|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 19:51:04 GMT
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. ffs don't encourage him...
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 19:51:49 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. How do you achieve peace without dialogue? What would you have done to try and ensure peace, surely a level of civility is required?
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 10, 2015 19:55:42 GMT
I've got a 'fact'... David Cameron wanted to help out those friendly 'rebels' (Nowadays called Daesh - I wonder what happened to those guys, they seem to have just disappeared from the face of the Earth, never to be heard of again?) And was giving his all in Parliment to get us all to go along with it. Thankfully, some yoguht knitters like Corbyn & the rest of the tree-huggers managed to out-vote him.
How come this 'fact' has been all but erased from History by the right-wing media?.... Infact it's been erased by all the people on here who were crying out for us to send in the aircraft carriers to help Daesh aswell!
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 19:56:21 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. How do you achieve peace without dialogue? What would you have done to try and ensure peace, surely a level of civility is required? he would probably take to his trusty keyboard and favourite social media site and start churning out the usual guff and bluster...
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 19:59:19 GMT
I've got a 'fact'... David Cameron wanted to help out those friendly 'rebels' (Nowadays called Daesh - I wonder what happened to those guys, they seem to have just disappeared from the face of the Earth, never to be heard of again?) And was giving his all in Parliment to get us all to go along with it. Thankfully, some yoguht knitters like Corbyn & the rest of the tree-huggers managed to out-vote him. How come this 'fact' has been all but erased from History by the right-wing media?.... Infact it's been erased by all the people on here who were crying out for us to send in the aircraft carriers to help Daesh aswell! look...as long as we are bombing some poor sod in the middle of the desert, does it really matter who?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Dec 10, 2015 20:15:07 GMT
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. Plenty of evidence out there if you care to remove your blinkers, it is no coincidence that his 2IC called for two prevalent IRA activists to honoured is it, birds of a feather and all that.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 20:23:45 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. How do you achieve peace without dialogue? What would you have done to try and ensure peace, surely a level of civility is required? If you are serious about peace you talk to both sides and to be able to deliver peace you need to be in a position of power or influence. Corbyn didn't and wasn't and never will be. To try and present his student union anti establishment posturing as being an attempt to contribute to the peace process is bordering on the laughable.
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 20:29:24 GMT
How do you achieve peace without dialogue? What would you have done to try and ensure peace, surely a level of civility is required? If you are serious about peace you talk to both sides and to be able to deliver peace you need to be in a position of power or influence. Corbyn didn't and wasn't and never will be. To try and present his student union anti establishment posturing as being an attempt to contribute to the peace process is bordering on the laughable. that's a really bizarre thing to say. It's clear to me and others that you don't believe a word of the hogwash that you're churning out on this thread, not very subtle or convincing FYD.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 20:39:38 GMT
I've got a 'fact'... David Cameron wanted to help out those friendly 'rebels' (Nowadays called Daesh - I wonder what happened to those guys, they seem to have just disappeared from the face of the Earth, never to be heard of again?) And was giving his all in Parliment to get us all to go along with it. Thankfully, some yoguht knitters like Corbyn & the rest of the tree-huggers managed to out-vote him. How come this 'fact' has been all but erased from History by the right-wing media?.... Infact it's been erased by all the people on here who were crying out for us to send in the aircraft carriers to help Daesh aswell! www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783It's a fact that they wanted to take action after the Russian backed government used chemical weapons on its own people, Russia has of course continued to try and block anyone holding Assad to account.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 20:45:31 GMT
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. Plenty of evidence out there if you care to remove your blinkers, it is no coincidence that his 2IC called for two prevalent IRA activists to honoured is it, birds of a feather and all that. I've got no blinkers on I'm just going on the information available. 1) I've linked to a telegraph article where the author did his best to infer that Corbyn supported the IRA, despite the journalists best efforts the best 'evidence' he could come up with was that Corbyn supported them by proxy because an article was published in a paper he was associated with. Pretty weak argument really. 2) Partick has argued that because Corbyn only ever spoke to one side he must have been support of the IRA and FYD is now making a very similar point. I understand this line of argument but on its own, and without any recorded evidence of vocal or written support from Corbyn it's not a convincing enough argument in my eyes. 3) FYD posted two links earlier, one of which quoted Corbyn as saying he disagrees with all forms of bombing which is a clear indicator that he didn't support their actions. Another clear indicator is that he's been campaigning for peace and against violence the whole of his political career. And there's yourself who despite repeated requests are yet to post anything resembling a coherent and rational argument. Can anyone tell me why a man who is known for being a rebel and not afraid to hold and voice unpopular views is not on record anywhere as saying he supported the actions of the IRA?
