Politics / Current Affairs / Blog thread

Rant and rave at will, that's why you're here, this is the internet after all

Moderators: marowak, Blonde, skhmmxi

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Tue May 04, 2010 6:29 am

How big are your reproductive organs when rebased to 1 against the general populus:

http://www.cockandtits.org.uk/

A massive 15.24 here. Expected.
Last edited by Pete on Tue May 04, 2010 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
frank wrote:Think of it like weight-lifting. High notes are heavy weights.

User avatar
del
Posts: 1067
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:25 pm
Location: London-ish
Contact:

Post by del » Tue May 04, 2010 7:35 am

Posted that on my FB a while ago, something like 0.2 here (Esher & Walton).

User avatar
benb
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:20 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Post by benb » Tue May 04, 2010 10:09 am

Wow Pete, yours is worse than my 0.056. 49.8% of votes in 2005 were discarded. It's been Tory since god knows when, but I wont be voting for him mainly due to the fact that he's been campaigning in Cornwall, his home, and despite living less than an hour away from London claims for a second home there.

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Tue May 04, 2010 10:13 am

What do you mean? Mine is a whopping 15.
Last edited by Pete on Tue May 04, 2010 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
frank wrote:Think of it like weight-lifting. High notes are heavy weights.

User avatar
Blonde
Posts: 2089
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:19 pm
Location: Nottingham
Contact:

Post by Blonde » Tue May 04, 2010 10:28 am

I thought mine was bad at 0.182. Also 55.28% of votes were discarded in the last election.

The only good thing I've found about the election campaign this time round is that I don't feel like I'm being stalked by Kilroy like at the last general election.

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Tue May 04, 2010 12:06 pm

Interesting read on a different issue: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 61464.html
frank wrote:Think of it like weight-lifting. High notes are heavy weights.

User avatar
DanIrelle
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:33 pm
Location: The crooked town/Nottingham
Contact:

Post by DanIrelle » Tue May 04, 2010 12:12 pm

0.480 BOOO YAAA!
Aprils wrote:Now we've just got DaniEreEllle

User avatar
Pown
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Sheffield

Post by Pown » Tue May 04, 2010 12:19 pm

0.221, could be worse
Kenny wrote:Pown-ed :wink:

User avatar
tosh
Posts: 2823
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:27 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Post by tosh » Tue May 04, 2010 12:22 pm

1.013. Boom! My (new) constituency is notoriously marginal though, apparantly one of the most in the UK. And, worryingly, I know alot of people voting conserative as apparantly our local torie is the best man for the area.
Aprils wrote:there is literally no hope
Barry wrote:
emma_jane wrote:my bf
I'm out

Prester John
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:29 am

Post by Prester John » Tue May 04, 2010 12:27 pm

0.169 :(

Pete
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Post by Pete » Tue May 04, 2010 12:30 pm

tosh wrote:1.013. Boom! My (new) constituency is notoriously marginal though, apparantly one of the most in the UK. And, worryingly, I know alot of people voting conserative as apparantly our local torie is the best man for the area.
See, this is why I'm becoming a bit dubious about this site. If you live in one of the biggest marginals in the country then your vote should be way over 1, considering i'm getting a number down the decimal scale. The website appears to be a propaganda piece for PR, masked beneath a 'public information' tool.
frank wrote:Think of it like weight-lifting. High notes are heavy weights.

Prester John
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:29 am

Post by Prester John » Tue May 04, 2010 12:46 pm

Nice edit. :(

Clur
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:50 pm

Post by Clur » Tue May 04, 2010 7:14 pm

Pete wrote:
tosh wrote:1.013. Boom! My (new) constituency is notoriously marginal though, apparantly one of the most in the UK. And, worryingly, I know alot of people voting conserative as apparantly our local torie is the best man for the area.
See, this is why I'm becoming a bit dubious about this site. If you live in one of the biggest marginals in the country then your vote should be way over 1, considering i'm getting a number down the decimal scale. The website appears to be a propaganda piece for PR, masked beneath a 'public information' tool.
Oh look. At the bottom. Powered by The Guardian. The newly self-proclaimed pro-Lib Dem newspaper.

Check it out, its a facebook tool. Oooooh.

Incidently anyone else seen Democracy UK on Facebook page.
Clegg is currently winning the vote on who you want to be your next pm with 44%.

Very unsurprising to me.

devilsadvocat
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:01 pm

Post by devilsadvocat » Tue May 04, 2010 8:05 pm

This tool shows the dodgy electoral weightings well, try setting the sliders to the current polls.

edit, the link would help....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 609989.stm

User avatar
George
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:07 am
Location: where ever i lay my hat thats my home

Post by George » Tue May 04, 2010 10:42 pm

Bigby wrote:
frank wrote:An excellent argument against coalitions:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danie ... consensus/
Interesting article.

Although Daniel Hannan is an odious little cunt, here he is with his tongue up Glenn Beck's arse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpda3l2ri0Y
Sorry to drag this back up but...

I think Hannan is ok in some respects but hes so painfully wrong on this its ridiculous. The significance of 1944 is not that it was wartime and government was mobilised - it was that the war was ending, and that it had started, in over simplify to the extreme, because liberal democracy had shown itself to be susceptible to fascism and communism in the 20's. The significance of the welfare state was the realisation that people need social rights. In that respect, its been a huge success.

The fact that healthcare is better in the US is important, but its no more important than the fact that 1 in 5 adults cant afford it. I dont think you could find anyone outside of the upper classes that would say it would be better if we had a better healthcare service that a huge chunk of the population couldnt afford. And anyway those figures are pretty selective. The US maternity survival rates are alot lower than europes for example. A better comparison would be survival rates in the private sector of British healthcare.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests