Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafehuddy

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]


BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

bobad 08 Apr 17 - 02:29 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 17 - 01:36 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 17 - 12:52 PM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 17 - 12:48 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 17 - 12:45 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 17 - 12:28 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 17 - 12:18 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 17 - 12:16 PM
bobad 08 Apr 17 - 11:25 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 17 - 11:15 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 17 - 11:09 AM
Teribus 08 Apr 17 - 10:55 AM
bobad 08 Apr 17 - 10:26 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 17 - 10:06 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM
bobad 08 Apr 17 - 09:51 AM
Teribus 08 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 17 - 09:13 AM
bobad 08 Apr 17 - 08:58 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 17 - 08:34 AM
Teribus 08 Apr 17 - 08:28 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Apr 17 - 05:03 AM
Raggytash 08 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Apr 17 - 04:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 17 - 07:13 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 17 - 06:36 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 17 - 06:35 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 17 - 06:04 PM
Dave the Gnome 07 Apr 17 - 05:38 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Apr 17 - 03:08 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Apr 17 - 02:14 PM
Dave the Gnome 07 Apr 17 - 02:00 PM
Teribus 07 Apr 17 - 01:12 PM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 17 - 01:10 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Apr 17 - 12:21 PM
Teribus 07 Apr 17 - 12:05 PM
bobad 07 Apr 17 - 10:53 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Apr 17 - 10:25 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 17 - 10:10 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Apr 17 - 10:09 AM
bobad 07 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Apr 17 - 09:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM
bobad 07 Apr 17 - 09:41 AM
bobad 07 Apr 17 - 09:09 AM
Steve Shaw 07 Apr 17 - 08:26 AM
bobad 07 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 02:29 PM

I'm very happy that my food posts make you cross, boobs.

Lol!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 01:36 PM

"fully exposed as atrocity denying, Imperial brutality and the persecution of ethnic minorities "
You've had the evince
You are a racist (you've had that)
You personally have assisted the persecution of travellers in describing them as slavers
You have personally persecuted Muslims in describing them as culturally implanted perverts prone to raping underage women
You have denigrated Irish children as having been brainwashed to hate
Which of these have you not had put up over and over again - none!!!
You continue to deny the facts of Israel's favourite massacre yet refuse to put up a single fact other than Israel says they didn't to it
If this is not true - where are your arguments
You have lied distorted facts, invented withnesses and refused to respond to argument in pursuit of all of these
You are one sick cookie
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:52 PM

We can read perfectly well without your tendentious emboldening of text if you don't mind. Buffoon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:48 PM

I wasn't talking to you.


I'm very happy that my food posts make you cross, boobs. Tonight I'm going to make a very spicy tomato sauce with lashings of garlic, chilli and parsley. While that's simmering away I'll boil up some rigatoni pasta and stir fry some chicken breast cut into small pieces. The chicken goes into the sauce, the pasta is drained (following the golden rule of keeping some pasta water) then the pasta goes into the sauce. Loosen with pasta water if necessary. I might drizzle a bit of EV olive oil on top, but probably not parmesan on this one. Chicken arrabbiata, washed down with Nero d'Avola. Glorious. Arrabbiata has nothing to do with Arabs. It means angry. Would suit you, boobs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:45 PM

World Socialist Website yesterday

"Over the last days, a flood of op-eds and editorials have appeared in the national media demanding Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn expel Livingstone, his long-time ally. In the five days to Friday, more than 50 articles have appeared in the UK national media, with a significant number demanding Livingstone's head.
(Not just me then!!!)
This offensive is being led by the Guardian, whose front page Thursday was dominated by the headline, "100 Labour MPs condemn decision not to expel veteran over Hitler remarks."

It was referring to the letter signed Wednesday by 107 MPs, nearly half of the parliamentary party and including eight members of Corbyn's shadow cabinet, along with 47 Labour peers. The letter reads, "We stand united in making it clear that we will not allow our party to be a home for antisemitism and Holocaust revisionism. We stand with the Jewish community and British society against this insidious racism."
On Wednesday, the Guardian editorialised that the NCC decision was "wrong" and sent a "terrible message." Livingstone's comments were a "grotesque misreading of history" and "Most Jews think it [Livingstone's language] was hurtful. But a Labour committee has decided not to mind their pain."
The Guardian proclaimed of the NCC decision, "An ugly conclusion is inevitable: Labour values Mr Livingstone's membership over the fight against antisemitism."
Guardian columnists Suzanne Moore, Jonn Elledge and Anne Perkins all weighed in with vitriolic denunciations of Livingstone."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/07/livi-a07.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:28 PM

Liar Jim,
fully exposed as atrocity denying, Imperial brutality and the persecution of ethnic minorities


Will you support this deranged slander with quotes?
How? It is all made up shit. You lie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:18 PM

Steve,
So tell me which policies of Naz Shah you heartily stand behind.

