscenities and sending death threats.

I'd like to remove my Member of Parliament, but when I met him I still spoke to him in a civilized and courteous fashion.

Not sure why you think a handful of people making death threats and shouting obscenities is 'third world'. There are people like that in every country on the planet.

Unless of course you are referring to the fact that the Third World Mud Hut Men are generally all just a bit more uncivilized and unruly than the White Man, in which case yes I agree.

Also most people generally consider the term 'Third World' to be offensive these days but hey.

mrswdk wrote:Not sure why you think a handful of people making death threats and shouting obscenities is 'third world'. There are people like that in every country on the planet.

Unless of course you are referring to the fact that the Third World Mud Hut Men are generally all just a bit more uncivilized and unruly than the White Man, in which case yes I agree.

Make jokes if you wish, but nobody in a civilized country should have to deal with death threats and rape threats and personal invective because of their political stance. I know you don't happen to agree with their politics, but that's precisely the point. If you want to continue having a civilized country, you need to defend the rights of people you disagree with just as much as people you agree with. Possibly more so.

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Not sure why you think a handful of people making death threats and shouting obscenities is 'third world'. There are people like that in every country on the planet.

Unless of course you are referring to the fact that the Third World Mud Hut Men are generally all just a bit more uncivilized and unruly than the White Man, in which case yes I agree.

Make jokes if you wish, but nobody in a civilized country should have to deal with death threats and rape threats and personal invective because of their political stance. I know you don't happen to agree with their politics, but that's precisely the point. If you want to continue having a civilized country, you need to defend the rights of people you disagree with just as much as people you agree with. Possibly more so.

I don't think they should either, I just didn't see why the use of death and rape threats was being characterised as a low-/medium-income country problem.

mrswdk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Not sure why you think a handful of people making death threats and shouting obscenities is 'third world'. There are people like that in every country on the planet.

Unless of course you are referring to the fact that the Third World Mud Hut Men are generally all just a bit more uncivilized and unruly than the White Man, in which case yes I agree.

Make jokes if you wish, but nobody in a civilized country should have to deal with death threats and rape threats and personal invective because of their political stance. I know you don't happen to agree with their politics, but that's precisely the point. If you want to continue having a civilized country, you need to defend the rights of people you disagree with just as much as people you agree with. Possibly more so.

I don't think they should either, I just didn't see why the use of death and rape threats was being characterised as a low-/medium-income country problem.

I don't think it's so much about the income as about the fact that for many countries democracy is a recent import. They've just recently emerged either from military dictatorship, or from colonial occupation, or both, and they're just fumbling about and finding their way to a democratic tradition. In so many of these countries, you read about opposition candidates needing to travel with basically a battalion of bodyguards to avoid being beaten up while campaigning.

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Not sure why you think a handful of people making death threats and shouting obscenities is 'third world'. There are people like that in every country on the planet.

Unless of course you are referring to the fact that the Third World Mud Hut Men are generally all just a bit more uncivilized and unruly than the White Man, in which case yes I agree.

Make jokes if you wish, but nobody in a civilized country should have to deal with death threats and rape threats and personal invective because of their political stance. I know you don't happen to agree with their politics, but that's precisely the point. If you want to continue having a civilized country, you need to defend the rights of people you disagree with just as much as people you agree with. Possibly more so.

I don't think they should either, I just didn't see why the use of death and rape threats was being characterised as a low-/medium-income country problem.

I don't think it's so much about the income as about the fact that for many countries democracy is a recent import. They've just recently emerged either from military dictatorship, or from colonial occupation, or both, and they're just fumbling about and finding their way to a democratic tradition. In so many of these countries, you read about opposition candidates needing to travel with basically a battalion of bodyguards to avoid being beaten up while campaigning.

So now we're moving on from your initial (incorrect) point - 'threats to politicians are what happens in other countries' - to a new point: 'politicians in other countries need physical protection when in public'.

I'm guessing when you say 'many countries' that among them you are including the US, France and Germany.

Picture of a politician travelling around in a civilized and safe white country:

Has Boris found a suitable ditch yet?

jonesthecurl wrote:Has Boris found a suitable ditch yet?

See, Duk. Even jones is getting into the swing of things with the death threats. Here's to a strong leadership capable of weathering the barbs!

mrswdk wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Has Boris found a suitable ditch yet?

See, Duk. Even jones is getting into the swing of things with the death threats. Here's to a strong leadership capable of weathering the barbs!

This was more of a suicide threat. Or promise.

jonesthecurl wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Has Boris found a suitable ditch yet?

See, Duk. Even jones is getting into the swing of things with the death threats. Here's to a strong leadership capable of weathering the barbs!

This was more of a suicide threat. Or promise.

The hopeful undertones to your question constitute at least a wish for his death, I reckon.