BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM

I meant the longer post before that last one. As for the latter, that's completely ridiculous. I have never said that people are too "stupid" to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:51 AM

No trouble Shaw, no effort even - plain simple fact is that you are a liar, and less than 15 minutes searching has resulted in conclusive proof of you being a liar that is now available to post in seconds any time you "hark back" to December 2014 and "Wheatcroft".

Now them Jim, Steve tell us all about Kitchener resigning - got a date for that? Or are you now going to prove that you do stand for deliberate lies being told and spread and "allowed to stand" on this forum Shaw - you set out the stall regarding how principled your stand was now prove it - You won't because you are a hypocrite, a liar and a coward (Pretty much goes for the rest of your little "clique", not one of whom has seen fit to rush to your defence I see).

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:53 AM

They don't immediately see the need to leap to my defence because (a) they know I'm tough, calm and collected, and (b) because they're not a gang. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:53 AM

Rugby time now Shaw, will post your comments about the electorate being too stupid to vote from the Brexit threads later.

Easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:55 AM

That is because the "clique" as you chose to call some people, is not a "clique" or a "mob" or a "little gang"

You can't seem to get that into your head can you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

Make sure the word "stupid" is in there! Calling me names diminishes you. You do seem to be a little hot-headed and emotional. Watch those blood vessels of yours. Relax while you're watching the rugby and keep telling yourself that I'm not worth it. Fifteen minutes to kick-off.

Christ, I'm beginning to sound like your psychiatrist! Has he got a beard and sandals?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:17 AM

"Now them Jim, Steve tell us all about Kitchener resigning "
You've had it how about telling us about the stupid Irish or the Implanted Muslims or Bin laden not being a businessman or Britain bearing no blame for the outcome of the famine or the Polaris scheme that wasn't.... or all the other subjects you sprinted away from with egg on your face
Any moron can hide behind semantics to suggest that a military resignation caused by incompetence wasn't really a resignation, as you have proven beyond doubt.
Having leapt to the defence of your disturbed friend, you once again find yourself in the klarts and attempt to reopen a long won battel to prove black is white elsewhere
Stick to the rugby, it has all the finesse and sensitivity you lack!!!
Suits you from your bone-head to your regularly placed foot in mouth
Name your lies instead of hiding behind your anonymity and distance - not the heroic behaviour the armed services are looking for
Aaaaabout turn, quiiiick march
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:38 AM

""Now them Jim"
By the way
If I was to sink to your level of debate I would have asked you, didn't you mean "Now then Jim" - whoops, I just did
Hope I'm not there already!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:36 AM

Resignation? Got a date for that Jim? No thought not

Your "Kitchener was forced to resign" was a LIE - deliberately told by you through total ignorance on the subject you decided to comment on. Now Steve Shaw doesn't stand for lies being deliberately but despite the fact that it can be clearly shown that Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War on the 5th August 1914 and remained in that post until he was killed when HMS Hampshire struck a mine laid by a German U-boat to the west of Orkney off Marwick Head on 6th June 1916.

By the way Jim, Steve - none of that is my invention - look it up - neither of you will - liars and hypocrites the pair of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:41 AM

No, it was me, Steve. I have never brought it up since but for some reason All likes to. Masochistic tendencies maybe? Anyway, he said that crime rates increase with the influx of east Europeans. I said that was a racist thing to say. Al spat his dummy out and has been doing so ever since. I think I still have the exact exchange somewhere but I would prefer not to embarasss him any further without good reason.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:59 AM

Dave,
You said there was no other explanation. I said there was.

When I posted the explanation that had appeared in all the media, NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR WHY THEY DISPROPORTIONATELY DO IT HAD BEEN PUT FORWARD.

If that is not true, put one up Dave.
I already asked earlier and you seem unable to.

All you put up was suggested reasons why the stats. might lie and they were not doing it, but they were.

I didn't start it
You mean rehashing these long dead debates to try and smear me? Neither did I Dave.
The rest of your little gang did, so you felt you had to join in as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:03 AM

Dave,
You asked for a reason for the over-representation, not for why they were doing it.

I was asked in that old thread for an explanation of why they did it.
No such explanation had then appeared apart from the one I reported.
If that is not true Dave, produce one.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

No I won't look it up, because it is of no interest to me not then, not now, not ever. If it was a choice between looking it up and painting my privates with chocolate before bringing on the dancing ants, I'd choose the latter every time. Teribus, you are an agitated, irritated, insecure, rude, tribal, shouty, insulting, right-wing establishment, little Englander, not very truthful nitpicking waste of space. It's not that I can't argue with someone like that (a cinch, actually), but that I just don't really feel like it. My purple sprouting is cropping like mad. Gonna have a big plateful with a traditional Spanish tortilla tonight. I have wine, a wood-burning stove and a flat-screen telly. I win!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:10 AM

I think I still have the exact exchange somewhere but I would prefer not to embarasss him any further without good reason.

I remember that exchange as well and he is not the one who should be embarrassed by it. Al said he witnessed a theft or robbery by persons he recognized as being of eastern European extraction by their appearance and accents. You immediately branded him a racist and other members of the pack joined in lecturing him on his purported racism. I myself am of full blooded eastern European extraction and I saw absolutely nothing racist in what he said. As Mark Twain said; 'To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:10 AM

Jim,
describing an entire race or cultur 'potential perverts' is recism in the extreme

No-one has though Jim. It is a smear. A lie.

I did say that we are all implanted to an extent by our culture.
That is neither extreme nor racist.
I did quote a number of very credible people who said that the culture led to the offending, and I said I believed them.
I also asked why you did not. You never answered.
That is not extreme or racist either.

Now, why do we need to have this discussion again?
Why do you want to try and prove anything about me?
Because you can't argue against me.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

"You've had it how about telling us about the stupid Irish or the Implanted Muslims or Bin laden not being a businessman or Britain bearing no blame for the outcome of the famine or the Polaris scheme that wasn't.... or all the other subjects you sprinted away from with egg on your face" - Jim Carroll

OK then Jim, following posts from me that support your contentions

1: Where have I said, or made any reference to "the stupid Irish" - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

2: Where have I ever made any reference to Implanted Muslins - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

3: Osama bin Laden may be known throughout the world for many things - businessman ain't one of the them, which was I think my stance, you were putting him forward as businessman of the year.

4: With regard to the Famine where I have ever claimed that Britain was blameless - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

5: What Polaris scheme that wasn't Jim? Been no Polaris since 1996. I must admit when you set out to display your ignorance you do it in "Spades". On the Nuclear subs thread you and your pals were demolished. Now your task is to show me where I lied in that thread - my post Carroll not your interpretation of my post, my words not yours.

If anyone is interested in a prediction? We'll not get a peep out of Carroll, what will be treated to will be yet another highly emotive, ill-informed, deflecting rant.

Great game up at Murrayfield - Well done Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:29 AM

Eastern European extraction huh? Don't tempt me to suggest that I've just heard the first good argument ever as to why we should have kept the Iron Curtain.

I don't recall going after Al as a pack. Chapter and verse, pease.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

Hi Jim, how's this for name calling? How's this for ignoring the content of a post or points made in a discussion and just attacking the messenger?

"Teribus, you are an agitated, irritated, insecure, rude, tribal, shouty, insulting, right-wing establishment, little Englander, not very truthful nitpicking waste of space." - Steve Shaw

From you I take all of those as a compliment. Thank you Mr Shaw you have just proved beyond any question of doubt everything I have ever said about you.

As far as "nitpicking" goes Shaw who was it in February 2017 that started mithering on about the omission of one single word from a long dead thread dating back to December 2014 - sure as f**k wasn't me was it Shaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:55 AM

Don't tempt me to suggest that I've just heard the first good argument ever as to why we should have kept the Iron Curtain.

And I'm sure you feel the same about the concentration camps too.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM

"Teribus, you are an agitated, irritated, insecure, rude, tribal, shouty, insulting, right-wing establishment, little Englander, not very truthful nitpicking waste of space."
Measures pretty small against the examples I put up of your insults over the years, wouldn't you say - want me to putt them up again so we can compare them?
The only difference between your hundreds and Steve's one is your own track record proved Steve's description of you to be fairly accurate (if understated)
You just admitted that yourself by saying you take it as a compliment.
The rst is simple denial of what has been discussed interminably and long proven.
You behvae like an ill mannered lot on this forum and have done so for several years, despite being asked to desist. - it is little wonder people occasionally respond in kind.
Finished here, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM

I always understate, Jim. It's my humility, you see. It's my middle name. I could have added "big fibber" to that accurate description of mine (not name-calling). He said something about a single word in Dec 2014. Can't think what he's on about. Don't want to ask him, though, for fear of getting three feet of irrelevant scrolling to do through ancient posts peppered with spittle-flecked rants. Hey, I just used his favourite insulting cliché. Whaddam I like! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:33 PM

"Whaddam I like! 😂" - Steve Shaw

As you asked Shaw? A posturing, lying Prat who has been exposed as such and is now wriggling and trying like hell to escape.

