BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:04 PM

Very tiresome that, Iains. You're beginning to sound like you have an inferiority complex. Try not to demonstrate that it's justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:49 PM

Jim

That's the way adults debate – neme calling doesn't enter into it.

If that is the case why accuse me of being a misogynist and when that does not work trying to correct my grammar and punctuation.
The fact I do not agree with most of your postings does not give you the right to give me an insulting label as the one above. And you are a fine one to talk about grammar, spelling and punctuation.

are you another Shaw? a case of do as I say, not as I do!

Stop the name calling and I will continue with the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:12 PM

I was hoping you could enlighten the assembled company to the efforts the Conservative and UKip parties where making in the same regard.

Why?

Perhaps they are not making any efforts, if this is the case I would hope, in your strenuous efforts for justice for all people, you would castigate them in the same way as you would the labour party.

I have not castigated Labour over this. I just quoted a black Labour member who did.

Perhaps the Tories are not making any efforts, but the same member was quite clear that they are making a lot more effort than his party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:06 PM

I've no idea professor, I was hoping you could enlighten the assembled company to the efforts the Conservative and UKip parties where making in the same regard.



Perhaps they are not making any efforts, if this is the case I would hope, in your strenuous efforts for justice for all people, you would castigate them in the same way as you would the labour party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 01:53 PM

No I could not Rag, but the author of my linked piece is aware of some.
Do you think he is lying Rag?
Why would he?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:58 AM

Perhaps professor you could enlighten us about Conservative or UKip Policies to bring more BAME minorities into the decision making process.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:07 AM

Steve,

Well I suggest that anyone reading Keith's misleading post, with a quote that is completely unrepresentative of the article, should follow the link and read the whole thing.

I hope they do and see which of us has more honestly represented the piece whose title was, "Labour's proud record as a home for bame voters is at risk."
Me I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:25 AM

Oh, and I'm sure Omri Boehm is one of your self-hating, anti-semitic Jews, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:23 AM

Alan Dershowitz, Bubo? Really? You're going to give me Allen Fricking Dershowitz???

That quote from him, considering his statements and actions over the last 25 years is a bigger whopper than anything Trump has EVER come up with.

Yet you actually believe him, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 07:33 AM

Well I suggest that anyone reading Keith's misleading post, with a quote that is completely unrepresentative of the article, should follow the link and read the whole thing. It's a well-written, constructive and very supportive piece offering a view on the direction the party should be taking in a changing world. Incidentally, at the bottom of the piece there's a link you can follow to an article which addresses the idiotic Sajid Javid on the matter of the proposed oath. It's a nice sideswipe at Tory self-interest and discrimination which knock Labour's imperfections in those departments into a cocked hat. Keep the leftie links coming, Keith, but do try to put a more honest gloss on them. I know it's hard for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:52 AM

Left Foot Forward today.
"The Labour Party has led the way on race equality but the Conservative party has done more to improve BAME representation in the last two electoral cycles than Labour has done in more than two decades.
Labour must take urgent action to eradicate any discrimination in its ranks,"
http://leftfootforward.org/2016/12/labours-proud-record-as-a-home-for-bame-voters-is-at-risk/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM

Iains, his house built on sand, is indulging in similar behaviour in the climate change thread, unfortunately, having pops at people for what he sees as their lack of comprehension when they don't agree with him and indulging in sarcasm. He has a good teacher here, hasn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:30 AM

Iains
You really haven't got the hang of this, have you
You put up evidence of your claims – we discuss it
I put up evidence of my claims – we discuss it
We either reach a level of agreement or agree to disagree
That's the way adults debate – neme calling doesn't enter into it
I suggest you stick to Tolkein
Dont ring me, I'll ring you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:33 AM

Jim
I am beginning to think your grasp of the "big picture" must be because a 5 year old kiddie's colouring book was used as your template.
I see you are resorting to the red paintbrush and the blue paintbrush again. Was there not a song about toothbrushes that probably matches your mindset?
You remind me of a conversation by Aragorn in Lord of the Rings where he is saying that certain people in the Shire disparaged him, little realizing just what was occurring just outside their borders. You strike me as being one of those hobbits. I have yet to decide if you are merely a halfling or a halfwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 09:19 PM

Yo Greg, re your smear piece by the Israel hating Omri Boehm:

A Times opinion piece fabricated and erased the positions of American supporters of Israel, including Alan Dershowitz, in order to link Zionism to the alt-right

On November 20, the Zionist Organization of America, a small hard-right pro-Israel group, held its annual gala. To the chagrin of many in the American Jewish community, Donald Trump's newly-appointed senior strategist Stephen Bannon was scheduled to attend. Outside, scores of Jews protested. And inside, celebrated Zionist lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who had been scheduled to speak before Bannon had been invited, took the opportunity to issue a pointed warning to those in attendance.

"There is an equally disturbing trend that you might not be as happy to hear about, and that is the anti-Muslim and often bigoted extreme right that is pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist," the Harvard Law professor said. "I'm a little worried today that there are Jews in many parts of the world that are being seduced by the hard right. We must not become complicit in bigotry, whether it is from the right or the left… Being pro-Israel can never serve as an excuse for bigotry against any other group."



Why Did the New York Times Publish Fake News About Trump, Zionism, and Alan Dershowitz?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:21 PM

"Jim you are living in a cocoon."
Not me Bro
If you are going to dismiss reports as propaganda you have to provide proof - not accusations of naivety
You have had the reported facts from organisations like Amnesty (don't think I've ever come across anybody who has accused them of being prejudiced).
Now - if you want to disprove those, and in fact what we were watching on our T.Vs not so long ago - show us where we have gone wrong with your own set of facts
You really are new to open debating, aren't you/
This is really second form debating stuff you are coming out with
WHY SHOULDANYBODY ACCEPT YOUR CLAIMS OTEHRWISE
TIME
GUARDIAN
THE RECORD
DAILY MAIL
VANITY FAIR
Any more for the Skylark - this is getting reaaaaaaly booooring
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:56 PM

BTW - You have not even addressed the fact that I have already said If there was any criticism at all it was for use of the tactic by anyone. Do you just not realise what that means or are you deliberately ignoring that fact when you say I have not levelled the criticism at anyone else?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:52 PM

I am sure Teribus is capable of fighting his own battles. If he thinks I have criticised him I am sure he will say so. For the record, I have no gang, little or otherwise, but even if I did, I have also chosen to ignore Teribus' criticism of me as detailed earlier. Does that make him part of the same 'gang'? Now, Keith, will you please stop harping on about your own incorrect interpretation of what I actualy said. I am sure it is boring everyone else as much as me. If you feel so inclined continue by PM but don't expect me to add anything further to what I have already said.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:25 PM

Keith, for the last time, I was not criticising any individual. Using personal stuff in a debate is a distraction and may be wrong

It is wrong, so accusing of it is a criticism whether you realise that obvious fact or not.

Of course you are entitled to criticise anyone you want, but it tells us something about you that you ignore a far worse example of personal attack from a member of your little gang, while posting about a comparatively miniscule infringement from Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:34 PM

Jim you are living in a cocoon. I suggest you get about a bit and see how the real world operates. I suppose in your rose tinted world "human shields" and "collateral damage" do not occur and I suppose you subscribe to the view point of good and bad terrorists as well.
And I suppose using depleted uranium munitions in Syria by the illegal coalition airstrikes are quite legitimate in your book. Giving rise to nano sized particles with a half life of 4.47 billion years (without reckoning in U235 contaminants) getting ready to dance about in the slightest breeze to be inhaled by all and sundry. It is quite acceptable in your book to use these weapons of mass destruction because they are being used by the "goodies"
Your simplistic world view is wrong, dangerous and pathetic. Typical armchair posturing by a person that knows nothing of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:20 PM

D the G you can always light the blue touch paper and run, or see if the remote control will operate a tasar!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:13 PM

Amen to the grey area point, Iains. I guess you can see that there is merit in what most people say on here and truth in most of it as well. But like I said on the thread about the press, the truth being presented is not always the whole picture. We need to accept the points of view and differing truths of many people and then decide which, on balance, rings the truest with ourselves. It becomes very frustrating when you can see both sides of an argument and want to step in but, as I have learned to my regret, it is not something you can do without the risk of getting hit by both sides :-( We can but try.

Cheers

DtG

PS - Like the taser idea. Should sharpen up the debate :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 01:12 PM

"You also seem to have a blind faith in accepting anything publicised by amnesty Int. "
As far as I know, Amnesty it totally neutral and have never been shown to be otherwise - you might like to enlighten me.
Apart from their reports, Assad's history is fairly transparent and well covered elsewhere.
Even if that were the case, the butchery of the citizens of Homs, that was covered by the world media says when needs to be said - and then there is the use o chemicals on civilians - and now we have accounts of refugees fleeing Aleppo being cut down by Government forces and Russians
Are you really writing off all this as 'propaganda' - good luck with that one!
You say you are not defending Assad - what else are you doing?
Sorry - we have nothing to say to each other - don't thinks that matters too much to you - you have a soul mate in our resident Nazi
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM

Jim. You take anyone rejecting your mindset on Syria as being an Assad supporter. That is an absolute distortion as you well know. You also seem to have a blind faith in accepting anything publicised by amnesty Int. They have about as much independance as the so called white helmets. All funding comes with attached agenda, it would be rather naive to believe anything else. Even greenpeace have their flaws.
Many UN agencies are a waste of space. They are very good at parking their brand new landruiser 4x4s outside 5 star hotels and living high off the hog inside. I have seen it firsthand in a number of countries.
What their mission is, apart from squandering money, escapes me.
As I have said I do not believe Assad is an angel but neither do I accept that he is automatically guilty of all the atrocities he is accused of.
I feel confident the Arab Spring was both organised, funded and encouraged by external forces. The same ones responsible for the ongoing war in the country.
    There are no heroes and no angels in Syria and sadly modern urban warfare creates a human tragedy on a massive scale. Furthermore it is occurring all over the middle east in a number of countries and I have no doubt the next intended domino is Iran.
Like Libya, Syria was a fully functioning country where any street was safe to walk down any time of the day or night. Instead of reiterating the same old tired mantras perhaps you should study why all these middle eastern countries were destabilised_ who by, and for what purpose? There are no absolute answers on offer therefore it cannot be painted in black or white responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:15 AM

I recommend a thorough tasering for every evasive response.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 11:11 AM

"As I have said to you before, your take on events is either black or white"
Good job I don't take a supporter of mass murdered Assad too seriously then Iains
Have I said we get the Government we deserve - must have been on the Poitín that day!
As they never fulfil the election promises they make at election time, we have no choice in what government we get - we vote for one thing and get the other.
If we live under "democracy" somebody should start explaining how it works - buggered if I can work it out
"Yet the electorate just sit blindly in front of the TV and allow the circus to continue. "
That is incredibly patronising - the electorate are willing enough to participate when they see something happening on their behalf
After decades of that not happening and having no voice to change it, they have become cynical
If they took to the streets with banners demanding their say, people like you would be up on your chairs screaming - what was Maggie's phrase - "The enemy within".
We can't win, with you people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 10:55 AM

I've just as a brilliant idea. Stemming from Iains' idea of dragging ministers to the TV studios to be grilled on a weekly basis we could turn it into the sort of media circus that everyone seems to love nowadays. A sort of cross between question time, strictly come dancing and the I'm a celebrity. Maybe a group of MPs are each questioned over vital issues every week and the public votes as to which ones lose their jobs. The losers could be sent to an island where they are fed a diet of Ant, Dec and witchery grubs while the winners go on to perform the Rumba with Teresa May or Jeremy Corbyn.