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 10, 2015 20:47:34 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783It's a fact that they wanted to take action after the Russian backed government used chemical weapons on its own people, Russia has of course continued to try and block anyone holding Assad to account. Ah yes, the 'chemical weapon attack'. How interesting that just as Mr.Cameron was pushing for us to help the terrorists 'Daesh', he suddenly stumbles across some accusations by the terrorists 'Daesh' that Mr.Assad had used chemical weapons... Well that sounds truely believable to me, send in the aircraft carrier!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 20:51:00 GMT
If you are serious about peace you talk to both sides and to be able to deliver peace you need to be in a position of power or influence. Corbyn didn't and wasn't and never will be. To try and present his student union anti establishment posturing as being an attempt to contribute to the peace process is bordering on the laughable. that's a really bizarre thing to say. It's clear to me and others that you don't believe a word of the hogwash that you're churning out on this thread, not very subtle or convincing FYD. I believe every word I have typed and have no wish to convince you or whoever you used to be of anything.
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 20:51:38 GMT
Plenty of evidence out there if you care to remove your blinkers, it is no coincidence that his 2IC called for two prevalent IRA activists to honoured is it, birds of a feather and all that. I've got no blinkers on I'm just going on the information available. 1) I've linked to a telegraph article where the author did his best to infer that Corbyn supported the IRA, despite the journalists best efforts the best 'evidence' he could come up with was that Corbyn supported them by proxy because an article was published in a paper he was associated with. Pretty weak argument really. 2) Partick has argued that because Corbyn only ever spoke to one side he must have been support of the IRA and FYD is now making a very similar point. I understand this line of argument but on its own, and without any recorded evidence of vocal or written support from Corbyn it's not a convincing enough argument in my eyes. 3) FYD posted two links earlier, one of which quoted Corbyn as saying he disagrees with all forms of bombing which is a clear indicator that he didn't support their actions. Another clear indicator is that he's been campaigning for peace and against violence the whole of his political career. And there's yourself who despite repeated requests are yet to post anything resembling a coherent and rational argument. Can anyone tell me why a man who is known for being a rebel and not afraid to hold and voice unpopular views is not on record anywhere as saying he supported the actions of the IRA? I can feel the internet being slowed down as the brave trio of Partickle, FYD and the Carp haplessly trawl Google for some sort of compelling evidence...we may be some time.
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 20:53:42 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783It's a fact that they wanted to take action after the Russian backed government used chemical weapons on its own people, Russia has of course continued to try and block anyone holding Assad to account. Ah yes, the 'chemical weapon attack'. How interesting that just as Mr.Cameron was pushing for us to help the terrorists 'Daesh', he suddenly stumbles across some accusations by the terrorists 'Daesh' that Mr.Assad had used chemical weapons... Well that sounds truely believable to me, send in the aircraft carrier! what aircraft carrier? you mean Cyprus?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 10, 2015 20:55:40 GMT
Meanwhile news is breaking that a certain Tory front bencher has been selling ISIL's oil. You couldn't make it up eh?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 20:59:30 GMT
Plenty of evidence out there if you care to remove your blinkers, it is no coincidence that his 2IC called for two prevalent IRA activists to honoured is it, birds of a feather and all that. I've got no blinkers on I'm just going on the information available. 1) I've linked to a telegraph article where the author did his best to infer that Corbyn supported the IRA, despite the journalists best efforts the best 'evidence' he could come up with was that Corbyn supported them by proxy because an article was published in a paper he was associated with. Pretty weak argument really. 2) Partick has argued that because Corbyn only ever spoke to one side he must have been support of the IRA and FYD is now making a very similar point. I understand this line of argument but on its own, and without any recorded evidence of vocal or written support from Corbyn it's not a convincing enough argument in my eyes. 3) FYD posted two links earlier, one of which quoted Corbyn as saying he disagrees with all forms of bombing which is a clear indicator that he didn't support their actions. Another clear indicator is that he's been campaigning for peace and against violence the whole of his political career. And there's yourself who despite repeated requests are yet to post anything resembling a coherent and rational argument. Can anyone tell me why a man who is known for being a rebel and not afraid to hold and voice unpopular views is not on record anywhere as saying he supported the actions of the IRA? Did you read your own link, for seven years running while the IRA were bombing and killing Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican events to honour dead, imprisoned and active terrorists. Can you actually find anything on the record where he criticises the IRA?
