Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Justayellowbadge said:
It beggars belief that the electorate are not totally rejecting someone who has voted against every anti-terror billbfor the last ten years.
it just shows you how so many (maybe the majority) just look at the promises and not the 'man'. It's quite scary actually.Burwood said:
Justayellowbadge said:
It beggars belief that the electorate are not totally rejecting someone who has voted against every anti-terror billbfor the last ten years.
it just shows you how so many (maybe the majority) just look at the promises and not the 'man'. It's quite scary actually.I have just read the BBC article and to be fair to Corbyn, his actual words in FULL context are not as bad as you might think and have been alluded to. I still think he is a **** of the highest order and couldn't run a bath but he is getting some pretty rough reporting. He does deserve it but....
Interestingly Frank Gardner said in the same piece:
"BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said there was no denying that British foreign policy was one of the reasons used by terrorists to justify what they were doing - but it was one of many reasons, and generally they were people with troubled pasts, who had often been in trouble with the law."
I respect his opinion but if Corbyn had said that, you could take it completely out of context as well if that was your aim.
There is diplomacy and there is utter stupidity! One could take his position on Trident as a case in point; He may have NO plans or intention of ever pressing the button but people need to think he might - if needed. Utter cretin!!
Interestingly Frank Gardner said in the same piece:
"BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said there was no denying that British foreign policy was one of the reasons used by terrorists to justify what they were doing - but it was one of many reasons, and generally they were people with troubled pasts, who had often been in trouble with the law."
I respect his opinion but if Corbyn had said that, you could take it completely out of context as well if that was your aim.
There is diplomacy and there is utter stupidity! One could take his position on Trident as a case in point; He may have NO plans or intention of ever pressing the button but people need to think he might - if needed. Utter cretin!!
Burwood said:
Justayellowbadge said:
It beggars belief that the electorate are not totally rejecting someone who has voted against every anti-terror billbfor the last ten years.
it just shows you how so many (maybe the majority) just look at the promises and not the 'man'. It's quite scary actually.Maybe it's time political parties have a realistic 5 year plan that gets independently scrutinised and signed off, rather than unattainable promise filled manifestos. Then maybe you could use Go Compare or the Meerkats to decide who to vote for?
Mr_Yogi said:
Completely this.
Maybe it's time political parties have a realistic 5 year plan that gets independently scrutinised and signed off, rather than unattainable promise filled manifestos. Then maybe you could use Go Compare or the Meerkats to decide who to vote for?
Since Labour got a legal ruling that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", ie no-one really expects them to deliver them, the whole system is a joke.Maybe it's time political parties have a realistic 5 year plan that gets independently scrutinised and signed off, rather than unattainable promise filled manifestos. Then maybe you could use Go Compare or the Meerkats to decide who to vote for?
Mr_Yogi said:
Burwood said:
Justayellowbadge said:
It beggars belief that the electorate are not totally rejecting someone who has voted against every anti-terror billbfor the last ten years.
it just shows you how so many (maybe the majority) just look at the promises and not the 'man'. It's quite scary actually.Maybe it's time political parties have a realistic 5 year plan that gets independently scrutinised and signed off, rather than unattainable promise filled manifestos. Then maybe you could use Go Compare or the Meerkats to decide who to vote for?
Slaav said:
I have just read the BBC article and to be fair to Corbyn, his actual words in FULL context are not as bad as you might think and have been alluded to. I still think he is a **** of the highest order and couldn't run a bath but he is getting some pretty rough reporting. He does deserve it but....
Interestingly Frank Gardner said in the same piece:
"BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said there was no denying that British foreign policy was one of the reasons used by terrorists to justify what they were doing - but it was one of many reasons, and generally they were people with troubled pasts, who had often been in trouble with the law."
I respect his opinion but if Corbyn had said that, you could take it completely out of context as well if that was your aim.
There is diplomacy and there is utter stupidity! One could take his position on Trident as a case in point; He may have NO plans or intention of ever pressing the button but people need to think he might - if needed. Utter cretin!!
Yes, there are things which should be considered behind closed doors, and what you say in public. If the government accepts any blame, they give other wannabe terrorists a justification. Or does he suppose that someone who was going to blow up a load of children will go, "oh, it's alright, he's accepted that it's all the evil west's fault, so I won't bother".Interestingly Frank Gardner said in the same piece:
"BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said there was no denying that British foreign policy was one of the reasons used by terrorists to justify what they were doing - but it was one of many reasons, and generally they were people with troubled pasts, who had often been in trouble with the law."
I respect his opinion but if Corbyn had said that, you could take it completely out of context as well if that was your aim.
There is diplomacy and there is utter stupidity! One could take his position on Trident as a case in point; He may have NO plans or intention of ever pressing the button but people need to think he might - if needed. Utter cretin!!
Nice one jezza, you massive bell.
Justayellowbadge said:
It beggars belief that the electorate are not totally rejecting someone who has voted against every anti-terror bill for the last ten years.
Do you mean "anti-terror bills" that do little "anti-terror" and lots of damage to civil liberties? I'm undecided on the guy, but using that kind of broad brush isn't really a great basis for an argument. Most of the sEdited by Justayellowbadge on Friday 26th May 11:44
t Teresa May was trying to do when she was home secretary was utterly foolish.I wouldn't really want Corbyn in control of our defence policy but to be fair some of the reporting he gets is biased and out of context, I mean last night on newsnight they were giving him a kicking for this speech before he had even made it... many of the other headlines today take out of context what he said as well.
If now is not an appropriate time to be discussing such issues then when is? It seems like recently that anyone (left or right wing) with views that differ from the accepted mainstream media consensus gets mocked, abused, called racist or otherwise shut down.
