|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 1:26:54 GMT
Exactly. And in any case the USA is very right wing compared to the UK, I would suggest even the Democrats in the USA are to the right of the Conservatives here.This from William F. Buckley on American conservatives gets to the essence of what American conservatives are about and where this idea comes from: Among our convictions: It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. Think small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise with a strong military. It feels like that's purely because The Conservatives are squatting on New Labour's centre ground. Cameron aspires to be Tony Blair. It's that simple. Really? In a careerist, media-savvy way, maybe, politically this is not a central-ground government by any stretch of my imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 2:20:37 GMT
It feels like that's purely because The Conservatives are squatting on New Labour's centre ground. Cameron aspires to be Tony Blair. It's that simple. Really? In a careerist, media-savvy way, maybe, politically this is not a central-ground government by any stretch of my imagination. most well regarded political commentators would more than likely disagree with you then Humphrey. Why do you think that most of Labour's Blairites voted with the government on Syria? It's not because they are right wingers. There are lots of issues with the Tories that are deeply unpleasant an indecent. However, being hard to the right is not one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 2:23:41 GMT
Really? In a careerist, media-savvy way, maybe, politically this is not a central-ground government by any stretch of my imagination. most well regarded political commentators would more than likely disagree with you then Humphrey. Why do you think that most of Labour's Blairites voted with the government on Syria? It's not because they are right wingers. There are lots of issues with the Tories that are deeply unpleasant an indecent. However, being hard to the right is not one of them. Because Labour Blairites are right of centre. That last sentence is quite contradictory as pretty much all of their indecent policies are of a hard right nature. |
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 2:34:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 2:38:04 GMT
I am more worried by Tory lies and dark spin than their actual policies per se. And I am concerned about these policies. There are bad things that are happening within democracy itself that transcend the traditional political compass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 10:28:23 GMT
I don't really see Bush as a viable candidate at this stage, although things can change quickly. It's been noticeable that Cruz and Trump have kept each other at arms length and neither have made any real attacks against each other. Cruz is the only Republican candidate that has not criticized Trump's proposal for a block on all Muslim immigrants, and he's also the only candidate that hasn't fallen into Trump's cross hairs for outright attack. He's also second in the polls to Trump, and I think that's by design. It's apparent that they have agreed to steer clear of attacking each other, and I think that makes Cruz the most likely for the Republican nomination should Trump stand down.....with Trump giving Cruz his blessing, and having the majority of his deciples fall in line to give Cruz the support he needs for a run at office. The other scenario is that Trump jumps ship from the Republican Party if he does not secure the nomination, and then runs as an independent. This is the nightmare scenario for the traditional Republican leadership, because most polls show that a massive section of Trump's support would follow him and support his Independant run. With the base support he's amaased, this would split the conservative vote and likely pave the way for a comprehensive democratic victory. Ultimately, I think Hilary is nailed-on to become President. You mentioned Sanders, and as much as I admire his vision, there's just no way he's going to get the masses to follow him. As you said, even the Democrats in the States have a conservative outlook when it comes to the economy and foreign policy issues, and Sanders will be viewed as too far to the left to secure the popular vote. Giid guy, but just can't see him standing a chance to be honest. He is the US equivalent of Corbyn but with principals that do not include supporting terrorist organisations. It simply defies belief how you can be so wrong so often. I can understand why people don't like Corbyn's views and that's fair enough but he has never supported terrorist organisations. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 10, 2015 10:40:42 GMT
He is the US equivalent of Corbyn but with principals that do not include supporting terrorist organisations. It simply defies belief how you can be so wrong so often. I can understand why people don't like Corbyn's views and that's fair enough but he has never supported terrorist organisations. Corbyn's history of protest gives folk plenty of ammunition to throw at him. Him and Ken Livingstone have a long history with the IRA that is easily portrayed as showing support to terrorists. Here's a recent article doing just that - When Jeremy met Gerry. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 11:03:00 GMT