There is not one thing that I have said that you can counter or refute.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:41 PM

"If anyone is interested in a prediction? We'll not get a peep out of Carroll, what will be treated to will be yet another highly emotive, ill-informed, deflecting rant." - Teribus 25 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

And that is exactly what we got from Jim Carroll - 25 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM - Predictable or what!!!

So Jim having been given the opportunity you can find no posts of mine that support your idiotic, untrue and outrageous contentions and lies - Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

At half time I would say thats One-Nil to Teribus



He has managed to divert the topic away from the lying of another poster. However I'm sure it wouldn't be for long.


Well played Scotland by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:45 PM

Give it a rest, Bill. You look daft.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 01:41 PM

So Jim having been given the opportunity you can find no posts of mine that support your idiotic, untrue and outrageous contentions and lies - Thank you.
You seem to have developed an acute case of amnesia, if you7 are referring to your bad manners
If not - you supported Keith's racism
Jim Carroll

A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
It will remind everyone that you are truly clueless and gormless to an astounding degree.
"Got the point now Shaw"
Probably because Carroll
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For Jim:
No need for reminders Jim I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to Jim - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo Jim?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter Jim-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jim:"
"By the way Jim"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it Jim?"
"Don't worry Jim"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:00 PM

lets face it, we're all 'potential' perverts.

as william wordsworth said, breathes there a soul so dull, he hasn't tried on his wife's knickers?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:35 PM

i suppose Ake, Keith and me - we've got racism and fascism - a bit like some houses have got woodworm.

i'm surprised you dignify our posts with a reply.

i mean i suspect what we are so inherently evil that we dwell in dark regions where all civilised debate is polluted by our evil intentions
.
no doubt about it - we are the baddies! complete stinkers!

however none of this answers the problem, as to what the bloody hell are we going to do to make the labour party electable?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:39 PM

Al said he witnessed a theft or robbery by persons he recognized as being of eastern European extraction by their appearance and accents. You immediately branded him a racist and other members of the pack joined in lecturing him on his purported racism. I myself am of full blooded eastern European extraction and I saw absolutely nothing racist in what he said.

Bobad. My Father was Polish and had just dies when the exchange happened. He did not know they were east European and said as much. But that is not what I was referring to anyway. He said crime increased when east Europeans moved in.

Al has not denied that.

Keith is not denying that he thinks British Pakistanis are culturally implanted to rape underage girls.

Says a lot doesn't it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:49 PM

In my case because I'm bothered that you're bothered, Al. I don't remember calling you a racist. And you are a respectable bloke. There's a list of four or five here to whom I wouldn't accord that accolade. OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:01 PM

Big Al Whittle. Sadly Corbyn is not leadership material. Diane Abbot
continuing as an MP will likely drive away potential supporters, and the damage done by Blair will probably take a generation to repair. The entire party requires a rebranding, a massive credibility injection, and some well reasoned policies that Joe public finds attractive. I am afraid my study of the tea leaves predicts failure on all counts.
There is also the problem with many modern mps as to why they exist? Is it to serve their electorate or themselves? For many it would seem to offer a future stepping stone to the nearest revolving door that brings power, wealth and privilege by way of the Lords or industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:24 PM

Well, what a good job your opinions aren't very important, let alone gripping, Iains. Don't worry, mate. Trump will always give succour to people like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:40 PM

But that is not what I was referring to anyway. He said crime increased when east Europeans moved in.

I think you've misremembered Dave:


Subject: RE: BS: The Return!....of....New Labour!!!
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 16 May 15 - 11:28 AM

i just tell you something i saw and you say i'm a racist.

No, you didn't, Al. You said you saw some east European immigrants looting a shop. You never told us how you knew they were east European immigrants. If you only assumed they were east European because they were looting then, yes, you are being racist. I always think the best about people and have always found you honest and open before so it was with great regret that I had to condemn the comment as racist. Tell us how you know they were east European and prove it was not a racist comment or accept that it was and apologise for it. Seemples, as the east European animals taking over our TV say...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:47 PM

That was just one of the exchanges bobad. I am happy to dig the other out if you want to persist.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:52 PM

I simply said that you called Al a racist for describing the looters as eastern European and what I posted proves me right, dance however you might.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:29 PM

all right lets admit - it says a lot = me and keith believe all Asians have breast implants that make them desire white women.

your character analysis is faultless. breathtaking in its brilliance.

seriously though - what can we do to get another labour politician in number 10.

