i dismissed her on the basis of her surname. I mean, it’s bad if Tory ppl have been calling her Lots Vagina all her life, and I can see why she wants to call them Cunt in return, but she should be more up front about her motivations. And in any case, I dare say even Labour bros call her Lots Vagina behind her back.
1 Like
Personally I think it is a bit cuntish when some cunt calls another cunt “a cunt” just because the first cunt doesn’t agree with the cuntish views of the second cunt.
But what do I know, I’m just a cunt.
1 Like
4 Likes
I think you’re missing the point. The example is irrelevant but just a recent example of people voting for one thing and getting another.
If we are to be held as cunts because we vote for a party which has some policies we don’t agree with, then who would vote? I don’t blame the Labour voters for the war in Iraq, even in 2005. She does though. In her world people who voted for Labour in 2005 agreed to kill thousands of innocent people.
This is her point, not mine.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
I think you’re missing the point. The example is irrelevant but just a recent example of people voting for one thing and getting another.
If we are to be held as cunts because we vote for a party which has some policies we don’t agree with, then who would vote? I don’t blame the Labour voters for the war in Iraq, even in 2005. She does though. In her world people who voted for Labour in 2005 agreed to kill thousands of innocent people.
This is her point, not mine.
You can vote for someone else or spoil your ballot paper. I think the Lib Dems got my vote two GE’s on the bounce, precisely because they were an anti-war party.
this bitch is racist against Tories and no amount of pap can talk me round. She needs to chk her priviledge. I look forward to next election where tories will be a Minority and then afforded protection of Law from snobbish cunts like this bitch srs.
But did you agree with all of their policies? If you voted Lib Dem in 2010, do you take responsibility for the CONLIB Government and their decisions? I’d assume not.
It’s unlikely that someone will agree with every policy a party puts forward. For instance, I vote Conservative because I agree with more of their policies than any other party. However, there are a number I don’t agree with, which includes further cuts to benefits etc. However, according to her, it doesn’t matter, and myself and millions of others are still cunts (which I am sure some of us are).
This is why the article doesn’t work for me.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
But did you agree with all of their policies? If you voted Lib Dem in 2010, do you take responsibility for the CONLIB Government and their decisions? I’d assume not.
The Lib Dems famously went back on many of their policies, so I wasn’t voting for what I got. I was up for electoral reform, a referendum on Europe and keeping out of wars, yep.
My vote was also largely immaterial. The Labour candidate got in.
It’s unlikely that someone will agree with every policy a party puts forward. For instance, I vote Conservative because I agree with more of their policies than any other party. However, there are a number I don’t agree with, which includes further cuts to benefits etc. However, according to her, it doesn’t matter, and myself and millions of others are still cunts (which I am sure some of us are).
Which of their policies do you agree with? I agreed with one, the decision to have an EU referendum. I agree in principle to a few more, such as localism and creating devolved metropolitan areas, but I can equally see it as a means to shift blame to devolved and underfunded places. The jury is out on that one, and its not a Tory-exclusive policy anyway. Labour were keen on setting up regional assemblies until the North East voted against one in their own area.
Appreciate that you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and that all changes have unforeseen consequences, and that people might have been fooled by Dave’s cycling act in 2010. People knew what they were in 2015, and knew what would happen, knew what was happening to the NHS.
Indeed you can’t make an omlette without breaking eggs - but you don’t have to murder every chicken within a fifty mile radius.
It was as clear as day that a Cameron goverment with a huge majority would savage the weakest in society.
We are now getting what the majority requested.
Some voters feel foolish, many are as happy as Larry.
Perhaps there is a middle ground between foolish/gullible and smug/heartless that I haven’t considered?
Either way, the damage being done to vital services, the police and the NHS is what those voters chose.
In their reflective moments, only they know in which category they have placed themselves.
