The dull dull dull John Swinney thread

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

1 hour ago, Billy Jean King said:

I'd take his oratory style over the likes of Johnson anyday. I think most MSPs are pretty similar in that respect across the spectrum.

They’re really not.

 

Swinney is more monotone and boring than most.

[Scary Bear]

1 hour ago, MazzyStar said:

John Swinney still waffling on about the snp being “centre left” the day after making Kate Forbes deputy FM is very funny. 

See the ‘centre’ bit, that’s the key there.

[MazzyStar]

6 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

See the ‘centre’ bit, that’s the key there.

Is Kate Forbes considered a centrist now?

[ICTChris]

Genuinely sick of hearing people talk about being a centrist or the centre left or, worst of all, being progressive. 

[Freedom Farter]

2 hours ago, A Diamond For Me said:

My profile pic is probably enough of an indication that political leaders aren't really my bag in general, but if we must have them then I don't think that picking them based on their charisma is wise.  Trump, Johnson and Berlusconi - among many others - were able to do a lot of real damage to the lives of a lot of real people because the morons that comprise the media class found them entertaining.  Leave that stuff to actors and musicians.

Bill Clinton playing his saxophone and getting interviewed by Oprah. Tony Blair trying to associate himself with Britpop. Before the names you mention, I'd argue it was the "Third Way" men of the 1990s who pioneered the "politicians as celebrities" thing. That's how Clinton and Blair were able to pursue policies that'd normally have been anathema to their voter base, because that voter base were too mesmerised by the power of the celebrity figure to notice. Clinton especially, he utterly ruined the Democratic party, replacing welfare with "workfare" and the like. The Third Way men were absolute villains and folk aren't nearly as mindful of this as we should be. You only need to look at what they've done since to see their true characters. Gerhard Schroder is a massive Russia shill. Blair shills for every dictatorship going. Then Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton. Three insatiable maniacs.

Edited May 9 by Freedom Farter

[Scary Bear]

1 hour ago, MazzyStar said:

Is Kate Forbes considered a centrist now?

According to some of the folk on P&B she is a maniac who hunts LGBT folk in her spare time. 

[BFTD]

3 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

According to some of the folk on P&B she is a maniac who hunts LGBT folk in her spare time. 

I have faith that it is so, and you can't prove otherwise!

[Scary Bear]

1 minute ago, BFTD said:

I have faith that it is so, and you can't prove otherwise!

The good people of…err…some place up North, have decided she is the chosen one. Who am I to doubt them. She clearly has the X factor.

The nice man with the glasses has decided she is an able deputy. 

[BFTD]

15 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

The good people of…err…some place up North, have decided she is the chosen one. Who am I to doubt them. She clearly has the X factor.

The nice man with the glasses has decided she is an able deputy. 

I hear they eat babies up there. Heathens.

She's certainly a lot smarter than Ash Regan, who must be absolutely furious with herself right now (and the rest of the world, as usual).

[gannonball]

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Genuinely sick of hearing people talk about being a centrist or the centre left or, worst of all, being progressive. 

Yeah, especially when some people's social and economic views can wildly contradict what is seen as traditionally left or right.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

8 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

Is the local paper not accepting your letters anymore? Try Facebook comments sections.

The Beano don't have a letters page.

[sophia]

Poor wee Patrick on the radio today, he's been measured at a magnitude of seething on the self righteous scale. 

Whilst he railed against those that he rightly claims are fomenting discord in a particularly boring area of debate, his pomposity prevented him the opportunity to self reflect on his own dreadful contribution. 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

5 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

Bill Clinton playing his saxophone and getting interviewed by Oprah. Tony Blair trying to associate himself with Britpop. Before the names you mention, I'd argue it was the "Third Way" men of the 1990s who pioneered the "politicians as celebrities" thing. That's how Clinton and Blair were able to pursue policies that'd normally have been anathema to their voter base, because that voter base were too mesmerised by the power of the celebrity figure to notice. Clinton especially, he utterly ruined the Democratic party, replacing welfare with "workfare" and the like. The Third Way men were absolute villains and folk aren't nearly as mindful of this as we should be. You only need to look at what they've done since to see their true characters. Gerhard Schroder is a massive Russia shill. Blair shills for every dictatorship going. Then Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton. Three insatiable maniacs.

And don't forget Blair's leap towards God, a very dogmatic version.

[Highlandmagar]

14 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

According to some of the folk on P&B she is a maniac who hunts LGBT folk in her spare time. 

She probably does. She is dangerous.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

That was genuinely funny.

[Scary Bear]

5 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

That was genuinely funny.

Well done to him, that was a good comeback. Witty to start off, then he pounds home the fact that it’s 4 elections in a row they’ve been elected to govern.

[Scary Bear]

2 hours ago, Highlandmagar said:

She probably does. She is dangerous.

I’m fairly sure she probably doesn’t. She’s just in another minority group in Scotland who still believe in God and all the trappings that go with their religion. I believe that the majority of us have friends and family who are in the LGBT community and wouldn’t put up with any attack on their rights. Saying that, all the recent commotion with the T+ bit maybe says otherwise. The LG bit is certainly mainstream these days.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

13 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

Well done to him, that was a good comeback. Witty to start off, then he pounds home the fact that it’s 4 elections in a row they’ve been elected to govern.

Aye that’s true.

I hope he does well, and I say that as a ‘yoon’.  He seems a good guy, and could bring much needed stability.

[Salt n Vinegar]

4 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

I’m fairly sure she probably doesn’t. She’s just in another minority group in Scotland who still believe in God and all the trappings that go with their religion. I believe that the majority of us have friends and family who are in the LGBT community and wouldn’t put up with any attack on their rights. Saying that, all the recent commotion with the T+ bit maybe says otherwise. The LG bit is certainly mainstream these days.

I'm not in the least bothered that Forbes is religious.  I suppose that the thing I'm more interested in will be how she votes in Parliament.  In a case where an individual considers how to use political power, it's what you vote for that demonstrates the extent to which your "faith" might impact the lives of others.

I despair when I see politicians publicly professing a deep religious belief as if that in itself says anything about their suitability for office.  It doesn't impress me at all, any more than finding out their favourite colour or whether the have vinegar or sauce. What they do in the privacy of their own homes or religious institutions is a matter for their own judgement but it doesn't have an effect on my life.

I don't know which is worse - a politician who thinks that being seen or photographed holding a Bible/Quran/Spaghetti Monster recipe book (blessed be his/her noodly appendages) makes them an electable entity, or the gullible voters who think "oh look, he's/she's obviously a holy person I must vote for him/her" (rarely a "her"). Trump tried it and IMO he looked utterly ridiculous.

If there is a political disagreement about something, I'd prefer it to be settled on the basis of logic, evidence and reason, not on an opinion based on a lack of such considerations and perhaps founded on a book or tradition formulated by folk who knew less about how the world works than the averagely well educated teenager in an average Scottish school does now.

 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

2 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I'm not in the least bothered that Forbes is religious.  I suppose that the thing I'm more interested in will be how she votes in Parliament.  In a case where an individual considers how to use political power, it's what you vote for that demonstrates the extent to which your "faith" might impact the lives of others.

I despair when I see politicians publicly professing a deep religious belief as if that in itself says anything about their suitability for office.  It doesn't impress me at all, any more than finding out their favourite colour or whether the have vinegar or sauce. What they do in the privacy of their own homes or religious institutions is a matter for their own judgement but it doesn't have an effect on my life.

I don't know which is worse - a politician who thinks that being seen or photographed holding a Bible/Quran/Spaghetti Monster recipe book (blessed be his/her noodly appendages) makes them an electable entity, or the gullible voters who think "oh look, he's/she's obviously a holy person I must vote for him/her" (rarely a "her"). Trump tried it and IMO he looked utterly ridiculous.

If there is a political disagreement about something, I'd prefer it to be settled on the basis of logic, evidence and reason, not on an opinion based on a lack of such considerations and perhaps founded on a book or tradition formulated by folk who knew less about how the world works than the averagely well educated teenager in an average Scottish school does now.

 

Jeezo, I was just about to express my delight in having a staunch Proddy as deputy FM as well.