Anne Marie Waters tweets NME article about Morrissey backing

An anonymous person posted (original post):

Well, it looks like Anne Marie Waters considers Morrissey a supporter:


Morrissey backs anti-Islam politician Anne Marie Waters during 6 Music session http://po.st/s5eQV6 via @NME




Related item:
 
Last edited:
U

URBANUS

Guest
WTF are you talking about? There is only one language in this forum, english. What other language could I possibly choose.
Arabic? LOL dont know it.
In English, this is a football::football:
this is a book::greenbook:
this is not a book::spaceinvader:
this is not a football::satellite:

You cant change the meaning of words to fit your insane world view.:crazy:

That's not a football, that is a rugby ball with american design. Sorry to inform you but none of those things are the real deal, they are just emojis.

Try again!
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
So a Dubliner in a UK party.

Anne Marie is the name of his latest flame.
 

Sister I'm a Poet

If the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
I am a woman, so yes, on your question as to the sincerity of my interest or "motivation" and concern regarding women's issues, and I am involved. And on the second point - also a yes. I have first hand knowledge of, and I have previously lived under a political regime where there was no such thing as gay "rights".
Ok I believe you, but I guarantee you that 99% of the people "concerned" about Sharia law in the US don't otherwise give a f*** about women's rights or gay rights.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ok I believe you, but I guarantee you that 99% of the people "concerned" about Sharia law in the US don't otherwise give a f*** about women's rights or gay rights.

Dude you have to be a troll, you are saying that people NOT concerned with Sharia law, which is anti woman, are the only ones that give a F about women's rights or gay rights. Thats mind boggling. LOL:crazy:
Insanity.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Gay dudes that worry about Sharia Law throwing them off rooftops must not be really gay. LOLLL
Or better yet, how about this: Dudes who worry about Sharia Law throwing gay peeps off roofs DONT give a F about gay rights, but those who don't find it disconcerting that Sharia throws gay peeps off rooftops, those DO care about gay rights. LOOOLLLL:crazy:
Total insanity.
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
Her name is heaven for anyone wanna make fun of this unholy alliance.

Bitch over troubled waters.

Anne Marie is the name of his latest shame.

Cannot wait for The Manic Street Preachers to come up with a very angry song and title about him and her and the song title will be longer than the words I just wrote.

I wanna guess what James Dean Bradfield will name it.

Hmmmm
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
Farage threatened to leave UKIP if Waters was elected. He warned that UKIP risks becoming a Nazi party if she was elected.

In other words, we don't mind you pandering to our cause, but since you're a lesbian feminist seeking leadership we're going to pretend that you're even too extreme for us.

Let me repeat that: Morrissey's preferred candidate was voted to be too extreme for UKIP. You can't make this shit up.

She probably thought that if she mimicked the boys they would let her be club leader, and instead she's doing laundry.

Bullshit.
He has never expressed his preference for her.
He just pointed out that the election was rigged. What a surprise.
Meaning that her voice and opinion is being blocked and that it is all the same with UKIP, Labour, Tories and LibDem.
All hypocrites cause in words they are all for freedom of speech.

He IS a very strong advocate for freedom of speech and he condemns all powers like political parties and media trying to shut voices down, because they express an opinion that they don't want to be heard or seen. Like a truly democratic person should agree with.

You might speculate on his political preferences but you don't know.
You don't even know what he voted, if he did vote at all.
He doesn't want to say and it is his right to do so. Like nobody has to say how he or she voted.

I can't understand why anybody would think she would endorse UKIP to become a Nazi party. She would be like the wolf in sheep clothes as a lesbian and a feminist and maybe that is what people are afraid of.
And if it was UKIP would even lose more than the last election.
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
Bullshit.
He has never expressed his preference for her.
He just pointed out that the election was rigged. What a surprise.
Meaning that her voice and opinion is being blocked and that it is all the same with UKIP, Labour, Tories and LibDem.
All hypocrites cause in words they are all for freedom of speech.

