BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 05:01 PM

I went to the gym after work hence the earlier snack and late tea. Just had some noodles with left over polish smoked ham, celery, peppers, olives and West Indian hot sauce. Washed down with a cup of tea. Very nice too. Of to finish off Pratchetts 'Wyrd Sisters' soon. Got the first 16 or so books over Christmas and Birthday so catching up on all of them and thoroughly enjoying that too. Very good for a laugh. Not quite as laughable as the shenanigans in Westminster but let's not speak of politics and spoil a perfectly civil discussion :-D

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 04:47 PM

Did I tell you about the long-forgotten boneless smoked loin of pork I found when de-icing my freezer that had been in there buried in snow since September 2013? Bloody delicious! "Freeze on day of purchase and consume within one month" my arse! We had it just now with Nigella's cheat version of dauphinoise and purple sprouting from the garden. A gastronomic triumph! AND there's enough left over for a butty! AND I managed to persuade Mrs Steve to let me open a bottle even though it's Thursday! Only happy posts from me tonight, ladies, gents, fellow pack members and unreconstructed bigots!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 03:44 PM

Carroll, as an Anti-Semite your opinions on Israel have no credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 03:41 PM

I really have no idea how that question could be misinterpreted as a denial of anything by anyone but you, Keith. Still, as you say it is now sorted. Apology for calling it dishonest accepted. Oh, hang on... :-(

At least you seem to have no interest in the important stuff. That means we can discuss sensible subjects without having to use linguistic gymnastics anyway:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 03:40 PM

Richard Falk compares Israel to the Nazis - he is an anti-Semite.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 03:36 PM

THIS REPORT SAYS NOTHING NEW, OF COURSE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 02:34 PM

What you pair of Arab Haters extremists appear to be saying is that Arabs have no right to comment on what is happening to their fellow Arabs
Now why am I not surprised?
The report was written by Jewish RICHARD FALK
Is he a Nazi too, or is he just a "Self Hating Jew"?
What a shower of racist shit you pare
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 02:15 PM

"UNESCP
Just because a bunch of Israeli Nazis accuse a report of being bu Nazis doesn't make it so.
Sort of like Bobad and his "Jew Hater"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 01:59 PM

Who are ESCWA?

Eighteen anti-Semitic Arab states led by Israel hater and 9/11 conspiracy theory espouser extraordinaire Richard Falk.

Eeven the Secretary General of the UN distanced himself from the report.

Good catch Carroll......lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 01:38 PM

Jim, from your cut and paste,
publish ed by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA),

Who are ESCWA?
"ESCWA comprises 18 Arab states"

So no bias there then!

"The United States, an ally of Israel, said it was outraged by the report.
"The United Nations secretariat was right to distance itself from this report, but it must go further and withdraw the report altogether," the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said in a statement.
The Israeli ministry spokesman, Emmanuel Nahshonâ€쳌, commenting on Twitter, also noted the report had not been endorsed by the UN secretary-general.
"The attempt to smear and falsely label the only true democracy in the Middle East by creating a false analogy is despicable and constitutes a blatant lie," Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon said in a statement."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/un-israel-report-apartheid-palestinians-gaza-a7632336.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 01:23 PM

Dave,
I wrote, "You were wrong to challenge Bobad's statement." because it was proved correct and your "pertinent questions" all dealt with.

When you said, "Did I challenge his statement in any way that was wrong?" I took that as a denial that you had challenged.

Others have commented on how confusing your posts can be.
As you say, different language.

Anyway, sorted out now.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

As the subject of recism and bigotry seems to be OK with Keith, with his permission, of course, perhaps this articcle from todat's Irish Times might be acceptable
What do people think - does it pass the censor's blue pencil, or aren't there enough "decent countries in the U.N.?
Jim Carroll

Middle East
ISRAEL IMPOSES 'APARTHEID REGIME' ON PALESTINIANS, SAYS UN
A UN agency published a report yesterday accusing Israel of imposing an "apartheid regime" of racial discrimination on the Palestinian people, and said it was the first time a UN body had clearly made the charge.
Israel's foreign ministry spokesman likened the report, publish ed by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), to DerStiirmer-a Nazi propaganda publication that was strongly anti-Semitic.
The report concluded that "Israel has established an apartheid regime that domi¬nates the Palestinian people as a whole". The accusation is fiercely rejected by Israel.
ESCWA executive secretary Rima Khalaf said the report "clearly and frankly concludes that Israel is a racist state that has established an apartheid system".
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters the report was published without any prior consultation with the UN secretariat. "The report as it stands does not reflect the views of the secre¬tary-general." –
(Reuters)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 11:07 AM

I can read it as slowly as you like Keith. It still doesn't make sense to me and just what is it I am supposed to have denied? Challenging his statement? I fully admit I challenged his statement and you have confirmed that there is nothing wrong with challenging anything.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

I feel I am entering some sort of twilight zone...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 10:52 AM

"Read it slowly this time Dave."
Stop talking down to people Keith - you're not good enough and we already have two of them.
And with your record, don't call anybody dishonest
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 10:29 AM

Dave,
It is OK to challenge anything and it was quite clear that I was challenging something but that is dishonest?

Read it slowly this time Dave.
I said it is not wrong to challenge anything, but anyone reading your response to his statement would be quite clear that you were challenging it, and your denial just taken as more evidence of your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 10:21 AM

"Sadly I have no control over what you talk about,"
What do you mean "sadly" - do you mean you wish you7 had, you nasty little Stalinist?European antisemitism has sweet fuck all to do with The Larbour party, but you are quite keen to talk about that.
You and you fick mate weer quite happy to discuss Ireland until your ignorance (and sectarianism) dropped you in a hole, than you cried "foul"
Stop attempting to control discussions, you little fascist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 10:11 AM

I said it is not wrong to challenge anything, but anyone reading your response to his statement would be quite clear that you were challenging it, and your denial just taken as more evidence of your dishonesty.

It is OK to challenge anything and it was quite clear that I was challenging something but that is dishonest?

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

Glad there are some more sensible discussions going on here. The avocado dip sounds great. Never tried it before so I may try it out this weekend. I am not going to get my evening meal until late so just had a snack of the co-ops edamame beans in soy sauce. They were very nice but I could not eat any more than the snack pot they come in.

DtG

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:41 AM

Steve and Jim,
you (a) wish to have total control over what we talk about,

Sadly I have no control over what you talk about, but I will resist being drawn in to yet another discussion on Irish history or Israel, unless you reopen one of the many existing threads or start a new one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:36 AM

"We were not discussing Israel or Irish history.
"Irish nationalist/republicans (mainly Roman Catholic) and unionist/loyalist (mainly Protestant).""
And both of those represent he two religions"
Will you sto attemptiong to censor this thread because it is not going your way Keith
Thwe title of the thread is UK LaBOUR PARTY DISCUSSION PART II - WHAT THE **** has "Returning to the issue of anti-Semitic hate crime in the West" got to do with that?
That is certainly nothing to do with the thread topic _ Israeli interference has got relevance
Letr me once again let me rermind you - you have no authority of this forum - by most decent contributors you are treated with contempt for your dishonesty, you racist extremism and your clumsy attempts to manipulate information and - in this case, democratic discussion.
Are you sure you're not on Trump's payroll!!
If you attempt to interfere with what I write again shall attempt to have you stopped
WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TELLING US WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DISCUSS
You were quite happy to comment on Ireland until your idiocy got you in trouble again.
Of course the Irish Question is a religious one
How could a six county Protestant State that has repressed the Catholic Minority for half a century be other than religiously influenced?

This summing up from the BBC gives a reasionablte background to the religious suppression of the rights of Catholics in the Six Counties which led to the Troubles.
If you have trouble understanding it I'll throw in a few illustrations and put in a glossary of the big words.
I'd
recommend a few books but I know from your whineing about long posts, that your attention span doesn't go beyond sound-bite size.
Jim Carroll

Background
In 1963, the prime minister of Northern Ireland, Viscount Brookeborough, stepped down after 20 years in office.
His extraordinarily long tenure was a product of the Ulster Unionist domination of politics in the north since partition in 1921.
'There was little indication in 1963 of the turmoil that was about to engulf Northern Ireland.'
By contrast, the Catholic minority had been politically marginalised. This was largely a product of Northern Ireland's two-thirds Protestant majority, but was exacerbated by the drawing of local government electoral boundaries to favour unionist candidates, even in predominantly Catholic areas like Derry.
Additionally, the right to vote in local government elections was restricted to ratepayers - again favouring Protestants - with those holding or renting properties in more than one ward receiving more than one vote, up to a maximum of six.
This bias was preserved by unequal allocation of council houses to Protestant families. Catholic areas also received less government investment than their Protestant neighbours.
Police harassment, exclusion from public service appointments and other forms of discrimination were factors of daily life, and the refusal of Catholic political representatives in parliament to recognise partition only increased the community's sense of alienation.
But there had been improvements. Post-war Britain's new Labour government had introduced the Welfare State to the north, and it was implemented with few, if any, concessions to old sectarian divisions.
As a result, Catholic children in the 1950s could reap the benefits of further and higher education for the first time. It would, in time, expose them to a world of new ideas and create a generation unwilling to tolerate the status quo.
But for now, anti-partition forces had been neutralised and the unionists were firmly in control. There was little indication in 1963 of the turmoil that was about to engulf Northern Ireland"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:23 AM

I said it is not wrong to challenge anything, but anyone reading your response to his statement would be quite clear that you were challenging it, and your denial just taken as more evidence of your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:20 AM

So, give me an example of what was wrong. Or, as Steve says, have you just retreated into "you're wrong' mode? In which case. You're wrong.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 09:18 AM

Did I challenge his statement in any way that was wrong?

It is not wrong to challenge anything, but anyone reading your response to his statement would be quite clear that you were challenging it, and your denial just taken as more evidence of your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 08:29 AM

Always good to admit that you lose before Keith tells you that you lose, Dave!

________________________________________________________________

AVOCADO DIP A LA SHAW

A generous amount of dip for two or even three people:

Two decidedly ripe but not blackened or stringy avocados (Morrisons, Lidl and M&S unreliable, Sainsbury's and Waitrose haven't let me down)

Juice of 3/4 of a fresh lime

Half a small green chilli, not a very hot one, chopped very finely

Some chopped fresh parsley

Salt (a fair bit, more than I expected I needed)

Six cherry tomatoes, best you can get (you can't get good ones in Morrisons - sorry, Dave!), finely diced

Scoop out the avocados into a dish and mush up the flesh with a fork, as rough or smooth as you like, but the texture is paramount - you don't want it like those abject little pots of guacamole you buy in supermarkets. Then just chuck in all the other ingredients and mix in. I chilled mine for an hour or two with a bit of cling film on the surface to avoid oxidation.

I used the parsley in place of coriander as Mrs Steve doesn't like the latter, and it worked a treat. A lot of recipes call for chopped onion but my instincts persuaded me to leave it out.

We LOVED it! 🥑 🥑 🥑

And this is 100% on-topic as making it was a "Labour" of love and we will have it at our next "Party!"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 07:35 AM

You were wrong to challenge Bobad's statement.

Did I challenge his statement in any way that was wrong? I am pretty sure I just asked some pertinent questions. So what has everyone been proved wrong about Keith?

I don't think you missed much apart from a humiliating defeat, Steve, from what I gather. Sorry I can't provide any links to that so I suppose it could be an unsubstantiated allegation but, then again, I have been told I am shit and have no morals :-) Maybe I should just admit defeat seeing as I have no idea what the rules are

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 07:08 AM

Going from your last three posts, Keith, it appears that you (a) wish to have total control over what we talk about, (b) have adopted an intriguingly-new style of "debate" that involves your saying absolutely nothing except "you're wrong." Very novel!

I didn't get to watch the flippin' match after all as my sis facetimed me 30 seconds after kickoff! She's worth it though. Then I had to chop up all the veg for my crudités. My avocado dip was a sensational success. You'll be getting the recipe later. Looks like City lost courage last night. Better not do schadenfreude as my cousin has a City season ticket...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 06:53 AM

Dave,
So, just what was everyone proved wrong about, Keith?

You were wrong to challenge Bobad's statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 06:11 AM

So, just what was everyone proved wrong about, Keith? Links please

What about City last night, Steve? Can't say I follow any team in particular but City is the closest. Glad I didn't watch it. Just Leicester left to carry the torch now. Good job the little Englanders on here don't get involved in that. I can imagine the invective against all those furriners taking over our sport...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 05:58 AM

Returning to the issue of anti-Semitic hate crime in the West, Bobad was right and you were all proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 05:34 AM

Jim,
We were not discussing Israel or Irish history.
"Irish nationalist/republicans (mainly Roman Catholic) and unionist/loyalist (mainly Protestant).""
And both of those represent he two religions

No they do not.

The Unionists declared a Protestant State and the Catholics became second rate citizens - inferior voting rights and propertty ownership was the meing cause of contention.

Not true.
Start a new thread and I explain it all to you again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 06:04 PM

Well, I have punished my liver enough. It is the turn of my ears now:-)

D

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 06:00 PM

"I have decided that a couple of weeks off the beer will do no harm and I am getting to play the accordion...."

Christ, Dave, what a terrible sentence...😱


😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 04:12 PM

I know, Steve, I know.

I have decided that a couple of weeks off the beer will do no harm and I am getting to play the accordion more. Trouble is my music room is also the study with the computer so I keep getting distracted by nonsense on here. Having a go at Lads a' Buncham / Young Collins on the Morris On album here but too fast for me. I reckon the dancers would be pretty knackered too.

Wonder if Morrisons have ever used anything from Morris On? Must make some enquiries at work. :-)

Enjoy the match. How do you fancy Leicester's chances in the 1/4 finals?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 04:03 PM

"Irish nationalist/republicans (mainly Roman Catholic) and unionist/loyalist (mainly Protestant).""
And both of those represent he two religions
Stop taking things about of context again
The Unionists declared a Protestant State and the Catholics became second rate citizens - inferior voting rights and propertty ownership was the meing cause of contention.
The Troubles started when Catholics demanded equal rights
For Christ#s sake Keith - http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/the-men-of-no-popery-the-origins-of-the-orange-order/
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 03:30 PM

Keith likes to set the agenda. His agenda. You're not "discussing" anything, Keith. You're haranguing people with your favourite obsession. Right. Monaco vs Man City on BT Sport in a minute, with avocado dip, crudités and Vallage cheese washed down with Morrisons' Nero d'Avola. See you later!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 02:53 PM

...amongst other things :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 02:43 PM

Dave,
So is the power struggle in the middle East.

We are discussing anti-Semitism in the West!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 02:42 PM

Jim, the opening two sentences of your linked article,
"Segregation in Northern Ireland is a long-running issue in the political and social history of Northern Ireland. The segregation involves Northern Ireland's two main voting blocs – Irish nationalist/republicans (mainly Roman Catholic) and unionist/loyalist (mainly Protestant)."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 01:46 PM

"Those colours have political not religious significance."
Religion has been a ploy for keeping the state divided ever since it was declared thet the six counties would be a Protestant State
"No surrender to Papism has been a rallying cry since independence.
"Those colours have political not religious significance."
What an unbelieveably STUPID statement
You continue to lie - you have had every opportunity to produce your invisible army
Each time you claim to hav =e dione I will ask you to link us to it.
PLEASE LINK US TO IT NOW KEITH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 01:16 PM

Your problem is cowardice Dave

Your problem, ake, is that you have not got a clue what you are talking about on any level. For example...

You know you are in the wrong but cannot bring yourself to admit it.

How is that, in any way shape or form, related to cowardice. Or are you going to use your usual "quotes" around a word that has a different meaning to you that to the rest of the world?

As to waffling, yes, it is about time for something more pleasant that trying to communicate with someone who obviously has no intention of reciprocating. (Big word I know - Look it up or make something up as usual. :-) )

And Keith, I will make the same point to you as I did to Teribus. The troubles in northern Ireland were political under the guise of being religious. So is the power struggle in the middle East.

Now, waffle time. I am not fond of waffles but whenever we visit Whitby I always make sure I get something from The Whitby Waffler. Something about fried sugar and seaside that gels.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:54 PM


Could I suggest you take a trip to Derry, at one end of the town the kerb stones are painted Green, White and Gold the other end Red, White and Blue.

Those colours have political not religious significance.
The sectarian divide is the political one of NI being part of Ireland or UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:49 PM

Jim,
Did you not claim an "implant"?If your answer is no, I will put it up again

No. I said that I believed the people who said that culture was to blame. I made no claims and admitted having no knowledge of it.

