Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
Integroo said:
Rovinghawk said:
Integroo said:
Can you imagine what Labour would do to this Tory party with an effective moderate in charge.
I'm struggling to imagine Labour with an effective individual in charge, moderate or otherwise.Know you of such a person?
768 said:
John McDonnell calls Winston Churchill a 'villain'
Made me smile on a wet Thursday morning... No doubt Soames will be dismissed as another Tory Dinosaur by some on here.... Sir Nicholas Soames grandson of Churchill said:
I think my grandfather's reputation can withstand a publicity-seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin.
768 said:
John McDonnell calls Winston Churchill a 'villain'
That's as good as when he called Lord Sainsbury "one's bloody grocer". Sir Nicholas Soames grandson of Churchill said:
I think my grandfather's reputation can withstand a publicity-seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin.
biggbn said:
Slagathore said:
As Comoradi pointed out on the last page - you've come on to a topic specifically about Corbyn, to whinge about people discussing Corbyn.
Then you use it as an opportunity to point out the current government's failings, which almost everybody would agree on, yet you make out it's only someone such as yourself that is capable of questioning this government, yet there are pages and pages of criticism of the current government on here.
Thanks for clarifying that. I feel suitably stupid now. Chastised. I will not be distracted by such squirrels again. Then you use it as an opportunity to point out the current government's failings, which almost everybody would agree on, yet you make out it's only someone such as yourself that is capable of questioning this government, yet there are pages and pages of criticism of the current government on here.
Slagarhores post was accurate and perfectly reasonable.
biggbn said:
Remaining appeal of corbyn? For me corbyn is still the most genuine of a disingenuous lot, although his principled protester act is growing old. He reminds me of an emaciated Brando impersonator who when questioned, what are you protesting about growls 'whaadya got?'Personally, I wish he would nail his colours to the flagpole. He is in a personally luxurious position of being a eurosceptic who has always prized the democratic process above all. Cake/eat it. But, there lie monsters. It would be disastrous for his party to advocate either side with any vehemence as one alienates half the country and commensurately more of a given potentiality of electorate. Damned if you do damned if you don't. I believe a corbyn led government, regardless of Brexit outcome, is our countrys only chance for a workable modern socialist system, bringing us in line with other European countries who have successfully managed their own infrastructures for years, Germany, France and most of the Scandinavian countries being prime example. What our electorate have been repeatedly told are hard left Marxist policies would have been considered centrist sensibility in the seventies and are considered as a social and cultural necessity throughout Europe. Our media barons continually paint everything with the red brush or employ the 'look, a squirrel' diversionary tactic every day maybe May f
ks something else up...go check ongoing windrush status for examples of things the populace know fk all about, or Grenfell.
He's not genuine in the slightest though. Every time he gets picked up on something from his past he'll make a half-arsed excuse such as being "present but not involved" or "condemning all forms of violence". He spent his career campaigning against the EU, now mumbles something about 6 tests and all options being on the table. Claims to be rooting out Antisemitism, but does nothing about it. Completely silent on Venezuela, a country he told us showed another way was possible. Takes money from Iran and associates with holocaust deniers. Yet is right at the front of the queue to specifically condemn Israel.ks something else up...go check ongoing windrush status for examples of things the populace know fk all about, or Grenfell.biggbn said:
The nuclear deterrent works soooo well doesn't it? The world is such a peaceful place. No violence anywhere. It's a MAD system I tells ya...
Pick a measure of peace (deaths, countries at war, years of conflict, whatever you want) and you'll find a graph here that shows you're wrong.https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
Russian Troll Bot said:
He's not genuine in the slightest though. Every time he gets picked up on something from his past he'll make a half-arsed excuse such as being "present but not involved" or "condemning all forms of violence". He spent his career campaigning against the EU, now mumbles something about 6 tests and all options being on the table. Claims to be rooting out Antisemitism, but does nothing about it. Completely silent on Venezuela, a country he told us showed another way was possible. Takes money from Iran and associates with holocaust deniers. Yet is right at the front of the queue to specifically condemn Israel.
Or claiming he said 'stupid people' when he clearly said something else.The list is long.
SpeckledJim said:
Pick a measure of peace (deaths, countries at war, years of conflict, whatever you want) and you'll find a graph here that shows you're wrong.
