Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?

  • Total voters
    1,099


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
56,146
Faversham
Simster said:
Hey [MENTION=89]Sorrel[/MENTION], this belittling of leave voters you speak of - I really can't think why that might have happened. :lolol:

Oh.


Or perhaps a clue? I mean just look at the contributions of this absolute moron - he is so thick that he can't even concentrate sufficiently to process TWO paragraphs.
Click to expand...

He dismissed one of my posts yesterday (yes, I peeked). I was actually explaining why Boris has a mandate to do what he likes over Brexit (morally, if not legally) as long as he gets it done. And yet droopy seemed to think I was making a remainer point. :shrug: I felt quite proud to have been so misunderstood. :lolol:
 








Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
56,146
Faversham
n1 gull said:
This thread is absolutely vile
Click to expand...

Probably with good reason.

I often wonder how the nation would vote if given an option to enable some new technology that allows couples to read one another's minds. And how NSC would debate the issue, and the kerfuffle that would follow after the outcome (which would of course be 'yes').

Looking forward to droopy calling my post 'clueless'. :shrug:
 








Grombleton

Grombleton

Surrounded by <div>s
Dec 31, 2011
7,356
dingodan said:
I wrote a nice calm, friendly, reasonable reply to this. Then I deleted it all when I realized that you used the term "mansplaining".

You know what, f*ck you and people like you. You are the moron, you just don't see it.

You lost, people like you will always lose until you realize what you are and what you have been doing. You might be tempted to think that we live in a terrible time where virtuous liberalism is being rejected by a nasty (and apparently thick) majority.

Wrong. Self righteous, "morally (and apparently intellectually) superiour" people like you, who play identity politics, pit men against women, black against white, rich against poor etc, you are what has been rejected, thank f*ck.

One day you will wake up and realize that a) people who see things differently from you actually have nothing in common with Nazis, and b) you actually have a fair bit in common with the Marxist–Leninists, more than is healthy.

You lost, you will never win, and by the way if you did you would soon find yourself in a world which terrifies you, if you don't believe me just ask those people who lived in the old Soviet Union or Maoist China..

Sorry for my "mansplaining", hope I didn't get any of my "white privilege" in your eye.
Click to expand...


Probably unintentionally, you have actually highlighted a point that a few people have said before:

'You lost'. You're treating something like a flipping game. Yet people whinge when they get labelled childish?
 






Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
56,146
Faversham
Simster said:
What a load of utter shit.
Click to expand...

You tempted me to peek at the post to which you replied. Very succinct. Your reply :lolol:

The thing about gammon is that it can be avuncular, kindly to children, gallant to women, subscribe to the National Trust, and all sorts. But.....
 


dingodan

dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
A1X said:
This analogy doesn't even make sense. If you're going to start trying to educate me in fallacies and debate tactics at least make your analogies work.

So here we have you who has accused someone else (and others) of driving divisions between men & women, white & black and rich & poor and how the people who do that "lost". I then commented that your accusations of this were laughable given the most prominent people on the opposing side of that argument were the ones who were actually guilty of the crime you lambast, and they "won". You then come up with some spurious nonsense about foxes rather than engage with the point, or indeed use it as an opportunity to condemn those on the same side who spout the shit you claim to despise.

Next time you're on Wikipedia, try searching for "hypocrisy". It might ring a few bells.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
("appeal to hypocrisy")

I don't actually agree with you on who plays identity politics and who doesn't but I was never going to bother having that discussion with you, because you are ideologically possessed. I don't feel like defending Johnson or Farage, and I don't have to. I speak and answer for myself not for other people. I also ask that others speak for and answer for themselves, not other people.

It doesn't seem to me that the "identity politics" narrative, and the "group identity mentality" is what has won the day and is now the dominant force in our politics though. It's the hallmark of the liberals here and in the U.S. and both have been absolutely destroyed at the polls. The West is based on individualism not collectivism, and with good reason. Good reason which apparently even a "moron" can understand. Go figure.
 


dingodan

dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
Harry Wilson's tackle said:
You tempted me to peek at the post to which you replied. Very succinct. Your reply :lolol:

The thing about gammon is that it can be avuncular, kindly to children, gallant to women, subscribe to the National Trust, and all sorts. But.....
Click to expand...