Have you consistently refused to put up examples of anybody else doing so?

No. At the time I quoted 5 people with intimate knowledge saying culture was to blame.

Did you not put up thousand year old shite about child marriage to prove Muslims were inclined to paedophilia?
My response will be as before

No. I made a factual statement relevant to the discussion.
I actually repeatedly refuted the suggestion that religion was an issue. Deny that Jim?

Did you not claim that the Jewish members of Parliament reported the antisemitism to Corbyn yet did not take it further

Yes, as did those complaining of misogyny and homophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:48 PM

Well I'm back from the cheese-buying mission! Success! I have mucho Vallage! Hey, did you hear that? Three languages in a four-word sentence - "I have mucho Vallage!" Whaddam I like! Cor, and I used an eight-quid money-off voucher AND GOT ANOTHER EIGHT-QUID MONEY-OFF VOUCHER!!!   And while I've been gone we've been called blind ideologues and strangers to the truth by a bloke who secretly and dishonestly posted as two people at once! You couldn't make it up! Teribus has gone all po-faced at the mention of a cabin boy and akenaton - AKENATON fer chrissake - has accused Dave of being sans wit and sans cojones! What jollity we are enduring here! Let's all go ride bikes! 🚴🏻‍♀️🚴🏿🚵‍♀️🚵🏿🛴🚲🏍🛵

I'm making an avocado dip for tonight to go with crudités. Not crudity, mind, as I have to wait for Whit Friday for that! Geddit? Nod nod, wink wink!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:33 PM

"Gnome the connection between "the Troubles" and the situation in the middle-east is what?"
Only that in both cases, politicians have used religious differences to divide groups and communities to offset attention to heir own activities.
The similarities of how the Unionists held power in the north and how Assad managed to turn a protest for an end to repression into a civil war are uncanny.
That can be repeated and an example wherever an established church has influence beyond its religion.
Nothing unfathomable about that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

Your ignorance of the troubles in Northern Ireland is frankly astonishing.

Could I suggest you take a trip to Derry, at one end of the town the kerb stones are painted Green, White and Gold the other end Red, White and Blue.

Sectarianism is still rife, fostered in some part by both catholic priest and protestant vicars alike.

None so blind as they that will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:55 AM

Your problem is cowardice Dave....It is patently obvious to anyone who studies the issues that the Troubles in Northern Ireland have absolutely no connection to the factional slaughter amongst different branches of Islam.
You know you are in the wrong but cannot bring yourself to admit it.

I think it's time for you to waffle a bit about nature?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:38 AM

I did answer it. Someone claimed tolerance was 500 years behind in the middle east. I used the troubles as an example of how wrong they were. Seemples.

You have made that claim before and always failed to provide any substance to the claim. I have no reason to believe it will be any different this time. If you have any issues with my posts you have a number of options

1. Mention them in thread so I can laugh at you
2. Complain to the moderation team so they can laugh at you
3. Just be yourself so we can all laugh at you.

Any will do.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:26 AM

Someday Dave, you may develop the wit to answer a simple and direct question. Teribus asked what is the connection between NI and the situation in the Middle East and you had not the balls to answer the man. I'm sure you know bloody well there is no connection but you always prefer obfuscation...don't you?

Classic Passive Aggressive troll!......the very worst variety.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:16 AM

you all sound the same.

That would be because facts is facts and truth is truth - something you and your pack are unable to see through the blinders of your ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:12 AM

Just taken a drive round the coast and then back across the Bog Road, stunningly beautiful, gorse abounds in an array of shades of colour from vivid yellow to almost golden orange. Hyacinths, white flag Lillies and Daffodils of every hue, waves breaking along the shoreline.

On Friday in my local after the St Patricks Day Parade there are three gigs starting at 4 this the afternoon , then Ireland V England rugby on Saturday and on Saturday night out to a mates pub for a very late session, we'll probably still be playing at 3 in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Mar 17 - 11:00 AM

the connection between "the Troubles" and the situation in the middle-east is what?

The middle east being 500 years behind in terms of tolerance is the connection that I think was mentioned by either you or poobad. Not sure which, you all sound the same.

:D tG