1 Like
Ok, so you agree with the assertion that voting Labour in 2005 was a vote to say you don’t care about thousands of innocent people murdered in the Iraq conflict? If that sits fine with you then I guess you agree with her, and against my point.
i don’t think they murdered thousands of innocent ppl, did they? I thought they collateral damaged a disputed number of potential terrorists?
Indeed some did still support the Blair government but I seem to recall his majority was massively damaged by his actions because those who voted for him in 1997 didn’t see a war in his manifesto, that’s perhaps why they abandoned him in 2005?
Whereas Cameron made it abundantly clear that he would cut the police and the NHS when he asked for your vote last year.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Rallyboy
Cameron made it abundantly clear
that would be a fkn first srs. R U Sure?
I don’t care whether a lot of people left the Labour Party or didn’t vote etc, that is not the question. The question is, as I asked above, do you agree with the assertion that voting Labour in 2005 was a vote to say you don’t care about thousands of innocent people murdered in the Iraq conflict?
Essentially, I think I’ve been looking at this whole voting thing wrong. In my mind, I look at the parties and see what policies I agree with, and tend to (within reason) go with the party I agree with most. What I think people are saying here, and in that article, is you should go with the party you 100% agree with, and if there isn’t one you should spoil your ballot paper.
No no, what we’re saying is you should carefully assess the policies of the various parties, weigh up which is the best fit with your personal beliefs, and check for any what we might call “Deal Breakers” like i.e. Bear Culls, or Unrestricted Parking For Masonic Lodges, and you’ve got to consider all of these things carefully and rationally and without prejudice, and then vote Labour. Or ur a Cunt.
2 Likes
So if some one was a Tory (aka a cunt) and “saw the light” and voted labour would they cease to be a cunt or would they be a reformed cunt or still be a cunt because a cunt can’t change their spots. This would help as it could determine if there was any salvation for me or that I would remain a cunt in perpetuity and, if that is the case, I might as well make the most of being a cunt.
1 Like
If you want the Tories to come in and Fuck The Poor right now, vote Tory. If you want them to do it in 4-8 yrs time, vote Labour.
1 Like
To clarify Cherts, for me, those who supported Blair in 2005 were indeed, amongst other things, sanctioning what he had done in Iraq - why else would you invite him to continue?
The reduced numbers indicated the level of displeasure at the unpredicted past actions of his goverment.
Amid the chaotic stream of information the Bear stumbles across a good way to decide - deal breakers.
Fucking over the disabled and pensioners was a deal breaker for me - I wouldn’t care who was proposing it, I wouldn’t sanction it.
So very simply Cherts, you are clearly an intelligent man - are you comfortable with what this government is doing in the name of those who supported their key policies, or do you share my dismay at the way it is going about things?
No need for the sarcasm in the final paragraph, Imo.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Rallyboy
To clarify Cherts, for me, those who supported Blair in 2005 were indeed, amongst other things, sanctioning what he had done in Iraq - why else would you invite him to continue?
The reduced numbers indicated the level of displeasure at the unpredicted past actions of his goverment.
Amid the chaotic stream of information the Bear stumbles across a good way to decide - deal breakers.
Fucking over the disabled and pensioners was a deal breaker for me - I wouldn’t care who was proposing it, I wouldn’t sanction it.
So very simply Cherts, you are clearly an intelligent man - are you comfortable with what this government is doing in the name of those who supported their key policies, or do you share my dismay at the way it is going about things?
Hmmm, not sure about that. Anywho…
Definitely not, as I have not been afraid to admit. I have clearly stated a number of times that I am very disappointed by the further benefits cuts - it has gone too far in my opinion - and the further reduction in public service spending (I am of the belief that further savings should be made through process efficiencies - not through cuts to front line services) is not, in my opinion, a good thing.
But then, I am also of the opinion that those with the means to pay for private healthcare (whether this be by a further tax on people who earn x amount) should have to pay for it to take the strain off the NHS until we are on more of an even keel. That’s my opinion anyway.