Twitter?
Is this a new development, or was he always one, but concealed it under a veil of moderate, mainstream lefty-ism when posting on Awimb?
Nowadays he literally brands anyone who has anything remotely negative to say about immigration as a racist.
I'm sure he never used to be quite that bad on here, did he?
Are you taking the píss? This is some sort of joke, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
He used to openly admit his admiration of the Soviet Union, for the love of Christ!
I think he used to know he wasn't easily going to get away with that crap on here, so toned it down a wee bit. It was always implied, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Ok, he was always more than a moderate lefty in terms of his *politics*, but he was also politically incorrect, not impartial to the odd jocular racial or ethnic stereotype, and didn't really strike me as the pearl clutching type at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
It's on twitter, so should be ignored as the only people that seem to be on twitter just post ****e for the sake of itQuote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Saw him call someone who described immigrants as human detritus as a racist - is that the tweet you mean? Or are there other examples. Because it would be glib to say that was something merely "remotely negative"Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Perhaps so, but consider the writhing nest of lefties into which he now pukes his genocide-enabling bile; any deviation from prescribed dogma could see him ejected from the echo chamber and probably twittershamed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
They're even scared of each other, these maniacs.
You're just deflecting attention from your uncle HarveyQuote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Not denying he is as mad as a bag of frogs thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
I was just thinking he would probably be quite embarrassed today by some of the things he posted on here. :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
There's a lot of it about, la. The artificially polarised nature of modern politics has sent a lot of people quite mad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
Speaking of racists. Did anyone see the black man/woman on 'This week' with Andrew Neil? (S)He doesn't like us white folk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
They're not mad; they're entirely lucid and they're focussed on what they want to achieve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
Calling them mad gives them an excuse for promulgating their evil ideology. Don't excuse them, la. Hold them accountable.
I did see that. He seemed not to have noticed that he is - to quite a large extent - white himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norn Iron
I'm sick of being told that white people are terrible and evil. It's just sour grapes - it's not our fault we're better than other races. :shrug:
:walksawaywhistling:
Nah - they're just misguidedQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
You thought that someone who casually referred to members of our armed services as 'murderers' was a moderate, mainstream lefty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
:hehe:
I actually think he is more moderate on Twitter than he was on hereQuote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
I suspect he was channelling his Irish Republicanism at this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
:music:Quote:
Originally Posted by SWv2
Thirteen dead!
Nothing said!
No more Bloody Sundays!
:music:
and so on
‘Nothing said’? Fùckers wouldn’t shut up about it for 40 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Actually, that reminds me. Speaking of left-footers have you seen Lucy Worsley's programme on The Glorious Revolution? Neither glorious, nor a revolution, was her take on it, which is fair comment, I think, but she did downplay the importance of the Bill of Rights imo. Probably because of her general fawning over royalty, and I suspect a secret papist traitor to boot. :judge:Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Yeah, it’s hardly a new take, tbh. The Glorious Revolution is best described as the very conscious decision of GB plc to appoint a non-executive chairman of the board. It was a masterpiece of political and religious pragmatism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Cold blooded murder of innocents for which no person has ever been held responsible or convicted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
It's a fúcking disgrace is what it is, but let's not go down that road again.
Tiocfaidh ar lá.
No such thing as 'innocents', sw. What were they doing on the street at an illegal march? Looking for trouble, that's what. And they got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWv2
Granted, it came in the form of 7.62mm rounds from rifles with quite phenomenal stopping power - which might have been a bit excessive, but if they couldn't take a joke, they shouldn't have joined.
Harsh, in the extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
It is an incident for which your so called Great Britain should forever hang it's metaphorical head in shame.
"The civil rights march on Bloody Sunday was not, in fact, illegal and the British armed forces had no legal power to arrest anyone on the march, the inquiry has been told.
In a lengthy written submission to the Saville tribunal, the organisers of the march, the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), allege that the then Stormont administration failed to give proper consideration to the legal situation.
NICRA has asked the inquiry to invite the former attorney general to the Stormont government of 1972, Sir Basil Kelly, to make a statement about whether he was, at any time, consulted on the legal aspects of the march and, if so, what advice he gave.
The march held on January 30th, 1972, was organised primarily as a protest against internment, which had been introduced the previous August. The submission now made on behalf of those who were executive committee members of NICRA in 1972 says it has invariably, but wrongly, been assumed that the march was the subject of an order banning all processions and marches.
However, no copy of any relevant ministerial order has been uncovered, it points out, and no order was promulgated at the time.
In the absence of any formal instrument under the hand of the relevant minister (then the unionist politician, Mr John Taylor), no order was legally in force, NICRA argues. "The march . . . was not, in fact, banned, even if the citizenry of Derry thought that it was defying a ministerial order in joining the march."
The submission notes the inquiry's solicitors have acknowledged that every effort has been made to discover a copy of the order, without success. Although it was an executive act of the Stormont government, there is no record of it in the Public Records Office in Belfast.
There is also nothing in the archives of the Widgery tribunal to indicate that a ministerial order was produced to show that the march was illegal."
If it happened in Syria or Yugoslavia there would be calls for invasions, regime changes, war crimes tribunals and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWv2
No reason to start talking foreign at us though.
Well quite. Now I was brought up during the troubles but am no flag waving republican, however to try and deny it as anything other than what it was, which is cold blooded murder, is blinkered and indeed extremely ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
For shame Britain.
My final words on this subject.
Meh. We've done much worse than that. Mind you, so has pretty much everyone else. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by SWv2
In fact, the rioters - who caused the soldiers to open fire in the first place - broke off from the legal path of the march and started attacking soldiers with stones, etc. Turns out that attacking heavily-armed members of 1 Para wasn't a terribly good idea.
Ultimately, these were for the most part young men who were seeking trouble and trying to be billy big-bòllocks by rioting and attacking soldiers. I've little sympathy for people who do that and, if they don't like the consequences of their actions, that's too fùcking bad.
:hehe: Don't you believe it. In Paris in 1961, the police murdered 300 Algerian immigrants and chucked them in the Seine. No-one gave a fück. These things happen as part of the 'savage wars of peace'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
The joke, of course, is that the rioters were banking on the idea that, if they attacked our troops, they wouldn't shoot back. On this occasion, they lost that particular bet. Too bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWv2
This always seems to me to be the missing part of the argument. I mean, if you chuck bricks at an armed man, what response do you expect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Well yes. But I'm pointing out the irony that the outrage about it stems from an expectation on the part of the republican rioters that - despite all their anti-Brit rhetoric - the British wouldn't behave like that because they're generally decent and you can lob bricks at them with impunity. So, in fact, the whole thing relies on an underlying assumption by rabid republicans that the Brits are generally decent and not likely to open up on them - even when they deserve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
And generally, of course, they'd have been right. However, Paras are a bit different.
A bit thick and prone to acts of immense violence with little provocation, in my experienceQuote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Irish or Para's?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
I only ever said hello to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
:-(
Rough men who stand ready to do violence on our behalf, innit :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
Good christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Get a grip man.
:hehe:
Patriots, you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
Attachment 764
:rubchin: :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
Not around Aldershot in the late 80'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir C