FabSwingers.com
 

Quick Links

Search forum subjects:
 

Forums

» The Lounge
» Swingers Chat
» Virus
» Swinging Support and ...
» Swinging Club Discuss...
» Introductions
» Stories and Fantasies
» Fabswingers.com site ...
» Site help
» Chat room feedback/di...
» Mobile Web App feedba...
» Swinging Club/Event a...
» Meet Requests and Par...
» UK
» Ireland
» France
» Spain
» Politics
» USA
» Canada
» Australia
» New Zealand
» London
» Scotland
» Wales
» World Wide
» Bikers
» Camping
» Games

FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Will Corbyn...

Will Corbyn...

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By *rtemisia OP   Woman  over a year ago

Norwich

Make Labour unelectable, or is he just what this country needs?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I thought his name is Jeremy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Only one way we'll find out, at least he has compassion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

He seems a genuinely sincere man,,,, but that in itself probably alienates him right across the entire political spectrum,,,,,

I'm not on his side of the political divide, but I do hope he does good things....

I feel people who are prepared to do the right things for the right reasons are few and far between in politics but I think his motives are genuine,,,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"He seems a genuinely sincere man,,,, but that in itself probably alienates him right across the entire political spectrum,,,,,

I'm not on his side of the political divide, but I do hope he does good things....

I feel people who are prepared to do the right things for the right reasons are few and far between in politics but I think his motives are genuine,,,

"

I really hope so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otlovefun42Couple  over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...


"He seems a genuinely sincere man,,,, but that in itself probably alienates him right across the entire political spectrum,,,,,

I'm not on his side of the political divide, but I do hope he does good things....

I feel people who are prepared to do the right things for the right reasons are few and far between in politics but I think his motives are genuine,,,

"

History is littered with the funeral pyres of genuine motives.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *yrdwomanWoman  over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

Not sure if this country is ready for a truly left PM, but at least us lefties have someone to vote for.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *iamondjoeMan  over a year ago

Glastonbury

I think that yes, sadly, more people will be terrified than turned on in a national election

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I think if he is as extreme as the press would have us believe and takes the party that way they are unelectable.

If he's not, or is able to moderate his views, I think his sincerity and honesty will win him a lot of friends.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think if he is as extreme as the press would have us believe and takes the party that way they are unelectable.

If he's not, or is able to moderate his views, I think his sincerity and honesty will win him a lot of friends."

His reminds me of Mo Mowlam who I admired.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

All credit to him. Labour had lost their direction. I don't think he will last for more than a year though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think if he is as extreme as the press would have us believe and takes the party that way they are unelectable.

If he's not, or is able to moderate his views, I think his sincerity and honesty will win him a lot of friends.

His reminds me of Mo Mowlam who I admired..... "

Same integrity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I thought his name is Jeremy."

Sharp!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London

People will vote for him in the same way that people will vote for Farage- both are seen as conviction politicians (who express opinions they genuinely believe in) as opposed to regular politicians who are seen as untrustworthy because they only say what they think people want to hear in order to get elected and constantly fail to keep promises.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *at69driveMan  over a year ago

Hertford


"Make Labour unelectable, or is he just what this country needs?"
. As he purposes re nationalisation of industries and increased taxes , I believe he will make Labour unelectable .

I don't want my pension fund ruined by people like him..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I think he could be divisive for the country as he preaches socialism and this country has constantly rejected socialist ideals in the past save for the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.

I entirely identify with his views on nuclear disarmament and some of his views on the redistribution of wealth but we are a nation of moderates that's why you cannot put a hair between the likes of Blair and Cameron and they are, I am sad to say, are electable because of the slick communications machine behind them and the voting system itself.

In my view there was no finer man on the planet than Michael Foot. A kind, gentle and thoughtful person who was basking in the Kier Hardie era which has long since gone. I fear JC falls into that category.

If you want a current comparison you need look no further than Nigel Farrage and the UKIP surge and their attempted lurch to the right. It was rejected by the electorate. Before the kippers start bleating on about the 5m votes the registered in May the system did not allow them to win anymore than one seat and that will not change in my life time.

JC will bask in the midday sun of victory and for his 250,000 voters who elected him they need to remember that number; it's very small in terms of the electorate. The immediate winners of the Labour Party leadership struggle (and it was) will be the Tories, sadly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rtemisia OP   Woman  over a year ago

Norwich


"Not sure if this country is ready for a truly left PM, but at least us lefties have someone to vote for."

This is true.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *lik and PaulCouple  over a year ago

cahoots


"I think if he is as extreme as the press would have us believe and takes the party that way they are unelectable.