Yea, I can see it all...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 09:16 AM

Jim. As I have said to you before, your take on events is either black or white, mine is more the acceptance of shadows in shades of grey. I do not believe there is any form of true democracy in the world. I do not think what we have now is significantly worse than what went before.
The early forms of so called democracy in the UK had a very restricted section of society that could vote. It is also true to say they were of a similar class, education, aspiration, sex and outlook. Today the electorate represents all sectors of society yet many feel disenfranchised because the elected government apparently ignores them.
Yet the electorate just sit blindly in front of the TV and allow the circus to continue. The poll tax riots towards the end of Thatchers reign were the only time in decades that people got off their backsides to protest. In France the farming lobby brings the country to it's knees with thousands of tractors on the least whiff of a rumour that something may happen they do not like.
I believe you recently re quoted(jefferson) that we get the government we deserve.
Unfortunately that is very true. To have true democracy there is a need for healthy riots now and again to clearly demonstrate what is acceptable to the people and what most definitely is not.
The media is the ideal medium for holding government to account. Yet since the days of Robin Day public interrogations of ministers have had the impact of damp lettuce.
Besides babbling in the house answering prepared questions the Prime Minister should be dragged in front of our tv screens and grilled on a weekly basis by fully trained terriers.( perhaps Paxman on steroids or a younger beast of bolsover) If we make no effort to force government to be accountable, then by what magic will change ever occur?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Keith, for the last time, I was not criticising any individual. Using personal stuff in a debate is a distraction and may be wrong but people have done it for ever. the first public debate I went to (1969 De La Salle 6th form society) I have no idea what the debate was about but it was won by the person who found out his opponent had had pretty peach body lotion rubbed into his chest by a girl from Adelphi House. If there was any criticism at all it was for use of the tactic by anyone.

If I may quote Teribus on this - Are you honestly stating that you know what I think better than I do myself? Utterly preposterous, your ignorance and arrogance is beyond belief.

On top of all this, it is perfectly acceptable to criticise or not criticise anyone or anything should I so chose and anyone is allowed to criticise me. In fact, I was criticised by said Teribus for "ruining good threads by your incessant tag-mobbing of Keith A of Hertford, as well as the deliberate and obtuse misrepresentation of practically everything posted by Akenaton and laterally bobad and Iains" but I do not see anyone, nor do I expect anyone, to bring up the issue on my behalf. We are all capable of fighting our own battles. I think.

Now can we please get on with a politcal debate, something that Iains, Jim and I seem to be trying to do, rather than discuss personalities?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:11 AM

Jim,
I take it we've finished with you "smear and lie"/

No.
It was a smear and a lie like everything else in that disgusting post.
You try it every time you lose an argument.

DtG,
To say someone in a debate is using personal stuff instead of the issues is to criticise.
Sorry, but it is.
Why do you ignore Jim using personal stuff instead of the issues?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:10 AM

"Jim if that last rant was aimed at me perhaps you should study yourself closely in a mirror. and clean up your spelling and preferably your language." - Iains

Elicited the following response from Jim Carroll:

"Since you have had the bad manners to mention it, typos (of which I make a few due to my idiosyncratic keyboard) are usually used to avoid points people cant handle and my language is my own ****** business and not yours." - Jim Carroll

Still lashing out blindly I see Carroll, anyone who disagrees with you or criticises you, but it does show rather good justification for the advice proffered by Iains above.

As far as the Labour Party goes:

Is it true that Diane Abbott has only given Corbyn 12 months to turn things round (Tories with the greatest lead over Labour ever?).

The Trades Unions, Labour's, and Corbyn's biggest backers are winning hearts and minds right, left and centre down South at the moment.

Is it true that the Party under Corbyn's leadership is totally out of touch with traditional Labour voters?

