BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 31 May 17 - 06:07 AM

Rubbish. You're rewriting history. Go back and check your facts

Ake was right. 

The slogan on the bus was,
"We send the EU 350 million pounds a week
let's fund our NHS instead."

That is a statement of fact followed by a suggestion of how else it might be spent.

So I ask you what I asked ake: can you give evidence of any other suggestion with similar prominence? Was there a bus saying "Let's fund our police instead" for example?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 05:11 AM

Yes, Keith. I did.

Iains

The idea that MPs are superior beings more capable of voting for in or out is risible.

It is indeed. They are far from superior beings but they are paid well to do a job. They are voted in to do that job. We fund an army of advisors and personal secretaries to help them to do that job and when they refuse to it, I think it stinks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:51 AM

I for one have spoken out against all referendums all my sentient life.

I note that you've admitted at last that you're a Tory, Teribus. I refer to the word "unfortunately" in your patronising history of referendums post.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:43 AM

D the G. There is also a place in democracy for referendums. Many EU members have held referendums relating to the EU, including Greenland that voted for out. You frequently state that the populace is not capable of making a decision and that politicians are. Is papal infallibility shared among MPs upon election, or are they purely elected because the local electoral committees parade them before us. Is Boris the clown more qualified than I am to vote on leaving or staying in the UK. The fallout of a successful Brexit impacts on individuals in totally different ways and no doubt sways their voting decision.
The idea that MPs are superior beings more capable of voting for in or out is risible.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:41 AM

Dave, did you ever speak out against referenda before that vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:26 AM

Rubbish. You're rewriting history. Go back and check your facts

Ake was right.

The slogan on the bus was,
"We send the EU 350 million pounds a week
let's fund our NHS instead."

That is a statement of fact followed by a suggestion of how else it might be spent.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 04:12 AM

But as you seem to take the view that they should decide all major issues then I take it that you fully agreed with their decisions with regard to "Blair's wars".

I take it you are having some difficulty comprehending what I am saying, Teribus. The government of the day, regardless of who they are, have a mandate to run the country on our behalf. They should do it. Whether we agree with what they are doing or not, it is their job. If enough people disagree, we have the choice to elect a new government. It is how democracy works.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 17 - 03:39 AM

The government of the day should have the bottle to make a decision on all major issues. It is what they are elected to do. It is what they are paid for. It is why we pay an army of civil servants to advise them.

Well judging from what came out the mouths of those elected politicians, who oddly enough Gnome, only seemed to adopt what their civil servants told them when it suited them. They appear to be less informed than most.

But as you seem to take the view that they should decide all major issues then I take it that you fully agreed with their decisions with regard to "Blair's wars".

The Government of the day is elected to govern the country and act in the country's best interests, politically, economically and in all matters concerning the security of the nation and the safety of it's population. When matters arise that dictate a major change (i.e. Whether we want to change our voting system, or, whether or not we wish to be members of the EU) then the entire electorate of the country must be asked to give direction, once those views are known it is up to the government of the day and the civil service to implement that decision in the best possible way in the best interests of the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 17 - 02:53 AM

1: Referendums seem perfectly OK to those complaining about them here whenever they give what they consider the right result. The British electorate seem well enough informed and qualified then.

Read my lips.

I have said over and over and over again that parliament should have made the decision rather than abdicating it to an ill informed and misled populace.

This is true of ALL referendums. I disagree with them in principle whatever the result. The government of the day should have the bottle to make a decision on all major issues. It is what they are elected to do. It is what they are paid for. It is why we pay an army of civil servants to advise them.

2: The British electorate were lied to in 1973 when we were asked to vote to join.

3: The British electorate were lied to in 1975 when we were asked to confirm our desire to stay in Europe.

Yes and yes. Please provide examples of me complaining about the results in 1973 and 1975 :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 17 - 02:04 AM

Lies, the EU, the British electorate and the referendums:

1: Referendums seem perfectly OK to those complaining about them here whenever they give what they consider the right result. The British electorate seem well enough informed and qualified then.

2: The British electorate were lied to in 1973 when we were asked to vote to join.

3: The British electorate were lied to in 1975 when we were asked to confirm our desire to stay in Europe.

4: Over the years as the EU forced through it's political agenda people began to realise what was going on. Maastricht was almost a bridge too far, we objected and came a way with a rebate. Lisbon however was even too much for three other members of the Union (France, The Netherlands and Ireland).

