Call Me Dave

Page 8 of 11 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Hoof Hearted 22 Sep 15 10.42am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Sep 2015 10.34am Quote npn at 22 Sep 2015 10.25am Is it coincidence that this came out so soon after the Corbyn/Abbott thing? Or is it some sort of competition over who's best experienced at pig-shagging? Arguably even if the current Prime Minister shagged a pig on live TV, he certainly could out do 'pulling an Abbot'. Reminds me of this joke.... A bloke is driving happily along in his car with his girlfriend when he is pulled over by the Police. The police officer approaches him and asks: "Have you been drinking Sir?" "Why?" asks the man, "Was I all over the road?" "No" replies the Officer, "You were driving splendidly.... It was the fat ugly fcuking pig of a woman in the passenger seat that made me suspicious." Or this classic ..... A man walks into his house with a duck under his arm and says "This the pig I've been fcuking!" His wife says "That's a duck darling!" He says "I was talking to the duck!" Edited by Hoof Hearted (22 Sep 2015 10.55am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Sep 15 10.42am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Sep 2015 10.34am

Quote npn at 22 Sep 2015 10.25am

Is it coincidence that this came out so soon after the Corbyn/Abbott thing? Or is it some sort of competition over who's best experienced at pig-shagging?

Arguably even if the current Prime Minister shagged a pig on live TV, he certainly could out do 'pulling an Abbot'.

Reminds me of this joke....

A bloke is driving happily along in his car with his girlfriend when he is pulled over by the Police.

The police officer approaches him and asks: "Have you been drinking Sir?"

"Why?" asks the man, "Was I all over the road?"

"No" replies the Officer, "You were driving splendidly.... It was the fat ugly fcuking pig of a woman in the passenger seat that made me suspicious."

Or this classic .....

A man walks into his house with a duck under his arm and says "This the pig I've been fcuking!"
His wife says "That's a duck darling!"
He says "I was talking to the duck!"

Edited by Hoof Hearted (22 Sep 2015 10.55am)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Sep 15 10.43am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 9.53am The voting public are more concerned about Corbyn's credentials, decision making and statesmanship. The fact that he chooses to be seen in shorts/socks and not sing the national anthem rather endorses this view of him. Bears the same relationship to statesmanship, decision making and creditionals, as putting your tackle into a dead pigs mouth to impress your mates, or smoking weed and doing lines of coke and refusing to answer questions on it when asked directly. The mistake is to assume that anything in the media about 'credibility' is actually of any value. I don't like Cameron, but I wouldn't dismiss his credentials, decision making ability or statesmanship. I just don't agree with his governments policy. It would be absurd to think anyone who's forged a career in politics to the point of becoming leader of a political party lacks any of those attributes for facile reasons. Its childish to reduce 'who you'd vote for' to superficial reasons, or for what they did in their youth or past, or decisions that are outside of the sphere of government. We should vote based on manifesto, policy and commitments made, not whether you agree with someones personal view, dress code, personal values. I'd respect someone who stood for something they believed in far more than someone who would go along with the crowd just to fit in. NB this isn't actually aimed at you specifically, but society in general. Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 Sep 2015 10.44am) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Sep 15 10.43am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 9.53am
The voting public are more concerned about Corbyn's credentials, decision making and statesmanship. The fact that he chooses to be seen in shorts/socks and not sing the national anthem rather endorses this view of him.

Bears the same relationship to statesmanship, decision making and creditionals, as putting your tackle into a dead pigs mouth to impress your mates, or smoking weed and doing lines of coke and refusing to answer questions on it when asked directly.

The mistake is to assume that anything in the media about 'credibility' is actually of any value. I don't like Cameron, but I wouldn't dismiss his credentials, decision making ability or statesmanship. I just don't agree with his governments policy.

It would be absurd to think anyone who's forged a career in politics to the point of becoming leader of a political party lacks any of those attributes for facile reasons.

Its childish to reduce 'who you'd vote for' to superficial reasons, or for what they did in their youth or past, or decisions that are outside of the sphere of government.

We should vote based on manifesto, policy and commitments made, not whether you agree with someones personal view, dress code, personal values. I'd respect someone who stood for something they believed in far more than someone who would go along with the crowd just to fit in.

