UKIP Reasoning 101

I know, I’m a fool to myself for engaging with these doughnuts.

This is how it started, innocently enough, trying to find out if someone was blowing off or had a point to make, on Twitter (I know, I know, please don’t shout)


Then some kind soul I’d not interacted with before decided to point something out to me:


That first one? The US, will bomb an ally, for what, lowering our defence budget or something? Do you get the idea that Claire has conflated forcing regime change in in Iraq in the mistaken view that it would be for the better with no hitches, for wanting an ally to contribute to our collective defence needs?

Well, not quite. Claire not only doesn’t think it would actually happen (or at least I don’t think she thinks that), she is a bit cagey about the possibility of it happening, so cagey that “Who knows what would happen?” is good enough to have her thinking on the subject well covered.


Soak that little gem up for a moment. Claire suggests it worth speculating on how past performance might be an indicator to some “Who knows what would happen?” sort of future, potential, maybe one day, in one’s head, speculation. But then declares that, well actually past performance is not an indication of future results.

I’m now starting to suspect that this is one of those little pseudo-intelligence programs, that reads in your words, jumbles them around, and shoots them back at you in some effort to feign actual intelligence.

I was right. For at this point I decided to check Claire out. Yep, UKIP. And here’s the Twitter avatar, drawing your attention to the bottom half:


Oh, go on then, I’ll try some more:


So, I asked why an ally (in NATO) would attack us for not spending enough on defence, Claire brings up Special Relationship – old defunct US/UK thing, not NATO ally thing. So when I ask, “who mentioned S.R.”, I ask it rhetorically to mean why did she bring it up, because I didn’t, and it isn’t pertinent. I suggests she read her own avatar to see what it says about, well, bullshitting.

And, being the true blue democracy loving UKIP, she decides that taking the vote away is a good thing? Yes, I know she was being sarcastic (I hope), so I play the game and ask about her support for disenfranchisement.

Her response?


Yes, you did Claire. Full marks for knowing what you said. We still have to clear up if you know what you mean, or know anything much at all.

And …


Well, Claire doesn’t know what I’m talking about, in a rather simple exchange, where I answer her directly. What are the chances she knows what she is talking about. I try to explain:


But I get the feeling I’m not getting through:


Claire, you do realise that if morons were prevented from voting, you’d be near the top of the list for disenfranchisement?

UKIP: incontrovertible evidence that the fucking Zombie Apocalypse is well and truly under way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s