5: Over the changes via more than 480 articles in the Lisbon Treaty the British electorate started to grumble and Gordon Brown promised the electorate a referendum on EU membership. That promise was reneged on when the original Lisbon Treaty was ditched and via a technicality was reintroduced by the EU Commission in a much reduced form that did not require unanimous Council of Ministers approval.

6: In the Conservatives 2010 General Election manifesto an EU Referendum was promised by Cameron. Unfortunately the Conservatives did not win the 2010 election with sufficient seats to form a Government and went into a coalition with the Liberal-Democrats who insisted that the promised referendum was abandoned.

7: Ever since Lisbon a small political party dedicated to getting the UK out the EU was becoming more and more vocal, started to threaten the voting base of all the main UK political parties.

8: In the Conservatives 2015 General Election manifesto the promise to hold a referendum on EU membership reappeared, this time they did win with a sufficient number of seats because the Lib-Dem vote basically collapsed. True to their word the Conservatives held the referendum and the vote was to Leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 30 May 17 - 05:31 PM

leave campaign said that it was money which "could" be spent on the NHS, meaning that it would be "better spent" on the NHS or any other worthy cause.

Ok, show me a genuine photo of a bus used in the referendum that referred to any other worthy cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 17 - 05:10 PM

I have said over and over and over again that parliament should have made the decision rather than abdicating it to an ill informed and misled populace. The party with the overall majority in parliament at the time of choosing to put the issue to the people was the Tories. Even if the other parties disagreed it did not matter. They were in overall control. The buck stops there.

As to keeping us all informed try this for size

Vote Leave director admits they won because they lied to the public

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 04:14 PM

Rubbish. You're rewriting history. Go back and check your facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 30 May 17 - 03:44 PM

The money saved by leaving the EU was never "promised" to anybody.

The leave campaign said that it was money which "could" be spent on the NHS, meaning that it would be "better spent" on the NHS or any other worthy cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 17 - 12:03 PM

Any party voting against a referendum would have been committing suicide.

Yes, so Dave was wrong to blame it all on the Tories.

No mention was made of being qualified to vote. Only qualified to make a decision.

The decision was made by the referendum vote Dave. Who did you mean was not qualified to make the decision by voting?

Steve, as you say, both sides made misleading statements that were challenged and debated openly for us all to be kept informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 17 - 09:31 AM

No mention was made of being qualified to vote. Only qualified to make a decision. 2nd time of saying. I expect the question will be asked again but after answering it twice it does get a bit monotonous.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 08:46 AM

Promised by the leave side obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 08:45 AM

Any party voting against a referendum would have been committing suicide. There was little opposition to it in any case because everybody thought we'd vote remain. And we were scaremongered to by the remain side and promised £350 million per week for the NHS. Plenty more. Maybe you slept through it, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 17 - 08:33 AM

Dave,
The Tories, goaded by UKIP, took to the polls to ask an unqualified and misled populace to make a decision

All the parties were in favour of a referendum, and what qualification should be required to vote in a referendum, and in what way was were we misled?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 30 May 17 - 08:28 AM

Ah, yes, a land tax. Apparently the Conservatives have come up with an average figure of £4000. Nice to see the figure come from someone without any vested interest in the outcome. And there's that sneaky "average". I am not saying it would happen but it is quite possible for all but the biggest landowners to pay the same as they do now in council tax and still treble the average if big land owners charges go up. That's maths, not politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 30 May 17 - 07:46 AM

Much talk of a land value tax in the media. I wonder how many labour voters this would impact? Just when the Labour prospects are beginning to worry the Tories, this stunning wheeze to generate income is splashed over the media. I wonder who is trying to sabotage who in this instance.
Will the lefty landowners abstain, abscond or simply switch allegiance?
This is normally the sort of dastardly deed that spineless politicians go in for once elected. Bleating about it prior to an election is electoral suicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 17 - 07:41 AM

We are off to Bayeux in September all being well. Just a short break to visit the Mother in Law's final resting place but I am trying to get there for at least 4 days. Been before and I could spend a full day in the cathedral! Quite fancy seeing Lisieux as well. Anyone been?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 07:07 AM

Never been, Mike, but we're looking forward to it. We're staying just outside Funchal in a B&B with a view!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 30 May 17 - 06:58 AM

Hi Steve

We used to go to Madeira a lot. We found it to be a fantastic place.
I am sure you will enjoy it.

It is a bit steep.....no not the prices but the hiils. But I am sure you will love them.

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 17 - 06:44 AM

The referendum campaign was a very unfunny joke from start to finish.