I do not share her political views, but have no reason to believe that she is lying about this issue.
What reason do you have to believe she is lying Steve?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 12:16 PM

I have looked up three WW1 sites and cannot find any reference to Crozier
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:25 AM

Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling.

By my definition it is trolling and goading, and like what was once posted here by some hypocrite:

WE. WILL. DISCUSS. WHAT. THE. HELL. WE. LIKE. IN. ANY. BS. THREAD. WE. LIKE.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:15 AM

"You can tell us all now that Kitchener was NEVER forced to resign."
I accepted his resignation was not accepted
Even if I had been wrong - it was not a lie - I did not invent it.
You used pedantry to absolve his deadly incompetence
THat, as far as I am concerned, is lying.
"You have claimed that 3,500 people were massacred in Sabra-Shatila "
Nope - I said "up to - the figure is not known thanks to Israeli cover-up
and that their bodies were buried in a mass grave under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium."
That is a lie - I said some of the bosies were buried there - I alsop pointed out that ther were mass graves in and around the camp and that some were found thrown by the roadside - it's all there in the links.
At no time have I ever claimed that all the bodies were buried under the stadium
You continue to lie
"Britain sold weapons to the Assad regime in Syria."
Nope - Keith turned my "sniper ammunition" into "a few sniper rifles"
The ammunition was licenced and sold
You claime first, nothing ws sold, then no licence was ever issued, then it was issued but rescinded, then it was for sporting equipment, then the order came too early to be used by the Homs snipers, then teh ammunition that was sold was the wrong size for Assad's weapons (no size of ammunition was ever specified)
Your whole defence of this sale had been a constant string of lies and inventions)
"That Rifleman 14218 James Crozier was summarily executed without benefit of a Court Martial."
I know nothing whatever of the execution of Crozier - my only reference to summary executions was to provide evidence that they happened.
You are lying - I persisted in nothing regarding this
If pigs started to fly and you did provide evifdence of anything you said, I would have been incredibly stupid to ignore it
Do you want to lik me to my persisting in this or anything I have been guilty of when evidence was provided?
Now fuck off and provide some evidence - any moron can invent a list
And then you can provide us with proof of the dishonesty of "proven liars
"Want me to continue? It would be rather a long list"
I would like you to start - you have provided nothing but unqualified accusations
Your long list is a lie, but it falls well within your capabilities to prove me wrong
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 11:09 AM

Hah bloody ha. So tell me which policies of Naz Shah you heartily stand behind. You and Keith are the two most led-by-the-nose ideologues it's ever been my misfortune to encounter.

Posting about food is deliberate and intentional thread drift, designed to irritate but not to goad into emotional responses, therefore it is not trolling. I would estimate that all bar about four people who read these benighted threads welcome it as a leavening of the bread (now there's an idea - I might come back to that). Clearly, your understanding of trolling is about as hazy as your understanding of antisemitism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:55 AM

"I should think that you'd probably totally and scornfully dismiss everything she'd say about just about everything"

You are a slave to ideology Shaw - I am NOT, so I am not surprised that that is the way you'd think.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:26 AM

You're trolling, bobad. That is a content-free post solely intended to goad.

And posting your food snobbery on a thread about the Labour party is what Shaw?.......HYPOCRITE!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:06 AM

You're trolling, bobad. That is a content-free post solely intended to goad.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM

Well, Teribus, quoting Naz Shah as if she was some ex cathedra-talking guru is very amusing. She is a left-wing Labour MP and I should think that you'd probably totally and scornfully dismiss everything she'd say about just about everything. But she suddenly speaks with the sword of truth - when it suits you. Israel is not Jews. Israel is a country containing a quarter non-Jews as well as a good number of Jews who detest what their government does. Antisemitism is attacks targeted at just Jews, Billyboy, no-one else. Naz Shah was reacting in a stupid way to the actions of the Israeli regime. She did not say that she hated all Jews and wanted them all moved to America. In fact, she didn't mention Jews at all. She did not say that the Jews in Israel should all be moved. Now that would have been antisemitic. And she was being totally out of order but she was not at all making a serious suggestion. I can't call her stupid for grovelling, because the grovelling had the desired effect of saving her skin. I dislike Naz Shah and she has a bloody long way to go in order to prove that she can be a serious politician. But she did not make an antisemitic remark, and all those people in the party who say she did are saying it because they are scared of not saying it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:51 AM

You do not know what anti-Semitism is Steve.

