BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:36 PM

Err, Keith, he hasn't instigated anything controversial. He's made things LESS controversial by finally aligning his country with the rest of international opinion about settlements at long last. I'm really glad that he's removed that particular controversy and only sorry that he didn't do it earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:28 PM

"In short I view it as cynical opportunism."
So not only are you declaring for Trump (good to know) but you are condemning all the other democratic countries of the same cynical opportunism?
Hope you have the same respect for all the other things Trump promised - as I have no doubt you do.
Can you show us the "unwritten law" - whoops, sorry, it hasn't been written, so, like your Labour antisemitism, it doesn't exist so a decent retiring President was able to do the right thing .
Sorry Keith
Your boat's well and truely sunk
And you call be obsessed!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM

When Obama commented on the Brexit debate, you all thought it highly relevant!
This thread is a discussion about the Labour Party, and of course views expressed by the President of the USA on that subject are relevant.

Jim,
Care toi comment on Obama's refusal to veto Israel's condemnation in the U.N. - did he get that right or wrong?
No comment eh?

Yes, I am happy to comment Jim.
I think that he has broken an unwritten rule that after an election old Presidents to not instigate anything controversial, and/or against the views of the President elect.
I also think that before the election he would never have made a move so unpopular with the electorate.

In short I view it as cynical opportunism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:41 AM

Keith's Crusade appears to have hit rock bottom Steve
Want to see bet whether he says Obama is and expert on British politics and knows nothing of Israeli politics, or whether he chooses not to respond
I think the betting shops are open today!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:30 AM

Well said, Jim. Yes Keith. Obsessive in dragging up absolutely anything that you think could cast Labour in a negative light. Boring, Keith. You're yesterday's man. Just stick to defending Farage with your mates Teribus and Ache. You're on safe and cosy ground there. It is brilliant that Obama has finally stuck one on Netanyahu isn't it. A bit too little, a bit too late, but Trump had better be careful not to polarise US opinion if he really means it about Israel. I wonder whether he really cares. Or knows anything about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:16 AM

Ah - but did he mention or explain Labour's Antisemitism
You say you are not fanatical Anti-Labour yet you dredge up a comment by the President of the United States
Wonder what the Preident of Mongolia thinks?
Feckin' obsessive, I call it
Care toi comment on Obama's refusal to veto Israel's condemnation in the U.N. - did he get that right or wrong?
No comment eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:07 AM

Corbyn's leadership has been slated by President Obama.
"Jeremy Corbyn has been forced to defend his record after Barack Obama said he is further to the left than Bernie Sanders and as distant from centre ground politics as Donald Trump's Republicans.
Mr Obama indicated that Mr Corbyn had become Labour's leader after it "disintegrated" following election defeat and that the British party is still in a "very frail state".

"Mr Obama said he was not worried about the potential  "Corbynisation" of the Democrats in the wake of their defeat at the hands of Donald Trump."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-jeremy-corbyn-interview-labour-disintegrate-corbynisation-a7497011.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 10:20 AM

Your "friend" is deluded. There is no appetite on either side for a two-state solution and never has been. There has not ever been one minute's-worth of meaningful talks in that direction. The reason for that is that Israel never has to negotiate, never has to consider giving a single inch. Successive Israeli regimes and their supporters complain that the Arabs have missed opportunities to attain their state, yet it's they who constantly work against its possibility. The settlement expansion into occupied territory has the aim of breaking up the land that a separate state would require. In order to create that situation, Israel would need to give up the settlements, otherwise a contiguous tract of land would be near-impossible to achieve. The settlements are on the best land, and Israel will not give them up. The people who live in them would not want to be part of an Arab state in which they were by far the wealthiest citizens. The Arabs would be none too keen on that either. Have a little word in your "friend's" shell-like and tell him to get real.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:55 AM

I also note you did not respond to the link I placed, I wonder why.

Personally I have no particular axe to grind in this debate, there are many wrongs on both sides of the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:54 AM

My friend, Fred Maroun's take on the resolution:

When will the UNSC finally denounce Palestinian settlements in Israel?

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution, shamefully unopposed by the United States, and even more shamefully supported by the United Kingdom and France, denouncing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, known for much longer as Judea and Samaria.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, justified the U.S. position by saying that, "One has to make a choice between settlements and separation". This logic is mind-boggling. Why is the presence of Jews in what may become one day a Palestinian state an obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state? Wouldn't a Palestinian state be able to handle the presence of a minority of Jews?

The suggestion that settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are an obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state is particularly absurd considering that not a single Jew lived on those lands between 1948 and 1967 and yet no Palestinian state was created.

Although the UNSC will never admit it, we all know that the only reason there is no Palestinian state is because Arabs decided long ago that they would never take a step that would enshrine the existence of an Israeli state. Creating a Palestinian state next to Israel would be such a step.

Saying that "one has to make a choice between settlements and separation" is just as absurd as saying that the presence of Arabs in Israel is an obstacle to the existence of Israel. If the U.S. feels this way, why does it not introduce a resolution at the UNSC denouncing Palestinian presence in Israel? That would be a stupid resolution, but it would not be any more stupid than the resolution that the government of President Barack Obama refused to veto.

Such a resolution would of course be rejected, not only because the U.S. would not present it, but also because no one else would support it, and rightfully so. No one would support a resolution that forbids a minority from living on a land, especially a land where their ancestors have lived for generations. No one would support such an extreme case of ethnic cleansing. Or would they? After all, they just did exactly that!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:38 AM

but I think you will find your quote is somewhat selective.

It is not at all - it is you being selective in what you want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:30 AM

Not at all Bobad, but I think you will find your quote is somewhat selective.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:26 AM

To quote from his speech: During the past ten years I have argued that we must never accept the bias against Israel within UN bodies

What part of that did you not understand or are you just lying because he says something that you don't want to admit exists?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:18 AM

He does not say that those resolutions, reports and conferences are erroneous merely that there are many of them.

DUH!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:02 AM

Your headline is not exactly what he says in his speech, is it.

He says there is a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and conferences criticising Israel. He does not say that those resolutions, reports and conferences are erroneous merely that there are many of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 08:32 AM

Oh dear, oh dear ............... Is even the UN Anti-Semitic now?

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Admits UN Biased Against Israel

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 08:20 AM

If he is so inept I wonder why the right wing press are so intent on trying to destroy his reputation? Fear that he may move the country a little more to the left after all? If he was so useless I would have thought they would have welcomed him with open arms but I suspect that they think he may have something after all. Just my 2p.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 07:02 AM

Jeremy Corbyn a politician with marked anti-imperialist leanings.

Anybody told this dinosaur that it has been a long, long time since we had an empire. But this is the man who has a stated aim in clearing Trotsky's name and restoring his reputation to such an extent that he's left the Labour Party to navigate on autopilot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 05:15 AM

BDS SMEARS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 04:52 AM

Sigh
If you care to go through the forum you will find that posters address numbers of people on a single posting - that is why I put up Keith's quote and replied to it
That is how it is done around here, please get used to it.
Best wishes to you too
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 04:35 AM

Your post : 23 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM

Bit in red nothing to do with me. The top part is. Therefore the thread is mixed.

Anyway not going to argue the toss.

I wish you a happy Xmas and health, wealth and happiness for the new year.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 03:54 AM

INCIDENTALLY
Have a good one y'all, d'you hear
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 03:22 AM

Iains
Try moving up a posting and read what I have just written.
I put forward the point that Israel has now decared that all criticism of its policies towards Gaza are Antisemitic, and it is possible that this is the antisemitism the Labour Party is being accused of - in which case, there is no basis for those accusations - people, Civil Rights organisations, churches, humanists...... Jews, Israelis included - and non Jews alike, are appalled at the behavior of Israel, comparing it to that of the Nazis.
These attacks on Labour began within a matter of four weeks of Jeremy Corbyn announcing his intention to support the boycott of Israeli goods - a coincidence?
The accusations died down and no proof had been found of a major problem with antisemitism, but where renewed again when a Labour delegation, led by the vice-chairman of 'The Friends of Israel' returned from a visit there - another coincidence?
Israel is spending many millions in a propaganda campaign to combat the boycott B.D.S. - it is now recognised (again, within and without Israel, by Jews and non-Jews) that the accusations against Labour are part of that propaganda campaign and have been since Jeremy Corbyn made his announcement.
At no time has anybody proved a major problem, nor have they described the form that this antisemitism has taken.
The Israeli has had all the facts of the enquiries into antisemitism in the Labour party via leaked reports, yet they haven't specified what this antisemitism is.
We can only conclude that it is 'critiscism of Israel'
The only reason Israel hasn't been tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the International courts is that the United States has prevented charges being brought by enacting many United Nations vetoes.
"I think you are getting your threads confused"
I think you are nor reading what has been written
If you will look, I put up, in inverted commas, "Because I disagree with whatever reason you gave", which was a quote from Keith.
Any remarks I made in my posting regarding Israel were addressed to him, not you.
Try to keep up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 01:54 AM

Oh dear, oh dear ............... Is even the UN Anti-Semitic now?


UN Ruling

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 03:07 PM

Jim

"Now - you said you had explained why The Jewish members of parliament did not go public by describing the antisemitism they had been subjected to on this thread
Can you link me to it please?"

I think you are getting your threads confused

I keep my vies on Israel strictly to myself. I do not discuss the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:56 PM

"Your case is that they are all lying to destroy their party and further the aims of Israel!"
And to nail yet another of your lies
I actually said that Israel has moved the goalposts and declared that to criticise their policies is "Antisemitic"
Some Jews go along with that - if that is what the Labour Party is being accused of, we need to know - as far as I am concerned, that is a misinterpretation of the term antisemitic
Do not make up yet more lies - you have enough to answer for as it is.
Do you really want to celebrate the birthday of the baby Jesus with all these lies hanging over your head!!
Now - WHY DID THE JEWISH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT NOT GO PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT KIND OF ANTISEMITISM THEY WERE BEING SUBJECTED TO?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM

"Jim so sad you feel insulted."
Please don't be upset on my behalf - I live by the golden rule that says, before beeing insulted, always take into consideration the person insulting you.
I didn't say I felt insulted - I said you insulted me and then whinged about Dave (probably the least insulting person in this discussion insuting you.
From the first time we encountered each other, you have implied I am ignorant, or naive, ot believe anthing I am told, or fail to look at both sides of the argument..... in fact, a whole string of insults and talking down to (happy to dig them out for you if it will help jog your memory.
You insult and whinge about being insulted - which makes you a hypocrite and you use your insulting in place of responding to the points put before you (particularly about your support for Assad's crimes against humanity), which makes you dishonestly evasive.
I really have no problem insulting or being insulted by someone who behaves like that.
I have no recollection of calling you a misogynist - I don't even recall the subject coming up, so feel free to remind me and if I did so unjustly, I will apologise.
"Because I disagree with whatever reason you gave."
Then prove those reasons wrong by disproving them - simple as that
Now - you said you had explained why The Jewish members of parliament did not go public by describing the antisemitism they had been subjected to on this thread
Can you link me to it please?
Please don't tell me you already have - you haven't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:05 PM

Iains - Not getting at you or Jim here. Honestly. But your last comment reminded me of something I say over and over again. It does not matter who started the fight. It is the one who ends it that will be seen as the better person. Who is it to be?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:56 PM

Jim so sad you feel insulted. I feel insulted at being labelled a misogynist and Assad supporter. Do not label people erroneously and perhaps they would not feel the need to draw attention to your own shortcomings. You started this pathetic little game, perhaps you should stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:45 PM

Rag, you resort to personal abuse and lying smears because you can not defend your case intelligently.
You lose.

Jim,
You have ben told why they considered it serious - why will yopu not respond to that fact

Because I disagree with whatever reason you gave.
I believe they were being honest about what they see as a serious problem for their party.
Your case is that they are all lying to destroy their party and further the aims of Israel!
Do you not see how deranged that theory is Jim?
Do not expect anyone to take it seriously. Not even Steve and Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:05 PM

Now if you can do it without insults, why cannot others?.

Can't be arsed?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

"Since trolling is the only counter argument you appear to offer. "
You have just whined about being insulted by Dave - the remark about my "trolling" is extremely insulting
Are you reserving the right to insult people for yourself?
"Now if you can do it without insults, why cannot others?."
Probably for the same reason you refuse to answer points put to you and try to bury them with waffle
A supporter of Assad's torture like yourself is very insultable
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 11:38 AM

D the G.
a splendid effort. I enjoyed reading your put down. A first class effort

Now if you can do it without insults, why cannot others?.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 11:26 AM

" just quoted members, senior officials and the leadership."
You have ben told why they considered it serious - why will yopu not respond to that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM

There is so much wrong with your last post Iains that I don't know where to start. Firstly, Grieg's Troll king had a hall full of Trolls, Goblins and Gnomes (No, I wasn't there). The slide show in your link seems to pay far more attention to Tolkien's Moria which had a Dwarf king. Very poor attention to detail and lazy imagery. Secondly, trolling is not arguing with you, it is deliberately goading someone into an argument to provoke a reaction. Something that I have noticed far more from yourself than the others. Finally, neither Trolls, Dwarves nor Gnomes skip anywhere. If you are going to insult people make sure you get it right.

Thank you :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 08:58 AM

For Steve and Jim

A little festive music. Since trolling is the only counter argument you appear to offer. Here is a little toon to skip along home to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLp_Hh6DKWc

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:42 AM

Whatever professor, you are not worth the time (and slight) effort.

You have been proven beyond any doubt, and on so many occasions, to be prejudiced, a racist, a liar, dishonest and utterly devoid of any integrity.

Bye Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:38 AM

"No I have not."
Yes you have - and you deliberately distorted what was being said, or

If that is true, produce an example.
Good luck with that Jim!

The fact that you have never at any time produced examples or numbers of people hasn't stopped you from persisting in your claim

I HAVE NOT MADE ANY CLAIM!!
I just quoted members, senior officials and the leadership.
I do now believe them. Do you claim they all lie??

Did you not claim that the Jewish members refused to describe antisemitism because of the love they held for their party?

No. I said the reported it to the leadership of the Party to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:15 AM

"No I have not."
Yes you have - and you deliberately distorted what was being said, or refused to accept the track records of the people making those claims in order to do so.
The fact that you have never at any time produced examples or numbers of people hasn't stopped you from persisting in your claim
You broke your arse trying to prove Labour had an antisemitism problem and wereonly able to produce people with their own agenda - anti Corbyn right-wingers or those who were part of the Anti BDS movement.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR PARTY - THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS THE ACCUSATIONS THAT THEE WAS - THAT WAS ESQUIRED INTO AND DEALT WITH
YOU WILL NOW CONTINUE TO CLAIM THERE IS (hope the bookies is open!!)
"No I have not. I"
Did you not claim that the Jewish members refused to describe antisemitism because of the love they held for their party?
Please say you didn't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:55 AM

Sorry,

Jim,
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny,

No I have not. I have merely quoted a number of members including the leadership who state that it is a serious problem for Labour.
I do think that proves the case though.

you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.

You keep repeating this lie Jim.
They revealed it to the Party leadership to deal with.

You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.

I have made no claims.
I just quoted members and leaders saying it was a serious problem for Labour.
Unlike you, I doubt they are all lying. Why would they?

Rag, do you not care how stupid you make yourself?
Your attempted attack on me had not one point you could make stand up.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:53 AM

Jim,
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny,

No I have not. I have merely quoted a number of members including the leadership who state that it is a serious problem for Labour.
I do think that proves the case though.

you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.

You keep repeating this lie Jim.
They revealed it to the Party leadership to deal with.

You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.

Rag, do you not care how stupid you make yourself?
Your attempted attack on me had not one point you could make stand up.
I have made no claims.
I just quoted members and leaders saying it was a serious problem for Labour.
Unlike you, I doubt they are all lying. Why would they?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:21 AM

Like I said you deny it.

To quote one of your irritating phrases .......... YOU LOSE!!!! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:15 AM

"Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity."
You have attempted to prove antisemitism, and misogyny, and have posted claim after claim that this happened without producing a single hint of "a serious problem" or an example of that antisemitism
When you were unable to do so, you blamed The Jews in Parliment for refusing to reveal it.
You still persist in these claims and you are still unable to provide examples.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 06:05 AM

Rag, I am not prejudiced so of course I deny it along with all the other names I get called by people who can't reply to what I actually say.

Steve, in what sense did Rag's silly string of posts sum me up?
Every one of his points has been flattened.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 05:58 AM

Well professor you have often been accused of prejudice and I think you will find that you deny it. Vehemently.


Are you perhaps coming clean and admitting your prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 05:51 AM

Rag,
Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity.

No, but this thread is for discussing the Labour Party, and a group of you keep denying that certain problems exist.

It would seem reasonable that if you feel so strongly about such issues that you should also castigate other political parties if they were guilty of the same "offence"

Sorry, but I do not feel strongly about such issues.


If, as you suggest, the Conservative Party are not making any efforts in this regard you should vilify them to an even greater extent.

Sorry again, but I never suggested any such thing.
The member I quoted was clear that they are making more effort than Labour.
Is there any reason to disbelieve him?

Merely reporting the words of a third party in this instance is meaningless unless you have a point to make.

The point I was making was that here is yet another member accusing Labour of prejudice. Something that many here keep denying.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:40 PM

"are you another Shaw? a case of do as I say, not as I do!"
You really aren't going to respond to the facts , aren't you?
This is all just bluster - you are answering nothing.
Doesn't matter anyway - who wants to know what somebody who supports the atrocities committed by this monster thinks?
Another aspect of debating is that failure to respond is answer enough.
MORE FACTS to IGNORE
Jim Caarroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:26 PM

Good job then that you're not one of those sandal-wearing pinko leftie teachers, Iains. My reports were generally written by guys who knew what they were talking about.

Good post, Raggytash. You've got Keith perfectly summed up.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:44 PM

Well Steve if that is your best effort at a riposte you disappoint me.
Your report card for this term will be "must try harder"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:05 PM

Why?

Well professor you seem very keen to criticise the labour party at every available opportunity.

It would seem reasonable that if you feel so strongly about such issues that you should also castigate other political parties if they were guilty of the same "offence"

If, as you suggest, the Conservative Party are not making any efforts in this regard you should vilify them to an even greater extent.

Merely reporting the words of a third party in this instance is meaningless unless you have a point to make.