Already been to Florence this year, Mike, and we're off to Lake Como soon. Much later on we have a trip to Madeira lined up. Luckily, I bagged most of my euros before the pound collapsed! As for hope, I don't think Labour has got much chance. But if May fails to increase her majority, or ends up being the minority government, she won't be able to claim that mighty mandate she's been after in order to go and beat up the EU. That will be interesting. And she might not last long.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 17 - 06:30 AM


What qualification do you need to vote Dave?
Does not misleading work both ways?

I did not mention any qualifications to vote did I? ask an unqualified and misled populace to make a decision. The qualification to vote is well known. I was talking about decision making. The qualification to decide how to run the economy should reside with those who are best advised. The populace were not best advised because both sides were misled.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 17 - 06:08 AM

All the parties supported a referendum.
They all believed that us "unqualified and misled" people would vote their way.

What qualification do you need to vote Dave?
Does not misleading work both ways?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 17 - 06:03 AM

From the comments almost all the Cheshire side will not be voting for Corbyn. No surprise here because they all voted for Brexit in the referendum.

But surprisingly, a large percentage of the Liverpool folk who voted against leaving said the will not be voting Labour any more and will be voting for Mrs May. This IS surprising because they usually vote Labour.


So, half will not be voting Labour because they are for Brexit and half will not be voting Labour because they are for remaining. How does that work then? The Tories, goaded by UKIP, took to the polls to ask an unqualified and misled populace to make a decision that they should have made in the first place and because the country is split over it it is all the fault of Jeremy Corbyn?

Ah well. As they say around here, there's nowt so queer as folk.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: MikeL2
Date: 29 May 17 - 02:59 PM

Hi Steve

I understand what you are saying but I detect hope hope rather than expectation in your comments.

As we all know the polls cannot be used as anything like accurate.

I went to a birthday party yesterday where half of the 40 guests were from Cheshire and half from Liverpool.

From the comments almost all the Cheshire side will not be voting for Corbyn. No surprise here because they all voted for Brexit in the referendum.

But surprisingly, a large percentage of the Liverpool folk who voted against leaving said the will not be voting Labour any more and will be voting for Mrs May. This IS surprising because they usually vote Labour.

So it seems that forecasting accurately what will happen is almost impossible.

Regards

MikeL2

PS See you in Europe later in the year!!




,

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: DMcG
Date: 29 May 17 - 04:06 AM

I think it unlikely Labour win, but I don't think the situation in Scotland is quite so clear cut. The SNP did an incredible job last time, and repeating it would be difficult. Even one or two seats for Labour in Scotland could turn out to be crucial to the national picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 17 - 03:13 PM

Labour getting nobbled in Scotland, which I'm sure will be more or less repeated, makes it next to impossible for them to win. If the gap can be closed to something like what was like in 2015, and the LibDems pick up a few seats, there's a remote possibility of a hung parliament I suppose but with the Tories being the far larger party. That would be very interesting in these new days of two-party politics. The implosion of UKIP is another intriguing factor. Corbyn has done a lot better than anyone really expected and Theresa May looks wooden and unattractive. Then there's the distinct possibility of a low turnout due to election fatigue/referendum fatigue/they're-all-crap-anyway syndrome. I think Keith may be right. Yes, I really did say that!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 May 17 - 12:24 PM

"once in power" ............Hmmm I think some factions of the party have had a bloody good go while in opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 17 - 11:12 AM

I think a win for Mr Corbyn may be a poisoned chalice, and could end his career.
The biggest problem is Brexit, Mr Corbyn has always been anti-EU, while the Parliamentary Party are solidly in favour of retaining membership.....They are quite capable of political assassination once in power. Mr Corbyn is also at odds with the Parliamentary Party on other issues, i.e. the replacement of Trident.

A win for Labour given the present crop of MPs could lead to a complete breakdown of authority.....not a good thing when taking on the Bureaucrats of Brussels.

Personally I would prefer to see a modest victory for Mrs May, who at least will go into battle with a united force.
Mr Corbyn's day will no doubt come.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 17 - 04:35 AM

Now that Jim's obsessional anti-Israel crusade has been stopped, perhaps we can resume the subject.
Labour has run a very successful election campaign and the Tories have been very inept.
The Tory lead has been closing dramatically and a repeat of their landslide in the Council elections seems much less likely.

May may have miscalculated badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 17 - 05:42 AM

You said you had responded toll of them and gave that as a reason for not trusting any of them

If that is true, QUOTE ME!

