BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 04:29 PM

Why the quotes? Why miss out chocolate covered? We need to know these things! Oh, hang on. Just realised who it was. Maybe we don't after all...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 04:07 PM

Oh I wouldn't say Dave was a "fat unwashed" arse?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 03:57 PM

They're two cheeks of the same fat, chocolate-covered, unwashed arse, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 03:31 PM

I don't think it is quite as boring and trite as 'you lose' but we can always put it to the vote

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 02:23 PM

Constantly accusing others of trolling is, in itself, trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 02:01 PM

Dave,
There was nothing to respond to was there?

No, but Steve chose to anyway. Perhaps he did not believe you.
Perhaps he had a credibility issue.

So, why respond then Keith?

I didn't for the first dozen or so times, but I have had enough of it now. Boring and trite Dave.

Steve,
You were trolling.

So you keep saying, but you keep failing to identify any such.
It is just vacuous name calling.
You resort to that whenever you lose an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 08:32 AM

Offering perspective? You were trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 05:23 AM

You trot out that silly little litany whenever you have no reply to what is said.

There was nothing to respond to was there? You have already said that your observation did not apply to me

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:53 AM

Sorry Dave, cross posted.

If you mentioned it before it does not apply to you.

So I was not replying to anything. Just making an observation.


Just trite and boring Dave.

So, why respond then Keith?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 17 - 04:25 AM

Steve,
Why did you point it out? What's your point?

Because Dave had made a big issue of his antipathy to referendums, but never mentioned it before the vote.
I offered some perspective.

Dave, making that observation involved no issue of morality, language or interplanetary travel.
You trot out that silly little litany whenever you have no reply to what is said.
Just trite and boring Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 01:37 PM

"I merely pointed out that Dave did not express his dislike of referendums until after the vote went against him."

Why did you point it out? What's your point? And, third question, why am I giving you another chance when we already know what your stupid little game is?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 12:06 PM

I think it is very obvious professor that you revel in your perceived role as "Victim"

Rather like his juvenile whining pal Twitler.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 11:55 AM

I think it is very obvious professor that you revel in your perceived role as "Victim"

You claim preceived ills far more than anyone else on this forum.

Please don't bother to reply for two main reasons, firstly I don't give a flying **** what you think and secondly I've got two gigs to go to tonight one I will be contributing too, and two gigs tomorrow where once again I will be contributing to one.











I'll put money on it the idiot replies.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 11:02 AM

BBC today,

"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has failed to combat anti-Jewish discrimination, according to a senior figure in the party.
The chairman of the Jewish Labour movement, Jeremy Newmark, would not say whether Labour's track record on dealing with anti-Semitism would cost the party a significant number of votes at the general election. But he does see it as a cause for concern.
"Jeremy Corbyn appears to have failed to understand the nature of contemporary anti-Semitism in the same way that it's understood by most of its target group," he said.
Labour MP Wes Streeting - a frequent critic of Mr Corbyn's leadership - has also criticised the party's record on the issue.
"I don't think many Jewish voters in my constituency have been very impressed with the way the Labour party as a whole have responded," said Mr Streeting. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40119103

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 10:58 AM

Steve,
If you make an unreasonable and provocative remark that calls someone's integrity into doubt, as you did with Dave, you are trolling.

Yes, but I did not.
(I am often the victim of that myself though.)

I merely pointed out that Dave did not express his dislike of referendums until after the vote went against him.

That is in no sense trolling, but you always resort to vacuous name-calling when you lose an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 09:53 AM

Don't worry about it, Steve. I discovered a long time ago that Keith marches to a different drum to us. Hence my repeated use of

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Everyone seems to know it. I have accepted and even gone so far as to say that neither is right - they are just both different. Keith has a different view on that but, once again

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 09:01 AM

British Jewish Voters' Choice: Anti-Semitism Today, or Tomorrow

Granted, the messages of Trump supporters are usually more crudely anti-Semitic, while the Corbynistas use the code-word "Zionist." When challenged, they say they're just critical of Israel and it has nothing to do with Jews. The conditioned reflex, however, is identical.

Why do both Trump and Corbyn attract anti-Semites? Perhaps the more pertinent question is: What is it about them that somehow gives license to anti-Semites, who rarely parade out in the open in this day and age, to out themselves and break cover?

In Corbyn's case there seem to be two answers. There's the anti-Zionism which has long been part of his radical leftist ideology that gives them a semblance of respectability. And then there's the current vogue for conspiracy theories on the extremes of politics. Where there are imagined conspiracies, there will always be imaginary Jews – sorry, Zionists.