NB this isn't actually aimed at you specifically, but society in general.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 Sep 2015 10.44am)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

topcat Holmesdale / Surbiton 22 Sep 15 10.44am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 9.53am Quote nickgusset at 21 Sep 2015 8.57pm Beyond the porcine accusations, there's alsoi the issue that Dave lied about knowing about Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status... In the preface to his book Ashcroft asserts he discussed his tax status with Cameron in 2009 in detail. He writes Cameron was “fully aware of of my status as a so-called non dom. Indeed we had a conversation about how we could delay revealing my tax arrangements until after the election”. But in March 2010 when Ashcroft’s tax status was revealed ahead of a freedom of information disclosure, Cameron claimed to have known about it for only for a month. A non-dom does not have to pay tax on overseas earnings in the UK, and Ashcroft had promised William Hague in 2000 as part of his receipt of a peerage that he would take up “permanent residence in the UK”. [Link] Cameron is a slippery cund of the highest order, some of us have known this for years. When are the Tory apologists on here going to wake up and smell the coffee. The bloke is (and always has been) a wrong 'un. Still as long as Corbyn wears shorts with socks, there will be more than enough to deflect the publics attention from this. You don't get it nick.... we don't give a fcuk what Cameron/Osborne/Boris did when they were young lads letting off steam. What we do care about is having someone at the helm with a bit of economical/tactical nouse and not in bed with our enemies. This latest social media campaign to get Corbyn elected to Labour leader and bad mouth Cameron is only getting lefty types frothy at the mouth. Meanwhile "The Tory Cunds" get on with getting things done. None of this stuff will be "news" in a few weeks, let alone in 2020. The voting public are more concerned about Corbyn's credentials, decision making and statesmanship. The fact that he chooses to be seen in shorts/socks and not sing the national anthem rather endorses this view of him. Hoof, Nick's post was nothing to do with Cameron's alleged pick fecking but about how Ashcroft claims that Cameron lied to parliament about when he know about his non-dom status. And, that Ashcroft appears to be saying that he gave the Tories £8 million with the promise of a position in office. It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Alert a moderator to this post

topcat

Holmesdale / Surbiton 22 Sep 15 10.44am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 9.53am

Quote nickgusset at 21 Sep 2015 8.57pm

Beyond the porcine accusations, there's alsoi the issue that Dave lied about knowing about Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status...

In the preface to his book Ashcroft asserts he discussed his tax status with Cameron in 2009 in detail. He writes Cameron was “fully aware of of my status as a so-called non dom. Indeed we had a conversation about how we could delay revealing my tax arrangements until after the election”.

But in March 2010 when Ashcroft’s tax status was revealed ahead of a freedom of information disclosure, Cameron claimed to have known about it for only for a month. A non-dom does not have to pay tax on overseas earnings in the UK, and Ashcroft had promised William Hague in 2000 as part of his receipt of a peerage that he would take up “permanent residence in the UK”.

[Link]

Cameron is a slippery cund of the highest order, some of us have known this for years.
When are the Tory apologists on here going to wake up and smell the coffee. The bloke is (and always has been) a wrong 'un.

Still as long as Corbyn wears shorts with socks, there will be more than enough to deflect the publics attention from this.

You don't get it nick.... we don't give a fcuk what Cameron/Osborne/Boris did when they were young lads letting off steam.

What we do care about is having someone at the helm with a bit of economical/tactical nouse and not in bed with our enemies.

This latest social media campaign to get Corbyn elected to Labour leader and bad mouth Cameron is only getting lefty types frothy at the mouth.

Meanwhile "The Tory Cunds" get on with getting things done.

None of this stuff will be "news" in a few weeks, let alone in 2020.

The voting public are more concerned about Corbyn's credentials, decision making and statesmanship. The fact that he chooses to be seen in shorts/socks and not sing the national anthem rather endorses this view of him.

Hoof, Nick's post was nothing to do with Cameron's alleged pick fecking but about how Ashcroft claims that Cameron lied to parliament about when he know about his non-dom status. And, that Ashcroft appears to be saying that he gave the Tories £8 million with the promise of a position in office.