Oh, he definitely knows what most accept as anti-Semitism but he has to continue the charade of insisting on his own invented definition otherwise he would have to own up to his guilt which, just like Livingstone, he doesn't have the moral courage to do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

Well let me see what we have then Jim?


Jim Lie #1:

You can tell us all now that Kitchener was NEVER forced to resign.

You can tell us all now that when, after this had been pointed out to you that you still persisted in stating that he had been forced to resign - that being untrue and you knowing it to be untrue meant that you were deliberately lying.

Jim Lie #2

You have claimed that 3,500 people were massacred in Sabra-Shatila refugee camps in 1982 and that their bodies were buried in a mass grave under the Camille Chamoun Sports Stadium.

You can now acknowledge that your figure of 3,500 is far from being factual is only at best an unverified "estimate" and that during extensive work done at the Camille Chamoun Stadium the remains of not one single body has been uncovered.

Jim Lie #3
Britain sold weapons to the Assad regime in Syria.

Admit that there are no records of the British Government selling any weapons to the Syrians, and that despite being asked and given every opportunity to do so you have not in five years come up with any proof to substantiate your claim that they did.

Jim Lie #4
That Rifleman 14218 James Crozier was summarily executed without benefit of a Court Martial.

Despite being given links to his Court Martial papers and a full account of his arrest, trial and subsequent execution you still persisted with your lie.

Jim Lie #5
That Brigadier Frank Percy Crozier summarily executed sentries who fell asleep on duty.

Blatant lie, only two such executions took place in the entire course of the war and they took place in Mesopotamia a theatre of war in which Frank Percy Crozier never served. Both men were tried and found guilty by Court Martial.

Want me to continue? It would be rather a long list.But the five given above will serve to keep the pot boiling for the moment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 09:13 AM

Reuters yesterday,
"Labour lawmaker Wes Streeting told Livingstone on BBC news late on Tuesday: "Your poor judgment, your crass remarks and your lack of apology brings the Labour Party into disrepute."
Fellow Labour member of parliament Luciana Berger, who has suffered anti-Semitic abuse, said the party had reached "a new low".
"Why is anti-Semitism being treated differently from any other form of racism?" she wrote on Twitter."


Steve,
Like me, he thinks that she said nothing antisemitic. I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was antisemitic, but you bottle it every time, bleating about what Labour officials (who you generally have very little time for) have said.

I do have time for most senior Labour people.
Labour found them both guilty of ant-Semitism. Why should anyone care what your very biased view is? Your view of anti-Semitism has been proved wrong. The definitions you rejected are accepted by everyone else. You do not know what anti-Semitism is Steve.

Jim, you specified Fisk and Siegel.
They saw nothing that contradicts Israel's version.
If that is not a FACT, quote them!

Fortunately, everything else points to the fact that they did

That would be your "verified facts" again.
You could not produce a single one, remember!!

That has nothing to do with the present Labour Party

True. This lot could never be elected once, never mind three times in a row!

I take it you can produce no proof of my or "provens liars" lies Teribus

You have told lots about me Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:58 AM

Jewish members of the Labour Party are right to chide Livingstone and those in the party who wouldn't expel him for "enabling" anti-Semites to support Labour. But Livingstone, who in his pigheaded obstinacy didn't apologize, even after being found guilty of all charges and receiving his minor sentence, is doing us all a favor. (Some in Labour actually believe he's causing trouble out of envy that the much-less-talented Corbyn unexpectedly became party leader.)

The crass offensiveness of his tirades has made many more level-headed voices on the left admit that Jews, like any other minority, have a right to define for themselves what's abusive to them, and that while Zionism's merits and flaws can be discussed and disputed, ascribing any connection between Zionism and Nazism is anti-Semitic. The outrage Livingstone has caused on the British left has forced even his old friend Corbyn to limply repudiate him, and this case is now reverberating far beyond.


Anshel Pfeffer - Haaretz


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:34 AM

I take it you can produce no proof of my or "provens liars" lies Teribus
Then that makes you a liar£hat was originally the suggestion of Jewish Norman Finklestein
Bit stupid to call anybody a "lying git" with your current track record
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 08:28 AM

"I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was anti-Semitic" - Shaw

Naz Shah "My words were anti-Semitic"

Extract:

Ms Shah apologised in April for online posts, including one suggesting Israel should be moved to the United States.

Labour has now reinstated the Bradford West MP, who in her first interview about the controversy blamed her "ignorance".

"I wasn't anti-Semitic, what I put out was anti-Semitic," Ms Shah told BBC Radio 4's World At One.

In a Facebook post in 2014, before she became an MP, Ms Shah shared a graphic showing an image of Israel's outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline "Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict - relocate Israel into United States", with the comment "problem solved".


That Shaw is denying the right of the internationally recognised Sovereign State of Israel to exist - Anti-Semitism according to the internationally recognised definition of anti-Semitism and according every single political party in the UK.

Bottled it Shaw - didn't mention Jews - "relocate Israel into United States" - Just who the f**k do you think she meant relocating to the United States by shifting Israel to the United States you lying git.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 06:31 AM

"Nothing that either of them saw contradicts Israel's version of events."
Stop doing this Keith - your arguments went down the pan years ago
The only people who witnessed the events were the killers, the survivors and the Israelis who facilitated the massacres
You have dismissed the survivors as "liars", Israel "disappeared" the killers who were prepared to give an account of what happened and Israel is the accused and must be judged on that fact
What we have to go on are the independent researches of those who reported on the matter, the independent enquiry which found Israel "probably responsible for the massacre" and simple common sense.
Even Istreali soldiers testified as to Israel's guilt.
You have already said that you are just putting Israel's case - fine by me - it puts everything you claim into perfect context "they didn't do it because they say they didn't do it"
Fortunately, everything else points to the fact that they did - your shite about "decent democracies" staying silent is just that - shite
If they were half decent they would not stay silent and watch as Israel is "unfairly accused of what that they are - what kind of decency is that?
You will continue to ignore this last point - also fine by me.
Like all of my postings - none is for your benefit - I don't waste time with closed and empty minds
The usual bollocks about you bizarre 'guilt without charges' Labour antisemitism
More distortions about your voting Labour - you boasted of voting for Blair - a war criminal who narrowly missed being indicted for same
That has nothing to do with the present Labour Party
No sign of Teribus - he must be still looking for my "lies" and those of the "proven liars" - so he may be some time,
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:52 AM

By the way, Keith:

"Yes I have. He defended Shah's anti-Semitism."

Not so. No-one has "defended antisemitism." Like me, he thinks that she said nothing antisemitic. I've repeatedly asked YOU what she said that you think was antisemitic, but you bottle it every time, bleating about what Labour officials (who you generally have very little time for) have said. She was stupid, but she said a stupid thing about Israel, a country, and she didn't mention Jews. Her remark was a reaction to the behaviour of the Israeli regime. Not antisemitic, whatever she said in order to save her career. I can't respect that. At least Ken has stuck to his guns. The pillock hasn't done either himself or the party any good but he's a tough sod, unlike Naz, and he hasn't wavered.

I don't defend Ken and I don't defend Naz. They have both been idiots. Being an idiot doesn't mean that you're antisemitic, as Jim said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 05:03 AM

I love talking grub. I'm getting inspired. We're having chicken arrabbiata tonight (often have it with salmon but we've had that this week already). I like big chunky rigati pasta instead of slippery little penne which I've never been that keen on. Reminds me of those nasty little pots of cold congealed "pasta salad" that supermarkets sell. Shoulder of Gloucester Old Spot tomorrow (bought at Gloucester Services, though their carrier bags have Tebay on them!) with tons of crackling and all the trimmings.

Seems like your speciality is chicken, Keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

Try a Festive Jaloise .............. Sprout Pie

Par boil sprouts, mix with thinly sliced onion, red & green bell peppers, chestnuts with a cheese sauce in a puff pastry case.

Sounds bloody awful but is in fact wonderful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 04:40 AM

No cooking for me today. Glorious weather and...

Wait for it...

Haworth beer festival:-)

Just had Yorkshire smoke house kippers (not Whitby but next best) with scrambled egg for breakfast. Going to try some Goan chicken soup for lunch then bus to Keighley and on to Haworth. Then, who knows:-) Probably get a steam train back to Keighley around tea time.

Off to Ingleton again tomorrow with Grandsons and Daughter in law.

We are going to try a variation on your orzo dish on Monday. Daughter I-L is piscavore veggie so going to use fish pie mix instead of pancetta.

Wish me luck for all events :-)

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 17 - 03:59 AM

Jim,
where is your proof that Robert Fisk, eye witnesses to the events, Nurse Helen Seigal...... and all the others who tell the same story.... are "proven liars"

Nothing that either of them saw contradicts Israel's version of events.
If that is not true, quote something.

Steve,
I asked you to tell me precisely what you think Naz Shah said that was antisemitic.

She and the party leadership agreed it was anti-Semitic.
That is enough for me.

You also won't say what was antisemitic about Ken's remark.

Yes I have. He defended Shah's anti-Semitism.

. You clearly dislike the Labour Party, as you've briefed against it here since time immemorial.

Not true at all. I am an ex-Labour voter who would like to be able to vote for them again.

Never an original opinion of your own. Always an appeal to another authority, many of which you otherwise deride.

How would I know what goes on inside the party?
I read what insiders say, and repeat it here.
What is wrong with that?

You hate Naz Shah but when she says something that suits you she's suddenly a saint who can say no wrong.

You are making shit up now. If I have ever expressed either of those views quote me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 07:13 PM

Next week for two nights I'm cooking for seven or eight people. Some of them will not eat pork, prawns or mushrooms on religious grounds, and one of them is a non-piscivore vegetarian. Now there's a challenge. I'm planning a big pasta bake for one evening, gambling slightly on the fact that some veggies will eat parmesan and mozzarella in spite of the calf rennet. I won't countenance substitutes. It consists of layers of cheese, orecchiette pasta and tomato sauce (left chunky - none of that passata smoothie for me!) with a hit of chilli and basil, baked in the oven. It's one of Italy's favourite dishes. For the other evening I'm doing a bean stew, mixed beans with whatever I have to hand but definitely including cannellini and borlotti, maybe a chickpea or two, with tomato, onion and chilli, with lemony ciabatta dumplings. Plenty of parsley in there. If they don't like it they can bugger off!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:36 PM

By the way, that's called tricolore salad, red, white and green, the colours of the Italian flag!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:35 PM

Bloody brilliant recipe here, Dave, gleaned from a pack of Sainsbury's Vittoria cherry tomatoes (which have been very good lately). The quality of the cherry toms is paramount. This would do for a lunch for two, but if you also have a pot of hummus with something to dip you have a meal for two in front of the telly. It's just assembly, no cooking.

Peel two ripe avocados and slice them into strips. Two's quite a lot but one isn't enough, but I love the buggers, so what the hell.

Take one ball of cow mozzarella (buffalo is too sloppy and wet for this recipe). Don't buy own brands. They're shit. Buy Galbani. Drain and slice it into thin pieces the size of a 50p.

Take 200g or a bit less of your loveliest cherry toms and cut them in half.

Get a fancy serving dish, shallow, and arrange the slices of cheese and avocado sort of alternating. Don't sweat it. Throw the tomatoes on top in casual fashion. Sprinkle a sparse quantity of freshly-ground pepper over it all. Easy tiger. Tear a few fresh basil leaves on top, then splash on top the finest extra virgin oil you can get your hands on (recommendation: Marks and Spencer Tuscan - ten quid but you will not regret it and it will last for ages). It's the tastiest grub I ever eat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 06:04 PM

I didn't ask you to debate what is and what isn't antisemitism. I asked you to tell me precisely what you think Naz Shah said that was antisemitic. You've lost courage, haven't you. You know that you'll be shot down whatever you say. Have you actually got more respect for her than I have? I think she was a bloody idiot and I think she grovelled in order to save her own skin. I can't respect that. Typical bloody politician. But I want to know what YOU think was antisemitic about her comment. Man up, Keith. You also won't say what was antisemitic about Ken's remark. Stupid, yes. Lousy timing, yes. Antisemitic? Definitely not. If you disagree, let us know precisely why. You clearly dislike the Labour Party, as you've briefed against it here since time immemorial. Yet it's the Labour Party, and only the Labour Party, that you ever invoke in order to confirm your prejudices against its members accused of antisemitism. You don't even invoke yourself. Never an original opinion of your own. Always an appeal to another authority, many of which you otherwise deride. You hate Naz Shah but when she says something that suits you she's suddenly a saint who can say no wrong. You hate the Labour Party but when it says something that fits your agenda it suddenly becomes a paragon. Your arguments are expedient, disreputable and highly dishonest, not to speak of of remarkably shallow.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 05:38 PM

Ah, OK. Got it now then. Someone who is in the club says it is so, so therefore it must be true. Funny thing is, I remember someone on here calling someone else a thick c**t. I guess if someone said it, it must be true. As to why they actualy said it, well, why should I research it for you? You can read what Mudcat people say as easily as I can.