If he's not, or is able to moderate his views, I think his sincerity and honesty will win him a lot of friends."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ust RachelTV/TS  over a year ago

Horsham

I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I think his lasting effect will be as a good opposition leader to keep The Conservatives honest as a good Tory opposition would a labour Gvt.

Anything outside the centre would be adverse for the country

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *alandNitaCouple  over a year ago

Scunthorpe


"Make Labour unelectable, or is he just what this country needs?"

I'd be surprised if he's still leader in 5 years time, especially as he wants an annual leadership battle.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *U1966Man  over a year ago

Devon

Labour will rally in Scotland and nosedive in England Wales like a Lefty

Time for the Lib Dems to speak out and take the Centre ground haven't heard much from their new leader

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Make Labour unelectable, or is he just what this country needs?"

Labour is currently unelectable.

Don't think he can make it worse.

Maybe, just maybe, he can bring some integrity back to the commons. I'll take morality over popularity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *olgateMan  over a year ago

on the road to nowhere in particular

Labour have lost the last two elections, how much worse can he make it?

The problem on both sides of the house is too many career politicians and too few conviction politicians. I'm not a labour voter but of the four candidates he was the best choice by far. That's why he had such a large majority

C...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina."

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icketysplitsWoman  over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

15,500 new people have joined the Labour Party in the last 24 hours. It is, of course, a relatively small number when looking at the electorate but it is indicative that for some people they feel they have a party to join again.

There isn't a General Election for five years. Let's see how Labour does in the Scottish elections and the London Mayoral election next year.

As more of the Blairite Labour front benchers step down (Chuka has gone now) Corbyn will have a job putting together an experienced shadow cabinet. That does provide the opportunity for new people to come forward and to possibly shine.

Guessing an election outcome this far out isn't worth the effort. The world will have moved on. I do think we'll probably have a another Conservative government but that will be about the personality that leads the party at that time.

Corbyn's been leader for about 36 hours so I'm going to give him a bit longer to prove himself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Come gather round people

Wherever you roam

And admit that the waters

Around you have grown

And accept it that soon

You'll be drenched to the bone.

If your time to you

Is worth savin'

Then you better start swimmin'

Or you'll sink like a stone

For the times they are a-changin'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *imiUKMan  over a year ago

Hereford

I think his election could be the start of some interesting times.

I am aware of quite a swell in leftist feeling (even if it doesn't always label itself as such) that has been largely been unreported by the mainstream press - anti austerity marches, etc etc.

The corresponding swing to the right - Farrage etc has been pretty well covered, but most of the left movement has been left to social media.

It will enable us to catch a real glimpse of the size of the surge to the left.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Make Labour unelectable, or is he just what this country needs?. As he purposes re nationalisation of industries and increased taxes , I believe he will make Labour unelectable .

I don't want my pension fund ruined by people like him.."
.

Your pension was always a gamble, and that means there's winners and losers!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?"

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013. "

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

He won't be either of those things, the reality will be somewhere in the middle. And it's too early to say what he will be able to achieve, as he hasn't had time to do anything yet. He's re-engaged a lot of people in politics, which has to be a good thing, but I think the comparison with Farage on the right may turn out to be appropriate: a groundswell of seeming popular support which was not translated into electoral success.

I'm not sure what impact he will manage in Scotland, since the SNP seem to have the anti-austerity bit already well covered plus they obviously have the Scottish nationalism appeal.

Without inroads in Scotland, and much appeal to swing voters, I wonder if he may end up shoring up the Labour vote in areas that were already returning Labour MPs.

But, we're all wondering about something that cannot happen till 2020 anyway and 5 years is an extremely long time in politics.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?"

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge

I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them...."

But important enough for the loss of life?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD."
.

As prime minister he wouldn't have the power to do any of that though!

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icketysplitsWoman  over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD."

We have a government and parliament to curb such excesses. It's not a dictatorship where the will of one person determines every policy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I'd like to point out the Argentinians invaded forcefully once they thought our resolve and commitment was reduced. They used the Stanley post office floor as a shitpit- see recently found footage of the clean up.

They could have had their chance at a peaceful resolution in the eighties.

Worth a loss of life? Yes unfortunately freedom must be fought for.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD..

As prime minister he wouldn't have the power to do any of that though!

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament"

NATO has been tremendously successful and by having collective defence and sharing military capabilities with other members we have been able to drastically reduce our defence spending since the end of WWII. What would you see as the benefits of pulling out?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge


"

We have a government and parliament to curb such excesses. It's not a dictatorship where the will of one person determines every policy.

