carpetmonster Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 5 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: If you don't want to answer then just say so. I'm not that bothered. I did. Evidently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 1 minute ago, carpetmonster said: I did. Evidently. All you said was she thinks having children out of wedlock is wrong, giving the example of you, and you wouldn't let her in your house. If there's something I'm missing then I'll eat humble pie, but I don't think there is? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 5 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: All you said was she thinks having children out of wedlock is wrong, giving the example of you, and you wouldn't let her in your house. If there's something I'm missing then I'll eat humble pie, but I don't think there is? There was, yeah. Try again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 1 minute ago, carpetmonster said: There was, yeah. Try again. Get back to me if you want to engage sensibly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Malkmus Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Some boy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Just now, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Get back to me if you want to engage sensibly. For a person of such professed faith you have an absolute aversion being able to align the word ‘good’ alongside the concept. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 40 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Of course she does. She believes children should be conceived within a marriage. What’s wrong with that? There's nothing wrong with saying that. There's also nothing wrong in saying she's totally out of touch and doesn't deserve the support of the 21st century individual. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 1 minute ago, Anonapersona said: There's nothing wrong with saying that. There's also nothing wrong in saying she's totally out of touch and doesn't deserve the support of the 21st century individual. We all have our opinions. Glad you agree with me on the first point though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 42 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Of course she does. She believes children should be conceived within a marriage. What’s wrong with that? Because it makes you a c**t. It means you think children should be judged on the actions of 2 people they had no influence on. It suggests 2 people can’t bring up a child even if they have the best of knowledge and intentions compared to couple who have neither based on a momentary ceremony. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Just now, CarrbridgeSaintee said: We all have our opinions. Glad you agree with me on the first point though. No probs. She can shout it from the hilltops for all I care. But there's that wee thing called accountability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 2 minutes ago, parsforlife said: Because it makes you a c**t. It means you think children should be judged on the actions of 2 people they had no influence on. It suggests 2 people can’t bring up a child even if they have the best of knowledge and intentions compared to couple who have neither based on a momentary ceremony. No one is suggesting judging a child. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 3 minutes ago, parsforlife said: Because it makes you a c**t. It means you think children should be judged on the actions of 2 people they had no influence on. It suggests 2 people can’t bring up a child even if they have the best of knowledge and intentions compared to couple who have neither based on a momentary ceremony. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort, except in the minds of professional victims/ambulance chasers. 'Religious people want people to marry before having sex and children' is really not a fucking revelation here and it is not actually an insult towards anyone who didn't. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Considerable DAF vibes from the Bible thumper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 Oh FFS the cryingfacesemojiman is back to making sniders at people who might not share his world view. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 1 hour ago, MrWorldwideJr said: LGBT rights aren't (particularly for the T part of that equation) and Kate Forbes has made it very clear she won't be progressing them and would vote against them if given the chance. That would have a direct impact on people's lives in years to come. It's perfectly normal not to want to vote for someone on that basis. If you have different priorities that's fine but voting based on who believes in your rights or the rights of your loved ones is a perfectly good reason. I think you'll find she specifically said completely the opposite. Readers should not misinterpret this pile on as being representative and simply shouting BIGOT as some have indulged themselves, well that says more about them than they'd like to admit. Out of the three candidates, there's every chance Kate Forbes will prove to be the one with the tools to persuade enough to get us consistently over 50% 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 This person is just one membership ballot and one HR vote away from becoming FM. Just let that sink in... Nice and MILFy, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 3 hours ago, Trogdor said: It's hardly a gotcha. Or at least it shouldn't be. I see he wasn't exactly convincing when asked by Chirs Musson today: If he cannot give a straight answer to what should be a fairly straight forward question It's a bit concerning. I'm not sure the "I do not remember" line will cut it. Although Sturgeon was fond of saying she couldn't recollect tbf. He did answer the question clearly though. It is right there. Q- Another Yes/No question.Did you have a conversation with Alex Salmond to ask to skip the vote because of pressure from religious leaders? A - No,I've told you very,very clear. I do not remember any conversation with Alex Salmond about the equal marriage vote. I'm sure we spoke about equal marriage, just as I would have spoken, I'm certain, with other government ministers. If you take out the part where he tells the journalist that the question has been asked and answered he then gives a very firm answer. There was no conversation with Alex Salmond about skipping the vote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 42 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Oh FFS the cryingfacesemojiman is back to making sniders at people who might not share his world view. If you could at least have the decency to bite AFTER I've referenced you, that would be just lovely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 7 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: He did answer the question clearly though. It is right there. Q- Another Yes/No question.Did you have a conversation with Alex Salmond to ask to skip the vote because of pressure from religious leaders? A - No,I've told you very,very clear. I do not remember any conversation with Alex Salmond about the equal marriage vote. I'm sure we spoke about equal marriage, just as I would have spoken, I'm certain, with other government ministers. If you take out the part where he tells the journalist that the question has been asked and answered he then gives a very firm answer. There was no conversation with Alex Salmond about skipping the vote. Saying you don’t “remember” something is very careful wording in politician speak… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted February 24, 2023 Share Posted February 24, 2023 3 minutes ago, Donathan said: Saying you don’t “remember” something is very careful wording in politician speak… Answering a Yes/No question with No is pretty definitive. Some context needed because No could mean he had the conversation but there was no religious pressure. Really it is very stupid to frame a question with several parts as a yes/no question. The journalist who asked it is probably a roaster imo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.