Rayvin

He's an advocate for it but stands utterly no chance of ever realising it. The bigger problem is that he's (apparently, having now done some reading) a prominent figure in a movement of fuckwits who I would imagine are very capable of looking at this and thinking that it might be 'open season' for such actions. Resorting to and revelling in physical violence surrenders the moral highground and really, just makes us look weak. Like we don't believe in our ideas. In my view at least. Not disagreeing with anything else you've said. The man is a cunt. Am concerned that he's the 'acceptable' figurehead of far worse people though. EDIT - The Observer makes the same case: http://observer.com/2017/01/richard-spencer-alt-right-punched-on-tv/

You're totally right in the first part, I am. What other alternatives are there, though? He could have just been mentally unstable I guess? As for the second part, see my last post.

I'll call them regressives from now on then.

I'm not sure it is. One of the key successes of civilised society is the ability to discuss and debate issues using words and not fists. We can reject extremist views based on their own merits or lack thereof. Throwing punches just leads to a like for like escalation. What if that punch motivates some right wing nutjob to attack someone else? Is it still worth it then? Moreover, resorting to physical violence just demonstrates that you lack the mental fortitude to actually tackle the arguments being put forward. The alarming thing about much of this is how so many on the 'left' have absolutely no counter argument to the absolute bullshit being spewed by the Trumpists and the Brexiters. Because the only real counter argument that would work, in my honest opinion, would see they themselves lose out. i.e. they would have to talk about economic progress, not fucking political and social progress.

If the 'left' can be portrayed as violent, burning things in the street, vandalising property, and assaulting people (all of which happened in these marches) - you know exactly how that'll come across, don't you? It'll be a one size fits all blanket statement about violent protesters. Greater controls will be implemented, harsher punishments, etc. I dunno who that guy is, but he didn't deserve to be punched in the head for having different views. If we're legitimising the left doing it, we have to be prepared for the right to give their blessing to counter actions. And FWIW, they're the ones with fucking guns. It does at least reveal SJWs for the hypocrites they are, though. Suppression of free speech by physical violence, that would be. How fucking depressing to see. The left needs rid of these people and fucking quickly.

It sounds like Allardyce wants the cash up front to spend on other players. Hence the loan to buy option not working for him.

Elliot being loaned out...? Not sure about that one...

the sloth was epic.

If we compared it against join date I'm pretty sure I'd be close to top, if not top. Which makes me sadder than all of you

From hindsight no - at the time he perpetuated the same drivel they tried to repackage into Owen Smith, so I can only imagine that yes, they thought he was.

Really? That's been Labour's modus operandi up until Corbyn. Acting in their own interests sounds entirely within their capabilities once they've ousted him.

I sometimes check my post count and think about milestones - 10k will be the next significant one I guess.

I find it incredible that he hasn't posted in 4 or 5 months but still checks in every day.

Fucking ouch.

I'll concede that Piers Morgan is likely to cause the two groups to combine more often than many others. I think the line more or less follows on this premise though: normal decent human beings can be offended at things others say through no fault or will of their own, based on their own sensibilities. SJWs cultivate a victim complex that predisposes them to take offence at as much as they can because, like Morgan, they live off the attention.

I think he's just blundered onto the wrong side of the SJWs. His comments wouldn't be attention worthy at all without the twatterati giving him oxygen. Apparently he has indeed retreated into his safe space to deal with it. The warm bosom of the Daily Heil. Made for each other, really.

All true, I'm just saying that we can't really call him a hypocrite on this one EDIT - while, disconcertingly, he actually can (with some justification) make that accusation about McGregor.

While that article is unbelievable, I think that's his point. He's saying that McGregor has damned him (Morgan) by his associations with Trump, and that he is in turn suggesting that McGregor should apply the same logic to his own personal life. He can make this argument without being a hypocrite on the grounds that he himself hasn't suggested that damning by association is a viable position.

#triggered.

If this isn't cutting political commentary, I don't know what is.

And all a microcosm for the futility and pointlessness of life itself.

That is a diabolical stat, actually. He's a fucking left back.

In the article link Wykiki posted...?

I'm concerned that we haven't addressed this yet tbf. Fully agree with your assessment.

Operating as a part of a pointless democratic political system. I think we've covered all bases here.