a conservative administration will hurt the poorest and most disadvantaged people in this nation as long as it persists,

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:30 PM

He's not worth it, Dave. Saturday night is imbibing night. To employ a word I bloody hate, chillax!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:38 PM

We are stuck with Jezza until a rising star shows the ability to unite a horribly split party. If he's still in post in 18 months I'll be (a) surprised, (b) disappointed, (c) expecting doom. At the moment there isn't anybody. And the people who have undermined Jeremy the most are the two-time loser Blairite/Brownites. If anyone ever replaces Jezza, it won't be one of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:59 PM

I think Mrs May will make a good job of the Brexit negotiations and will walk the next two or three general elections.
The economy will continue to grow for a period and provide funds to instigate a nationwide retraining programme.
20 years of comparative prosperity will ensue, but the age old problems of capitalism will still be there to be dealt with.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:02 PM

yes i think you're right there Steve. its about personalities. John Smith just seemed to come from nowhere. he transformed labours profile - which had looked unelectable for close on 14 years,

a skilled debater and orator. his attacks from the front bench were so much more assured and ministerial.

lets hope we don't have to wait so long. in the meantime if Corbyn could take some much needed presentation skills.....

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:03 PM

Well you know who to vote for then, don't you, Mr Socialist? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:06 PM

That one was directed at akenaton, Al, as I'm sure you realise!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:39 PM

Ah, I see Shaw is home early from his Labour friends of Hamas and Hezbollah meeting tonight. Tell us, what was on the agenda this evening Shaw, was it the "Israel" lobby and its control of world governments or perhaps the Jews' extraordinary powers to have Labour Party members make anti-Semitic statements. Inquiring minds would like to know before they succumb to the effects of their Saturday night imbibing.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:49 PM

You're totally screwed up, mate. You need to study wild flowers a bit more. Not one person is going to come here and support what you've just said. In fact, I challenge them so to do!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:03 PM

I simply said that you called Al a racist for describing the looters as eastern European and what I posted proves me right, dance however you might.

Yes, you are right. That was ONE of the reasons. Seeing as you think I cannot provide any further evidence here is the same comment I was complaining about from the same thread that you C&Pd the other one from. You seem to be very selective in your quotes but that does not surprise me.

Sorry, Al, it was not me that brought it up and started to pick at old scabs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Return!....of....New Labour!!!
From: Big Al Whittle - PM
Date: 15 May 15 - 05:18 AM

People in my home county Lincolnshire are very. upset at the influx of Eastern Europeans, and the lawlessness they have bought to towns like Boston.

Now, would anyone care to tell me how that can be interpretted as anything but saying that east Europeans bring lawlessness where they go. But of course this adds nothing to any discussion on the Labour party and even though I will be accused of bringing it up, reading back through the thread will provide evidence I did not. But well done for steering the thread away from its point and probably pputtingh the final nail in its coffin.

DtG

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:13 PM

For chrissake, Dave, don't indulge bobad. He has an agenda and is totally blinkered. I can't understand why he's still there, frankly. Still, not my gig.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:23 PM

Still, not my gig.

Lol.....but I am compelled to make it so by some unseen power, must be them dastardly Jews again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:34 PM

Sorry, Al, it was not me that brought it up and started to pick at old scabs.

The scabs are on Al and not you, and nothing you have brought forth refutes what I posted.

Now, would anyone care to tell me how that can be interpretted as anything but saying that east Europeans bring lawlessness where they go.

A total misinterpretation of what Al wrote - you're learning well from your pack. Al did not say that, he said that there had been an increase in lawlessness in Boston. You are lying. Can you disprove his claim? If not, STFU.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 03:46 AM

I can see that, Steve, so this will be my last word on the subject. Yes, I can disprove the claim very easily.

"A survey carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 2008 found no evidence for suggestions that eastern Europeans were responsible for any crime wave. Peter Fahy, the chief constable who co-authored the report, noted that "you get misunderstandings, you get rumours"."

From This article.

There are plenty more where that came from but why should I be disproving a statement someone else has made? Surely it should be up to them to prove it and anecdotal evidence just does not wash.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 03:47 AM

Syeve.

"
Well, what a good job your opinions aren't very important, let alone gripping, Iains. Don't worry, mate. Trump will always give succour to people like you."


I do not have to rely on opinions, the statistics speak for themselves.

What backs your argument? a couple of dusty tomes on the weeds you insist on babbling on about to make up your daily quota of postings?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-polls-general-election-performance-1935-worst-80-years-a73333

Better trade in your sandals for some hiking boots, the next socialist party is way over the horizon.