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
People have been killing each other forever. It's what we do. The nuclear deterrent deters who exactly? One can 'prove'anything with statistics, but you tell the family of one of our young soldiers killed in Afghanistan, or the families of those slaughtered in Syria or the carpet bombing of Baghdad, or those of anyone killed in a terror attack that the nuclear deterrent works and you might find some real life opinions to the contrary. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
Is it a necessary evil? There has been no WORLD war since Hiroshima, but us that down to the damoclean deterrent hanging over our collective heads, or is it due to other drivers, globalisation, etc... It is an interesting debate for sure and one I do not profess to have an answer for, but my feeling is that the nuclear deterrent will not and does not deter violence and conflict anymore than the fear of traditional military intervention.
biggbn said:
SpeckledJim said:
Pick a measure of peace (deaths, countries at war, years of conflict, whatever you want) and you'll find a graph here that shows you're wrong.
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
People have been killing each other forever. It's what we do. The nuclear deterrent deters who exactly? One can 'prove'anything with statistics, but you tell the family of one of our young soldiers killed in Afghanistan, or the families of those slaughtered in Syria or the carpet bombing of Baghdad, or those of anyone killed in a terror attack that the nuclear deterrent works and you might find some real life opinions to the contrary. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
Is it a necessary evil? There has been no WORLD war since Hiroshima, but us that down to the damoclean deterrent hanging over our collective heads, or is it due to other drivers, globalisation, etc... It is an interesting debate for sure and one I do not profess to have an answer for, but my feeling is that the nuclear deterrent will not and does not deter violence and conflict anymore than the fear of traditional military intervention.
Use some statistics to prove your point then. In case you've forgotten what it was, you were saying that nuclear weapons haven't made the world more peaceful.
You may need to use some of Kellyanne Conway's 'alternative facts', but don't worry, that'll just add to the mix.
SpeckledJim said:
Brilliant.
Use some statistics to prove your point then. In case you've forgotten what it was, you were saying that nuclear weapons haven't made the world more peaceful.
You may need to use some of Kellyanne Conway's 'alternative facts', but don't worry, that'll just add to the mix.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. I cannot check the accuracy of your statistics, I do not have the capability of time to do so right now, I am prepared to believe they may be true and my feeling may be wrong, as I am prepared to retain an open mind about everything. As Bertrand Russell once said when asked if he would die for his beliefs, oh no dear fellow, I may change my mind. Use some statistics to prove your point then. In case you've forgotten what it was, you were saying that nuclear weapons haven't made the world more peaceful.
You may need to use some of Kellyanne Conway's 'alternative facts', but don't worry, that'll just add to the mix.
Henners said:
‘Stats can show anything’
‘I do not have the capability’
Are you Diane Abbott?...
Are you one if those who will blindly accept anything spoon fed you in life or on the internet as a fact without checking the verisimilitude of the information presented? The Nietzschean dichotomy between facts and interpreted information always leaves a gap for questions‘I do not have the capability’
Are you Diane Abbott?...
biggbn said:
SpeckledJim said:
Brilliant.
Use some statistics to prove your point then. In case you've forgotten what it was, you were saying that nuclear weapons haven't made the world more peaceful.
You may need to use some of Kellyanne Conway's 'alternative facts', but don't worry, that'll just add to the mix.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. I cannot check the accuracy of your statistics, I do not have the capability of time to do so right now, I am prepared to believe they may be true and my feeling may be wrong, as I am prepared to retain an open mind about everything. As Bertrand Russell once said when asked if he would die for his beliefs, oh no dear fellow, I may change my mind. Use some statistics to prove your point then. In case you've forgotten what it was, you were saying that nuclear weapons haven't made the world more peaceful.
You may need to use some of Kellyanne Conway's 'alternative facts', but don't worry, that'll just add to the mix.
What you're perceiving isn't escalating war, it's escalating tweets.
Colossal cock-up aside, which remains remotely possible, there won't be a head-to-head war between the big swinging dicks, of whom we are one. Each is too lethal to the other.
War between non-big swinging dicks is still possible of course, but things like NATO, which is underpinned by big swinging dicks with nukes, is making it steadily less likely.
I suspect you're maybe not inclined towards optimism, but we're really, really bloody lucky to be alive now and not 100 years ago.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff