Ad Lib

Objectively that was toothlessly piss poor as an entertainment product and if both teams left with a points and goal difference deduction they could scarcely have complained.

Won't someone think of the massive attendances?

Zac Rudden and Scott Tiffoney can both have actual lobotomies if they really want to as long as they keep scoring goals for Thistle.

The head teacher in my primary school came into our classroom to tell us and we saw it on the news when we got home. Beyond that I don’t actually remember it very well. I remember watching the coverage for the 2000 US election better.

The next time a venue tries to charge me for entry I’m going to ask them “even for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster”. But I’m going to do so beyond punching distance of the bouncer.

He’s FIFTY FOUR (54). I’m 30. I stopped going to nightclubs, or venues even vaguely resembling nightclubs, when I was about 25. And one winch while at a Halloween night (interrupted by a fire alarm) aside, stopped enjoying going to them about four years before that. It beggars belief how someone in their 50s, even if under the influence of white substances, would have the energy and desire to go to one. Least of all on Back Wynd in Aber-fucking-deen, and paying £5 for the privilege.

Delicious.

I don’t know. But it would be pretty stupid to ask me if I think I know better than them if not for that reason given that was literally the context in which I said I knew better than people who are in favour of those things. No, and if you weren’t incredibly fucking dense you’d realise from the context I wasn’t suggesting that. I was pointing out how much of a non sequitur the resident conspiracy theorist’s question/point was. No, that wasn’t even remotely what I was suggesting. You’d have to be a complete and utter cretin to think that’s what I was saying. My point, since you clearly can’t grasp it from context is that saying “look these Afghan kids died how can you know better than their Muslim parents” is a cretinous and incoherent sentiment. There is no inconsistency between, on the one hand, saying that I personally know better than Islamic extremists and, on the other, not endorsing every civilian casualty caused by American military intervention. Just as you can say you know better than Hitler without having to defend the approach taken to bombing Dresden. I agree with you. My point is simply that the mere fact civilian casualties happen during war is not a reason why wars should never be fought. And we shouldn’t be drawing a moral equivalence between people who proactively seek to maximise civilian casualties (like ISIS) and those who at best actively seek to minimise civilian casualties and at worst are negligent as to the number of civilian casualties when pursuing military targets (the general conduct of NATO).

Can’t say I saw that particular minter of a moment (haven’t paid much attention to anything he’s said since Anthony C Pick gate) but I did say “if not long before” for a reason and covering my bases was it.

Detournement you lost the right to be taken seriously when, if not long before, you tried to suggest that the CIA, rather than ISIS-K, detonated an explosive device at the airport “to keep the war going”.

If their parents support forced marriage, the marital rape of women and girls, the flogging and beating of women and girls out the house without a minder and the systematic extermination of LGBT people then sure I know a lot better than them. As far as I understand it, these two children are reported civilian casualties as a result of a targeted drone strike which sought to kill those who perpetrated the suicide bombing outside Kabul’s airport. The difference between this incident and that one is that NATO operations are usually designed to minimise civilian casualties. Those of Islamic fundamentalists are often designed to maximise them. But by all means, continue to engage in intellectually vacuous moral equivalence.

Say hello to Monikie.

Quick someone find me an Ainsley Harriott meme.

"We've got to get them home" They're animals. Their home is Afghanistan. The Taliban isn't going to behead a chihuahua (though they yap away that much my opinion of the Taliban would improve if they did).

Put another way the nukes are in case America becomes unreliable on Russia.

Indeed. Which makes it all the madder that the US decided to withdraw from Afghanistan on the basis of guarantees given by an organisation that isn’t in the position to honour them even if it were itself so minded to do.

I’d like you to get Loched down in Guantanamo you complete and utter c**t.

You're seriously suggesting at this stage, with absolutely zero evidence, that this is a false flag suicide bomb and not a terrorist attack. Have a fucking word with yourself.

Lay off the ganja.

You are a stopped clock and I claim my £100!

Detournement is going to have an aneurism when he finds out what Russia and China get up to.

I'm not saying you did. But the point is a laissez-faire approach to international affairs isn't a neutral one in its effects. Holding the West to standards you wouldn't hold Russia or China to is a recipe for greater disorder and far more of the things you criticise the West for happening in other parts of the world. But without even some lip service to things like human rights.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the alternative isn't "Saudi doesn't get guns, improving the situation" it's "Saudi gets Chinese guns, making the situation even worse".

Is this some sort of shit Billy Joel tribute act?