It simply defies belief how you can be so wrong so often. I can understand why people don't like Corbyn's views and that's fair enough but he has never supported terrorist organisations. Corbyn's history of protest gives folk plenty of ammunition to throw at him. Him and Ken Livingstone have a long history with the IRA that is easily portrayed as showing support to terrorists. Here's a recent article doing just that - When Jeremy met Gerry. You're right it is easy to portray as showing support for terrorists if you're looking to try and discredit him, but he's made his stance clear that he believes dialogue is an important requirement when trying to broker peace which is perfectly understandable. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 10, 2015 11:09:20 GMT
Corbyn's history of protest gives folk plenty of ammunition to throw at him. Him and Ken Livingstone have a long history with the IRA that is easily portrayed as showing support to terrorists. Here's a recent article doing just that - When Jeremy met Gerry. You're right it is easy to portray as showing support for terrorists if you're looking to try and discredit him, but he's made his stance clear that he believes dialogue is an important requirement when trying to broker peace which is perfectly understandable. He did more than that though - he took sides. I don't recall him standing alongside Ian Paisley for example. It's the sort of simplistic populist approach you can take as a back bench maverick. He's obviously now trying to present it as something wholesome, something different to what it really was, something that doesn't look so bad now he is leader. But it is what it is; juvenile, naive, student protest politics. And he's going to get it thrown at him all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 11:53:38 GMT
You're right it is easy to portray as showing support for terrorists if you're looking to try and discredit him, but he's made his stance clear that he believes dialogue is an important requirement when trying to broker peace which is perfectly understandable. He did more than that though - he took sides. I don't recall him standing alongside Ian Paisley for example. It's the sort of simplistic populist approach you can take as a back bench maverick. He's obviously now trying to present it as something wholesome, something different to what it really was, something that doesn't look so bad now he is leader. But it is what it is; juvenile, naive, student protest politics. And he's going to get it thrown at him all the time. Meeting with Gerry Adams doesn't prove that he took sides. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.htmlThis Telegraph article outlines the links between Corbyn and McDonnell (largely focussing on McDonnell) and the IRA, I think it's pretty telling that the first thing the article says is; 'Telegraph investigation shows Labour's new leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell have long been associated with the Irish terror group ' The author of the article is trying his hardest to infer that Corbyn supported the IRA but he can't actually prove it, hence why he has to write about 'association' rather than 'support'. The closest he gets in the case of Corbyn is support by proxy because he was general secratary of the editorial board of a left wing paper which published an article supporting the Brighton bombing. Which is very tenuous in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 10, 2015 12:57:54 GMT
He did more than that though - he took sides. I don't recall him standing alongside Ian Paisley for example. It's the sort of simplistic populist approach you can take as a back bench maverick. He's obviously now trying to present it as something wholesome, something different to what it really was, something that doesn't look so bad now he is leader. But it is what it is; juvenile, naive, student protest politics. And he's going to get it thrown at him all the time. Meeting with Gerry Adams doesn't prove that he took sides. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.htmlThis Telegraph article outlines the links between Corbyn and McDonnell (largely focussing on McDonnell) and the IRA, I think it's pretty telling that the first thing the article says is; 'Telegraph investigation shows Labour's new leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell have long been associated with the Irish terror group ' The author of the article is trying his hardest to infer that Corbyn supported the IRA but he can't actually prove it, hence why he has to write about 'association' rather than 'support'. The closest he gets in the case of Corbyn is support by proxy because he was general secratary of the editorial board of a left wing paper which published an article supporting the Brighton bombing. Which is very tenuous in my opinion. Oh come on - Corbyn had plenty of contact with Sinn Fein / IRA for a long time. He had no contact with the DUP. If that ain't picking sides in a bipolar conflict I don't know what is. His explanation for this is wholly unconvincing - it's all very well saying you want to establish a dialogue and you condem all acts of violence, but his actions and words don't stand up. The dialogue I've covered - you have to talk equally with both sides, he didn't. Likewise by condemning all acts of violence he refuses to differentiate between what were clearly military operations and what were simply evil terrorist acts like the Warrington bombings. Corbyn's position was classic lefty anti-establishment posturing. That's why he was part of the stunt with Ken Livingstone in inviting Sinn Fein to Westminster in the wake of the Brighton bombing in 1984. He's got loads of baggage in this area. And it ain't honourable baggage. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 13:33:16 GMT