Why is the only acceptable response to recent events to spout a load of meaningless pseudo patriotic guff about nothing to do with Islam or foreign policy... standing together... carrying on as normal (despite doing the exact opposite)... and so on?
If now is not an appropriate time to be discussing such issues then when is? It seems like recently that anyone (left or right wing) with views that differ from the accepted mainstream media consensus gets mocked, abused, called racist or otherwise shut down.
Why is the only acceptable response to recent events to spout a load of meaningless pseudo patriotic guff about nothing to do with Islam or foreign policy... standing together... carrying on as normal (despite doing the exact opposite)... and so on?
BMWBen said:
Justayellowbadge said:
It beggars belief that the electorate are not totally rejecting someone who has voted against every anti-terror bill for the last ten years.
Do you mean "anti-terror bills" that do little "anti-terror" and lots of damage to civil liberties? I'm undecided on the guy, but using that kind of broad brush isn't really a great basis for an argument. Most of the sEdited by anonymous-user on Friday 26th May 11:44
t Teresa May was trying to do when she was home secretary was utterly foolish.Like what? In all honesty I don't feel my civil liberties have been much affected, if at all, by any anti terror bills.
The only effect I'm aware of is the heightened risk when travelling to events or certain cities. I always blamed that on extremists but it now appears to have been our own fault.
VolvoT5 said:
I wouldn't really want Corbyn in control of our defence policy but to be fair some of the reporting he gets is biased and out of context, I mean last night on newsnight they were giving him a kicking for this speech before he had even made it... many of the other headlines today take out of context what he said as well.
If now is not an appropriate time to be discussing such issues then when is? It seems like recently that anyone (left or right wing) with views that differ from the accepted mainstream media consensus gets mocked, abused, called racist or otherwise shut down.
Why is the only acceptable response to recent events to spout a load of meaningless pseudo patriotic guff about nothing to do with Islam or foreign policy... standing together... carrying on as normal (despite doing the exact opposite)... and so on?
I've seen his speech and it's pretty clear what his policy is. Naive beyond words. If now is not an appropriate time to be discussing such issues then when is? It seems like recently that anyone (left or right wing) with views that differ from the accepted mainstream media consensus gets mocked, abused, called racist or otherwise shut down.
Why is the only acceptable response to recent events to spout a load of meaningless pseudo patriotic guff about nothing to do with Islam or foreign policy... standing together... carrying on as normal (despite doing the exact opposite)... and so on?
VolvoT5 said:
I wouldn't really want Corbyn in control of our defence policy but to be fair some of the reporting he gets is biased and out of context, I mean last night on newsnight they were giving him a kicking for this speech before he had even made it... many of the other headlines today take out of context what he said as well.
I haven't paid much attention, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were subtle differences between what he leaked to newsnight and the press last night and quite what he said today. I certainly don't think it's unfair to criticise his speech before he's made it when it's after he's leaked it.768 said:
VolvoT5 said:
I wouldn't really want Corbyn in control of our defence policy but to be fair some of the reporting he gets is biased and out of context, I mean last night on newsnight they were giving him a kicking for this speech before he had even made it... many of the other headlines today take out of context what he said as well.
I haven't paid much attention, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were subtle differences between what he leaked to newsnight and the press last night and quite what he said today. I certainly don't think it's unfair to criticise his speech before he's made it when it's after he's leaked it.I assume he's going to invite ISIS over to Number 10 for beer and pork sandwiches and a jolly good laugh.
Am I right?
mybrainhurts said:
768 said:
VolvoT5 said:
I wouldn't really want Corbyn in control of our defence policy but to be fair some of the reporting he gets is biased and out of context, I mean last night on newsnight they were giving him a kicking for this speech before he had even made it... many of the other headlines today take out of context what he said as well.
I haven't paid much attention, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were subtle differences between what he leaked to newsnight and the press last night and quite what he said today. I certainly don't think it's unfair to criticise his speech before he's made it when it's after he's leaked it.I assume he's going to invite ISIS over to Number 10 for beer and pork sandwiches and a jolly good laugh.
Am I right?
No he'll invite them over for tea and crumpets.
mybrainhurts said:
768 said:
VolvoT5 said:
I wouldn't really want Corbyn in control of our defence policy but to be fair some of the reporting he gets is biased and out of context, I mean last night on newsnight they were giving him a kicking for this speech before he had even made it... many of the other headlines today take out of context what he said as well.
I haven't paid much attention, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were subtle differences between what he leaked to newsnight and the press last night and quite what he said today. I certainly don't think it's unfair to criticise his speech before he's made it when it's after he's leaked it.I assume he's going to invite ISIS over to Number 10 for beer and pork sandwiches and a jolly good laugh.
Am I right?
PORK ?
You utter utter racist b*****d I bet you spread packets of dry cured all over mosque gates and squeeze packets of Walls skinless through their letterboxes
You abhorrent individual
I don't agree with Corbyn's positions on national security, foreign policy etc however all of this faux outrage by the Tories and Lib Dems over the timing of his comments is a bit silly. They are accusing him of trying to take advantage of a national crisis however if he can't talk about such things less than 2 weeks before a general election then when can he talk about it?
BlackLabel said:
I don't agree with Corbyn's positions on national security, foreign policy etc however all of this faux outrage by the Tories and Lib Dems over the timing of his comments is a bit silly. They are accusing him of trying to take advantage of a national crisis however if he can't talk about such things less than 2 weeks before a general election then when can he talk about it?
It is not faux.It was a clever speech, but designed cynically for electioneering purposes. The 'let's not question patriotism' business particularly nauseating - he was attempting to cut off some serious questions he'll be asked.
My bet is he will refer back to it any time his past is raised and say something akin to 'I made my position clear and we should be moving on rather than promoting division'.
Cynical but sadly probably effective.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff