It was entirely predictable IMO.
Look at the fat scum bastard taking his false teeth out
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It was entirely predictable IMO.
Look at the fat scum bastard taking his false teeth out
Sad thing is, in cases you are correct.
What's wrong with just having the cut off point at 18 then? Particularly now that you have to stay in education of some sort till your 18.
It's pretty interesting just how extreme the 16-17 vote was in favour of yes, when there was only a gradual change between the other age groups. Particularly interesting that the 18-24 group was actually mild No (52-48), despite being only a slight difference in age.
It's all that dam hope and optimism they have. No need to worry though it will get crushed soon enough.
How about only those in the age range 18 - 80 are allowed to vote?
Then everyone is happy!
Then everyone is happy!
Who was the side doing all the intimidating again?
Nothing is wrong with the cutoff at 18, but people getting their knickers in a twist because of 16 year olds voting really rolls up my socks.
And there are some benefits to lowering the voting age
Not being familiar enough with Scotland; why would Edinburgh vote Yes and Glasgow vote No? Was that expected? and if so, what are the underlying reasons?
How is that intimidating? In that short video all you see is the girl pull the Scotland flag wrapped round him off and he takes it back.
You had no issues with branding the Yes supporters intimidating yet now these cnuts are showing themselves up for what they are you're shying away? Silent majority through fear my arse. They deserve all the shaming they get.
Apparently someone's been stabbed in the city centre too. Just imagine how bad it'd have been had they lost.
It's clearly her flag and he's took it off her.
How is it intimidating? I don't know about you but I wouldn't be comfortable with that being my daughter and being in that situation surrounded by these thugs. They're not even representing the No vote. They're just idiots out for a fight.
It was the other way round. Edinburgh voted No, Glasgow voted Yes. It was expected - Edinburgh is generally more affluent, unemployment much higher in Glasgow etc.
Other way around. There are loads of reasons why different regions voted different ways and people will study that for years to come I imagine, the strong historic support for the Scottish Socialist Party in Glasgow and the amount of people from the rest of the UK living in Edinburgh for example, but the main unavoidable conclusion is that Glasgow is a city with about twice as many children living in poverty than Edinburgh. Discontent with Westminster was counterbalanced by fear of going it alone for the majority of the country but not for those sections of our society with little to lose.
Well to be fair on that 5 second video you can just see her pulling the flag that looks wrapped around him, I guess you are probably right, but there's surely more to it than lone yes supporter with Scotland flag sits alone in the middle of thuggish no supporters, no? Why would you even stay there if the situation was like that?
Lots of points here, I'll address them one by one.
It does not lead to an empirically worse outcome. The good thing about this issue is that we aren't arguing theoretically. We have actual examples of countries with many different policies. Are you saying that Australia better governments than other similar countries? Are you then suggesting the cause of this is mandatory voting? You'll have to provide a bit more evidence for those.
Your analogy to business owners being required not to discriminate in contracts. In a vacuum private business owners absolutely should be able to contract with who they please. The reason we don't allow that is because of the massive impact that racist shop owners effectively made it impossible for minorities to travel through the Jim Crow south. This is an example of an extremely important and demonstrable social issue. This happened in the Civil Right Act of 1964, which was hugely controversial. The justification for this law in the Supreme Court was that all businesses, even a roadside diner or small hotel, engaged in intrastate commerce due to their clientele coming from out of state or their deliveries going to or coming from out of state which allowed Congress to regulate their business under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. This is quite a leap which effectively means that the IC clause allows Congress to regulate all businesses, surely not the intention of the framers who would have reserved those powers to the state.
The analogy you are looking for is the justification for Obamacare. The confusion surrounding that decision demonstrates just how tenuous the Civil Rights Act decision was in that 4 of the 9 justices held that the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate economic inactivity (not buying health insurance). The reason that this comparison (the best one I can think of to buttress your position) doesn't hold up is because not buying health insurance isn't simply regulating inactivity. The EMTALA requires that hospitals treat patients who arrive in the emergency room regardless of whether or not they have insurance. This is obviously a good thing because we don't want people bleeding out in the parking lots of hospitals while doctors sit inside. Because of this, the claim that Obamacare regulates inactivity doesn't compare well with mandatory voting. The only way it would work is if people, refused to register, went to any polling place they pleased and then demanded to vote. That's not the issue though. When people choose not to vote in Australia, they truly are opting out entirely.