"

I dont think many would argue against the fact that he has some fairly radical ideas which are different from what the majority of this country wants, or thinks are a good idea. Why would we want a man like that as PM and hope that Parliament will curb his powers?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Pulling out of NATO is like saying get rid of the Fire Brigade because we've not had a fire.

Weaking military stance can invite aggression. It is an unfortunate fact but true.

He will do good as an opposition leader but be a disaster as PM

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

But important enough for the loss of life?"

Actually, yes, I do. I don't think it's rampant nationalism either. Any loss of life is always regrettable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country."

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD..

As prime minister he wouldn't have the power to do any of that though!

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament

NATO has been tremendously successful and by having collective defence and sharing military capabilities with other members we have been able to drastically reduce our defence spending since the end of WWII. What would you see as the benefits of pulling out? "
.

Do you really want my honest answer to that question?.

NATO is a thing of the past, built out of mistrust between dozens of countries, today it's used as a bullying stick.

Somebody needs to be the first to pull back and say, come on let's deal with it like adults and civilised people.

Or we can just keep pointing guns at one another and wait for the inevitable

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually. "

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

But important enough for the loss of life?

Actually, yes, I do. I don't think it's rampant nationalism either. Any loss of life is always regrettable."

More so if it's somebody else's loved ones, and not your own. Surely if we can find a peaceful way of avoiding conflict without loss of life, shouldn't we take it, don't you feel that we've had enough conflict over thousands of years.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

If you were anywhere near twitter during the last election, Ed Miliband was like a rockstar for most of the left-voting on there.

Look how that turned out.

Personally I don't find him electable. But then again the other candidates for the leadership had me in stitches.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *LCCCouple  over a year ago

Cambridge


"

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament

NATO has been tremendously successful and by having collective defence and sharing military capabilities with other members we have been able to drastically reduce our defence spending since the end of WWII. What would you see as the benefits of pulling out? .

Do you really want my honest answer to that question?.

NATO is a thing of the past, built out of mistrust between dozens of countries, today it's used as a bullying stick.

Somebody needs to be the first to pull back and say, come on let's deal with it like adults and civilised people.

Or we can just keep pointing guns at one another and wait for the inevitable"

Collective defence is not a bullying stick. If you were Turkey, you would be very glad to have NATO backing you up, Islamic State haven't tried to cross the border precisely because Turkey is a member. In fact no member state has been attacked since its formation. For this reason, NATO is incredibly relevant to the modern world.

Do you think Ukraine would have been invaded if it had been a member?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD..

As prime minister he wouldn't have the power to do any of that though!

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament

NATO has been tremendously successful and by having collective defence and sharing military capabilities with other members we have been able to drastically reduce our defence spending since the end of WWII. What would you see as the benefits of pulling out? .

Do you really want my honest answer to that question?.

NATO is a thing of the past, built out of mistrust between dozens of countries, today it's used as a bullying stick.

Somebody needs to be the first to pull back and say, come on let's deal with it like adults and civilised people.

Or we can just keep pointing guns at one another and wait for the inevitable"

It's a noble thought but human nature means some will bully the weaker, Hitler and Bosnia or now Syria shows you have to stand up to that aggression.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

But important enough for the loss of life?

Actually, yes, I do. I don't think it's rampant nationalism either. Any loss of life is always regrettable.

More so if it's somebody else's loved ones, and not your own. Surely if we can find a peaceful way of avoiding conflict without loss of life, shouldn't we take it, don't you feel that we've had enough conflict over thousands of years."

Very noble sentiment, but I don't think that the world works that way (unfortunately). So no, I don't think capitulating to Argentinian aggression on this one would be the way to avoid future conflict.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind."

Or else what? It gets "destroyed"? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are reliant on the financial services sector and the City would be thrilled.

What has happened, has happened. You can't turn back the clock. Sensible reform, yep. "Destroy", no.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *elvet RopeMan  over a year ago

by the big field


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD..

As prime minister he wouldn't have the power to do any of that though!

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament

NATO has been tremendously successful and by having collective defence and sharing military capabilities with other members we have been able to drastically reduce our defence spending since the end of WWII. What would you see as the benefits of pulling out? .

Do you really want my honest answer to that question?.

NATO is a thing of the past, built out of mistrust between dozens of countries, today it's used as a bullying stick.

Somebody needs to be the first to pull back and say, come on let's deal with it like adults and civilised people.

