The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Letters]

Quite enjoying the title of this video "BBC viewers outraged as Richard Dawkins brands Brexit voters 'ignorant' in outrageous rant"
I think he's just saying that people in general are ill-informed which they clearly are.

[GP]

Quite enjoying the title of this video "BBC viewers outraged as Richard Dawkins brands Brexit voters 'ignorant' in outrageous rant"
I think he's just saying that people in general are ill-informed which they clearly are.

See, this is the thing, is he right to say that people didn't know the full extent of Brexit?

Yes, obviously, because even Theresa May doens't know the full extent of Brexit. They haven't got a clue where we'll be in 2 years once the dust has settled.

[Letters]

I (probably stupidly, but he seems sensible enough) got into a YouTube debate about the video with someone.
His last comment said that all the Remainers predictions about the economic issues if we leave the EU have been proven to be lies because the economy hasn't crashed and the budget was much the same as usual.
Yeah...maybe that's because WE'RE STILL IN THE EU YOU MORAN!


The fact is no-one knows what the impact will be, we still have no idea because there was no coherent plan from either side about what a deal with the EU would look like and negotiations haven't even started yet. But 52% of a pretty ill-informed public (on both sides) is a pretty flimsy mandate for constitutional change the effect of which will be felt for generations.

[Letters]

Stupid Queen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39282280

[Niall_Quinn]

I (probably stupidly, but he seems sensible enough) got into a YouTube debate about the video with someone.
His last comment said that all the Remainers predictions about the economic issues if we leave the EU have been proven to be lies because the economy hasn't crashed and the budget was much the same as usual.
Yeah...maybe that's because WE'RE STILL IN THE EU YOU MORAN!


The fact is no-one knows what the impact will be, we still have no idea because there was no coherent plan from either side about what a deal with the EU would look like and negotiations haven't even started yet. But 52% of a pretty ill-informed public (on both sides) is a pretty flimsy mandate for constitutional change the effect of which will be felt for generations.

52% is a better mandate than zero, which is what all the other constitutional changes that transformed a trading bloc into a super state achieved, because no fucker thought to ask.

Has it occurred to the likes of Dawkins that a few more referenda along the way might have shaped a Europe the majority could live with? It is a succession of political charlatans that sold their arses to the highest bidders who excluded the people from a say in this democracy. You couldn't have inserted a cigarette paper between any of them as more powers were handed over to Europe. How do you think UKIP arrived? Because there has been a genuine and growing resentment all along and this opinion was repeatedly ignored over decades.

So when Dawkins claims this is all some snap decision made in a single day, well I say - what an ignorant fool. If that's what he really believes. Which is very unlikely.

And of course, nobody knows what the impact of staying in Europe would be either. I mean what a stupid argument. We have a long established record of utter chaos as booms have exploded into increasingly horrendous busts and more and more wealth has been transferred up. Not solely the responsibility of power blocs like the EU, but they most certainly have played a key role. Is that the stability the remain crowd are afraid of losing? Bizarre. Reminds me a bit (in fact a lot) of the Wenger situation. If you looked you can easily see there's a major problem with the EU, you can see it has failed in the most spectacular fashion. But when you don't look and you instead buy into the German promise (whether it's competing with Bayern Munich or partnering up with the latest puffed up German Chancellor) well I suppose you could convince yourself it's a great idea to keep beating yourself up.

[Letters]

So when Dawkins claims this is all some snap decision made in a single day, well I say - what an ignorant fool. If that's what he really believes. Which is very unlikely.

That's literally what it is. It's what any vote is. The polls were all over the shop in the months leading up to the vote.
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

Had the vote been a few months before the result may well have been different. If they had another vote now it might be. It's a pretty flimsy mandate for a permanent constitutional change. The fact that other changes have been made without any vote doesn't change that.

The point about the impact of staying in is an interesting one, I guess my biggest problem is that there was no plan from either side about what us being out of the EU actually means so are we going to get another vote when they decide what it means? I guess not. It is a bit like Wenger Out, the obvious follow-up question is "who in?" and I've seen you argue that it doesn't matter, at least it will be different. I don't think that's a very helpful way of thinking, you have to have some plan that will take us forward and with the EU there hasn't been one and still isn't.

[Niall_Quinn]

That's literally what it is. It's what any vote is. The polls were all over the shop in the months leading up to the vote.
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

Had the vote been a few months before the result may well have been different. If they had another vote now it might be. It's a pretty flimsy mandate for a permanent constitutional change. The fact that other changes have been made without any vote doesn't change that.

The point about the impact of staying in is an interesting one, I guess my biggest problem is that there was no plan from either side about what us being out of the EU actually means so are we going to get another vote when they decide what it means? I guess not. It is a bit like Wenger Out, the obvious follow-up question is "who in?" and I've seen you argue that it doesn't matter, at least it will be different. I don't think that's a very helpful way of thinking, you have to have some plan that will take us forward and with the EU there hasn't been one and still isn't.

The referendum result is the strongest democratic mandate in two decades. 72% turned out, compared to 66% in the last general election. 72% turnout hasn't been seen at a general election since 1997. General elections take place over the course of a day too. Why is this any more reliable than a referendum result?

At least the referendum was competed by opposing groups, boiling down to a distinct choice. What do you get in a general election? The same group split into three facades where the differences in practical policy and now, since Blair's destruction of the political system, even ideological differences are negligible. Finally Labour gets a socialist leader and the media immediately proclaim him to be unelectable. There is no variance permitted in British politics. Those who campaign for anything other than the status quo are considered fringe candidates. I have no idea what Dawkin's views are on the state of the electoral system that keeps ushering into power these grey technocrats who represent the few, but it seems decidedly odd he's attracted publicity for criticising the least egregious example of the democratic system.

Besides, as already explained, the choice made by the British people was not based solely on the Leave/ Remain campaigns and certainly not on whim. It was a result made over decades of neglect, arrogance and contempt for the British people by the political and business classes. It's a miracle result. When you have the entire establishment system arranged against one of the outcomes but that outcome materialises you know a fundamental shift has occurred. The political classes know it too which is the only reason we haven't been forced into another vote and another and another until the "correct" result is obtained, as we have seen with previous EU referenda. The evidence for this shift was underpinned by Trump's even more remarkable victory.

The comfortable and, until they got a slap in the face, complacent drones who believe business as usual is the only option have decided these outcomes represent some sort of deep flaw in the majority of the citizens. They find it impossible to imagine the real flaws in their own preferred system have come to light resulting in the rejection of pretty much everything they stand for. So they are thrashing this way and that, spreading fear and division, trying in every way to undermine this new movement that has rejected globalisation and the deep inequality and human suffering it has very obviously delivered. These establishment types are control freaks. They don't believe in democracy or freedom of choice. They have shown this in their outright rejection of the democratic process. It was a process good enough to lend legitimacy to their approved leaders, the likes of Thatcher, the gun dealer Major, the war criminal Blair, the privileged pig fucker Cameron - but now democracy is broken for them, their own weapon they used to deliver the same politics under different marketing slogans has been used against them, they want their ball back. Not one of their items on the lengthy list of fear-mongering has transpired but undeterred they just keep adding to the list. In the States their brothers in crime have descended into all manner of crackpot conspiracy theorising about Russians hiding under every bed. It's a ludicrous way to carry on and yet it is supporters of the Leave campaign and Donald Trump that are the idiots according to Dawkins. So he's the bright guy I assume? So why is he talking utter bullshit, why does his analysis run a quarter inch deep and carefully no further?

Besides, the UK and US aren't the main focus. If Le Pen can liberate France from the Germans (haven't we been here before) then Remain can go back to bed because there won't even be an EU. That's how much of a success it has been, the citizens of nations all across Europe are queueing to reject it and reclaim their national sovereignty.

I guess some people just don't get it. When the bods at the top talk about economic security - THEY AREN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU! They are talking about their security and prosperity. None of which has been or would ever be shared with you. For as long as the EU has existed the gap between the rich and the poor has accelerated at an ever faster rate. Why can't people look at this evidence and come to a rather obvious conclusion? Big government does not work in the interests of the people it claims to represent and the bigger government gets the worse the disparity. How is this not obvious to otherwise rational people who are pining to fall back into the clutches on a European mega state? It beggars belief.

Now if this was the first time Britain had ever been independent then I could understand the trepidation. But, you know, Lizzie the First, Winston Churchill. We have a bit of history we can call on to tell us it'll be okay. We have been there. We have spent more time standing on our own two feet than lying under a boot. A lot more time. And for those who say well, that's not the modern world, that's not now globalisation works - relax, globalisation is in the process of being strangled as we speak so you won't need to worry about that any more. That's how the world used to work and then enough people wised up and in the nick of time. Fair play to them, they have honoured the memories of the souls who went terrified into trenches and fought for the independence and freedom of their families and friends back home (and some romantic fools for Queen and country too). Now, at least, when we say they won't be forgotten we won't have to talk out of the other side of our faces.

[Letters]

The referendum result is the strongest democratic mandate in two decades. 72% turned out, compared to 66% in the last general election. 72% turnout hasn't been seen at a general election since 1997. General elections take place over the course of a day too. Why is this any more reliable than a referendum result?

Well, it isn't. But at least in a few years time you'll get another go, an election result doesn't have a permanent effect like this does.

I think you're over-estimating people if you think this is the start of a "movement". People are, on average, idiots - I don't need to justify that beyond saying that Mrs Brown's Boys is extremely popular and people keep buying tickets to watch Arsenal play. People are sick of being lied to and let down by politicians so instead they're being lied to by buses and businessmen. I don't really see that as an improvement.