Meeting with Gerry Adams doesn't prove that he took sides. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.htmlThis Telegraph article outlines the links between Corbyn and McDonnell (largely focussing on McDonnell) and the IRA, I think it's pretty telling that the first thing the article says is; 'Telegraph investigation shows Labour's new leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell have long been associated with the Irish terror group ' The author of the article is trying his hardest to infer that Corbyn supported the IRA but he can't actually prove it, hence why he has to write about 'association' rather than 'support'. The closest he gets in the case of Corbyn is support by proxy because he was general secratary of the editorial board of a left wing paper which published an article supporting the Brighton bombing. Which is very tenuous in my opinion. Oh come on - Corbyn had plenty of contact with Sinn Fein / IRA for a long time. He had no contact with the DUP. If that ain't picking sides in a bipolar conflict I don't know what is. His explanation for this is wholly unconvincing - it's all very well saying you want to establish a dialogue and you condem all acts of violence, but his actions and words don't stand up. The dialogue I've covered - you have to talk equally with both sides, he didn't. Likewise by condemning all acts of violence he refuses to differentiate between what were clearly military operations and what were simply evil terrorist acts like the Warrington bombings. Corbyn's position was classic lefty anti-establishment posturing. That's why he was part of the stunt with Ken Livingstone in inviting Sinn Fein to Westminster in the wake of the Brighton bombing in 1984. He's got loads of baggage in this area. And it ain't honourable baggage. I think you're a decent poster and I respect your opinion, but I struggle to see how you've managed to come to the conclusion that Corbyn took sides when he's a very principled and outspoken person who doesn't seem to have ever had a problem saying what he thinks, and yet there is nothing on record to even remotely evidence that he verbalised or wrote any support for the IRA. Like I've said previously it's pretty telling that the closest the article I linked gets in trying to prove Corbyn supported the IRA, is via proxy to an article written by somebody else, because he was associated with the paper that published it which is very tenuous. If there is any evidence I'm happy to be proved wrong but your opinion appears to be based on conjecture. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 14:19:21 GMT
Oh come on - Corbyn had plenty of contact with Sinn Fein / IRA for a long time. He had no contact with the DUP. If that ain't picking sides in a bipolar conflict I don't know what is. His explanation for this is wholly unconvincing - it's all very well saying you want to establish a dialogue and you condem all acts of violence, but his actions and words don't stand up. The dialogue I've covered - you have to talk equally with both sides, he didn't. Likewise by condemning all acts of violence he refuses to differentiate between what were clearly military operations and what were simply evil terrorist acts like the Warrington bombings. Corbyn's position was classic lefty anti-establishment posturing. That's why he was part of the stunt with Ken Livingstone in inviting Sinn Fein to Westminster in the wake of the Brighton bombing in 1984. He's got loads of baggage in this area. And it ain't honourable baggage. I think you're a decent poster and I respect your opinion, but I struggle to see how you've managed to come to the conclusion that Corbyn took sides when he's a very principled and outspoken person who doesn't seem to have ever had a problem saying what he thinks, and yet there is nothing on record to even remotely evidence that he verbalised or wrote any support for the IRA. Like I've said previously it's pretty telling that the closest the article I linked gets in trying to prove Corbyn supported the IRA, is via proxy to an article written by somebody else, because he was associated with the paper that published it which is very tenuous. If there is any evidence I'm happy to be proved wrong but your opinion appears to be based on conjecture. He invited Gerry Adams to tea at the house of commons 3 weeks after the Brighton bombing, Adams and McGuiness for all airbrushing of the Good Friday agreement are stone cold killers. www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/18/john-mcdonnell-apologises-for-ira-comment-labourwww.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11787955/Jeremy-Corbyn-refuses-to-condemn-IRA-for-terrorist-atrocities.html |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 10, 2015 14:23:18 GMT
Oh come on - Corbyn had plenty of contact with Sinn Fein / IRA for a long time. He had no contact with the DUP. If that ain't picking sides in a bipolar conflict I don't know what is. His explanation for this is wholly unconvincing - it's all very well saying you want to establish a dialogue and you condem all acts of violence, but his actions and words don't stand up. The dialogue I've covered - you have to talk equally with both sides, he didn't. Likewise by condemning all acts of violence he refuses to differentiate between what were clearly military operations and what were simply evil terrorist acts like the Warrington bombings. Corbyn's position was classic lefty anti-establishment posturing. That's why he was part of the stunt with Ken Livingstone in inviting Sinn Fein to Westminster in the wake of the Brighton bombing in 1984. He's got loads of baggage in this area. And it ain't honourable baggage. I think you're a decent poster and I respect your opinion, but I struggle to see how you've managed to come to the conclusion that Corbyn took sides when he's a very principled and outspoken person who doesn't seem to have ever had a problem saying what he thinks, and yet there is nothing on record to even remotely evidence that he verbalised or wrote any support for the IRA. Like I've said previously it's pretty telling that the closest the article I linked gets in trying to prove Corbyn supported the IRA, is via proxy to an article written by somebody else, because he was associated with the paper that published it which is very tenuous. If there is any evidence I'm happy to be proved wrong but your opinion appears to be based on conjecture. My argument for Corbyn taking sides is very simple; he's had numerous engagements with one side and none with the other. That's it in a nutshell. If he was treating each side equally he'd have had engagements with both sides to a similar level. |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Dec 10, 2015 14:32:42 GMT
He is the US equivalent of Corbyn but with principals that do not include supporting terrorist organisations. It simply defies belief how you can be so wrong so often. I can understand why people don't like Corbyn's views and that's fair enough but he has never supported terrorist organisations Plenty of historical evidence to suggest I am actually closer to the truth than yourself.  , really can not stand self righteous pricks. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 14:38:54 GMT
It simply defies belief how you can be so wrong so often. I can understand why people don't like Corbyn's views and that's fair enough but he has never supported terrorist organisations Plenty of historical evidence to suggest I am actually closer to the truth than yourself. , really can not stand self righteous pricks. I'm happy to be proved wrong, please share your evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 14:50:22 GMT
I think you're a decent poster and I respect your opinion, but I struggle to see how you've managed to come to the conclusion that Corbyn took sides when he's a very principled and outspoken person who doesn't seem to have ever had a problem saying what he thinks, and yet there is nothing on record to even remotely evidence that he verbalised or wrote any support for the IRA. Like I've said previously it's pretty telling that the closest the article I linked gets in trying to prove Corbyn supported the IRA, is via proxy to an article written by somebody else, because he was associated with the paper that published it which is very tenuous. If there is any evidence I'm happy to be proved wrong but your opinion appears to be based on conjecture. He invited Gerry Adams to tea at the house of commons 3 weeks after the Brighton bombing, Adams and McGuiness for all airbrushing of the Good Friday agreement are stone cold killers. www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/18/john-mcdonnell-apologises-for-ira-comment-labourwww.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11787955/Jeremy-Corbyn-refuses-to-condemn-IRA-for-terrorist-atrocities.htmlWhat you're saying doesn't prove that Corbyn supported the IRA though does it. Going back to the article that I linked, it's pretty clear that the journalist researched his article and if he could have proven that Corbyn supported the IRA he almost certainly would have .................. but he couldn't. I just find it hard to believe that someone as principled and as outspoken as Corbyn, who doesn't shy away from holding controversial views and is clearly not worried about speaking his mind, is not on record having voiced any sort of support for the IRA if that's what he believed at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 15:08:56 GMT
I think you're a decent poster and I respect your opinion, but I struggle to see how you've managed to come to the conclusion that Corbyn took sides when he's a very principled and outspoken person who doesn't seem to have ever had a problem saying what he thinks, and yet there is nothing on record to even remotely evidence that he verbalised or wrote any support for the IRA. Like I've said previously it's pretty telling that the closest the article I linked gets in trying to prove Corbyn supported the IRA, is via proxy to an article written by somebody else, because he was associated with the paper that published it which is very tenuous. If there is any evidence I'm happy to be proved wrong but your opinion appears to be based on conjecture. My argument for Corbyn taking sides is very simple; he's had numerous engagements with one side and none with the other. That's it in a nutshell. If he was treating each side equally he'd have had engagements with both sides to a similar level. I understand your argument I just don't find it convincing enough. We're talking about a man who has constantly been deemed a rebel throughout his political career, even against his own party, someone not worried or afraid about speaking his mind or adopting controversial stances, a man who is so principled that he allegedly divorced his wife over a disagreement about what type of school his son should go to. And yet he's accused of supporting the IRA when there doesn't appear to be any recorded evidence that shows this, the evidence actually suggests that he's been consistently promoting peace his entire life and is against all forms of violence. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 10, 2015 15:19:42 GMT
My argument for Corbyn taking sides is very simple; he's had numerous engagements with one side and none with the other. That's it in a nutshell. If he was treating each side equally he'd have had engagements with both sides to a similar level. I understand your argument I just don't find it convincing enough. We're talking about a man who has constantly been deemed a rebel throughout his political career, even against his own party, somone not worried or afraid about speaking his mind or adopting controversial stances, a man who is so principled that he allegedly divorced his wife over a disagreement about what type of school his son should go to. And yet he's accused of supporting the IRA when there doesn't appear to be any recorded evidence that shows this, the evidence actually suggests that he's been consistently promoting peace his entire life and is against all forms of violence. Fair enough - it's convincing enough for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 15:39:22 GMT
I understand your argument I just don't find it convincing enough. We're talking about a man who has constantly been deemed a rebel throughout his political career, even against his own party, somone not worried or afraid about speaking his mind or adopting controversial stances, a man who is so principled that he allegedly divorced his wife over a disagreement about what type of school his son should go to. And yet he's accused of supporting the IRA when there doesn't appear to be any recorded evidence that shows this, the evidence actually suggests that he's been consistently promoting peace his entire life and is against all forms of violence. Fair enough - it's convincing enough for me. No worries my good man, I bet you didn't think you'd be supporting a view held by carpslayer when you woke up this morning  |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 10, 2015 18:01:24 GMT
Fair enough - it's convincing enough for me. No worries my good man, I bet you didn't think you'd be supporting a view held by carpslayer when you woke up this morning Strangely enough, thinking anything about our fishy friend isn't something I ever think about. If that makes sense! |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 18:13:31 GMT
What you're saying doesn't prove that Corbyn supported the IRA though does it. Going back to the article that I linked, it's pretty clear that the journalist researched his article and if he could have proven that Corbyn supported the IRA he almost certainly would have .................. but he couldn't. I just find it hard to believe that someone as principled and as outspoken as Corbyn, who doesn't shy away from holding controversial views and is clearly not worried about speaking his mind, is not on record having voiced any sort of support for the IRA if that's what he believed at the time. Yeah ok then so a guy who wants a united ireland (despite the majority not wanting this) only found time to speak at IRA events and appointed an IRA sympathiser as chancellor, to almost quote the goo goo dolls lyrics you cry coincidence, i'll draw parallel  |
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Dec 10, 2015 18:32:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 18:34:40 GMT
My argument for Corbyn taking sides is very simple; he's had numerous engagements with one side and none with the other. That's it in a nutshell. If he was treating each side equally he'd have had engagements with both sides to a similar level. I understand your argument I just don't find it convincing enough. We're talking about a man who has constantly been deemed a rebel throughout his political career, even against his own party, someone not worried or afraid about speaking his mind or adopting controversial stances, a man who is so principled that he allegedly divorced his wife over a disagreement about what type of school his son should go to. And yet he's accused of supporting the IRA when there doesn't appear to be any recorded evidence that shows this, the evidence actually suggests that he's been consistently promoting peace his entire life and is against all forms of violence. there is no argument here and both Partick & FYD know this only too well. The tactic being deployed here is to throw enough crap at Corbyn in the hope that some of it will stick. Jeremy Corbyn has always argued the way to broker peace is round a table. He is not a supporter of bombings nor is he a friend/sympathiser toward terrorists. it seems that a few posters are clearly unable or unwilling able to form an opinion based on the absolute facts of the matter and prefer to choose derisory government spin and peddle childish underhanded Tory deceit as their considered position. Most decent folks wth half a brain can see straight through the hogwash, that's why Jeremy Corbyn provokes this sort of nonsense. They have no valid counter-argument so choose to dream one up. It's laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Dec 10, 2015 18:49:51 GMT
What you're saying doesn't prove that Corbyn supported the IRA though does it. Going back to the article that I linked, it's pretty clear that the journalist researched his article and if he could have proven that Corbyn supported the IRA he almost certainly would have .................. but he couldn't. I just find it hard to believe that someone as principled and as outspoken as Corbyn, who doesn't shy away from holding controversial views and is clearly not worried about speaking his mind, is not on record having voiced any sort of support for the IRA if that's what he believed at the time. Yeah ok then so a guy who wants a united ireland (despite the majority not wanting this) only found time to speak at IRA events and appointed an IRA sympathiser as chancellor, to almost quote the goo goo dolls lyrics you cry coincidence, i'll draw parallel The poor child is in denial, he simply can not accept that he is wrong, Corbyn thank god will never be PM of this country. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 18:58:57 GMT
I understand your argument I just don't find it convincing enough. We're talking about a man who has constantly been deemed a rebel throughout his political career, even against his own party, someone not worried or afraid about speaking his mind or adopting controversial stances, a man who is so principled that he allegedly divorced his wife over a disagreement about what type of school his son should go to. And yet he's accused of supporting the IRA when there doesn't appear to be any recorded evidence that shows this, the evidence actually suggests that he's been consistently promoting peace his entire life and is against all forms of violence. there is no argument here and both Partick & FYD know this only too well. The tactic being deployed here is to throw enough crap at Corbyn in the hope that some of it will stick. Jeremy Corbyn has always argued the way to broker peace is round a table. He is not a supporter of bombings nor is he a friend/sympathiser toward terrorists. it seems that a few posters are clearly unable or unwilling able to form an opinion based on the absolute facts of the matter and prefer to choose derisory government spin and peddle childish underhanded Tory deceit as their considered position. Most decent folks wth half a brain can see straight through the hogwash, that's why Jeremy Corbyn provokes this sort of nonsense. They have no valid counter-argument so choose to dream one up. It's laughable. I'm perfectable able to form an opinion on the facts as I have done, if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog and barks like a dog it's a dog.... I see you have a lot in common with Corbyn believing people who disagree with you aren't decent, luckily the majority of decent people will decide not to vote for a guy who has tea and biscuits with murderers 3 whole weeks after bombing innocent people. |
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 19:05:09 GMT
there is no argument here and both Partick & FYD know this only too well. The tactic being deployed here is to throw enough crap at Corbyn in the hope that some of it will stick. Jeremy Corbyn has always argued the way to broker peace is round a table. He is not a supporter of bombings nor is he a friend/sympathiser toward terrorists. it seems that a few posters are clearly unable or unwilling able to form an opinion based on the absolute facts of the matter and prefer to choose derisory government spin and peddle childish underhanded Tory deceit as their considered position. Most decent folks wth half a brain can see straight through the hogwash, that's why Jeremy Corbyn provokes this sort of nonsense. They have no valid counter-argument so choose to dream one up. It's laughable. I'm perfectable able to form an opinion on the facts as I have done, if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog and barks like a dog it's a dog.... I see you have a lot in common with Corbyn believing people who disagree with you aren't decent, luckily the majority of decent people will decide not to vote for a guy who has tea and biscuits with murderers 3 whole weeks after bombing innocent people. i'm not arguing with anyone FYD. Just stating the bleedin' obvious - and this is what most 12 year olds can see - Corbyn slurs from the Tories, Corbyn slurs in the press and Corbyn slurs on social media sites like this one. It's a merry dance alright.  |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 19:36:49 GMT
I'm perfectable able to form an opinion on the facts as I have done, if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog and barks like a dog it's a dog.... I see you have a lot in common with Corbyn believing people who disagree with you aren't decent, luckily the majority of decent people will decide not to vote for a guy who has tea and biscuits with murderers 3 whole weeks after bombing innocent people. i'm not arguing with anyone FYD. Just stating the bleedin' obvious - and this is what most 12 year olds can see - Corbyn slurs from the Tories, Corbyn slurs in the press and Corbyn slurs on social media sites like this one. It's a merry dance alright. Ok so he didn't really have tea and biscuits with Gerry Adams, doesn't support a united ireland and didn't address republican meetings, he'll be a very wealthy man when he settles all those libel actions. On the other hand perhaps even an 8 year old could understand the facts of his past will guarantee he will never be PM and will struggle to make it into 2017 as leader of the opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 19:40:20 GMT
i'm not arguing with anyone FYD. Just stating the bleedin' obvious - and this is what most 12 year olds can see - Corbyn slurs from the Tories, Corbyn slurs in the press and Corbyn slurs on social media sites like this one. It's a merry dance alright. Ok so he didn't really have tea and biscuits with Gerry Adams, doesn't support a united ireland and didn't address republican meetings, he'll be a very wealthy man when he settles all those libel actions. On the other hand perhaps even an 8 year old could understand the facts of his past will guarantee he will never be PM and will struggle to make it into 2017 as leader of the opposition. there are no "facts". Well...not the ones that you wish were true you silly billy. |
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 19:49:06 GMT
Yeah ok then so a guy who wants a united ireland (despite the majority not wanting this) only found time to speak at IRA events and appointed an IRA sympathiser as chancellor, to almost quote the goo goo dolls lyrics you cry coincidence, i'll draw parallel The poor child is in denial, he simply can not accept that he is wrong, Corbyn thank god will never be PM of this country. It's not about accepting I'm wrong, it's about asking to be proven wrong. I see you've ignored my request for your evidence. |
|
, really can not stand self righteous pricks.