I did say, "I have shown that some are fake so none can be relied on."
I stand by it. Your quotes come from obscure, agenda ridden political sites that I have never heard of, not recognised media organs or news agencies.
Why should anyone believe them?
I showed that a quote you gave was a faked, edited version of what he really said according to Wiki-Quotes.
I gave a list of reasons why another could not be believed.

As usual when you lose you resort to lies, name calling and personal attack. It is your equivalent of a white flag.

Where are your links showing "that some are fake so none can be relied on".
You won't produce any which proves you are lying

I thought I had.
Please identify one that I have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 17 - 03:02 PM

"I have not commented on any of them Jim!"
You said you had responded toll of them and gave that as a reason for not trusting any of them
More lies
This was your claim
"No. I have shown that some are fake so none can be relied on."
Then
"I thought I had. Please identify one that I have not."
Now
"I have not commented on any of them Jim!"
""It would be a full time job to follow up the screenfulls of shit you put up.""
One minute you are claimming to answered the points next minute you say you have answered none and say they are not worth answering
You are a serial liar, an atrocity denier and a supporter of State terrorism
"Another point to me I think."
And you make a Grand Theft Auto, point scoring game of a discussion on The Jewish People and Israel's mass murder of innocent civilians
You are one sick, antisemitic, attention-seeking cookie
I think you've proved that more than sufficiently Keith
Finished with you, you sad evil little man
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 17 - 01:41 PM

I have not commented on any of them Jim!
You accused me of making claims without proof.
OK. What were they?

It would be a full time job to follow up the screenfulls of shit you put up.
You made an accusation against me, but as ever there is no truth in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 17 - 01:13 PM

Well Keith?
Links to answers that you have given all all of these?
No/
Funny that!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 17 - 11:22 AM

Do not be stupid Keith
Try these for size
You are a liar Keith - you have not responded to one
When you get round to showing where you have "disproved" any of these, there are plenty more in the pipeline
Shouldn't be too difficult - you are using "having answered these" as an excuse nor t to respond to any
Take your pick
Jim Caroll

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
-- Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"Any one who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen."
-- Golda Meir, 1961, in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple."
-- Yitzhak Shamir, Maariv, 02/21/1997.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
Yizhak Shamir
Prime Minister of Israel
1983 - 1984,
1986 - 1992
         
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel
1996 - 1999
"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more"....
-- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.
      
Ehud Barak
Prime Minister of Israel
1999 - 2001
         
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online
Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel
2001 - present

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 17 - 10:31 AM

....but you can not identify one single claim of mine that needs proving.
Funny that!

I take it that you approve of Tivnan as he is so anti-conservative, so I did well to quote him in support of my case.
Another point to me I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 17 - 06:35 AM

"I thought I had.
Please identify one that I have not."
You are a liar Keith - you thought nothing of the sort
You have not proved a single one nor have you attempted to
You are lying through your teeth
You have enough of them all on this thread - show where you have disproved any
Are you so lacking in self respect that you continue to lie in public - over and over and over again
Sickening and now becoming embarrassing
Jim Carroll

The Lobby: JEWISH POLITICAL POWER AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY by Edward Tivnan (Simon & Schuster: $17.95; 288 pp.)
May 31, 1987|Steven L. Spiegel | Spiegel is a professor of political science at UCLA. His latest book, "The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Making America's Middle East Policy, From Truman to Reagan," won a 1986 National Jewish Book Award

"Edward Tivnan's "The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy" is a snide, sometimes bitter, largely trivial and even boring account of the role of the American Jewish community's efforts on behalf of Israel. Not as informed or as thoughtful as other critical accounts of pro-Israeli efforts in this country, Tivnan paints his story in black and white. Worthy of approval are Israeli and American Jewish critics of Israeli government policies, liberals, moderate Arab leaders, especially King Hussein, and American politicians who criticize Israeli policy. Tivnan bears no sympathy for conservatives either in Israel or America, the Likud Party in Israel, vociferous American supporters of Israel, including politicians, Jewish leaders and in particular the organization most closely identified as the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 17 - 04:29 AM

So a leading Zionist is a liar

Why not. He was hardly a "leading Zionist" by then though.
As Edward Tivnan said in his 1987 book The Lobby,
"Goldmann had created the Presidents Conference to prevent the kind of dissent among American Jewish leaders that he himself was now sowing. The raison d'etre of the group was to present a united front to the White House on Middle East matters. But, of course, that was back when Goldmann's friends were running Israel.
Now that [Menachem] Begin was running the Jewish state, Goldmann was willing to do anything to undermine his policies – including destroying his own pressure group."


Where are your links showing "that some are fake so none can be relied on".
You won't produce any which proves you are lying

I thought I had.
Please identify one that I have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 03:17 PM

So a leading Zionist is a liar
Doesn't say much for the rest of them if he is prepared to denigrate Israel's greatest statesman
What king of an outfit are toy defending here?
Denials and lies- nothing but denials and lies
Booooooo- ring
Where are your links showing "that some are fake so none can be relied on".
You won't produce any which proves you are lying
And as most of these statements come from Israeli press reports - you are claiming them as liars as well
That'll do nicely
Seems you are on your own Keith
Your mate offered to prove my claiming I knew more than Irish statements and then did a runner
Doubt if he'l be back before Christmas
Even he appears to think you're not worth supporting
Don't forget those links now!!!!
I don't think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 17 - 02:28 PM

I've given you the source of that quote and the veracity of the people who issued it

Yes and it is rubbish!
The source is Goldman's unverified claim supposedly made twenty years later and five years after there was no Ben Gurion to deny it.
You would never accept such shit from me.

They provide no prood whatever of the antipathy they claim

They did not need to. They were writing for a Jewish audience who would be well aware of it, and who would know if it was untrue.

Before I click on your latest link, or anyone else does, tell us what it leads to.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 01:25 PM

Doesn't matter whether you did or not Keith - I've given you the source of that quote and the veracity of the people who issued it
You choose to ignore the fact that they are extremist right-wing loonies who are prepared to attack a leading member of the Zionist faith by calling him a liar
They provide no prood whatever of the antipathy they claim and reports of it appear nowhere else other than from a right wing loonie organisation
"No. I have shown that some are fake so none can be relied on."
You have shown nothing - you have denied everything without proof
I know from exop[periance (of your "implant" witnesses, for instance) that it is a waste of my time asking you to link to that "proof"
You are a disgusting waste of space Keith - an ethnic cleanser denier writ largehttp://mudcat.org/blickifier.cfm
I'll leave you to wallow in your dishonesty and inhumanity (you have long forgotten that the VICTIMS of the ISRAELI REGIME are human beings)
Wallow away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 17 - 12:26 PM

Jim, I gave the link in my post and repeated it for you.
It is the blue writing that follows the quote.

It is a propaganda attempt to smear a leading Zionist to cover up what Ben Gurion said

It does not. My article was written for Jews who would know if it lied about their relationship.
It does not deny the statement, it merely points out that Goldman alone heard it, no-one could verify it, it contradicted everything he really said, and Goldman kept quiet for twenty years then put it in a book when Ben Gurion was safely dead and unable to deny it.

It is an documented, unverified and highly unlikely claim.

You complain about my sources but you use extreme political sites that are hardly household names. Has anyone heard of "Examined Life?" It has not even got a Wiki page. Is it even safe to click on such sites?

ADDRESS EVERY SINGLE STATEMENTT - BY BEN GURION AND OTHERS, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN

No. I have shown that some are fake so none can be relied on. It would be a full time job to follow up the screenfulls of shit you put up.

Irael's aim has always been tio rid the area of Arabs and create a purely Jewish State

Not very successful then Jim!! Has one single Arab left Israel since 1949?
Has the Arab population crashed from persecution?
No. It thrives and grows faster than the Jewish population despite Jewish immigration.

Your excuse then was the he was acting as Devil's Advocate' and putting himself in the posiion of the Palestinians rather than stating what he believed himself

I made that point before I discovered that we only have Goldman's word that he said it at all!
It is still a valid point.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 05:21 AM

Incidentally Keith
You do realise that you have completely reversed your position on Beg Gurion's statement since I first put it up
Your excuse then was the he was acting as Devil's Advocate' and putting himself in the posiion of the Palestinians rather than stating what he believed himself
No you have completely reversed your position and are suggesting that the leading Zionist who related the quote was lying because he was an enemy of Ben Gurion
Mkae upo your mind if you wish to "win" anything
Why should anybody waste time on debating with a half-wit who changes his story from minute to minute?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 04:14 AM

