Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Peter Dow Aberdeen

Peter Dow's political defence -v- "criminal tweets" charge

Recommended Posts

Peter, I think it's time we asked the more relevant questions here.

When was the last time a female (a real one that was breathing by herself, not an inflatable one, or a printed one) crossed the threshold into thy parlour of urban decadence?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/03/2018 at 6:09 PM, Peter Dow Aberdeen said:


As would it be absurd to prosecute the producers and distributors of the South Park cartoon which features the Queen committing suicide.

South Park 'kills the Queen'  

An episode of South Park featuring the Queen committing suicide is provoking outrage. But if the show is famous for anything, it's for going too far..

2007

Very poor quality audio when I speak at the end of this video. Sorry about that.

 

On 23/03/2018 at 9:47 PM, Cloud said:

Peter, I think it's time we asked the more relevant questions here.

When was the last time a female (a real one that was breathing by herself, not an inflatable one, or a printed one) crossed the threshold into thy parlour of urban decadence?

 

On 28/03/2018 at 3:32 PM, Cloud said:

@Peter Dow Aberdeen I feel rather upset that you haven't taken the time to educate us as to the extent of your conquests in paradise. 

There is nothing to tell about my sex life. I am single and looking for a woman of child-bearing age to start a family with.

Edited by Peter Dow Aberdeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 6:32 PM, Peter Dow Aberdeen said:

Well we need to get rid of the Queen and elect a president so that we get a helpful head of state who can make sure the state can distinguish between harmless political rhetoric and genuine threats to public safety.

Excuse my ignorance but why would a President be any different to a Prime Minister?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, djricochet said:

Excuse my ignorance but why would a President be any different to a Prime Minister?

You should be congratulated for asking a serious political question.

There wouldn't just have to be "a" President but maybe there could be 2 or more presidents for each different country which emerges after the break up of the United Kingdom and the end of the dictatorship of the UK Prime Minister.

If you look at the number of presidents there are - one for each new country which emerged after the break-up of the British Empire - a president of the USA, a president of the Republic of Ireland, a president of India etc.

As soon as we, the people, stop believing in the Queen and we stop surrendering to the UK Prime Minister then we will empower ourselves to establish our own nation state and elect our own president.

So there could be a Scottish President of a Scottish Republic, an English President of an English Republic and so on.

Considering the other big referendum question was whether or not to leave the European Union or remain in it. So in principle, the UK could split into two countries - one country which was leaving the EU (the remnant of the UK - rUK) and one country which was remaining in the European Union - EU-r Britain, pronounced as "Your Britain".

So when there are many presidents and many countries then you could have very different policies in each country.

If we don't have a president and our MSPs at Holyrood are forced to swear allegiance to the Queen then the chances are that no First Minister will ever appoint a chief constable of Police Scotland or a chief prosecutor - the Lord Advocate - who will give us a free country where we can say, tweet or email what we think without being at risk of being arrested for simply expressing our point of view.

Someone like Salmond or Sturgeon is always going to be afraid of the Queen and will therefore appoint Queen's terrorists to run the state, who will insist on terrorising the people to make us as afraid of the Queen as they are.

A free country, where I could say what I need to say to help the people and other good people were also allowed to say what they needed to say, would be a very different country from the UK indeed.

Edited by Peter Dow Aberdeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter Dow Aberdeen said:

You should be congratulated for asking a serious political question.

There wouldn't just have to be "a" President but maybe there could be 2 or more presidents for each different country which emerges after the break up of the United Kingdom and the end of the dictatorship of the UK Prime Minister.

If you look at the number of presidents there are - one for each new country which emerged after the break-up of the British Empire - a president of the USA, a president of the Republic of Ireland, a president of India etc.

As soon as we, the people, stop believing in the Queen and we stop surrendering to the UK Prime Minister then we will empower ourselves to establish our own nation state and elect our own president.

So there could be a Scottish President of a Scottish Republic, an English President of an English Republic and so on.

Considering the other big referendum question was whether or not to leave the European Union or remain in it. So in principle, the UK could split into two countries - one country which was leaving the EU (the remnant of the UK - rUK) and one country which was remaining in the European Union - EU-r Britain, pronounced as "Your Britain".

So when there are many presidents and many countries then you could have very different policies in each country.

If we don't have a president and our MSPs at Holyrood are forced to swear allegiance to the Queen then the chances are that no First Minister will ever appoint a chief constable of Police Scotland or a chief prosecutor - the Lord Advocate - who will give us a free country where we can say, tweet or email what we think without being at risk of being arrested for simply expressing our point of view.

Someone like Salmond or Sturgeon is always going to be afraid of the Queen and will therefore appoint Queen's terrorists to run the state, who will insist on terrorising the people to make us as afraid of the Queen as they are.

A free country, where I could say what I need to say to help the people and other good people were also allowed to say what they needed to say, would be a very different country from the UK indeed.

You were doing so well up until this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Peter Dow Aberdeen said:

...

Someone like Salmond or Sturgeon is always going to be afraid of the Queen and will therefore appoint Queen's terrorists to run the state, who will insist on terrorising the people to make us as afraid of the Queen as they are.

..

 

1 hour ago, Lemonade said:

You were doing so well up until this point. 

Terrorists, literally, are gangsters who terrorise victims who are left in fear and alarm about what that gang of terrorists are threatening to do, or have already done and could do again.

Therefore the Queen's police, prosecutors and judges - the biggest gang in the kingdom - who have terrorised their innocent victims with false arrests, charges, prosecutions and sentencing are indeed terrorists.

No-one in the right mind would believe that either Salmond or Sturgeon had any kind of moral or decent back-bone to stand up to any kind of terrorist, be that chemical weapon terrorists or police and prosecution terrorists.

The evil cowards Salmond and Sturgeon are going to look the other way or if they can get on TV about it they will claim that standing up to terrorists will just make things worse, that politicians shouldn't or can't interfere, terrorists must be left to get on with it and by all means wring your hands but otherwise do nothing, apart from blaming those who do dare to stand up to terrorists.

Edited by Peter Dow Aberdeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2018 at 1:56 PM, Peter Dow Aberdeen said:

The evil cowards Salmond and Sturgeon are going to look the other way or if they can get on TV about it they will claim that standing up to terrorists will just make things worse

I'm not suggesting that Salmond and Sturgeon aren't evil. I'm not even suggesting that Salmond and Sturgeon aren't the world's first fish-named duo heading a political party. But what I am suggesting is that standing up to terrorism DOESN'T work. 

Exhibit a) - John Smeaton. In 2007 terrorists attacked Glasgow airport. Smeaton single handedly hunted a terrorist down and kicked him in the balls when he was on fire (the terrorist, not John Smeaton)* and then BANG! 11 years later Nikolas Cruz shoots up a school in Florida. Terrorism is impossible to stop - the only thing we can do is let it happen and hope for the best.

Exhibit b) - See exhibit a). It's all the evidence you need.


*
if that isn't standing up to terrorism, I don't know what is

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,  have you ever considered starting your own political party in order to take advantage of lavish donations from key supporters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×