So for British Jews, and in fact for all decent British voters, the choice next Thursday should be simple. Don't vote for a candidate who just can't help but attract anti-Semites.

Haaretz

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 08:36 AM

If you make an unreasonable and provocative remark that calls someone's integrity into doubt, as you did with Dave, you are trolling. A lot of people who voted either way in the referendum didn't exactly megaphone their principled opposition to referendums from the rooftops until after the result. Yes I'm against referendums and always have been, but yes I voted, forced into that unenviable position on a massively vital issue by a baby-faced ex-Etonian clown who was publicly fellated by a dead pig. The fact that a referendum took place at all will ignite opinions, and this one in particular, which endured an extremely disreputable campaign, even more so. The campaign highlighted precisely what is flawed and downright undemocratic about referendums, not least the fact that just 38% of the electorate are dragging us out of Europe and into disaster. You have no right to suggest that people on the losing side whinged afterwards only because they lost and you make it even worse when you aim that slight at one person in particular who you don't actually know. Your position is without evidence and is incredibly childish to boot.

Bobad, you are stalking. Again. So what's new? I note that you post but have nothing to say. So what's new?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 08:21 AM

BRITISH ELECTIONS 2017 A Corbyn win would deeply worry many Jews, and chill UK ties with Israel

Most Jews made up their minds about Corbyn long before the campaign began.

A long-time critic of Israel and pro-Palestinian activist who has had an unfortunate knack of consorting with a motley crew of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, the Labour leader is, perhaps, most famous in Jewish circles for having described Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends."

Unfortunately for his party, new revelations during the campaign will simply have reinforced many of these perceptions. Earlier this week, the Labour leader was forced to deny that he participated in a wreath-laying in 2014 at the grave of one of those involved with the Munich massacre. But Corbyn's excuse — that he simply participated in a wider event marking Israel's 1985 bombing of the PLO headquarters in Tunis, itself a response to the murder of 15 Israeli civilians in Palestinian terror attacks — rather demonstrated why so many Jews distrust him.

That story was swiftly followed by the release of a 2010 interview in which Corbyn described Hamas as "serious, hard-working and… not corrupt."

TOI

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 08:14 AM

Posters who always accuse others of trolling are themselves trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 17 - 04:27 AM

No. That is just your latest unsupported and plainly wrong assertion.
Show where I have trolled if you can Steve.

It was perfectly reasonable to point out when Dave first asserted his opposition to referendums here.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 05:09 PM

And you're trolling. That's a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 02:21 PM

"Anyone who only mentions their disapproval of referendums after the vote has gone against them, inevitably faces a credibility problem. "

Sorry but that remains a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 12:19 PM

It is not a fact. It's your severely unconsidered opinion. It's childish, it's unnecessarily provocative and it's trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 12:05 PM

You have never mentioned lots of things as well Keith but you will not find me saying that because you have not mentioned them before they cannot be true. As ever...

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:53 AM

Sorry Dave, cross posted.

If you mentioned it before it does not apply to you.
I don't do Facebook, but you did post about the referendum here and did not mention your disapproval here until after the vote went against you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:50 AM

Dave says it does not apply to him anyway, so who is being smeared?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:48 AM

So, who only mentioned their disapproval after the event then, Keith?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 11:40 AM

"Anyone who only mentions their disapproval of referendums after the vote has gone against them inevitably faces a credibility problem. "

Sorry but that remains a fact, not a smear.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 10:59 AM

Speaking of crooks.....

Brexit leader Nigel Farage is 'person of interest' in FBI investigation into Trump and Russia.

FBI interested in former Ukip leader's ties with people connected to US president and WikiLeaks' Julian Assange.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/01/nigel-farage-is-person-of-interest-in-fbi-investigation-into-trump-and-russia

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 10:29 AM

Abdicating responsibility that should read. Although abducting could be an option...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 10:20 AM

Ah, the ones where we were taking the piss because you said you had nothing more to say and then posted again a dozen or so times? Tell you what, Keith. I have stated quite categorically that by putting important issues to a referendum the government of the day are abducting responsibility. I have always said it. I probably always will unless I am convinced otherwise by events I cannot yet forsee.

You do not believe me. I could not give a shit what you believe. Do you really think that there is any point continuing down this road?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 08:06 AM

It is not reasonable. It's a smear. If you want to question someone's integrity you need to show your evidence. Actually, it's trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 06:39 AM

"Anyone who only mentions their disapproval of referendums after the vote has gone against them inevitably faces a credibility problem. "

In what sense is that childish or stupid Steve?
I think it a reasonable observation.

Dave, I referred to your posts about the debate made in April 2016.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 06:19 AM

That was a childish and stupid remark, Keith.

I don't think that all politicians are crooks. Paul Tyler, our MP for years, was no crook and neither was his LibDem successor Dan Rogerson. One of their Tory predecessors was, however. No names, no pack drill. Jeremy Corbyn is no crook and neither was Michael Foot or Jimmy Carter. Jo Cox was no crook (my sister knew Jo and her mother from Jo's childhood). It's an ignorant remark to condemn most or all politicians as "all crooks" or "all the same." We have to have politicians. They need both our close scrutiny and our support. If we don't take an interest in politics, which is quite hard work, or don't vote in elections, we'll get the politicians we deserve. If they turn out to be "all crooks," etc., then we should be looking to ourselves. We put them there.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 05:10 AM

Just a few points on that Keith.

1. I didn't post anything at all on here between April and October 2016
2. My Facebook status throughout June 2016 reflected my views
3. I really could not give a shit whether you believe me or not
4. The people that do matter know the truth

Now, can we get back to something sensible?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 17 - 03:12 AM

Dave, I do not claim to know anything about you, but anyone who only mentions their disapproval of referendums after the vote has gone against them inevitably faces a credibility problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:24 PM

In my experience Greg, most politicians are "crooks"!

I am extremely sorry "D", that was careless of me and I of course withdraw the remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 17 - 01:48 PM

The slogan was "political speak", but it was not a lie.


Bullshit. Right up there with "I am not a crook".

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 01:02 PM

Whatever Keith. As you seem to know more about my views than I do maybe you can tell me what I think about the price of fish. Or genital warts. Or Justin Bieber...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 17 - 12:50 PM

It wasn't me who used the word disingenuous, ake, but we will let that pass.

As I have said several times, I go with the main Aquinas criteria for a lie: the intention to mislead. That is not the same as an untruth. Sorry if we disagree about something so fundamental, but there we are.

And you are right that there are alternative phrases that could have been used to make it clear that money was to be spent on the NHS, has that been the intention. Equally there are phrases that could have been used to make it clear it was only a suggestion has that been the intention. The lie is in the equivocation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 12:46 PM

Today, Labour party member Philip Jones who allegedly accused a Jewish BBC journalist of being a "Zionist" after she conducted a car crash radio interview with Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended by the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 12:39 PM

Dave, during the referendum campaign you posted about the debate.
You did not mention that you do not believe in referendums then, so perhaps not a strongly held view of yours.
Mind you, we all thought that remain was going to win back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 17 - 11:33 AM

Keith is not being disingenuous "D"....you are.
The slogan was "political speak", but it was not a lie.

If the slogan had said "we will spend that money on the NHS"...that would have been a lie, unless of course the government do spend it on the NHS, then it would be the truth.

"Let's spend the money on the NHS instead" is an invitation to consider how the money should be sensibly spent.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 10:46 AM

Not on here Dave.

Hardly surprising seeing as Mudcat forms around 0.01% of my life, it is first and foremost a folk music forum rather than a political site and it is full of people who have nothing better to do than try to win pointless victories.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 17 - 07:22 AM

Buses can be repainted.

But if the list was longer, what is the explanation for why, out of all the possibilities, they chose the NHS? Was it at random? Or did they have a reason to select it and if so, what was it?

I suggest it was not accidental.

I also suggest it was to make people think the funds would be going into the NHS. To deliberately compose a slogan that appears to say one thing nut on careful reading says another is something to be ashamed of, not proud.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 17 - 07:22 AM

Stop being so bloody disingenuous, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:45 AM

We have a potential £350m a week saving we can spend on useful things.
Here is our list of useful things we are prepared to.make a big thing of:
1. The NHS

There was not room for a comprehensive list on the side of a bus.
It was just a slogan.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:42 AM

Dave,
Yes, Keith. I did.

Not on here Dave.
You made a couple of posts about the referendum debate but never disparaged the idea of actually having a referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:38 AM

That sounds like a "No I can't".

So the position seems to be:

We have a potential £350m a week saving we can spend on useful things.
Here is our list of useful things we are prepared to.make a big thing of:
1. The NHS

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:18 AM

It was a slogan, not a manifesto!

It was debated in depth at the time. We all had the chance to weigh up the justifications and criticisms of and for it.