Nice to know that Jim Carroll over there in Miltown Malby is "supporting" Corbyn, joined the Labour Party yet Jim? Or is your "support" merely empty waffle?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:50 AM

"Democracy is a delicately poised beast as it is"
As far as British politics are concerned, democracy doesn't come into the equation.
It requires a voice for all - Mrs T silenced the one that people like us had which had ben fought for over a couple of centuries.
Now, we are at the mercy of those we elect, who are not committed in any way to fulfilling the reasons they gave for electing them
We live under an elected dictatorship which, of late has discovered the convenience of populism - the cynical use of peoples fears.
Add the power of the media to this and you have Government by Murdoch - hence Brexit and Trump - and much more of the same to come.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:31 AM

I cannot argue with any of your respective suggestions. Making an MP more accountable to their electorate has definite merit, as also making candidate selection a local responsibility (no helicoptering in anointed ones)
Ensuring the electorate is capable of understanding the election process is a worthy ideal, but a method of implementation that meets universal acclaim would be some challenge.Perhaps a multichoice series of topical questions on screen to validate capability and further on screen interrogation to prove ID after prior registration.
There would be unhappy bunnies whatever route was taken. But should an election outcome be dictated by a sector of society that some would say is both functionally and educationally illiterate?
That is a quagmire to enter and could generate many unintended consequences and could easily lead to the rebirth of eugenics.
As I said above the idea has merit but the dangers of it being hijacked by special interest groups would steer me well away from the idea. Any restriction of voting rights, no matter how innocently intended, could open a Pandora's box. Democracy is a delicately poised beast as it is, introducing any constraints could aid it's destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:49 AM

I don't think I would disagree with any of those, Iains. May tweak one or two and add my own. Thanks for the reply.

Just of the top of my head

1. While employed in government, no further employment that may cause split loyalties.

2. Hold MPs accountable to their constituents above the parliamentary party.

3. Do away with general elections every 5 years. Elect 25% of MPs each year on a 4 year cycle.

4. Educate voters on what they are voting for. If they fail a test on it, they are not allowed to vote! (Bit extreme but I am sure we could come up with something)

I am sure there will be more to come :-)



DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:41 AM

"Jim. not a problem."
Ditto
You missed what I believe to be the most important requirement in your list
Make all MPs and parties answerable to their promises and subject to recall should they fail to live up to them
Without this, your suggestions would be little more than moving the deckchairs on The Titanic and they will continue to do what suits their careers rather than the people they are supposed to represent.
If your car engine packs in, you don't just change the tyre.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:34 AM

Jim. not a problem.
D the G. you ask a lot and it deserves far more than my usual 3 liner.
There are many changes that could be made that in my opinion would improve our present system.
1) control lobbying ( How to do this with any degree of success escapes me)
2)Change the qualifications for becoming an MP.
( I would prefer to see a minimum age of say mid 40's.)
3) pay each mp 150k/year.
4) On leaving office pay continues for 10 years but no speeches, no    jumping through revolving doors, no politicking of any description backed by mandatory sanction of jail.
5)Change the legal status of corporations so that greed is tempered by a small degree of morality
6)Curb the undue influence of the SE of England over policies and investment.
7) Certain categories of voting in Parliament to be free votes.
   ( I leave it to others to categorize)
8) Minimum attendance levels of MP's for any vote to be valid.(50+%)

I am sure others could suggest many other options. Perhaps the thread should migrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:01 AM

Apologies Iaian it wasn't, - it was addressed to Teribus - I really should have clarified that - whoops - if you7 read what I said, I did!
Mayvbe it's good practice to do just that.
Since you have had the bad manners to mention it, typos (of which I make a few due to my idiosyncratic keyboard) are usually used to avoid points people cant handle and my language is my own ****** business and not yours.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:57 AM

OK - Thanks for the clarification Iains. Maybe if you have no desire to associate with either of the main parties you would care to share your ideas for an alternative with us? I think, with a little tweaking, either of them could become much better and, as Jim says, if the opposition presents viable alternative policies then, just maybe, the government of the day, whoever is in the majority, will start to govern more sensibly? I would view well regulated capitalism as a good start and global resource management as essential but I know not everyone agrees.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:40 AM

D the G. It is merely my perception of events that their internal squabbling degrades both their influence and purpose as an opposition.
I have no desire to associate with either labour or conservative.

Jim if that last rant was aimed at me perhaps you should study yourself closely in a mirror. and clean up your spelling and preferably your laguage.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:24 AM

"The function of opposition is to try and hold the government to account"
No opposition has ever been able to hold a government to account unless the gap between majority and minority is small enough - not ever.
Little point in blaming the opposition for this
It is why the PR system here in Ireland works better than the UK system
The function of an opposition is to present an alternative policy - for most of my lifetime they have only propped up a failing system - which is why I'm prepared to support Corbyn - who, so far, offers that alternative.
Please stop cyber-stalking Teribus, you are only confirming what I have just said and you are in line to fuck up yet another thread.
Take yopur bullying bluster elsewhere (open a new thread maybe)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:04 AM

I would have agreed a year or so ago, Iains, but, of late, they seem to be getting better. Not sure if it is too little too late though. I have recently re-joined the Labour party in the hope that I can make a bit of a difference from within. Have you done anything about changing the situation or is your comment just criticism for the sake of it?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 04:50 AM

Is the Labour party actually fit for purpose these days? The function of opposition is to try and hold the government to account.
They fail miserably and as an opposition they are a total disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 04:03 AM

"you are presenting your own archaic, jingoistic, extreme right wing opinions as facts" - Jim Carroll

Now if that were indeed the case it would be very easy to demonstrate the fallacy of those opinions and the error in the statements and facts supporting them wouldn't it? Problem is Jim neither you, nor any of your pals ever seem to manage to do that. The nearest you come is to "invent" things I am supposed to have said, then take me to task for them - classic Jim Carroll "made-up-shit".

"I don't put up the list for you"

Really?? Could you explain these quotes of yours then:

"I you ever call me a liar again, I really won't bother asking you - I'll just pull out the examples of what I was talking about"

That Jim is a threat - "If you do that then I'm going to do this" - i.e. "You must modify and alter your behaviour to appease me, or I will do something to you" - And YOU have got the fucking gall to call me a bully (Once again Jim Carroll puts both feet firmly in it - another home goal).

"I do know one thing, you would not dare to say the things you do in the manner you do to anybody's face, which makes you a somewhat snivelling coward relying on the safety of anonymity and distance to get away with your loutish behaviour, you are a cowardly cyber-bully."

Another remark and opinion passed by Jim Carroll based on total ignorance. "I do know one thing, ...." - YOU know nothing of the sort, you do not "know" me at all, you have never met me, you have never talked to me. "Anybody's face Jim??? - Go back and take a good look at that list of yours, your quoted examples you will find are directed at a certain clique on this forum - them and only them - care to guess at who they are? So it is not a matter of "anybody" is it? It is directed at you and your pals specifically, and for a reason - you are subject to being repaid in kind - and as such your list and your loud and numerous objections reveal another tell-tale trait of the typical bully - you can dish it out, but you certainly cannot handle it when you are subjected to a healthy dose of your own medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:14 AM

"you are a liar, you deliberately take things out of context, "cherry-pick""
You don't take abuse, insulting and talking down to "out of context - they are their own context - nobody on this forum behaves in this manner other than you.
You substitute insult for argument, and as you refuse to provide linked evidence to anything,, you are presenting your own archaic, jingoistic, extreme right wing opinions as facts - that is your greatest lie.
If you had any confidence that what you claim would stand up to close examination, you would provide facts to back them up - you refuse to do so.
I don't put up the list for you - you are so far up your own arse that I have little doubt that you wear it as a medal.
I do know one thing, you would not dare to say the things you do in the manner you do to anybody's face, which makes you a somewhat snivelling coward relying on the safety of anonymity and distance to get away with your loutish behaviour, you are a cowardly cyber-bully.
Perhaps it's worth reminding you that I usually prefix your list with your own statement to Steve when you described his insulting you "as a sign that I am getting to you".
As you permanently insult those who don't agree with you, you must be in a very extreme state of being "got at".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 02:13 AM

"Bit late in the day now, but I'm looking forward to pulling out some more of your bon mots from Homs Horror tomorrow."