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Sep 15 10.57am
Quote topcat at 22 Sep 2015 10.44am Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 9.53am Quote nickgusset at 21 Sep 2015 8.57pm Beyond the porcine accusations, there's alsoi the issue that Dave lied about knowing about Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status... In the preface to his book Ashcroft asserts he discussed his tax status with Cameron in 2009 in detail. He writes Cameron was “fully aware of of my status as a so-called non dom. Indeed we had a conversation about how we could delay revealing my tax arrangements until after the election”. But in March 2010 when Ashcroft’s tax status was revealed ahead of a freedom of information disclosure, Cameron claimed to have known about it for only for a month. A non-dom does not have to pay tax on overseas earnings in the UK, and Ashcroft had promised William Hague in 2000 as part of his receipt of a peerage that he would take up “permanent residence in the UK”. [Link] Cameron is a slippery cund of the highest order, some of us have known this for years. When are the Tory apologists on here going to wake up and smell the coffee. The bloke is (and always has been) a wrong 'un. Still as long as Corbyn wears shorts with socks, there will be more than enough to deflect the publics attention from this. You don't get it nick.... we don't give a fcuk what Cameron/Osborne/Boris did when they were young lads letting off steam. What we do care about is having someone at the helm with a bit of economical/tactical nouse and not in bed with our enemies. This latest social media campaign to get Corbyn elected to Labour leader and bad mouth Cameron is only getting lefty types frothy at the mouth. Meanwhile "The Tory Cunds" get on with getting things done. None of this stuff will be "news" in a few weeks, let alone in 2020. The voting public are more concerned about Corbyn's credentials, decision making and statesmanship. The fact that he chooses to be seen in shorts/socks and not sing the national anthem rather endorses this view of him. Hoof, Nick's post was nothing to do with Cameron's alleged pick fecking but about how Ashcroft claims that Cameron lied to parliament about when he know about his non-dom status. And, that Ashcroft appears to be saying that he gave the Tories £8 million with the promise of a position in office. I was merely addressing his last paragraph topcat.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Sep 15 10.57am

Quote topcat at 22 Sep 2015 10.44am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 9.53am

Quote nickgusset at 21 Sep 2015 8.57pm

Beyond the porcine accusations, there's alsoi the issue that Dave lied about knowing about Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status...

[Link]

Still as long as Corbyn wears shorts with socks, there will be more than enough to deflect the publics attention from this.

You don't get it nick.... we don't give a fcuk what Cameron/Osborne/Boris did when they were young lads letting off steam.

What we do care about is having someone at the helm with a bit of economical/tactical nouse and not in bed with our enemies.

This latest social media campaign to get Corbyn elected to Labour leader and bad mouth Cameron is only getting lefty types frothy at the mouth.

Meanwhile "The Tory Cunds" get on with getting things done.

None of this stuff will be "news" in a few weeks, let alone in 2020.

I was merely addressing his last paragraph topcat.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Sep 15 11.05am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Sep 2015 10.43am Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 9.53am The voting public are more concerned about Corbyn's credentials, decision making and statesmanship. The fact that he chooses to be seen in shorts/socks and not sing the national anthem rather endorses this view of him. Bears the same relationship to statesmanship, decision making and creditionals, as putting your tackle into a dead pigs mouth to impress your mates, or smoking weed and doing lines of coke and refusing to answer questions on it when asked directly. The mistake is to assume that anything in the media about 'credibility' is actually of any value. I don't like Cameron, but I wouldn't dismiss his credentials, decision making ability or statesmanship. I just don't agree with his governments policy. It would be absurd to think anyone who's forged a career in politics to the point of becoming leader of a political party lacks any of those attributes for facile reasons. Its childish to reduce 'who you'd vote for' to superficial reasons, or for what they did in their youth or past, or decisions that are outside of the sphere of government. We should vote based on manifesto, policy and commitments made, not whether you agree with someones personal view, dress code, personal values. I'd respect someone who stood for something they believed in far more than someone who would go along with the crowd just to fit in. NB this isn't actually aimed at you specifically, but society in general. Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 Sep 2015 10.44am) The trouble is Jamie that the majority of people do put a lot of stock on how someone appears in general rather than drilling down to the substance. It happens in the office, the pub etc..... that's why people put suits on when appearing in court... if they turned up in jeans and a ripped T shirt the judge would take an instant dislike. I don't think Corbyn has just a dowdy image to contend with. His previous associations with terrorist groups worry me more than his dress code or choice of sexual partners in the past.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Sep 15 11.05am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Sep 2015 10.43am

It would be absurd to think anyone who's forged a career in politics to the point of becoming leader of a political party lacks any of those attributes for facile reasons.

Its childish to reduce 'who you'd vote for' to superficial reasons, or for what they did in their youth or past, or decisions that are outside of the sphere of government.

NB this isn't actually aimed at you specifically, but society in general.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 Sep 2015 10.44am)

The trouble is Jamie that the majority of people do put a lot of stock on how someone appears in general rather than drilling down to the substance. It happens in the office, the pub etc..... that's why people put suits on when appearing in court... if they turned up in jeans and a ripped T shirt the judge would take an instant dislike.

I don't think Corbyn has just a dowdy image to contend with. His previous associations with terrorist groups worry me more than his dress code or choice of sexual partners in the past.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 22 Sep 15 11.31am
Always wondered why our dear friends and likeminds the US allowed Noraid to fund the IRA from their shores. That association with that particular terrorist group was far more damaging than some North London socialist lobbying for a united Ireland and talking the the terrorists/soldiers/freedom fighters/thugs. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 22 Sep 15 11.31am

Always wondered why our dear friends and likeminds the US allowed Noraid to fund the IRA from their shores. That association with that particular terrorist group was far more damaging than some North London socialist lobbying for a united Ireland and talking the the terrorists/soldiers/freedom fighters/thugs.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Sep 15 11.48am
Quote Kermit8 at 22 Sep 2015 11.31am Always wondered why our dear friends and likeminds the US allowed Noraid to fund the IRA from their shores. That association with that particular terrorist group was far more damaging than some North London socialist lobbying for a united Ireland and talking the the terrorists/soldiers/freedom fighters/thugs. The US soon changed their tune when they had their first unpleasant taste of bombing Kermy.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Sep 15 11.48am

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Sep 2015 11.31am

The US soon changed their tune when they had their first unpleasant taste of bombing Kermy.

Alert a moderator to this post

We are goin up! Coulsdon 22 Sep 15 12.20pm
Long and short of it is that this won't damage Cameron very much at all. The general election result suggests the public know the following already: 1) Cameron is posh 2) Cameron probably did stuff at uni that was lurid and probably made him a bit of a tw*t 3) He's pretty good at being Prime Minister The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Alert a moderator to this post

We are goin up!

Coulsdon 22 Sep 15 12.20pm

Send a Private Message to We are goin up!

Long and short of it is that this won't damage Cameron very much at all. The general election result suggests the public know the following already:

1) Cameron is posh
2) Cameron probably did stuff at uni that was lurid and probably made him a bit of a tw*t
3) He's pretty good at being Prime Minister

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 22 Sep 15 12.42pm
Quote radsyrendot at 21 Sep 2015 6.04pm Dave Dangerous Dave.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 22 Sep 15 12.42pm

Quote radsyrendot at 21 Sep 2015 6.04pm

Dave

Dangerous Dave.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Sep 15 12.47pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 11.05am Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Sep 2015 10.43am Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 9.53am The voting public are more concerned about Corbyn's credentials, decision making and statesmanship. The fact that he chooses to be seen in shorts/socks and not sing the national anthem rather endorses this view of him. Bears the same relationship to statesmanship, decision making and creditionals, as putting your tackle into a dead pigs mouth to impress your mates, or smoking weed and doing lines of coke and refusing to answer questions on it when asked directly. The mistake is to assume that anything in the media about 'credibility' is actually of any value. I don't like Cameron, but I wouldn't dismiss his credentials, decision making ability or statesmanship. I just don't agree with his governments policy. It would be absurd to think anyone who's forged a career in politics to the point of becoming leader of a political party lacks any of those attributes for facile reasons. Its childish to reduce 'who you'd vote for' to superficial reasons, or for what they did in their youth or past, or decisions that are outside of the sphere of government. We should vote based on manifesto, policy and commitments made, not whether you agree with someones personal view, dress code, personal values. I'd respect someone who stood for something they believed in far more than someone who would go along with the crowd just to fit in. NB this isn't actually aimed at you specifically, but society in general. Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 Sep 2015 10.44am) The trouble is Jamie that the majority of people do put a lot of stock on how someone appears in general rather than drilling down to the substance. It happens in the office, the pub etc..... that's why people put suits on when appearing in court... if they turned up in jeans and a ripped T shirt the judge would take an instant dislike. I don't think Corbyn has just a dowdy image to contend with. His previous associations with terrorist groups worry me more than his dress code or choice of sexual partners in the past. Yeah, but you'd never actually vote Labour anyhow. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Sep 15 12.47pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Sep 2015 11.05am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Sep 2015 10.43am

It would be absurd to think anyone who's forged a career in politics to the point of becoming leader of a political party lacks any of those attributes for facile reasons.