Getting back to your private businesses example, despite the widespread problem and overwhelming acknowledgment, the Civil Rights Act and later legislation does not require businesses to give up their right to choose who to contract with. What it does is create a number of protected classes. In some states, sexual orientation is not protected and housing or employment discrimination of gay people is fully legal.
So then your argument would be to acknowledge that a right is being violated in the abstract but to say that it is acceptable because the societal benefits outweigh the costs of infringing on civil rights. The argument that voter participation is so important that it is worth violating individual liberty fails even on its own logic, since Australia does not actually require people to vote. What they are trying to do instead, is shame people into voting. Are these people going to become politically active citizens or is it more likely that they choose whatever name they happen to see first without knowing or caring about either candidate? Forcing people to vote, which again Australia does not even do, would almost definitely not lead to a more engaged populace. So ultimately you have to make the argument that having people who don't know or care about candidates or political parties vote is so massively important to society that is it worth violating an individual's right.
To your question about Republicans, yes they do try to limit voting access. As it is a right, I believe it should be as easy as possible. You shouldn't need a reason to vote absentee. You should be able to vote online. Election day should be a federal holiday. Employers should be required to give their employees time off to vote. I've mentioned in this thread several times that voting should not be restricted by age and as of yet, no one has been able to present a good reason why it should.
Regarding your final paragraph. It is different in two fundamental ways. The first, and I cannot stress this enough, is that it is a right. Rights are by definition vastly more sacred and the threshold for violating these to promote the public interest is much higher than non-rights. The second difference is that choosing to buy food or cigarettes is actively engaging in an activity that the government has every right to regulate. People are not required at risk of fine to buy cigarettes and pay the taxes associated with them. In fact, people can grow their own tobacco and not have to pay the taxes at all. It is perfectly valid for government to regulate actual activity. It is not valid for government to compel citizens to participate in something they have no interest in.
So you have stated that the men in the video aren't even representing NO, but are just idiots out for a fight, but you are still using them as proof that the NO campaign is intimidating people. Intimidating people AFTER the day of the referendum, apparently.
For about the past 20 pages you have been on a one man crusade of desperately trying to discredit the NO campaign. You ignore most of the posts which contain actual debate and discussion, and simply pop up a couple of times a day to post some random video (or previously, articles from the YES Scotland website
) to try to infallibly prove your case, despite there being far more evidence against it.Based on your little vine clip, we don't know whose flag it is, we don't know where they are, we have no context at all as to anything, it is a 6 second clip showing a girl taking a flag and then having it grabbed off her. I don't agree with those actions at all, but trying to use that to make out that the NO campaign is full of thugs is just petty and ignorant.
So you have stated that the men in the video aren't even representing NO, but are just idiots out for a fight, but you are still using them as proof that the NO campaign is intimidating people. Intimidating people AFTER the day of the referendum, apparently.
For about the past 20 pages you have been on a one man crusade of desperately trying to discredit the NO campaign. You ignore most of the posts which contain actual debate and discussion, and simply pop up a couple of times a day to post some random video (or previously, articles from the YES Scotland website
Based on your little vine clip, we don't know whose flag it is, we don't know where they are, we have no context at all as to anything, it is a 6 second clip showing a girl taking a flag and then having it grabbed off her. I don't agree with those actions at all, but trying to use that to make out that the NO campaign is full of thugs is just petty and ignorant.
Don't be too hard on him he's bound to be hurting badly today after his dream has been shattered Walrus.
Don't be too hard on him he's bound to be hurting badly today after his dream has been shattered Walrus.
Touchè
Who's being touchy? None of us are being touchy you... you..... you big arse.
I actually can't see how that's not intimidating. Personally. Just saying.
So you have stated that the men in the video aren't even representing NO, but are just idiots out for a fight, but you are still using them as proof that the NO campaign is intimidating people. Intimidating people AFTER the day of the referendum, apparently.
For about the past 20 pages you have been on a one man crusade of desperately trying to discredit the NO campaign. You ignore most of the posts which contain actual debate and discussion, and simply pop up a couple of times a day to post some random video (or previously, articles from the YES Scotland website
Based on your little vine clip, we don't know whose flag it is, we don't know where they are, we have no context at all as to anything, it is a 6 second clip showing a girl taking a flag and then having it grabbed off her. I don't agree with those actions at all, but trying to use that to make out that the NO campaign is full of thugs is just petty and ignorant.
I say they aren't representing No (Better Together). They're obviously No voters. Much like every Yes supporter who you tarred wasn't a member of the SNP or even a nationalist. I don't think (I may be wrong, admittedly) that I said the No campaign was intimidating people.
Ignore that little vine clip. What about the clips posted earlier? What about the journalists there who've said there's a clear sectarian element? I'm not using that clip to make out that the No campaign is full of thugs. My argument is that the what we've seen throughout the night is some validation for my initial argument that it was never just the Yes supporters who were the intimidating and violent type as you and others would have had people believe. The gathering in the city centre wasn't organised by the No campaign which is why I said they're not representing No. It's clear who organised it and what their intentions were.
Don't be too hard on him he's bound to be hurting badly today after his dream has been shattered Walrus.
Of course I'm hurting. I truly believed we had the opportunity for a better future.
Yeah but, you know... You LOST and they WON. Because apparently the entire thing was just one big competition and not a simple democratic process. So now everyone can spend the next couple of days tallying up the point score and tugging one another off
I miss the days when the world was able to laugh. A world without arsey throwback comments where we all made fun of Gerrard.
Well if it's a case of her dragging the flag off him, then him taking it back, that's not him being intimidating is it? That very well may not be the case, and he may just be a complete idiot, but you can hardly make a judgement based on a 5 second video. The fact someone shouts "yeeeeeeeah" as she starts pulling the flag off him made me think perhaps she did it as he had the Union Jack with him and then he pulled it back off her.
I'm sorry. But seriously, it was never going to happen. The figures just did not add up. Hopefully after all the explanations on here and in the news it's a little clearer to you. Time to make the best of the opportunities that are coming your way.
You lost mate, grow up and stop frantically trying to dig up dirt on no voters.
You do understand what was going on in George Square at the time, right?
You as well?
There was a unionist rally in Glasgow with scores of people singing Rule Britannia and holding Orange Lodges banners. If that doesn't mean anything to you then I question your knowledge of the religious politics of Glasgow, and as such your ability to understand the severity of the situation, or even comment on it.
The might not be the unionists you would normally think of, but they are still unionists.
Last edited:
I know full well what goes on in Glasgow from both sides. I just thing it's petty looking for dirt on the unionists and then tarring them all with the same brush.
It's impossible to opt out of the consequences of voting too. You can't just opt out of society and become exempt from it's laws if you don't want to join in.
Except Pink was doing nothing of the sort. He was getting on at Walrus for trying to do that to nationalists. He was making the point that it wasn't as clear cut as Nationalists = bad, Unionists = good. Considering that's you don't have to dig deep for dirt on Unionists in Glasgow, there was nothing petty about it. What is petty, however, is trying to ignore a violent issue that has existed for centuries.
I thought when he said these cnuts were showing themselves up for what they are he was referring to unionists in general. If i misinterpreted then apologies.
Anyway it's all sour grapes now anyway and this particular thing is just two sets of bigoted football fans looking for a fight.
Anyway it's all sour grapes now anyway and this particular thing is just two sets of bigoted football fans looking for a fight.
Not the consequences, the action itself.
To be fair, that guy's twitter page is full of infamatory comments over innocuous Vine's. He may well be telling the truth and simply gotten crap footage, but to the casual observer it looks like someone trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
What?
It's not a good comparison. People can't opt out of using government services without opting out of society itself. People can opt out of voting. It's not really even debatable because there are so many examples, including Australia itself where it works without issue.
True. If it wasn't for the nationalist/unionist conflict then they would just find another excuse to hate one another.
It was a point about England and the South East have less voice but more money than the rest of the UK, at some point surely they will say f**k it I want some of that.
So the importance of rights depends on how avoidable they are?
There is only one right in this discussion. The right to vote. As far as I'm aware, not paying taxes doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights or any comparable document.