Of course you are JOM, having had all your points thoroughly trashed by what amounts to actual fact and detail, you have to resort to chaff in order to run for cover as you have absolutely nothing to support your arguments.

I you ever call me a liar again, I really won't bother asking you - I'll just pull out the examples of what I was talking about

Here let me oblige you. Jim Carroll, you are a liar, you deliberately take things out of context, "cherry-pick" to put words in people's mouths to misrepresent what they actually did say, introduce your own brand of "made-up-Shit" into the discussion as though it was well established fact. Recently you have been caught out now on at least three threads where you have deliberately lied, misrepresented facts and made knowingly false and groundless allegations against members on this forum. Having had evidence of the above laid out before you, instead of coming up with anything to refute that evidence you provide a meaningless list of examples (Many of them extremely accurate descriptions of yourself and of your behaviour) of you being called names. But it is noted that you do not put them in context by similarly detailing the name calling that you yourself have engaged in.

Looking forward to your list Jim. I'll mark it as a favourite, that way I can just click it up and cut'n'paste the bits I need for future posts. It will save me the trouble of retyping them - I know on this occasion you will not let me down.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 01:04 PM

Yo, Smeg, read up: Ban Ki Moon

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the article I posted, or the facts discussed therein.

The old "baffle 'em with irrelevant bullshit" ploy seems to be your forté.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 12:20 PM

"Naw Jim the "usual suspects" was a term I used to describe the Musktwats, "
You are a stupidly arrogant man who attempts to hide his ignorance with bluster and bullshit, as all bullies do.
Bit late in the day now, but I'm looking forward to pulling out some more of your bon mots from Homs Horror tomorrow.
"debate should be about the issues at hand and not personal stuff, "
I take it we've finished with you "smear and lie"/
I you ever call me a liar again, I really won't bother asking you - I'll just pull out the examples of what I was talking about
Everything I wrote was true and you remain one of the most inhuman, unchristian and dishonest people I have ever had the displeasure to deal with
Nasty, nasty individual
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 12:14 PM

Yo, Smeg, read up: Ban Ki Moon admits UN bias against Israel

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the organisation has a "disproportionate" volume of resolutions against Israel, which he believes has "foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively".

Addressing the UN Security Council on Friday, Mr Ban said: "Over the last decade I have argued that we cannot have a bias against Israel at the UN.

"Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.
Read more

"In many cases, instead of helping the Palestinian issue, this reality has foiled the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively."

In response, Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said Mr Ban "had admitted the clear truth", adding that the UN's hypocrisy towards Israel had "broken records over the past decade".

Mr Danon continued: "During this time the UN passed 223 resolutions condemning Israel, while only eight resolutions condemning the Syrian regime as it has massacred its citizens over the past six years. This is absurd.

"With a new Secretary General set to take office next month, we look forward to the possibility of a new era of fairness at the UN."

Independent

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:56 AM

If you believe it was a criticism of any individual, Keith, we really do have a communication problem. That is not a criticism of you BTW.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:54 AM

Yo, Bubo! Read Up!

For weeks now, Jewish communities across America have been troubled by an awkward phenomenon. Donald J. Trump, a ruthless politician trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes, has been elected to become the next president, and he has appointed as his chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, a prominent figure of the "alt-right," a movement that promotes white nationalism, anti-Semitism, racism and misogyny.

Still, neither the United States' most powerful Jewish organizations nor Israeli leaders have taken a clear stance against the appointment. In fact, they have embraced it.

The alliance that's beginning to form between Zionist leadership and politicians with anti-Semitic tendencies has the power to transform Jewish-American consciousness for years to come.

Whole article is Worth Reading