He IS a very strong advocate for freedom of speech and he condemns all powers like political parties and media trying to shut voices down, because they express an opinion that they don't want to be heard or seen. Like a truly democratic person should agree with.

You might speculate on his political preferences but you don't know.
You don't even know what he voted, if he did vote at all.
He doesn't want to say and it is his right to do so. Like nobody has to say how he or she voted.

I can't understand why anybody would think she would endorse UKIP to become a Nazi party. She would be like the wolf in sheep clothes as a lesbian and a feminist and maybe that is what people are afraid of.
And if it was UKIP would even lose more than the last election.

Indeed and when the audience was silent he said they didn't get it so whatever he meant is still up for debate I guess. I still claim he says things for the love of controversy.

Maybe he opens the papers every day in his posh hotels and wish to God his name is in a headline and goes "that is me, me, me".
 
J

John Green

Guest
She is everything he likes:
Brains, no beauty, Irish, lesbian, feminist, writer. They COULD be related.
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
She is everything he likes:
Brains, no beauty, Irish, lesbian, feminist, writer. They COULD be related.

You forget gay men don't take lesbians seriously, just ask any lesbian out there. It has been debated for ages that gay men are accepted within the gay community but that lesbian women are treated as if it's just a phase.

They rarely are allowed to take up leading positions even within the gay community. I think her being irish made Moz a fan although we've yet to get any sort of confirmation what his onstage statement means.
 

Cornflakes

"A bit iffy" ★★☆☆☆ - AV Club
Hi there,

After reading your last response to me and your responses to other people, I noticed some common elements. No matter what's presented to you, whether it's a readily available poll with copious information that treats the questions you're asking in great detail, whether it's being asked in various ways to support what you're stating (beyond expressing strong feelings), or evidence contrary to your feelings, it's somehow not enough. I recently found that there's a name for the sort of thing you're doing, and it's called sealioning. Here's a brief definition:

"Sealioning is not predicated upon any implicit understanding of public/private space, but upon the premise that the asker is "sincere" and therefore all resources possible *must* be immediately diverted to teaching them, immediately. The resources that they could, with minimal effort find, are not the issue. They demand attention - your attention. All of it. RIGHT NOW. And they have no intention of listening, because it's your job to make them understand. It is a specific form of harassment. You may not look away, or point them to a link. You must spend all your time and energy. This isn't a sincere attempt at anything. It's a calculated technique to grind an opponent down."

(via Quora; there are any number of definitions available online)

You may genuinely want to understand why opponents of "the religion of peace" believe what they do. I realize that may be a possibility. We cannot do all the work for you, however. We cannot read and consider polls and books and articles for you. We do not possess the indefinite amount of time necessary to explain explanations and then the explanations to the explanations. There is a burden on the person making positive claims. Following from the absence of evidence in favor of your claims: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Best,

S.

I've no real idea about "sealioning", but it probably has a counterpart where people make factual claims, then refuse to substantiate them and accuse anyone who objects of "sealioning".

So, in this case a poster makes a claim that Europe and North America are teeming with Muslim politicians, some of whom have been elected, openly campaigning to supplant Western law and replace it with Sharia. I have to say I have never heard of such a thing, so I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to ask for examples. If these people can't be named, have no voting record, have never set up any websites, have never had any press coverage that can be located, then how does the poster know they exist? Don't you agree that's a bit curious?
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
I've no real idea about "sealioning", but it probably has a counterpart where people make factual claims, then refuse to substantiate them and accuse anyone who objects of "sealioning".

So, in this case a poster makes a claim that Europe and North America are teeming with Muslim politicians, some of whom have been elected, openly campaigning to supplant Western law and replace it with Sharia. I have to say I have never heard of such a thing, so I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to ask for examples. If these people can't be named, have no voting record, have never set up any websites, had never had any press coverage that can be located, then how does the poster know they exist? Don't you agree that's a bit curious?