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 21:00:28 GMT
Meanwhile news is breaking that a certain Tory front bencher has been selling ISIL's oil. You couldn't make it up eh? you got a link Huddy?
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 21:04:33 GMT
that's a really bizarre thing to say. It's clear to me and others that you don't believe a word of the hogwash that you're churning out on this thread, not very subtle or convincing FYD. I believe every word I have typed and have no wish to convince you or whoever you used to be of anything. could have fooled me FYD you tinker...you're trying your level best to pin something rather false and unpleasant onto Jeremy Corbyn's lapel.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 21:05:34 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783It's a fact that they wanted to take action after the Russian backed government used chemical weapons on its own people, Russia has of course continued to try and block anyone holding Assad to account. Ah yes, the 'chemical weapon attack'. How interesting that just as Mr.Cameron was pushing for us to help the terrorists 'Daesh', he suddenly stumbles across some accusations by the terrorists 'Daesh' that Mr.Assad had used chemical weapons... Well that sounds truely believable to me, send in the aircraft carrier! Well the UN seem to give it some credence and Russia have finally stopped blocking the investigation, you seem quite hot on terrorists though quite ironic consider Russia's actions with regard to MH17.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 10, 2015 21:07:36 GMT
Meanwhile news is breaking that a certain Tory front bencher has been selling ISIL's oil. You couldn't make it up eh? you got a link Huddy? It's been taken down as I type.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 21:08:16 GMT
I've got no blinkers on I'm just going on the information available. 1) I've linked to a telegraph article where the author did his best to infer that Corbyn supported the IRA, despite the journalists best efforts the best 'evidence' he could come up with was that Corbyn supported them by proxy because an article was published in a paper he was associated with. Pretty weak argument really. 2) Partick has argued that because Corbyn only ever spoke to one side he must have been support of the IRA and FYD is now making a very similar point. I understand this line of argument but on its own, and without any recorded evidence of vocal or written support from Corbyn it's not a convincing enough argument in my eyes. 3) FYD posted two links earlier, one of which quoted Corbyn as saying he disagrees with all forms of bombing which is a clear indicator that he didn't support their actions. Another clear indicator is that he's been campaigning for peace and against violence the whole of his political career. And there's yourself who despite repeated requests are yet to post anything resembling a coherent and rational argument. Can anyone tell me why a man who is known for being a rebel and not afraid to hold and voice unpopular views is not on record anywhere as saying he supported the actions of the IRA? Did you read your own link, for seven years running while the IRA were bombing and killing Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican events to honour dead, imprisoned and active terrorists. Can you actually find anything on the record where he criticises the IRA? Exactly, he's spoken at all these events so if he has verbally supported the IRA at these events why is there no evidence? In your own link he criticises ANY form of bombing, he's including the IRA in that criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 10, 2015 21:09:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 21:09:24 GMT
It's been taken down as I type. can you give us the gist?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 10, 2015 21:10:52 GMT
I've got no blinkers on I'm just going on the information available. 1) I've linked to a telegraph article where the author did his best to infer that Corbyn supported the IRA, despite the journalists best efforts the best 'evidence' he could come up with was that Corbyn supported them by proxy because an article was published in a paper he was associated with. Pretty weak argument really. 2) Partick has argued that because Corbyn only ever spoke to one side he must have been support of the IRA and FYD is now making a very similar point. I understand this line of argument but on its own, and without any recorded evidence of vocal or written support from Corbyn it's not a convincing enough argument in my eyes. 3) FYD posted two links earlier, one of which quoted Corbyn as saying he disagrees with all forms of bombing which is a clear indicator that he didn't support their actions. Another clear indicator is that he's been campaigning for peace and against violence the whole of his political career. And there's yourself who despite repeated requests are yet to post anything resembling a coherent and rational argument. Can anyone tell me why a man who is known for being a rebel and not afraid to hold and voice unpopular views is not on record anywhere as saying he supported the actions of the IRA? Did you read your own link, for seven years running while the IRA were bombing and killing Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican events to honour dead, imprisoned and active terrorists. Can you actually find anything on the record where he criticises the IRA? I think this discussion is just about done for two reasons; 1) Rick doesn't accept the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck" line of thinking. He's adopting doubting Thomas's approach. Fair enough - we've reached an impasse. 