Shades75

Should be banned for this post IMO. Reported.

Don't forget the floods. America bombed the dams in Korea to ruin crops, land and settlements. The legacy of famine and starvation is one that the Americans started. It's a war crime and Nazis at Nuremberg were executed for the same thing. Or the time America negotiated a truce with North Korea, ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region, until Dubya took office and included them in his axis of evil. So North Korea started developing nukes again. Or the time America ran simulated nuclear attack programs near to the North Korean border.......oh, this one's still happening. North Korea is one fucked up disaster of a country. But there's two sides to the story.

Around the same time as the brexiteers admit to making a mistake. Never, in other words. Some people have so much emotional investment tied up in the need to be right, that they cannot possibly contemplate being wrong. They're quite fragile pups really. Validation comes in the form of winning whatever contest they have the dog in and any reasoning or debate comes second. They won the election/referendum - how can they possibly be wrong? They're also quite dangerous though. They tend to be belligerent, intolerant, angry and ego-tistical. They hate challenge and lash out. They're basically socially inept, right-wing, bigotted, emotionally stunted idiots with anger management problems. The need to feel important courses through their veins affecting every utterance, stance, thought and action. Farage, Trump, Mcspreader etc.....

Brilliant. Mcspreader here, telling football fans on a football forum that they shouldn't be happy when their team wins or when their rival loses. Next you'll be telling us that discussing politics in a small corner of the internet is, ultimately, futile.

There's only two things that infuriate me about my Mrs... everything she does and everything she says.

I think that's true. For some people it's more important to continue to convince themselves that they are correct rather than consider the notion that they may not be. Now, I wonder where we'd find one of those chaps around here......

Hibs 3 - Partick thistle 1 Celtic 4 - Hearts 1 .

Maybe not even them though. Davidson, for example, wouldn't do anything that would be for the betterment of Scotland without having to consider if, Theresa would approve, if it would cut short her career in the Tory party or whether it would affect the rest of the UK adversely. Considerations that the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon do not ever have to ponder. It's self evident that even yoons are better off with Nicola and the SNP at the helm. They can never admit that though....cos...erm....the union.....errr......union flegs......etc...etc.....

Quite right. If I'd embarrassed myself so monumentally then I'd have wiped it from my memory too. I'm glad you've came up with a coping mechanism. I'd hate to see you, or anyone for that matter, getting themselves into that much of a state again.

I genuinely thought you were on the verge of a breakdown a week or two ago and vowed to leave you alone for a bit. It was pretty heart-breaking tbh. Did the rest do you good, are you feeling better? I really think that, if the ramblings of anonymous strangers on the internet gets to you so deeply, that it's not worth it. You should spend your time doing something more rewarding and enjoyable.

Best for whom? It would leave us with either Colonel Davidson, Kezia or someone from within the SNP as first minister. If anyone thinks that a Tory FM would do anything other than what the Tories in government at Westminster tell her then there's something very ignorant or self destructive about them - there is a very clear precedent in the action of our risible SOSS in his continuing volte face on the benefits of Brexit to Scotland and the brass-necked change of mind, in 24 hours, of extra funding for Scotland due to the Tories shabby deal with the DUP. Then there's Kezia. I'd almost take that just for the lolz. So someone from the SNP it is.

Seems Trump didn't get the memo... ...he was speaking about it yesterday.

Ftfy

That's class. I about shit masell when he appeared!

It's really weird how a Woman who's been dead for twenty years can help to sell a newspaper because she was keen on handbags.

I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification. I thought, though, that there was no parliamentary privilege in the Scottish parliament?

Well, I suppose that is the crux. Kezia used his tweet to attack the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon in a quest to get her to distance her and the SNP from Wings/Stuart. It was calculated and wholly inappropriate for FMQ's imo. I do think, also, that if someone was calling me a homophobe on TV and I believed that to be untrue then it would be difficult to let it slide.

Seems 60% of the "cultists" didn't get the memo. I've no idea if the money gets refunded if he wins.

Yes, actually.....

She didn't get off. She was never charged. No smoke without fire eh?

Because Kezia took it to FMQ's in parliament and on TV. He didn't ask others to pay for it. He asked them to vote on how it should be funded.

I knew this would be difficult. People absolutely lose the rag when whenever WOS / Stuart Campbell is mentioned. When I say that people must consider their priorities what I mean is that people should consider whether they want to be on the right side of the Kez/WOS case or whether they want WOS to continue, on the website - which is where the real content is - to provide deep scrutiny of the workings and output of the MSM, BBC etc.... Of course that assumes that those same people consider WOS to be providing meaningful output. If they have read and considered it and decided that it is a waste of time then that is completely fair, relevant and indeed is a critique that should be considered by WOS and it's supporters. But, IMO, it should be on that merit alone - not because they don't agree with what is at times, some pretty opinionated stuff written on Twitter. That seems to me to be very much playing the man and not the ball. In terms of this court case. I've said elsewhere that I don't think his tweet was homophobic. I've also said that I'd be happy to reconsider given a convincing argument and I'd accept that I was wrong if the court decides against Stuart Campbell. That seems to me to be where we should all put our trust, in the court. I do see, ironically, a little parallel in the Michelle Thomson case. Probably more of an example actually; Her career has been pretty much destroyed by what have turned out to be pretty relentless allegations by the MSM, MP's and TV. The police have now judged that there is no case to answer. To Michelle, though, the damage is done be her seat has gone. Is that really fair? We do preach the "innocence before proven guilty" line but, given the ubiquitousness of social media it doesn't really hold. We, the people, judge and the accused often suffers consequences before the legal profession even get their hands on the case. I'm not trying to paint Stuart Campbell out as some kind of victim here, he's clearly not, but if his website was to be shut down or the credibility of it damaged meaningfully because of reactions to this tweet and then the court found him to be innocent then, I think, that would be unfair. A lot of people do visit the website. Journalists have admitted to consulting it. There are guest writers. A busy comments section. Articles are shared and then some are ripped apart, which I absolutely welcome. There is a narrative about WOS pushed by some though, especially on twitter, that it is some hellhole of evilness colonised by wild-eyed cultists and the unthinking. I think that that is deliberate and I think it's untrue.

You know that not all content on WOS is written by Stuart Campbell, right?

Quite clearly people are focussing on the individual and personality of the person producing the material, rather than the material itself. It seems that it must be repeated forever that I, and I assume others, have no problem with people taking issue with Stuart for some of what he as said or some of his views. That doesn't seem to me to correlate with going to endless lengths to defend him. I wish that some people would try and accept that, but it seems futile *sigh*. The insinuation that I, or others, must hold some distasteful views on LGBT issues, because we read or share WOS content is lazy, unfounded and probably driven more by what you've seen a lot of people say than what evidence you've gathered. WOS has a readership in advance of some of what we consider the main news outlets. That it has archived material and is able to produce the piece it has on Michelle Thomson, today - almost instantly, is a source that I think is un-equalled by the independence side.

This is exactly why WOS is valuable to the Yes side and why those that want him silenced or vilified are damaging to the independence movement. If they are on the Yes side, they need to consider their priorities.