SodjesSixteenIncher Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Nobody agrees with what? There were threads being posted about job losses etc so I countered that by pointing job retention. It's a fact. You are the master of contradiction which HB was spot on about . You went on about your optimism for a win and all manner of other nonsense. Yeah I bragged about the result because of the type of imbecilic threads that you put together - moving gifs showing Yes and No voters reactions. Actually that was the most stupid thread I've seen on here. As for time, i never read any of your posts aside from your really pathetic ones that are directed at other posters. HB was wrong. i think there are quite a few of you. WHIT? Seriously, are you doing alright my man? I used to get people having a go at me for being too negative because I kept saying it would be a No vote, fucks this "optimism for a win" business? And the gifs thread was a light hearted thread for all posters to post hypothetical reactions to a Yes or No, nothing to do with optimism. Saying that, even a thread tagged with words to the effect of "a bit of fun" still had more intellectual weight than your blabbering about the relative destructive qualities of weaponry. A total disaster before we even take into consideration the multiple referencing of fucking HB Deary me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 WHIT? Seriously, are you doing alright my man? I used to get people having a go at me for being too negative because I kept saying it would be a No vote, fucks this "optimism for a win" business? And the gifs thread was a light hearted thread for all posters to post hypothetical reactions to a Yes or No, nothing to do with optimism. Saying that, even a thread tagged with words to the effect of "a bit of fun" still had more intellectual weight than your blabbering about the relative destructive qualities of weaponry. A total disaster before we even take into consideration the multiple referencing of fucking HB Deary me. Hold on though, tommy Sheridan once said it in a meeting so it must represent the absolute policy of an independent Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QPSAFalkirkFirm Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Conventional weapons include the bunker buster bomb that can explode underground and that's not to mention incendiary missiles containing white phosphorous. My argument was that conventional weaponry is incredibly destructive and if it came to it, it would involve mass destruction. Some of the soviet built missiles like the Grad have an epicentre that'll destroy 36-38 squared meters but then you have the fragmentation which would be 100 and think of about 100 or so of them landing in a city. Your lack of awareness of what "conventional weaponry" includes is astounding. I see you've kept up the subscription to Armament Monthly then. I love it when it gets personal - means you're beat When have any of the weapons you describe been used in anger on a grand scale? Bunker busters, tank busters, any other delayed action device you care to mention. they are all one hit weapons that whilst bad news for the immediate area are not tactical weapons and carry a small payload. You cite a missile that has an impact area a third of a size of a football pitch compared to Trident that will kill within 3 miles and severely injure up to 6 miles, not to mention the radiation fallout. Local wars are manipulated by governments for the benefit of armourers and those that benefit from it. There's no need in this world for Trident nuclear missiles. No reason for having them either. You're out of time. Just like The Tories and just like The Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 WHIT? Seriously, are you doing alright my man? I used to get people having a go at me for being too negative because I kept saying it would be a No vote, fucks this "optimism for a win" business? And the gifs thread was a light hearted thread for all posters to post hypothetical reactions to a Yes or No, nothing to do with optimism. Saying that, even a thread tagged with words to the effect of "a bit of fun" still had more intellectual weight than your blabbering about the relative destructive qualities of weaponry. A total disaster before we even take into consideration the multiple referencing of fucking HB Deary me. Not actually the case. You went on about converting voters and all the usual BS that i associated with this campaign which was lost to the voice of reason and a movement against all the left wing lunatics who attached themselves to a ludicrous and empty headed proposal. Then you thought that you'd throw in a caveat that "we might lose". The swell of optimism which was laughable was that any suggestion of losing it was seen as negative. HB spotted your BS. Hence my reference I see you've kept up the subscription to Armament Monthly then. I love it when it gets personal - means you're beat When have any of the weapons you describe been used in anger on a grand scale? Bunker busters, tank busters, any other delayed action device you care to mention. they are all one hit weapons that whilst bad news for the immediate area are not tactical weapons and carry a small payload. You cite a missile that has an impact area a third of a size of a football pitch compared to Trident that will kill within 3 miles and severely injure up to 6 miles, not to mention the radiation fallout. Local wars are manipulated by governments for the benefit of armourers and those that benefit from it. There's no need in this world for Trident nuclear missiles. No reason for having them either. You're out of time. Just like The Tories and just like The Rangers. Personal?? What?? You were implying that conventional weaponry is in some way not "really THAT bad". These weapons have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan chum especially the early part of the campaign. They carry a small payload compared to a global thermonuclear device but in conflict they are usually used in large quantities. Nuclear weapons are by and large difficult to deploy, especially long range missiles. You've highlighted the problem and that is that people believe that a conventional war wouldn't really "cause that much harm". Your post suggests to me that you're thicker than Pandrilla which is something you should be concerned about. I couldn't give a toss about the Tories as long as OUR government is in the UK.....I'm happy with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 Can't be neutral in NATO, dimwit. Good point. Scotland is in the UK.... Oh you meant an independent Scotland? That hypothetical scenario. Well we would have had to apply for EU membership so no we wouldn't have been a part of NATO. However glad you recognise that the UK is a NATO member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Not actually the case. You went on about converting voters and all the usual BS that i associated with this campaign which was lost to the voice of reason and a movement against all the left wing lunatics who attached themselves to a ludicrous and empty headed proposal. Then you thought that you'd throw in a caveat that "we might lose". The swell of optimism which was laughable was that any suggestion of losing it was seen as negative. HB spotted your BS. Hence my reference Well this all quite literally an out and out lie. What a creepy wee nutter you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 Well this all quite literally an out and out lie. What a creepy wee nutter you are. Pretty sure HB suggested otherwise and I'm sure I could find something but that would mean reading your posts along with "I know somebody who was going to vote y....". Tedious sh**e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Pretty sure HB suggested otherwise and I'm sure I could find something but that would mean reading your posts along with "I know somebody who was going to vote y....". Tedious sh**e I mind HB saying that and in a bizarre twist of fate for him, he was talking shite. And it really wouldn't be too much effort for you to find me saying I thought Yes would win, considering you creepily reply to, and therefore read, literally everything I write on this sub-forum. You won't though because any anecdotal stuff about people I know voting Yes was prefixed with an aknowledgement that this isn't fully representative and I expected a No. Keep making stuff up though if it makes you feel any better about your post-clamping but, but we won so there slaverings. One question though - you seem to make a lot of reference to the left wing. What would you desribe yourself as politcally speaking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 . Well we would have had to apply for EU membership so no we wouldn't have been a part of NATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 I mind HB saying that and in a bizarre twist of fate for him, he was talking shite. And it really wouldn't be too much effort for you to find me saying I thought Yes would win, considering you creepily reply to, and therefore read, literally everything I write on this sub-forum. You won't though because any anecdotal stuff about people I know voting Yes was prefixed with an aknowledgement that this isn't fully representative and I expected a No. Keep making stuff up though if it makes you feel any better about your post-clamping but, but we won so there slaverings. One question though - you seem to make a lot of reference to the left wing. What would you desribe yourself as politcally speaking? tt;dr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Jeez, what an absolute cretin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Away and listen to Tommy Sheridan's presentations, numpty. Most of your idiotic factions would ensure we wouldn't have a defence. You really are as thick as shit in the neck of a bottle. Neutral countries defend their neutrality with armies, navies and air forces as much as any other country. Fucksake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Good point. Scotland is in the UK.... Oh you meant an independent Scotland? That hypothetical scenario. Well we would have had to apply for EU membership so no we wouldn't have been a part of NATO. However glad you recognise that the UK is a NATO member Holy f**k, ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Banterous, I'd just close this thread down and admit defeat on this one. I have never seen such a one sided clamping of a thread in my entire life. And I've seen threads heavily featuring 8MileBU, Seamus, Ric and famously XBL's "averagey looking cocktease" debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 Can't be neutral in NATO, dimwit. Scotland wasn't going to be neutral, fuckwit. You really are as thick as shit in the neck of a bottle. Neutral countries defend their neutrality with armies, navies and air forces as much as any other country. Fucksake. No idea what this moron is getting at. If and independent Scotland wanted to join NATO, it would have to apply for membership and like entry to the EU it is a long process. It includes fulfillment of economic, political and military criteria. Salmond sold all of you a load of BS and the majority of sensible people know that. He didn't wait to create links between countries and/or business leaders. Rather he rushed it through for his own political power which he's messed up in every possible area. I hate the Telegraph but I enjoyed this wee slideshow. Looking forward to the Sturgeon implosion next http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11109009/Alex-Salmond-Scottish-referendum-campaign-trail-takes-its-toll-on-SNP-leader.html 18 is my personal favourite because "One Scotland"? He's not going to work with anybody. Cheerio fatboy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 Alex - "refreshing debate". Deflection "under fire" imo. This interview includes him wanting to be "Neutral", "in a partnership for peace", "NATO member" which an independent Scotland wouldn't be because they'd have to apply for it, anti-nuclear - well the ones that are NATO members don't have them so "why shouldn't an independent Scotland who are still going through the process of applying for NATO membership not be the same?....... Oh and the SNP are in favour / not in favour of the monarchy The SNP want / don't want the pound "all over the shop"??? Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 ^^^ having an absolute nightmare. Breakdown imminent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Alex - "refreshing debate". Deflection "under fire" imo. This interview includes him wanting to be "Neutral", "in a partnership for peace", "NATO member" which an independent Scotland wouldn't be, anti-nuclear - well the ones that are NATO members don't have them BUT an independent Scotland "would be",.... Oh and the SNP are in favour / not in favour of the monarchy "all over the shop"??? Yep Aye ok. Banterous for First Minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 Really amusing stuff from the nats. "You're thick". "Having a meltdown". That'll show him Mad Wullie - Compare social media use in Egypt with Scotland and it's a comparable situation apparently. Fact is the SNP are what this independence proposal was all about and the Nats can't even admit that. It was a confused, disordered mess. The defence position was probably the most salient example of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.