I like the principle of democracy but the trouble with it is it's based on the premise that everyone's view is as valid as everyone else's. That patently isn't true, if I wanted to buy a new computer I'd probably take your opinion more seriously (as I know you're in IT) than that of, say, MrsL who can hardly find the 'on' button. We all have different level of experience and knowledge and that makes our opinions on various topics equally valid. The problem with a referendum on the EU is someone who has studied EU law has the same amount of say as the bloke who doesn't like the "bloody frogs", or me who, as much as I try to understand the relevant issues will never be an expert on these things.

I'm not sure what you mean by rejection of the democratic process, the Queen (Gawd bless 'er) has just signed off on Article 50. It's happening, for good or ill. You say Dawkins is talking "bullshit" but neglect to say what you disagree with him about. You say a referendum is not a snapshot of opinion on a day when it clearly is, as is any vote. Are you arguing against his assertion that the public is poorly informed or miseled? Again...Mrs Brown's Boys.

I don't think citizens of nations are "queueing up" to reject the EU although of course a vote like this will send shockwaves and will enbolden people in other countries with a similar view. We are sovereign by the way, were we not we wouldn't have been able to have a vote to leave in the first place.

Do you think that the gap between rich and poor has increased because of the EU? It's increasing in other places like the US too, I don't think you can link those things at all. I seriously doubt it will start to reduce when we leave.

[Niall_Quinn]

Honestly Letters, Mrs Brown's Boys? Is that how it works? You get the TV viewing figures and categorise peoples' intelligence based on their sense of humour? Or lack of it?

I already answered all the fresh questions you have raised but you either don't comprehend those answers or you don't want to see them. For example, in questioning the mandate I show you the turnout figures for the referendum compared to those of recent general elections. How else do you define a mandate in a democracy? How then is the referendum result a flimsy mandate, unless we conclude our entire system is even flimsier? Dawkin's hasn't or won't do his homework and his argument on the legitimacy of the mandate is hopelessly flawed unless... he doesn't endorse democracy at all. Another example, I argue the electoral process is a system whereby the one power structure re-elects itself on a regular basis, hiding the uniformity of that power structure by masquerading under the banner of supposed competing political parties. So yes, you can get to vote every 5 years, but you end up with the same thing. So can you actually change anything at the ballot box? We look to history again and the answer is no. The political process is a stream of legislation passed against the interests and minus the approval of the citizenry and the whole EU transformation from trading partnership to super state is the very definition of this process.

Your response is, no. That's it. But where's your counter argument? Are you claiming there is diversity in the political system, for example? Do you have anything other than Dawkin's opinion on the robustness of the referendum outcome in comparison to, say, recent general election results? I don't think you do. What I think you have is belief minus logic and historical reference points. But if you have more than that then why not offer it up?

As for your views on democracy, well plainly you endorse it about as much as Dawkins, which is not much at all. Yes sure, people should be allowed to vote but they are stupid and therefore the results are illegitimate. This is a real problem that has developed in the state dependant class which has morphed into the Euro dependant class. The arrogance, the superiority complex. Everyone who disagrees with them is stupid, or a racist or a some other "deplorable" type that, unfortunately, has rights and therefore has the right to tread on utopia. The dependant class just doesn't seem to understand that that's what democracy is. Even if the rabid assumptions about their political enemies were true, democracy is one man one vote (or one person one vote to pander to the unimaginative feminists who need to have everything spelled out).

I've explained clearly why I disagree with Dawkin's boo-hoo criticism of reality. Dawkins thinks you are an ignorant fool too, by the way.

Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

There is only one power in Dawkin's universe, the power of the authority of a few over the many. His words drip with contempt as he berates the little people for having the temerity to speak. As for his own mandate:

Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.

The left needs to stop whining, reorganise and eject these noisy authoritarian extremists. There most certainly is a strong and growing movement determined to roll back the obscenities of globalisation, to deny this is to bury your head. This movement may not have coalesced under a single banner but the factions are all heading in the same direction and converging fast. For any healthy political system there out to be a significant counterbalance. That used to be the left before it veered hard left and then swerved back hard right. Blair's greatest harm, apart from murdering a million victims, is he's made the left intolerable. That's very unhealthy for the citizenry and even worse for Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans as we have seen, to name a few. So it really is time for the left to dry its tears, get out of the play pen and back into the world to represent what they believe in an adult manner. What are they saving up to do? Help shape an independent Britain or remain disengaged and whimpering from the sidelines?

[GP]

You say a referendum is not a snapshot of opinion on a day when it clearly is

Definitely is.

I know she only speaks for herself, but she's representative of the average voter.

We should not be undertaking such a seismic constitutional change based on that and the lies on the side of a bus.