SureYWouldntYa wrote: » One of the daftest things I've seen of her is the way she goes at the people in this shop for not selling pork. Just being flat out derogatory herehttps://twitter.com/Ireunderworld/status/1249794142395342855
krissovo wrote: » Oh feck, just noticed that my cousin is in the crowd. He unfriended me and my father in law last week after we replied to nonsense conspiracy post. The last few years he has been slowly declining.
Merry Prankster wrote: » I can't actually believe this. Apart from the insensitivity and the anti-Muslim overtones, it's the hypocrisy of this that is particularly galling. The right-wing conspiracy types get so exercised about perceived infringements of free speech and personal liberty, yet here's O'Doherty deciding what someone can and cannot sell on their own premises. They rail against the 'libtards' for denying freedoms, yet it is clear that many from the conspiracy theory ecosphere have authoritarian personalities, and their conception of 'freedom' is both narrow and oppressive. The truly frightening thing is that such thinking, which helps empower tyrants around the world, is becoming ever more pervasive.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » That's true re costs and not only that, the Court has the power to award costs even if an applicant loses a JR case if the case is deemed sufficiently public interest. I think the Debenhams debacle proves that it is. If anyone's actually bothered to read the detailed Court report from yesterday as opposed to just shouting "fruit loops" (yawn) the Judge acknowledged the applicants have raised issues on aspects of the legislation that will require serious examination.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Right wing? I would have said that the majority of protesters that talk about freedom of speech and personal liberty in their rants are left wing, or at least claim to be.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » :pac::pac::pac: Ah come on now - these guys are all racists, homophobes, islamophobes, pro life, hardcore conservative catholics, anti marxists and anti socialists They talk a nice talk about freedom of speech and personal liberty but in reality they are authoritarians who want the gardai, government and media controlled in their worldview only.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » What guys? Who are we specifucally looking at? And why are you now bringing in other unhealthy opinions into it? I referred to those that shout a lot about freedom of speech and personal freedom. No other aspects. Personal freedom is a prime example, That's pro choice not pro life argument. Never heard a pro life rally shouting about personal freedom of their own bodies. Have you? we only taking about Gemma? Then I would say it's a mix of left and right, jumpers who just like hearing what is good for them and outsight nutters who don't really follow a political path
Merry Prankster wrote: » I know a number of these types, most claim to be apolitical (or, occasionally, libertarian), yet ALL of them have views that align with the right and denigrate the left. They hate 'social justice warriors,' (the use of this term is a dead giveaway), welfare programmes, feminism, immigration, mainstream media (yet trust RT!!!), arts and humanities degrees. They also have a weird obsession with supposed paedophile rings. They disparage the 'sheeple' who blindly swallow the lies of the MSM, yet they peddle unhinged nonsense that generally serves to undermine trust in western politics, institutions and media. Which coincidentally serves the interests of someone like Putin. Hey, this conspiracy lark is fun after all!
Niner leprauchan wrote: » And yet they claim to be left. That was my point
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Who is claiming to be left?
growleaves wrote: » Her palm is facing upwards. It is nothing like a military salute of any kind.
tjhook wrote: » I'm not responding to anybody in particular here. I can completely understand the vitriol aimed at GO'D, but I wouldn't necessarily feel the same. I'm not a medical professional, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some kind of an imbalance there. She seems to have had a change of behaviour around 10 years ago, and the change has been accelerating since. Put it this way, she was a serious journalist before that. But she has changed to the extent that there's no way she could/would be given the same opportunities now. Or succeed at the job if she did get it. Some conditions can cause personality changes that aren't always pleasant E.g. alzheimer's can do that in older people, and I wouldn't hate them for it. I wonder if the situation here might be something along those lines. Having a group of "supporters" could add to her certainty that she's correct and rational, and reinforce her behaviour. TLDR: I have some sympathy for her, especially if she's not getting the help she needs. Or maybe I'm just getting a little too lilly-livered in my old age
Donald Trump wrote: » Lock her up!
eleventh wrote: » It is sad that so many are almost begging for their own demise, seemingly unaware that that is what they're doing.
eleventh wrote: » To those who don't want legislation to be questioned you really don't have to do much to get your wish. Totalitarianism is on the way. Most here want to speed it up by the sounds of it. The government must be glad to have such support. All they have to do is pay people 350/week to sit on social media posting on how much they dislike people who disagree with the government and how much they want lockdowns to continue(or escalate). It is sad that so many are almost begging for their own demise, seemingly unaware that that is what they're doing.
Shefwedfan wrote: » To see what Gemma really thinks of this whole. Look at the video on her twitter. Now I hate giving her traffic but it has a pruposehttps://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1252928493412847618 Look at 21 seconds into the video. From my point of view that is pure disdain in her face when looking at John Waters....pure disdain......
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