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 03:08 PM

"Priceless Jom, you type in the same manner as Inspector Jacques Clouseau speaks, or the Gendarme in "Allo, Allo". "
As devoid of an answer as that eh?
That you don't accept facts that don't suit you doesn't make them lies - I thought every moron knew that
You have produced nothing to prove they are wrong - you never have and you never will
Even if I was wrong would not make me a liar, it would make me wrong
Only a mean-minded twat would suggest otherwise
Is that the best of my "lies" you can come up with   
I reckon that proves you a liar, doesn't it you have produced nothing but denials and buffoonish mistakes - where is your proof that Robert Fisk, eye witnesses to the events, Nurse Helen Seigal...... and all the others who tell the same story.... are "proven liars" - where is your proof that are - if you claim they are prove liar you must have the proof - where is it?   
You've obviously spent the day searching for my lies and come up with - zilch!
You are a pathetic liar - all racists are.
You and Keith are a matched pair - no brains - no knowledge - no principles - no honesty and no self respect
If you had the latter ytou wouldn't spend so much time humiliating yourself by behaving like a schoolyard bully
Adults don't do that
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 02:14 PM

Steve,
No, tell me what she said that was antisemitic (not just stupid, which I won't begin to deny). Analyse it for us, Keith.

No.
I will not debate with you what is and is not anti-Semitism.
There is an accepted definition. You dispute it, but what is your opinion worth?

The Labour Party accepted that her comments were anti-Semitic and she herself agreed, so who cares whether you do or not.

Dave,
Keith, you seem to know a lot about this so how come you have not let us know just what antisemitic statement he did make?

I only know what Labour people tell us Dave.
He was found guilty of bringing the party into disrepute through his anti-Semitism.

Why should I research it for you? You can read what Labour people say as easily as I can.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 02:00 PM

You somehow missed the other definition of collaboration, Teribus.

Collaboration is the process of two or more people or organizations working together to realize or achieve something successfully.

I wonder why that is? Whether the Nazis were serious or not the Zionists worked with them in the hope of achieving something sucessfuly. Still doubt that? Maybe you need to look up the Haavara Agreement. As I say, I don't have a lot of time for Livingstone but to nail him for something he just ain't done will not do any good for anyone.

Keith, you seem to know a lot about this so how come you have not let us know just what antisemitic statement he did make?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 01:12 PM

"Kitchener"
Only a spiteful moron can turn describing a crass bureaucratic General who was forced into tendering his resignation as "resigning", as I did, a lie.
Kitchener probably caused the death of many thousand troops by sending the wrong shells
It may have been a mistake on my part to have claimed he resigned (anybody who crassly kills his own men should have) but it is not a lie - errors are not deliberate lies - Jim


1: At no point at all in his time as Secretary of State for War was Kitchener ever forced by anybody to resign - Not opinion, simple, well documented FACT - To state otherwise is a deliberate lie even although it may have been stated by someone writing in ignorance.

2: In 1914 when the British went to war, they had the smallest Army of all the combatant powers. An army geared to fight a mobile war, it was that capability that saved the BEF as a fighting force throughout the latter part of 1914 and much of 1915. They only had "field artillery" and the one single arsenal in the British Isles at Woolwich made two types of shells for the artillery arm of the British Army High Explosive and Shrapnel, the production of the latter was greater than the former because that is what the Army said it wanted - NOT Kitchener - who held no direct Army Command during the course of the war. Kitchener was made Secretary of State for War to do two things:

(a) Raise Britain's first citizen Army - Which he did successfully - Britain ended the war with an army ten times the size it was in 1914.

(b) Put Britain on a full time war footing in order to keep Britain in the War and keep it's armed forces supplied with whatever they needed. It was Kitchener who did the spade work that Lloyd George later took the credit for.

3: As Kitchener did not directly Command any military formation in the field he can hardly be guilty of crassly killing anybody. Yes it was a mistake on your part to state that he had been forced to resign and it would have remained as a simple mistake had you acknowledged that and corrected what you said - You did neither. Instead you maintained the line that he had been forced to resign and that, in the light of the fact that your mistake had been brought to your attention is where your simple mistake becomes a deliberately told lie.

