You have been attacking my use of the ‘filibustering’ in the sentence “The electorate, outraged by the filibustering of the Remainer MPs trying to derail Brexit, voted for Johnson.” It was perfectly reasonable to use the word.

This argument of yours that Remainers voted for Johnson because they were weary of Brexit is like saying Jews in 1930's Germany would vote for Hitler because they were tired of anti-semitism.

Having previous implied that my posts were incomprehensible, you now change tack as of course you can’t produce evidence of this. Which of my posts or parts of posts were ‘both illogical and bereft of facts’?

For many people, how their MP votes on various issues that concern them is a key factor in deciding whether to vote for them or not. If, like Mapletree, you have a particular interest in protecting abortion ‘rights’, such as prosecuting people for silently praying in public, you would want to know how your MP voted on abortion related issues.

Edited by georgenorman (28 Feb 2023 5.45pm)

As no-one made a filibuster it isn't "reasonable". It's very confusing. You are attempting to justify an odd claim by an even odder definition to be found in just one dictionary. Those MPs did nothing wrong at all. They simply voted by their conscience, and not as the whips demanded. Which is actually what their duty is. So whatever definition of a filibuster you choose they didn't use one.

Your comparison of the way our voters behaved in 2019 with the Jews and Hitler is as offensive as it is ridiculous. Our voters had to make a choice which, for many, was between 2 deeply unpleasant scenarios. Hitler removed the right to vote from the Jews. They had no choices available.

You want evidence of incomprehensible statements which are illogical and bereft of facts? Look no further than the one I have just responded to.

There is absolutely no need for anyone to know how individual MPs have voted on any matter. You only need to know how they have voted collectively. Wanting to know is not the same as needing to know. I feel as strongly as Mapletree does on that particular issue and I don't need to know. I want my MP to vote free of pressure, using only their conscience to guide them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Not understanding or accepting the meaning of something will not stop WE from his own " truth "

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

If that were rigorously enforced I would have been arrested numerous times at Selhurst Park this year!

Apologies, I'll let you get back to politics!

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Your point is?

I know that the word applies to the use of a long speech in a legislature with the intention of delaying, or causing the withdrawal, of a law. It didn't need to be pointed out.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Do you seriously deny that a filibuster means only a long speech made in a parliament with the intention of thwarting the passing of a law?

That's not "my" truth. It's the generally accepted truth to be found in the majority of dictionaries.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (01 Mar 2023 5.32pm)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.