Its childish to reduce 'who you'd vote for' to superficial reasons, or for what they did in their youth or past, or decisions that are outside of the sphere of government.

NB this isn't actually aimed at you specifically, but society in general.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 Sep 2015 10.44am)

I don't think Corbyn has just a dowdy image to contend with. His previous associations with terrorist groups worry me more than his dress code or choice of sexual partners in the past.

Yeah, but you'd never actually vote Labour anyhow.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Frickin Saweet South Cronx 22 Sep 15 2.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Sep 2015 9.28am Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 21 Sep 2015 8.10pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Sep 2015 9.55am Quote Hoof Hearted at 21 Sep 2015 8.39am Quote serial thriller at 21 Sep 2015 8.32am Well that's this week's PMQs sorted. I'm writing an email to Corbyn with the following question for Dave. "Dead pigs: spit or swallow?" Corbyn was most likely doing much harder drugs in the 70's, probably snorting charlie off Dianne Abott's arse and doing LSD. If he's got any sense he'll steer well clear of this for fear of his own indiscretions being made public. The idea that LSD is in anyway a hard drug is certifiable... Plus Lefties doing coke in the 70s and 80s, not a chance, it'd be speed all the way. That said anyone who could see Diana Abbots backside whilst tripping and hold it togeather, is a man you want at the helm in any terrible situation..... Have you ever taken it ? Yes, quite often. Absolutely love LSD and psychedelics. Probably not everyone's cup of tea but definitely my kind of drug. Never really had a problem with it (its not addictive, its impossible to overdose on and its not suitable for redosing either as tolerance to the drug rises very quickly). Plus you kind of grow out of it after a while. Then fall back in love with it. Never had a 'bad trip' and probably taken hundreds of tabs between the age of 18 and 29. You might like Hawaiian Baby Woodrose Seeds then. I recommend them. Highly effective, damn good value for money and legal (I think).
Alert a moderator to this post

Frickin Saweet

South Cronx 22 Sep 15 2.50pm

Send a Private Message to Frickin Saweet

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Sep 2015 9.28am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 21 Sep 2015 8.10pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Sep 2015 9.55am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 21 Sep 2015 8.39am

Quote serial thriller at 21 Sep 2015 8.32am

Well that's this week's PMQs sorted.

I'm writing an email to Corbyn with the following question for Dave. "Dead pigs: spit or swallow?"

Corbyn was most likely doing much harder drugs in the 70's, probably snorting charlie off Dianne Abott's arse and doing LSD.

If he's got any sense he'll steer well clear of this for fear of his own indiscretions being made public.

The idea that LSD is in anyway a hard drug is certifiable... Plus Lefties doing coke in the 70s and 80s, not a chance, it'd be speed all the way.

That said anyone who could see Diana Abbots backside whilst tripping and hold it togeather, is a man you want at the helm in any terrible situation.....

Have you ever taken it ?

Yes, quite often. Absolutely love LSD and psychedelics. Probably not everyone's cup of tea but definitely my kind of drug. Never really had a problem with it (its not addictive, its impossible to overdose on and its not suitable for redosing either as tolerance to the drug rises very quickly).

Plus you kind of grow out of it after a while. Then fall back in love with it. Never had a 'bad trip' and probably taken hundreds of tabs between the age of 18 and 29.

You might like Hawaiian Baby Woodrose Seeds then. I recommend them. Highly effective, damn good value for money and legal (I think).

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Sep 15 3.03pm
Quote Frickin Saweet at 22 Sep 2015 2.50pm You might like Hawaiian Baby Woodrose Seeds then. I recommend them. Highly effective, damn good value for money and legal (I think). Quite nice, they contain LSA, or egotamine, which is a precursor for LSD - Basically they're the same as 'Morning Glory' seeds, which also contain LSA, if I remember rightly. Very visual but they take forever to kick in. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Sep 15 3.03pm

Quote Frickin Saweet at 22 Sep 2015 2.50pm

You might like Hawaiian Baby Woodrose Seeds then. I recommend them. Highly effective, damn good value for money and legal (I think).

Quite nice, they contain LSA, or egotamine, which is a precursor for LSD - Basically they're the same as 'Morning Glory' seeds, which also contain LSA, if I remember rightly. Very visual but they take forever to kick in.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 11 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Call Me Dave

Site Map

Sponsors