Someone should tell him the nice thing about democracy is that before it gets to the “impoverish, oppress and kill” stage, you can vote for someone else.
Peter Oborne changes his mind
This is a bit weird
Not really. She’s preparing the ground for blaming Labour when the current talks go nowhere.
The intent sure, for me the weird bit was the ‘friendly and laid back’ nature of the ‘fireside chat’. It feels creepy and desperate, like when a fella that is utterly useless at chatting up women decides to give it a go and just comes across as a pervert.
The Maybot cannot do human.
No harm ever in coming across as a pervert, it’s not your fault how people react. The important thing is always give it a go
I meant to comment on this the day it was posted - I didn’t find that weird at all, she basically was plonked in front of the camera to sell the fix, that “No Deal” was gone/off the table, for Britain to use as leverage.
Brexit is but a battle in a greater War, you could lose the battle to Win that War. However to me it looks like May entered into surrender negotiations a long time ago to end the War, under the pretence of wining this battle.
The Betrayal begins around 39/40 seconds onwards (its official). Remember this moment. We’ve seen it before too many times before.
Ah, a victim of cultural inferiority complex? Do stand up for yourself and your bog. Meanwhile the Irish Ambassador calls it out for the anti-Irishness it is.
Of course Bogman wasn’t really agreeing with the piece. He was enjoying its swivel-eyed gibberish - as I did too immensely !
What’s “anti-Irish” about it?
Well apart from its inaccuracies (I’m pretty sure that Churchill in 1940 used to refer to “Britain and her Commonwealth”) the tone and content is that of an abusive husband going nuts because their spouse is daring to not do what they want.
That’s what you need to keep in mind when you hear an apologist talk nonsense about “our shared history of these two islands” etc - it would be like saying a rape is a “shared sexual experience”. British rule of Ireland was entirely the product of conquest and is therefore devoid of any moral authority, in any way.
I don’t really see it as anti-Irish. It’s just a silly opinion piece. It’s more directed at the actions of our political representatives. The author over egged the rhetoric so it comes across as a bit unhinged.
“our shared history of these two islands”…“shared history”, yea that sounds like a bit of spin job. There’s just history (the account of what happened in the past).
@Open_Window That article is a particularly low piece of gutter snipery
The use of the term “Anglican Catholic” about High Anglicans to link it in undereducated people’s heads to Catholic Church and child abuse
the use of the term “Traveller” about the other Grandfather - when someone with any knowledge of the mid 20th century, knows that meant “commercial traveller” ie salesman
I guess theswamp.media is well named. The author seems a bit undereducated himself. Apart from the numerous typos, he doesn’t seem to know what he means by “Anglican-Catholic”. The (non-hyphenated) “Anglican Catholic” movement is a continuity wing of Anglicanism dating only from the 1970s. They were the people who disagreed with female ordination. To use it of anyone in the mid 20th century would be a gross anachronism.
He could mean “Anglo-Catholicism” which is the form of high Anglicanism dating from the early 19th century Oxford movement. That was the movement which sought a rapprochement between Anglicanism and Catholicism after Catholic Emancipation, as being Catholic no longer implied being a political dissident.
But while the first-mentioned Community of the Resurrection Seminary was indeed Anglo-Catholic, the use of Anglo-Catholic (let alone Anglican-Catholic) makes no sense in the context of the two parishes mentioned later, and “men of the Anglican-Catholic cloth” makes no sense at all.
My take away is both her parents died when she was in her mid 20s in rather tragic circumstances and maybe Wikipedia revisionism/censorship in play.
Interesting. Your takeaway from a piece of black propaganda, probably every second line of which is maliciously false…is that wikipedia is covering something up.