Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens

[stumobir]

Imagine being so obsessed with something to the point of all-consuming seethe and still not even grasping the fundamentals. I’d pity him if he wasn’t such a loathsome character, he deserves the unhappiness he so clearly wallows in. 

[williemillersmoustache]

A confused notion of national pride and self worth, perfectly embodied by the Tory chair (mis)quoting Shakespeare

 

 

 

 

[Duries Air Freshener]

7 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Yes. The Acts of Union are legal. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. However, only Kincy appears to be arguing that these acts are "perpetual", and cannot be repealed.

Direct question to Albus & Durie - do you agree with Kincy's view, or do you agree with the doctrine of Westminster supremacy i.e. that Westminster can repeal any previous act passed by that legislature?

If you are both here to debate in good faith, surely you can answer this one simple question?

 

I agree with the posts Kincardine has made, but offer no comment on your attempt to put words in his mouth.

He can speak for himself though, so I've no idea why you feel the need to drag me into it.

What I don't agree with is the nasty vitriol thrown at him by the usual suspects on a regular basis.  Not by you personally, but it's still sad to see it accepted as the norm, flying in the face of Div's statement.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener

[WhiteRoseKillie]

8 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

The daft Natterist case is based on personal abuse.  I said this at the start of this evening and you're confirmed it at the end.

Tragic.

Last word from the Constitutional Expert, then.

Oh, hang on..

7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Silly - again.

The Treaty of Union - made between two countries' parliaments.  An act which ticks all the 'international law' boxes.  Yet, if you're a Natwit that doesn't matter.

 

7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I have said this dozens of time:  The less you know about Scotland the more likely you are to be a Nat

The AoU was made in perpetuity.

 

7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

sake

 

7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

sake

 

7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

sake

 

7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

It was a daft question and had nothing to do with Britain.  But that's to be expected.

And finally, three(ish) hours later..

6 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Seriously, @The_Kincardine, get some fucking help. This behaviour is not healthy.

Like your beloved zombies, you've become a sad tribute act to your former (ideologically opposed, but usually coherent) self. As for your wee troll supporters, I hope they feel proud of enabling your decline.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Seriously, [mention=44711]The_Kincardine[/mention], get some fucking help. This behaviour is not healthy.
Like your beloved zombies, you've become a sad tribute act to your former (ideologically opposed, but usually coherent) self. As for your wee troll supporters, I hope they feel proud of enabling your decline.

I suggested similar, however on balance I'd prefer he didn't and continues to enable us to mock him on a nightly basis. He's a bigoted, racist arsehole and should be treated as such.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, Day of the Lords said:

I suggested similar, however on balance I'd prefer he didn't and continues to enable us to mock him on a nightly basis. He's a bigoted, racist arsehole and should be treated as such.

Oh, he's absolutely the very very worst example you'll find on here for those character defects, especially as, unlike say, oaksoft or Dawson Park Boy, he's (probably) actually serious when he posts his drivel. I'm beginning to feel uncomfortabler laughing, though - it feels too much like paying a shiny sixpence for a wander round Bedlam. Or, for the youngsters out there, mocking the tone-deaf burger-flippers* following their star in the early rounds of the x-factor.

*No offence intended, btw. Some people's future contains chart success, for others it's asking if the customer wants fries. The cúnts in this case are those who allow the latter to believe they are the former, and those who sit giggling at home.

[Duries Air Freshener]

25 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Oh, he's absolutely the very very worst example you'll find on here for those character defects, especially as, unlike say, oaksoft or Dawson Park Boy, he's (probably) actually serious when he posts his drivel. I'm beginning to feel uncomfortabler laughing, though - it feels too much like paying a shiny sixpence for a wander round Bedlam. Or, for the youngsters out there, mocking the tone-deaf burger-flippers* following their star in the early rounds of the x-factor.

*No offence intended, btw. Some people's future contains chart success, for others it's asking if the customer wants fries. The cúnts in this case are those who allow the latter to believe they are the former, and those who sit giggling at home.

You’re obviously emotionally invested in Kincardine’s posts.

Going through them, quoting different parts, then embarking on bitter rants isn’t healthy, buddy.

Just calm down a bit eh?

[Albus Bulbasaur]

9 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Just in case you missed my previous post, I'll humour your pretence to be discrete posters and tag you both in.

@Albus Bulbasaur & @Duries Air Freshener

Do you agree with @The_Kincardine, or do you agree with the mainstream interpretation of UK Constitutional law?

For ultimate clarity I don't want to debate anything with you. Let alone at 2am on a Monday morning. 

I'm content posting what I do and discussing things with most of the guys on here but appreciate your desire for my attention, I'm sure you'll have heard it loads before but sorry I'm just not interested. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[scottsdad]

In 2007, ahead of the anniversary of the Treaty of Union, I and a colleague were invited to the National Archives to carry out some analysis on the condition of the document. We did some NIR spectroscopy and built a stage for multi-spectral imaging, which we also did. The first page is very nicely decorated but by page 10 it's clear they gave the work experience boy a shot at the illustrations.  

I say this just to let you know that I have (albeit with white gloves on) touched the document in question. And not just a fleeting caress, either. I manhandled it for hours on end, from all angles. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

You’re obviously emotionally invested in Kincardine’s posts.

Going through them, quoting different parts, then embarking on bitter rants isn’t healthy, buddy.

Just calm down a bit eh?

If anything, I'm concerned about the old boy's MH, and pointing out his inability to log off from here as a symptom - by quoting all, not part, of his subsequent posts. Hopefully he'll take note. His posting in recent weeks has followed a similar pattern, which in all honesty I find disturbing.

You and your multi-banned troll mate, on the other hand, are playing along to "win" some stupid game. The worst kind of poster.

[Duries Air Freshener]

Just now, WhiteRoseKillie said:

If anything, I'm concerned about the old boy's MH, and pointing out his inability to log off from here as a symptom - by quoting all, not part, of his subsequent posts. Hopefully he'll take note. His posting in recent weeks has followed a similar pattern, which in all honesty I find disturbing.

You and your multi-banned troll mate, on the other hand, are playing along to "win" some stupid game. The worst kind of poster.

Thanks for your insightful analysis.

You’re taking it all too seriously bud.

[Dan Steele]

Jockularity n : the reduction of Scottish culture and politics to stereotypical imagery cf Tartan Gonks, ScotchNats. Although starting out as light-hearted and humorous it can very easily turn into a bitter attack on sections of the population. 

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

Jockularity n : the reduction of Scottish culture and politics to stereotypical imagery cf Tartan Gonks, ScotchNats. Although starting out as light-hearted and humorous it can very easily turn into a bitter attack on sections of the population. 

I reckon whenever you start mocking aspects of nationality rather than policy you’ve crossed into xenophobia/racism. For example, one can condemn Mexico’s cunty National Action Party for their disgusting, misogynistic, homophobic, far-right policies - but if you were to start calling all who voted for them Sombrero Mariachi gonks, you’d be revealing your own racism more than anything.

[Granny Danger]

6 minutes ago, Antlion said:

I reckon whenever you start mocking aspects of nationality rather than policy you’ve crossed into xenophobia/racism. For example, one can condemn Mexico’s cunty National Action Party for their disgusting, misogynistic, homophobic, far-right policies - but if you were to start calling all who voted for them Sombrero Mariachi gonks, you’d be revealing your own racism more than anything.

Can’t call people Sombrero Mariachi gonks?  Political correctness gone mad.

[carpetmonster]

7 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

 

What I don't agree with is the nasty vitriol thrown at him by the usual suspects on a regular basis.  Not by you personally, but it's still sad to see it accepted as the norm, flying in the face of Div's statement.

This thread, which by its very title exists to encourage mockery of others, is in direct contravention of Div’s statement. 

[williemillersmoustache]

33 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

This thread, which by its very title exists to encourage mockery of others, is in direct contravention of Div’s statement. 

 

 

 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

That sounds like it could have come straight from my last film script.

Good lord please no [emoji23]

[lichtgilphead]

13 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

 

I agree with the posts Kincardine has made, but offer no comment on your attempt to put words in his mouth.

He can speak for himself though, so I've no idea why you feel the need to drag me into it.

I'm dragging you ito it as you greenied quite a few of Kincy's posts last night. I was interested in just how far your support for his views extends.

I do not need to put words in his mouth. He has repeatedly claimed that the treaty of union between Scotland & England "created in perpetuity in 1707, ticks all of the boxes of International Law and can't be set aside with impunity."

He has also specifically criticised "Dim David Cameron" for believing that the Acts of Union can be repealed without consulting with the rest of the UK electorate.

On the other hand, I agree (with practically everyone else )that Scottish Independence is a matter for the Scottish electorate.

I just wondered what you and your alter ego's views were. Are you willing to support Kincy's views, no matter how extreme and controversial a point he is putting across? From your reply above, I would suggest that you are!

[lichtgilphead]

10 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

For ultimate clarity I don't want to debate anything with you. Let alone at 2am on a Monday morning. 

I'm content posting what I do and discussing things with most of the guys on here but appreciate your desire for my attention, I'm sure you'll have heard it loads before but sorry I'm just not interested. 

You seem upset.

 

Perhaps you could put me on your ever-expanding ignore list?

[Albus Bulbasaur]

25 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

You seem upset.

 

Perhaps you could put me on your ever-expanding ignore list?

I literally have nobody on any ignore lists and I'm having a good night. 

How's the hangover? 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur