Elon Musk buys Twitter

[-:Undertaker:-]

A) If one criminal is not jailed for any reason, it does not mean every other criminal should be able to walk free. Tony Blair is not in jail. Does this mean we should release every other murderer? The 45th POTUS is a crackpot who still denies the result of every election he loses.

Sir Tony Blair, as much as I dislike him, is not a criminal. It's babytalk politics to pretend that he is.

[Seatherny]

Sir Tony Blair, as much as I like him, is not a criminal. It's babytalk politics to pretend that he is.

Oh yeah, if I order someone to murder you because I think you are hiding weapons when in fact I just want your laptop and money, I am not a criminal.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh yeah, if I order someone to murder you because I think you are hiding weapons when in fact I just want your laptop and money, I am not a criminal.

What laws did Sir Tony Blair break?

I was as much against the Iraq war as you were, but no laws were broken and the war was legal.

[Seatherny]

What laws did Sir Tony Blair break?

I was as much against the Iraq war as you were, but no laws were broken and the war was legal.

Lying to parliament for oil and money? A lie which ruined a whole country? A lie which killed hundreds, if not millions of people?

Legal in your eyes, a terrorist attack in other peoples eyes. Say the war was legal to the millions of innocent people who lost loved ones. Shameful. UK and USA are nothing but modern day terrorists. Both countries love to create wars so we can sell weapons and make billions. It's all about money and you are just blind.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lying to parliament for oil and money? A lie which ruined a whole country? A lie which killed hundreds, if not millions of people?

Legal in your eyes, a terrorist attack in other peoples eyes. Say the war was legal to the millions of innocent people who lost loved ones. Shameful. UK and USA are nothing but modern day terrorists. Both countries love to create wars so we can sell weapons and make billions. It's all about money and you are just blind.

Well no, it was legal in the eyes of the law even if you and I may have disagreed with the premise of the war.

The Sovereign has the power to declare war, as an exercise of the royal prerogative, without the approval of Parliament. Before or after the start of previous wars, there had normally been debate in Parliament; however for the first time a vote was held, allowing Parliament to signify its position in regards to a declaration of war even though it was, "purely symbolic" and "not binding on the government". The debate was held on 18 March 2003, and lasted from midday to 10 pm, at which time the two Parliamentary votes were held.

The Labour and Conservative parties were both committed to approving the invasion, but a quarter of Labour MPs voted against the invasion. The Liberal Democrats, who had one in twelve of the MPs in parliament, also opposed the invasion.

If the vote had been lost, many Labour ministers would have resigned, including the Prime Minister Tony Blair, who suggested in his speech that he would resign if the vote was not passed.

By 412 votes out of a possible 650, with just 149 disapproving in a de facto Confidence Vote, Parliament made clear it approved of military action.

Even without Parliament signalling its approval on the matter, the war still would have been legal as war is a power of the Crown exercised by the PM.

[Seatherny]

Well no, it was legal in the eyes of the law even if you and I may have disagreed with the premise of the war.



By 412 votes out of a possible 650, with just 149 disapproving in a de facto Confidence Vote, Parliament made clear it approved of military action.

Even without Parliament signalling its approval on the matter, the war still would have been legal as war is a power of the Crown exercised by the PM.

lol, delusional for sure.

[LUCPIX]

K, be it for its meme value or a sealed contracted that is gonna last for a long time, there's a whole lotta people exploiting the "twitter is dead" fling by creating new accounts at KOO, Twitter's newish Indian clone. It's all commencing with a mindless but fun Brazilian user raid of sorts...


We are particularly benefiting ourselves (in a humorous bias) from it, specially 'cause KOO reads in the same way as our particular slang for... "*******". Now no-one can get their minds off of it.

[dbgtz]

You're telling me that if I rightly call someone a man who is a man but who pretends to be a woman, that that isn't freedom of speech but harassment?

you seem to be misunderstanding or ignoring the "repeatedly targeting" part

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...rmation-policy

I don't want the URL I want you to quote where in that page it says you get banned for criticising mask use and lockdowns.

Where have I stated that I support the Ukraine being invaded by Russia?

You know, it's possible to hold two beliefs at the same time - that Russia invading is bad, and that the Ukrainian government is corrupt/dodgy.

Because you defend a man who has basically blamed Ukraine, and you yourself have just effectively blamed Ukraine. It's entirely irrelevant to the invasion. And at the end of the day, your initial point was that Galloway was, and I believe the word was, "smeared" because he was marked as working for Russian government-owned media, which at the very least was true.

I've always supported Twitter's right to ban anyone - I'm just happy that now the shoe is in the other foot.

It's not really on the other foot it's just at risk of becoming a cesspit like 4chan

But Twitter already allows racism - so long as it is directed against white people. Just look at Dr Shola and Diane Abbott being given free rein.

Where is evidence of this? Have you ever tried reporting it?