SABRA-SHATILA:
Your claims are based upon the unverified stories told by proven liars as part of a propaganda campaign. Your claim is that a mass burial site is located under the only sports stadium in the area. A site that was in ruins at the time of the massacre, there was no construction effort on the site at the time you allege the bodies were buried. The site subsequently was the scene of massive ground and construction works in 1997 and again in 2015 - NOT ONE SINGLE BODY OR ANY HUMAN REMAINS AT ALL WERE UNEARTHED AT THE SITE - Tells me that there was no mass grave as YOU claim - another myth, another lie that you cling to like a limpet to a rock.

Lebanese Army and the Red Cross recovered and buried the bodies of those killed at Sabra-Shatila in 1982, they did so under the gaze of the world's press, UN Observers, the Lebanese Government and a host of other international bodies. Those were the only bodies found and they came to nowhere near the 3,500 ESTIMATE that you claim and lay at the door of Israel. By the way Carroll any ESTIMATE is NOT A FACT. To present it as such is a deliberate lie.

"Only a smell-minded spitefully childish pratt turns mistakes which we all mistakes into lies"

Priceless Jim, you type in the same manner as Inspector Jacques Clouseau speaks, or the Gendarme in "Allo, Allo". Only an ignoramus persists in repeating something that has been comprehensively demonstrated as being untrue as you have done "Ad nauseam" and expects it to be believed. Repeat something that is known to be untrue Jim means that you are telling lies.

"Go come back with a genuine lie of mine - I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's if I were mindless enough to indulge in such crap."

There are two examples given above. Your boast -"I could bring you a dozen of yours and hundreds of Keith's" - were that true Jim, old son, you would have done so already. For years Keith A has asked you to supply just one example and you have pointedly failed to do so spectacularly at each time of asking. I challenge you to do so now - and my bet is that no such example will be forthcoming all we will get will be some name calling, accusations of being every "....ist" in creation, accusations of being guilty of every "....ism" in the book, along with your usual empty bluster and bullshit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 01:10 PM

No, tell me what she said that was antisemitic (not just stupid, which I won't begin to deny). Analyse it for us, Keith. And cut out the stupid and vacuous "you people." That's an expression often used to talk about "the other." "These people..." Heard the apartheid regime using that expression quite a lot. Why am I not surprised that you resort to it? By the way, I agree with Jim that Ken has been bloody stupid. But over the decades he's been a good man who has occasionally resorted to stupidity. As I said, it can't be easy behaving like an angel when you have a hawkish and hostile media, Thatcher and Blair at your throat for decades.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 12:21 PM

Steve
Well if you agree that what he said can't have been antisemitic, do you agree that he should not have been "charged with antisemitism?

If that had been all he said, yes.
It was not. He tried to use that to defend Shah's undisputed (except by you people) anti-Semitism.
His defence of anti-Semitism brought the party into disrepute. The party found him guilty.

Naz Shah, much to her discredit, grovelled in order to save her own skin. Tell me exactly what she said that you regard as anti-Semitic

We all know what she said.
The party found it anti-Semitic. That is good enough for me. You did not. That signifies nothing!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 12:05 PM

"So then, Teribus, however you dress it up there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying. He was, in Keith's words, just the messenger." - DtG

OK then Gnome how did this "collaboration" manifest itself?

Collaboration:
NOUN
1: The action of working with someone to produce something:

2: Traitorous cooperation with an enemy:

Give us examples of this collaboration. There was none, and it is offensive and anti-Semitic in the extreme to state that any Jewish organisation would collude with the Nazis in the deaths of the German Jews.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:53 AM

As a matter of fact I don't know who you're talking about, boobs, as there were no working links in your post. Tell us who he or she is and we'll quite happily tell you why he or she is deluded.

See Keith's post of 07 Apr 17 - 03:31 AM, which I am sure you already have but, hey, anytime there's a bone for you to worry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:25 AM

"He is charged with anti-Semitism."
And it is very noticeable that nobody here is prepared to discuss that "historical nugget - which has a fair amount of truth attached to it.
Personally, I think was stupidly insensitive to bring it up in the present atmosphere, but stupidity isn't antisemitism.
Livingstone allowed himself to fall into the hands of the Anti - BDS crowd, but nobody has proved antisemitism against him or anybody - stating historical facts isn't antisemitic
The clause in the definition that states that it is antisemitic to compare the action of the Israelis with the Nazis has always intrigued me - what if they are behaving like the Nazis, as many, including Jews have accused them of?
Can you have a definition that makes truth unacceptable?
If you can - why?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:10 AM

Well if you agree that what he said can't have been antisemitic, do you agree that he should not have been "charged with antisemitism? " And I remind you again that no-one in the party has said that Ken Livingstone is an antisemite. Charged means nothing on its own, does it? I note that you ignored my post describing Ken Livingstone's legacy over decades by virtue of his fights for equality for all minorities and for an end to discrimination, and how he worked extensively with London's Jewish community. I suppose that when you are relentlessly confronted with Blair/Thatcher/Murdoch briefing against you you may learn how to be occasionally undiplomatic.

