Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Bairnardo]

Dem gymnastics tho

[SANTAN]

Kekekeke

[madwullie]

6 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

No it's not whatsoever it's hyperbolic pish, perpetuated by those who politically disagree. 

Child poverty has risen under the SNP every year, would I say that people that vote SNP are doing so to throw children into poverty, no because I'm not so crass.

I read quite regularly what each parties policies are, that doesn't have much bearing on the constitutional issue though. 

It's not hyperbolic - they literally whipped votes on an issue that directly causes this. 

It's perfectly possible to choose parties that don't explicitly vote to deny poor kids food that also support the maintenance of the union. 

[SANTAN]

6 minutes ago, madwullie said:

It's not hyperbolic - they literally whipped votes on an issue that directly causes this. 

It's perfectly possible to choose parties that don't explicitly vote to deny poor kids food that also support the maintenance of the union. 

It is hyperbolic, they did not literally vote to starve children as was said. This is untrue and terrible wording, done intentionally to provoke an emotive response. 

Okay so should I vote Labour or Lib Dem in a constituency that's a direct fight between SNP and Tories if I want to support the Union? 

Pray tell. You also side stepped the SNP point, do you think people that vote SNP are doing so to launch children into record levels of child poverty? 

[madwullie]

27 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

It is hyperbolic, they did not literally vote to starve children as was said. This is untrue and terrible wording, done intentionally to provoke an emotive response. 

Okay so should I vote Labour or Lib Dem in a constituency that's a direct fight between SNP and Tories if I want to support the Union? 

Pray tell. You also side stepped the SNP point, do you think people that vote SNP are doing so to launch children into record levels of child poverty? 

The snp point was whataboutery that you are normally firmly against. 

No, if your main driving issue is to save the union you should vote tory. That's fine. But that also means you are supporting a party that literally whip to vote against feeding hungry kids. You need to weigh it up, but you can't really complain when that gets pointed out to you. 

The tories don't take your vote and think "Aha Stormzy supports the union but these votes to not feed kids are not in his name". As far as they're concerned you support it all. 

[wastecoatwilly]

Blocking up the suez canal is a good move for the effects of Brexit.

Edited March 28, 2021 by wastecoatwilly

[SANTAN]

8 minutes ago, madwullie said:

The snp point was whataboutery that you are normally firmly against. 

No, if your main driving issue is to save the union you should vote tory. That's fine. But that also means you are supporting a party that literally whip to vote against feeding hungry kids. You need to weigh it up, but you can't really complain when that gets pointed out to you. 

The tories don't take your vote and think "Aha Stormzy supports the union but these votes to not feed kids are not in his name". As far as they're concerned you support it all. 

I was showing how ridiculous it is to get on a political high horse when all major UK parties have serious flaws and none would pass any form of a  morality test. 

People can point out what they want, there's a million and one posts on here from people saying how they will hold their nose to vote SNP because they want Indy and when they do that I give them the benefit of the doubt and don't hark on about them supporting launching children into disgraceful levels of child poverty because I'm not a sanctimonious arsehole like some people on here seem to be. 

I don't think emotionally manipulative tactics are my go to but each to their own. 

[madwullie]

15 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I was showing how ridiculous it is to get on a political high horse when all major UK parties have serious flaws and none would pass any form of a  morality test. 

People can point out what they want, there's a million and one posts on here from people saying how they will hold their nose to vote SNP because they want Indy and when they do that I give them the benefit of the doubt and don't hark on about them supporting launching children into disgraceful levels of child poverty because I'm not a sanctimonious arsehole like some people on here seem to be. 

I don't think emotionally manipulative tactics are my go to but each to their own. 

 

[SANTAN]

4 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Is that meant to be a gotcha?

That's me reinforcing what I don't do... I respect the fact they're clearly voting on a single issue as they freely admit as do I. 

[BFTD]

Getting perilously close to the "you're a bigot if you hate bigots because that's bigotry" line that became popular with certain posters back in 2012.

Incredible how thin-skinned people can be after explicitly voting to make life worse for the most vulnerable. Grow some balls and own your sociopathy.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Getting perilously close to the "you're a bigot if you hate bigots because that's bigotry" line that became popular with certain posters back in 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[BFTD]

8 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

 

More of a PTTGOYN, and I know it doesn't apply in this instance, but I can't stand the word "tolerance". It regularly gets used to describe people "putting up with" things that shouldn't matter to them. People tolerating foreigners, or homosexuals, or anybody that's slightly different to them. Away and have a think about why you should give a shit about any of these things, instead of demanding that your prejudices are accepted as valid. You'll be happier.

[madwullie]

45 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Is that meant to be a gotcha?

That's me reinforcing what I don't do... I respect the fact they're clearly voting on a single issue as they freely admit as do I. 

Calm down mate. It's not meant to be a gotcha. 

Just seems pretty disingenuous to be saying I don't do x while doing x

You wouldn't catch me sharing repulsive porn like this. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by madwullie

[SANTAN]

Just now, madwullie said:

Calm down mate. It's not meant to be a gotcha. 

Just seems pretty disingenuous to be saying I don't do x while doing x

I'm calm. 

I wasn't "doing x" though, the sentence continues to say that I don't use that type of argument, I was providing an example of how you can easily make the same argument for all major political parties. 

[madwullie]

4 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I'm calm. 

I wasn't "doing x" though, the sentence continues to say that I don't use that type of argument, I was providing an example of how you can easily make the same argument for all major political parties. 

And obviously there's an argument to be had about child poverty in Scotland, its roots, causes, and also the implementation of certain policies by the tories which exacerbate(d) this, and the implementation of policies by the snp that try to ameliorate these, but I can't be arsed being the person to have that today. Suffice to say that the tories explicitly voted through policies that denied food to hungry children, while the scottish (and Welsh and NI(?)) admins did the opposite. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by madwullie

[Miguel Sanchez]

3 hours ago, Stormzy said:

What's the relevance of this to the thread? 

Most politicans are manipulative scumbags, thinking one group is significantly different than the other because of your personal politics is naive. 

Also as someone that has voted Tory purely because I'm a Unionist and I don't want the UK to be broken up you can ram all your voting to starve children patter up your arses. 

I know there have been some posts since this one, but you're a smart lad, think this through to its logical conclusion then see if you can still justify voting Tory because of flegs.

[Dawson Park Boy]

54 minutes ago, madwullie said:

And obviously there's an argument to be had about child poverty in Scotland, its roots, causes, and also the implementation of certain policies by the tories which exacerbate(d) this, and the implementation of policies by the snp that try to ameliorate these, but I can't be arsed being the person to have that today. Suffice to say that the tories explicitly voted through policies that denied food to hungry children, while the scottish (and Welsh and NI(?)) admins did the opposite. 

Can’t be bothered either starting a full debate on child poverty but, suffice to say, as a parent and grandparent, I start with the premise that it is a parents duty to look after their kids, not the state, not local government, not an agency but the parents.

To go along with Judge Judy ‘if you can’t afford them, don’t make them’.

However, it is not the fault of a child to have rotten parents, and, in exceptional cases, it is necessary to take kids into care and this is a necessary fact that has to be faced.

In addition, it is the responsibility of the state, through its welfare policies to ensure that families have enough income to feed and clothe themselves.What is enough will always be a big political issue and rightly so. Let’s not go there today.

I don’t, however like the idea of state nannyism and I just feel that free school meals falls under that category.

Where does it end? Free clothes, free haircuts, free everything?

On meals, during this Covid pandemic, I have spent much more time than normal in supermarkets with my wife and it is incredible to see how many nutritious meals can be cooked for very little.

A cheap chicken with a few vegetables can produce a good few main courses along with superb soup, all for very little.

Maybe we should be allocating more resources to teaching people how to cook and manage their budgets?

After all, it’s not just a case of income but how you spend the income you get.

[SweeperDee]

2 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

 

I don’t, however like the idea of state nannyism and I just feel that free school meals falls under that category.

Where does it end? Free clothes, free haircuts, free everything?

 

No child should ever go without a meal, under any circumstances. That's not nannyism; it's literally human decency. 

[madwullie]

2 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Can’t be bothered either starting a full debate on child poverty but, suffice to say, as a parent and grandparent, I start with the premise that it is a parents duty to look after their kids, not the state, not local government, not an agency but the parents.

To go along with Judge Judy ‘if you can’t afford them, don’t make them’.

However, it is not the fault of a child to have rotten parents, and, in exceptional cases, it is necessary to take kids into care and this is a necessary fact that has to be faced.

In addition, it is the responsibility of the state, through its welfare policies to ensure that families have enough income to feed and clothe themselves.What is enough will always be a big political issue and rightly so. Let’s not go there today.

I don’t, however like the idea of state nannyism and I just feel that free school meals falls under that category.

Where does it end? Free clothes, free haircuts, free everything?

On meals, during this Covid pandemic, I have spent much more time than normal in supermarkets with my wife and it is incredible to see how many nutritious meals can be cooked for very little.

A cheap chicken with a few vegetables can produce a good few main courses along with superb soup, all for very little.

Maybe we should be allocating more resources to teaching people how to cook and manage their budgets?

After all, it’s not just a case of income but how you spend the income you get.

Specifically talking about the outrageous denial of free school meals during a pandemic, many of the children who were going hungry had parents who had lost their jobs, or were on reduced wages, because of laws passed by the government who subsequently refused to feed them. It was illegal for many of these people to go to work to earn money to feed their kids, or their jobs simply no longer existed because of the government. 

Daily mail type mobile phones and plasma tellies! 11!, can't afford them don't have them arguments are immaterial in this specific case (and utterly pathetic at the best of times anyway). These parents could afford to have their kids until the government forced their work to close and caused them to lose their jobs 

[wastecoatwilly]

A chip in your custard was always a good wan,weans not eating between 9-3 FFS.
Free education and free prescriptions the tories just can't handle it.