Please continue...

By the way. Gammon is a term which refers to white men of a certain age and political view point.

So, it's ageist, sexist, racist and politically discriminatory.

But it's Ok to be those things when you are one of the "good guys" directing those things and the "bad guys". It's those other people who are biggots. You are just "woke".
 




Simster

Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,952
Surrey
A1X said:
This analogy doesn't even make sense. If you're going to start trying to educate me in fallacies and debate tactics at least make your analogies work.

So here we have you who has accused someone else (and others) of driving divisions between men & women, white & black and rich & poor and how the people who do that "lost". I then commented that your accusations of this were laughable given the most prominent people on the opposing side of that argument were the ones who were actually guilty of the crime you lambast, and they "won". You then come up with some spurious nonsense about foxes rather than engage with the point, or indeed use it as an opportunity to condemn those on the same side who spout the shit you claim to despise.

Next time you're on Wikipedia, try searching for "hypocrisy". It might ring a few bells.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why I just called his feeble rant "a load of shit". He didn't like what I wrote about leave winning thanks to the votes of millions of simpletons and morons, made up some spurious reason for getting frothy mouthed (he didn't like the use of the word "mansplaining") and then went on his comedy nonsensical rant.
 




Pretty pink fairy

Pretty pink fairy

Banned
Jan 30, 2008
31,981
Lincoln Imp said:
Strange. You are now attacking people who agree with you.

(Unless you think that the government should not do what it promised to do and the poster's attack on Remainers was wrong.)
Click to expand...
- in the end were probably contributory factors in the bloodymindedness of those who voted the government their majority.............. right on ???
regards
DF
 




nwgull

nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
14,533
Manchester
daveinplzen said:
What tangible thing have they 'won'
Click to expand...

You know that the answer is '**** all' don't you? I'd add that we'll ALL lose, but that ignores the ironic fact that the areas most adversely affected will be those that voted strongly for Brexit. Places like Sussex and the big cities should be fine.

Pre GE broadcasts from places like Stoke and Bishop Auckland had locals (irrationally) convinvced that Brexit was the answer to all their woes. Give it 2-4 years before we start seeing news reports of people in these Brexity towns incredulous to the fact that the EU was not the reason for all the bad stuff in their lives and towns.

The triumphalism made me lose all sympathy about 2 years ago to the extent that I will LOL when Sunderland loses Nissan.
 




Pretty pink fairy

Pretty pink fairy

Banned
Jan 30, 2008
31,981
nwgull said:
You know that the answer is '**** all' don't you? I'd add that we'll ALL lose, but that ignores the ironic fact that the areas most adversely affected will be those that voted strongly for Brexit. Places like Sussex and the big cities should be fine.

Pre GE broadcasts from places like Stoke and Bishop Auckland had locals (irrationally) convinvced that Brexit was the answer to all their woes. Give it 2-4 years before we start seeing news reports of people in these Brexity towns incredulous to the fact that the EU was not the reason for all the bad stuff in their lives and towns.

The triumphalism made me lose all sympathy about 2 years ago to the extent that I will LOL when Sunderland loses Nissan.
Click to expand...

tick tock, tick tock,tick tock
regards
DF
 


Pretty pink fairy

Pretty pink fairy

Banned
Jan 30, 2008
31,981
Simster said:
Exactly. That's why I just called his feeble rant "a load of shit". He didn't like what I wrote about leave winning thanks to the votes of millions of simpletons and morons, made up some spurious reason for getting frothy mouthed (he didn't like the use of the word "mansplaining") and then went on his comedy nonsensical rant.
Click to expand...
to be fair you fit the part perfectly :wink:
regards
DF
 








You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here