BILmac1967
-
Posts
74 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by BILmac1967
-
-
A big part of this argument is that people with dementia/ younger people with disabilities were looked after by their own families in the 1960's through the 70's but that changed as we became more materialistic, now we dump them on the NHS / "the state" in general.
The people I grew up with as "socialists" now also want to have savings as well as keeping property,
now we all rage when the gov. can't afford everything.
0 -
21 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:
Which, again, doesn't mean that he's being denied free speech. He picked an audience who didn't particularly want to hear it. If they don't have the right to tell him to go and f**k himself, then they're being denied free speech.
The people who chased him weren't his audience, they turned up to disrupt an advertised appearance.
And you presume that the people who chased him couldn't be wrong?
0 -
1 minute ago, carpetmonster said:
No, however given he's been continually rejected by the electorate, it could seem there's an agenda at work by having him on 35 times. Would your local defeated candidates get that amount of exposure?
You should read more then.
I never said Farage should get more exposure, I pointed out that when he spoke, he was chased.
1 minute ago, carpetmonster said:No, however given he's been continually rejected by the electorate, it could seem there's an agenda at work by having him on 35 times. Would your local defeated candidates get that amount of exposure?
You should read more then.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Fullerene said:
Farage is not an M.P. He is not an M.S.P. Now the U.K. is no longer a member of the E.U. he is not even an M.E.P.
Thus he is now just an ordinary citizen or should I say ordinary British Subject of His Majesty the King.
Can anyone explain why he still appears on the telly?
So you need to be elected to be on the telly?
As an aside, iv;e never seen any of those far right headlines and images anywhere but on here.
0 -
2 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:
Well, Popper was from Vienna and noted the paradox in 1947, so it's a fair bet that he'd be coming off the backdrop of World War II.
On that basis, it was anyone who wasn't exactly like them that they couldn't live with. And actively murdered, by the million.
In the case of Farage I'd be interested in what you think he might have ever been the 'victim of' in his entire life? Gravity gave it a good shot, but ultimately failed.
Farage was denied free speech.
At what point do the people who chased him ever admit they got any part of their argument wrong?
I in part refer to a previous poster on here who pointed out that fascists aren't always right wing, but could end up as the same thing when in power.
0 -
8 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:
or in XKCD format (American, obvs, because 'First Amendment' although the principle remains the same)
Self defeating tripe, this could well be a perfect description of ignorance, as if those who regard themselves as tolerant in the first place could never be wrong
0 -
3 minutes ago, BILmac1967 said:
Never heard of it, educate me, briefly.
Googled it, NO - this presumes that those who regard themselves as tolerant and therefore above question were right in the first place-
What was it that the intolerant people couldn;t live with?
What makes you presume that the intolerant weren't victims in the first place?
0 -
1 minute ago, carpetmonster said:
Are we *still* at the stage where Popper's Paradox of Tolerance needs to be explained?
Never heard of it, educate me, briefly.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:
This is spectacularly stupid.
Farage ran away from some folk calling him names. You're comparing a "threat" (LOL) of violence, with ACTUAL violence. Throwing petrol bombs is quite literally an act of violence.
If Farage held his ground, they would have respected his rights?
Same as all the Scots who went to overthrow the elected government at Downing street and got kettled the first time Boris was elected, I suppose that was just high spirits?
0 -
Just now, welshbairn said:
You're really comparing being rude to Farage with throwing petrol bombs into an asylum seekers' reception centre?
He fled at the threat of violence, yes I would compare the two, not that I support Farage.
-2 -
On 03/11/2022 at 21:19, sophia said:
That is a terrifying read.
That pathetic guy, abandoned in Buckinghamshire, a solitary individual suckered by xenophobia and presumably soaked in alcohol.
A salutary lesson for anyone tempted to think that the siren voice of nationalism is the answer.
And yet Scottish nationalists are above question, in their own minds at least.
Just like the nats who chased Nigel Farage out of a pub in Edinburgh in order to defend all that is right and good, protecting all of our freedoms by means of denying free speech.
My point is that the nats, as well as the left, only ever create a political chasm whilst giving no answers to anything.
These last number of pages seem to describe anyone who applies any kind of solution as far right wing, but the opposite, as far as I can see is just anti-political, completely open-ended, as if the UK should have no borders at all.
-2 -
I seem to remember that Dundee was the only place where people tried to start a riot and looting when the London riots started in 2011, it never really took off though.
The press always seemed to report Dundee as a very antisocial place with a big drug problem compared to it's size.
0 -
4 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:
What is Alba's plan?
Albas plan is to stand beside the SNP and create a bigger indy vote overall.
The conspiracy plan isn't happening fast enough, so a second indy party is created to ultimately get more floating voters to jump.
Don't forget the Queen remains our head of state no matter how we vote, the Queen decides on a new referendum as soon as our version of the currency is downgraded and we rage that we've been conned and so we get a new referendum to rejoin the UK without the Barnett formula.
It's always been the plan It's why the Queen remains our head of state no matter how we vote.
It's also why they won't give us another referendum easily, we have to rage for a few years, convince ourselves independence was always our own idea.
0 -
9 minutes ago, jakedee said:
Quite simple really, a party with a manifesto to re run the referendum wins power, and legislates for another.
Not a good history for that though.Which party with a manifesto to re-run the referendum, I don't remember that?
0 -
13 minutes ago, HTG said:
He is that bad. It's obvious he's that bad when you read the rest.
You've invented an argument of violence I didn't actually make.
The point is that Catalan independence isn't internationally accepted.
Our own version of a referendum wouldn't either.
Funny how quickly the whole Catalan thing left the news and the world moved on.
0 -
11 minutes ago, GordonS said:
You do understand that those who campaigned for and voted for Brexit overwhelmingly wanted it to reduce trade between the UK and the EU, and to reduce freedom of movement, while those who campaigned for and voted for Scottish independence wanted it to have no impact on trade or free movement at all?
Independence supporters don't want to "cut ourselves off" from anyone, you're thinking of Leavers.
If we voted Indy we'd be both out of the EU and the UK, CMIIW, over 92% of our trade with Europe has to travel through English ports I don't see how Independence works in our favour-also there's no guarantee we'd get to rejoin the EU, I believe there's a trial period in which we have to prove our version of a currency, (based on the pound). There's every chance our currency would be downgraded in that time period and we might never get to join the EU as an independent nation. I just don't see where the advantage is for Scotland.
0 -
3 minutes ago, GordonS said:
I think it would be a good tactic for the SNP to say that they would hold an independence referendum in 2024. That's 10 years since the last one, and 10 years in which we've been dragged out of the EU against our will and had three increasingly ugly Conservative governments. It would also be safely distant from Covid-19. I appreciate the people who would have the biggest problem with that would be the indyzoomers, but it would be a good plan overall. Support for independence still isn't anywhere near high enough and a second lost referendum would be curtains for decades.
"Dragged out of the EU against thir will" Utter nonsense, we voted as the UK, not as indy Scotland.
They want to cut ourselves off from England, our biggest trading partner by far.
2 -
3 minutes ago, HalfCutNinja said:
The crux of it is if your position is 'democracy must be stopped cause my side will lose' you're definitely on the wrong side of history and need to have a damn good look at yourself.
London will never let Scotland go willingly,
Quote"as our resources are too important to them". They are not our resources, ours and who's army, we actually don't have one.
as our resources are far too important to them. They will never grant another referendum under any circumstances as they know they would lose. They don't care how we vote or what we want, as we are a de-facto colony.
So another way is required. After May when another indy majority is returned a consultative referendum should be held, then the results will probably have to be debated in court. There's no other way.
The crux of your point is that only your version of democracy counts, the fact we have won is just ignored. Democracy apparently stops when indy win, not the other way around And didn't the Catalans also hold a consultative referendum, that went well.
-1 -
4 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
We’ve had 3 general elections in the 7 years since the independence vote, which by my calculations isn’t every 4 years.
And why, specifically, should referenda be ‘spaced much further apart than that’? All referenda, or just ones on Scottish independence?
Specifically, because referenda on independence would be much more affecting and difficult to reverse under changed economic conditions, if not impossible.
In your mind independence would be a final vote, I dont then see why us remainers shouldn't have return referenda as it suits us. you would need to agree to that in principle, it's what you want for yourselves.
You just don't accept that you lost.
-2 -
3 minutes ago, madwullie said:
You must be a better reader than me because I can't see any of that in what I wrote.
Then be specific, how far apart should each referendum be, until you get the win you demand?
If economic conditions of the future might suit, how soon do the reamainers get another?
But in your mind there will never be another, you only see your own point and no-one elses.
Also current economic conditions might not be the same 25 years from now, that's why referenda should be a generation apart.
-1 -
6 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
That’s literally what an election is, and we have those all the time, mate.
We don't have votes all the time, general elections are every four years.
Referenda should be spaced much further apart than that.
We can't just leave and rejoin the UK every four years, that would just be ridiculous and impractical. And rejoin under which circumstances?
Not unless it's only the Indy vote that counts, the fact that remain won is just what- Scotch mist?
0 -
3 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:
If people vote in a government who stood on a manifesto pledge to have another EU referendum, then yeah. Why shouldn't there be one?
Manifesto pledges are like bubble-gum dabities from the 1970's - free with every mouthful and wear off quickly.
There's nothing official about election manifestoes, the lot of them just lie like eff.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:
Briefly taking seriously the thick-as-f**k yoons above, chat about having "constant referendums" is a bit weird when we've basically had two since the 1970s.
Seriously, indy lost both of them, how many referenda do you want and how often?
To recast your vote time and time again, you don't see that as a corruption of democracy? I do.
0 -
2 minutes ago, madwullie said:
Can't remember anyone accepting that, generally or otherwise tbh
So you constantly re-run the referendum, say once every year until you get the result you want?
Do we remainers then get to re-run the ref, again and again when the front page headline on the Daily Record suits us?
So do you presume that your vote is just more important than mine?
0
Would Rangers have won the Champions League without Marseille cheating?
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
Rang-yins are still cheating financially.
Park and other directors giving soft loans to the club and getting them back as shares is financial cheating.
Meet the new club, same as the old club.
(in their dreams)