As a matter of fact I don't know who you're talking about, boobs, as there were no working links in your post. Tell us who he or she is and we'll quite happily tell you why he or she is deluded.

Naz Shah, much to her discredit, grovelled in order to save her own skin. Tell me exactly what she said that you regard as antisemitic (careful now - as I recall, she didn't even mention Jews) and I'll tell you why you're wrong. Don't bother telling me what some committee or definition says - I want to know what YOU think. That would be a first. You have GOT your own brain, have you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:09 AM

"and mainly the Trotskyite left:"
Trotsy was a jew - the Trotskyist movement was founded by Jews
All left movements are basically international and non-racist - most were founded by Jews
On the other hand, German right wing multinationalism sent six million Jews to their deaths - Capitalist industry in Germany used Jews as slave labour.
Antisemitism at its most extreme is a phenomenon of right wing politics
So when a a supposed supporter of the Jewish people who refuses to condemn having Parliamentary Politicians described as putting their politics before their culture and who persistently indulges in one of the basic no-nos of defined antisemitism, attacks the left - where does that put him politically
I would say on the side of those who carried out the Holocaust.
I don't suppose you'd care to comment on any of this honestly, would you Bobad!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 10:03 AM

Ah, but you see Keith, John Mann didn't use the specific word "antisemite" so Shaw will worry that bone for a couple hundred posts now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:56 AM

Steve,
I have yet to read, among all the verbiage you go to so much trouble to reproduce, of anyone in the Labour Party saying the magic words "Ken is an antisemite."

Of course you have.
Labour MP John Mann.
Mann told Livingstone, "you are a lying racist"
Asked if he thought Livingstone was anti-Semitic, Mann said, "Yes he is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-suspended-from-labour-party-for-antisemitism-and-hitler-comments_uk_5721fbd9e4b0a1e971cb2513


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:43 AM

Dave,
there was collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis. Which is what Livingstone was saying.

If he had stated that historical fact in isolation he would not have been found guilty of bringing his party into disrepute.
He is charged with anti-Semitism.

He tried to use that historical nugget to justify Naz Shah's anti-Semitism. That is why he has been further suspended while expulsion is still being considered following outrage at the leniency showed.
(Outrage from within Labour, like all the complaints of anti-Semitism over the last year or so.)

No other party have had any of these issues.
Just Labour.

Steve,
re not the messenger, Keithie. You're a dedicated, long-time smearer.

Not true. I did not start this discussion, and have only reported what has gone on within Labour. None of it has come from me.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which part of "Hitler supported Zionism" is antisemitic.

I have never said it was. I have actually said it was not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:41 AM

Oh, and of course the word is baiters and I was waiting with bated breath for you to tell me so. Unfortunately that's the way it's written in the quote I copied so I'd advise you to aim you rectification at the Huffington Post.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 09:09 AM

Those are the words of your one of your fellow Labour Party members, described as one of Labour's most senior former officials. I agree with him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 08:26 AM

The word is baiters.

When I criticise the actions of the Israeli government, I'm not pretending anything. As I've said once before in the last 24 hours, I don't need anyone else to tell me what I'm really saying. I'll tell YOU what I'm really saying. It's amazing that people like you, Teribus and Keith, who come here with an extremely lopsided, inflexible and narrow agenda, always want to ascribe that same attribute to everyone who doesn't agree with you. Well why not cast out the plank. I like my country and hate my government. I support the right of Israel to not only exist but to prosper in security and peace. But I hate what the Israeli government does in many areas of endeavour, and, as I live in a free country, I shall say so if I like. Now I want you to dissect this post of mine (without pretending that you're a mind-reader) and tell me, without resorting to fatuous definitions or appealing to authority, if YOU think I've said anything antisemitic, and why you think it. Over to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 17 - 07:28 AM

And the Jew-haters and Jew-baters pretending that they are merely criticising the actions of the Israeli government: THIS

the anti-Semites of the left and right – and mainly the Trotskyite left: THIS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 25 May 11:40 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.