Dudette, re read what you posted. You just said 'where people make factual claims'; if you, yourself, say they are factual then there is no need for anyone else to substantiate them. You need to get your act together.
 

Sister I'm a Poet

If the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
Dudette, re read what you posted. You just said 'where people make factual claims'; if you, yourself, say they are factual then there is no need for anyone else to substantiate them. You need to get your act together.

In defense of the clear and articulate Cornflakes, while "factual" probably should have been in quotes, the meaning was clear. Or Cornflakes could have just said "alternative facts" a la your man Trump.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dudette, re read what you posted. You just said 'where people make factual claims'; if you, yourself, say they are factual then there is no need for anyone else to substantiate them. You need to get your act together.

A factual claim is a claim as to fact, not a claim that is true.

Similarly, a factual error is an error as to fact, not an error that is true.

If anyone has further questions, like why someone would eat at a restaurant if they have reservations, or whether mean numbers have many friends, please just holler.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Ok I believe you, but I guarantee you that 99% of the people "concerned" about Sharia law in the US don't otherwise give a f*** about women's rights or gay rights.

People concerned about sharia law are the only ones who really care about human rights in the world. You can not say you support human rights if you tolerate that kind of ideology and don't condemn it. This site is full of poseurs who critize Morrissey for his privacy in his sexual life, when at the same time they excuse based on religious freedom the mistreatment of women and homosexual people. Religion is just an excuse used by those beasts to justify the exploitation and abuse of other human beings. Wake up or assume your implication in the crimes.
 

Sister I'm a Poet

If the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
People concerned about sharia law are the only ones who really care about human rights in the world. You can not say you support human rights if you tolerate that kind of ideology and don't condemn it. This site is full of poseurs who critize Morrissey for his privacy in his sexual life, when at the same time they excuse based on religious freedom the mistreatment of women and homosexual people. Religion is just an excuse used by those beasts to justify the exploitation and abuse of other human beings. Wake up or assume your implication in the crimes.

I don't excuse any religious extremism that mistreats women or homosexuals, including Islam. My point is that the political right is faking concern for women's rights and gay rights (which they don't otherwise support) in order to justify anti-immigrant policies, religious scapegoating, and wars in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Shari law panic n the US is a based on exaggerations and flat-out falsehoods.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
I don't excuse any religious extremism that mistreats women or homosexuals, including Islam. My point is that the political right is faking concern for women's rights and gay rights (which they don't otherwise support) in order to justify anti-immigrant policies, religious scapegoating, and wars in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Shari law panic n the US is a based on exaggerations and flat-out falsehoods.

You say you don't excuse it, but...
Do you actually condemn sharia law? Or you just condemn other political views of people in your country that condemn it, and in doing so you forget to condemn sharia law?

Inmigration is a totally different social matter. Sagacity of sharia law supporters sells you the idea they are the same thing and you stupidly buys it. Well, they are not. You can support inmigration and condemn sharia law, because inmigration is a legal process and must be done respecting the constitutional or fundamental law of the receiver country. Human rights are the basis of western societies legislations, or they should be, at least since 1948.

Don't you feel enoughly dumb when you buy their contaminating petrol instead of using clean energy? Do you have to buy this shit too? Don't you understand they are clashing on purpose two western values to create great discomfort in your society?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't excuse any religious extremism that mistreats women or homosexuals, including Islam. My point is that the political right is faking concern for women's rights and gay rights (which they don't otherwise support) in order to justify anti-immigrant policies, religious scapegoating, and wars in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Shari law panic n the US is a based on exaggerations and flat-out falsehoods.

Yeah for sure.:crazy:
You dont excuse religious extremism unless said extremism IS CONDEMNED by the right. LOLLLL.
That makes perfect LEFTY sense.:mock:
 
Tags
for britain

Trending Threads

Top Bottom