2) a reborn leftie incarnation of Stoke Harry under a new nom de plume has joined the discussion which is a clear signal that rationale debate now stops and pointless circular arguments and name calling takes over. Been interesting - but not particularly enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 21:14:11 GMT
that is truly shocking if the story is verified, but why doesn't it surprise me though. This is what Jeremy Corbyn is fighting against...a corrupt, self-serving gang of liars and thieves aka The Conservative Party.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 21:20:55 GMT
Did you read your own link, for seven years running while the IRA were bombing and killing Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican events to honour dead, imprisoned and active terrorists. Can you actually find anything on the record where he criticises the IRA? Exactly, he's spoken at all these events so if he has verbally supported the IRA at these events why is there no evidence? In your own link he criticises ANY form of bombing, he's including the IRA in that criticism. I don't know maybe just maybe they don't invite the press to IRA supporting shin digs and they don't tend to put records on the internet of what was said? Anyway I don't think we're going to agree as you don't realise you're wrong so I'll call it a day on this thread rather than go round in endless circles.
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 21:24:40 GMT
Did you read your own link, for seven years running while the IRA were bombing and killing Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican events to honour dead, imprisoned and active terrorists. Can you actually find anything on the record where he criticises the IRA? I think this discussion is just about done for two reasons; 1) Rick doesn't accept the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck" line of thinking. He's adopting doubting Thomas's approach. Fair enough - we've reached an impasse. 2) a reborn leftie incarnation of Stoke Harry under a new nom de plume has joined the discussion which is a clear signal that rationale debate now stops and pointless circular arguments and name calling takes over. Been interesting - but not particularly enlightening. what...just because I called you Partickle? Oh come on...and don't start pretending that this thread is becoming a "pointless circular argument". the discussion is done because yet again you fail miserably to back up any of the ridiculous claims and assertions you make with anything more compelling than warped, banana shaped opinion. You have provided zero hard evidence - and that's not terribly conducive or welcome in any form of reasoned discussion between adults, never mind the other failures you list.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Dec 10, 2015 21:25:15 GMT
Exactly, he's spoken at all these events so if he has verbally supported the IRA at these events why is there no evidence? In your own link he criticises ANY form of bombing, he's including the IRA in that criticism. I don't know maybe just maybe they don't invite the press to IRA supporting shin digs and they don't tend to put records on the internet of what was said? Anyway I don't think we're going to agree as you don't realise you're wrong so I'll call it a day on this thread rather than go round in endless circles. Yes fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by unabomber on Dec 10, 2015 21:28:05 GMT
Exactly, he's spoken at all these events so if he has verbally supported the IRA at these events why is there no evidence? In your own link he criticises ANY form of bombing, he's including the IRA in that criticism. I don't know maybe just maybe they don't invite the press to IRA supporting shin digs and they don't tend to put records on the internet of what was said? Anyway I don't think we're going to agree as you don't realise you're wrong so I'll call it a day on this thread rather than go round in endless circles. aaah, so you were just guessing. abandon thread!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 10, 2015 21:28:05 GMT
It's four days plus old from twitter if there was any truth in it it would be the biggest story going and the guy would rightly be hang, drawn and quartered, as it is just seems a nasty whiff of unsubstianted anti semitism, an age old trick which i'd have thought you would have had more sense than to swallow.
|
|