"It is that line of blue writing at the bottom of the post."
There is no "line of blue writing at the bottom of the post" Keith - oyu on the cooking sherry again
The quote you put up traces back directly to the organisation I named "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America" - that is where it originated and nobody else has ever substantiated it
It is a propaganda attempt to smear a leading Zionist to cover up what Ben Gurion said
The Israeli regime has made doubly sure by locking up all Beg Gurion's papers that contain such incriminating evidence despite they should be legally accessible to all
Your childish "you lose" stupidity is unbelievable - you appear to treat the Jewish people with such contempt that you regard these arguments as a "win-lose" game, like 'Grand theft auto' - are you really that mindless?
Nobody will ever "win" anything until they come up with a decent argument
You will only do that when you ,font color=red>ADDRESS EVERY SINGLE STATEMENTT - BY BEN GURION AND OTHERS, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN
So far, you have used a smear by an extreme right Israel group as a diversion away from the main point
Beg Gurion said what he said, as did all the others you have had quoted
Israel's aim has always been tio rid the area of Arabs and create a purely Jewish State - that is ethnic cleansing by any definition.
Answer that, and you might "win something" - which appears to be your sole aim
You are basically an antisemite with no interest in the Jewish People, when you are not trying to "win" something, you are defending an ultra-right Israeli administration   
Grow up, for fuck's sake
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 17 - 02:32 PM

Jim,
Your (unlinked "again) statement come from CAMRA

I did provide a link Jim.
It is that line of blue writing at the bottom of the post.
Here it is again, and it is not whatever it was you said it was.
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/the-goldmann-paradox/2013/08/21/

You lose again.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 17 - 11:18 AM

"Goldmann's animosity toward Ben-Gurion was both longstanding and well known2
Your (unlinked "again) statement come from CAMRA ((Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America)) - an extremist Zionist site which fully supports the Israeli regime
A description of the organisation below
Nowehere does it attempt to prove the so-called enmity between Ben Gurion and Goldman - it is a straightforward attempt to smear him because of his reporting of what he said.
Little wonder you didn't link it
Now perhaps you might produce that proof rather than quoting (anonymously) ultra-right extremists
Who did you say loses?
Childish little prick
Jim Carroll

ZIONIST CABAL
Zionist cabal tries to hijack Wikipedia
January 9, 2014
By jm
CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) is the Orwellian name of a pro-Israel media watchdog group that monitors, influences, and seeks to control all mainstream media coverage of issues affecting public opinion on all matters related to Israel. It has some 1000 members and chapters in several major American cities. It's staffers scour all media coverage of Israel and "engage and directly contact" (some would say "harass") reporters, editors, producers and publishers concerning what they regard as "distorted or inaccurate coverage" (some would say "the truth") about Israel. They also offer "factual information" (some would say "propaganda") to refute those "errors". The role and influence of the organization is explained in this segment from the excellent documentary "Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land."

However, the media landscape is now quickly changing in ways that make CAMERA's tactics less effective. Traditional news organizations are using fewer and fewer journalists and professional editors, and media consumers are increasingly turning to independent websites, blogs, and organizations like Wikipedia for their news and information. This change in how media is produced and consumed might lead some to think that standard pro-Israel narrative that has become the norm in the mainstream media, especially in the US, is about to come undone. But maybe not, for it seems that organizations like CAMERA are now changing their tactics in response to the changing media landscape. A recent article in the Electronic Intifada, based on leaked emails between members of CAMERA, reveals a brazen attempt by that organization to infiltrate Wikipedia precisely in order to slant the complex web of information it contains in a pro-Israel manner.

From the article:
A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a "war" on Wikipedia.
A 13 March action alert signed by Gilead Ini, a "Senior Research Analyst" at CAMERA, calls for "volunteers who can work as 'editors' to ensure" that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context." However, subsequent communications indicate that the group not only wanted to keep the effort secret from the media, the public, and Wikipedia administrators, but that the material they intended to introduce included discredited claims that could smear Palestinians and Muslims and conceal Israel's true history.
With over two million articles in English on every topic imaginable, Wikipedia has become a primary reference source for Internet users around the world and a model for collaboratively produced projects. Openness and good faith are among Wikipedia's core principles. Any person in the world can write or edit articles, but Wikipedia has strict guidelines and procedures for accountability intended to ensure quality control and prevent vandalism, plagiarism or distortion. It is because of these safeguards that articles on key elements of the Palestine-Israel conflict have generally remained well-referenced, useful and objective. The CAMERA plan detailed in the e-mails obtained by EI appears intended to circumvent these controls.
After being exposed, CAMERA's plan to infiltrate and control Wikipedia was abandoned, at least temporarily. But this story is a useful reminder of the extent to which these pro-Israeli groups are prepared to go to control the narrative on the Middle East conflict and how vigilant everyone else must be in protecting and spreading the truth about this conflict.