Or we can just keep pointing guns at one another and wait for the inevitable"

That was pretty much along JC's line when he was on C4 last week- he's not looking to leave NATO (unless you read the Tory rags BS), he wants to re-evaluate what its role is as the Cold War it was founded to combat finished 25 years ago, and although Putin is a bit of a tit at times, the Russian oligarchs like the money they get from the west, which keeps him a little under control, so what does NATO actually do and does it provide a relevant service now?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

But important enough for the loss of life?

Actually, yes, I do. I don't think it's rampant nationalism either. Any loss of life is always regrettable.

More so if it's somebody else's loved ones, and not your own. Surely if we can find a peaceful way of avoiding conflict without loss of life, shouldn't we take it, don't you feel that we've had enough conflict over thousands of years.

Very noble sentiment, but I don't think that the world works that way (unfortunately). So no, I don't think capitulating to Argentinian aggression on this one would be the way to avoid future conflict."

I'm speaking about before any aggression begins, why are people always hell bent on war to solve problems that can be avoided in the first place, has nothing been learned from history?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD..

As prime minister he wouldn't have the power to do any of that though!

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament

NATO has been tremendously successful and by having collective defence and sharing military capabilities with other members we have been able to drastically reduce our defence spending since the end of WWII. What would you see as the benefits of pulling out? .

Do you really want my honest answer to that question?.

NATO is a thing of the past, built out of mistrust between dozens of countries, today it's used as a bullying stick.

Somebody needs to be the first to pull back and say, come on let's deal with it like adults and civilised people.

Or we can just keep pointing guns at one another and wait for the inevitable

It's a noble thought but human nature means some will bully the weaker, Hitler and Bosnia or now Syria shows you have to stand up to that aggression.

"
.

It's human nature to kill people, steal, rape, bully, use and abuse, worship full moons and solar eclipses.

We changed, because we got a little more intelligent, we've now got alot more intelligent and weapons beyond the imagination of the people who set up NATO.

How long do you think we can keep nuclear weapons out of the reach of everybody?

In 1945 there was maybe 50 people in the world who could build one

Today there's probably 500,000!

Sometime in the very very near future were going to have to change once again and leave that primal side behind

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Make Labour unelectable, or is he just what this country needs?"

Probably Both

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD..

As prime minister he wouldn't have the power to do any of that though!

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament

NATO has been tremendously successful and by having collective defence and sharing military capabilities with other members we have been able to drastically reduce our defence spending since the end of WWII. What would you see as the benefits of pulling out? .

Do you really want my honest answer to that question?.

NATO is a thing of the past, built out of mistrust between dozens of countries, today it's used as a bullying stick.

Somebody needs to be the first to pull back and say, come on let's deal with it like adults and civilised people.

Or we can just keep pointing guns at one another and wait for the inevitable

It's a noble thought but human nature means some will bully the weaker, Hitler and Bosnia or now Syria shows you have to stand up to that aggression.

.

It's human nature to kill people, steal, rape, bully, use and abuse, worship full moons and solar eclipses.

We changed, because we got a little more intelligent, we've now got alot more intelligent and weapons beyond the imagination of the people who set up NATO.

How long do you think we can keep nuclear weapons out of the reach of everybody?

In 1945 there was maybe 50 people in the world who could build one

Today there's probably 500,000!

Sometime in the very very near future were going to have to change once again and leave that primal side behind"

Cave people with more efficient and dangerous clubs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Make Labour unelectable, or is he just what this country needs?

Probably Both"

Possibly the best answer, unfortunately.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

But important enough for the loss of life?

Actually, yes, I do. I don't think it's rampant nationalism either. Any loss of life is always regrettable.

More so if it's somebody else's loved ones, and not your own. Surely if we can find a peaceful way of avoiding conflict without loss of life, shouldn't we take it, don't you feel that we've had enough conflict over thousands of years.

Very noble sentiment, but I don't think that the world works that way (unfortunately). So no, I don't think capitulating to Argentinian aggression on this one would be the way to avoid future conflict.

I'm speaking about before any aggression begins, why are people always hell bent on war to solve problems that can be avoided in the first place, has nothing been learned from history?"

If there has been no aggression, then why does he wish to change the status quo, despite the overwhelming referendum result? Or does he dismiss peoples' right to determine their future as just "nationalism" as well?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

But important enough for the loss of life?

Actually, yes, I do. I don't think it's rampant nationalism either. Any loss of life is always regrettable.

More so if it's somebody else's loved ones, and not your own. Surely if we can find a peaceful way of avoiding conflict without loss of life, shouldn't we take it, don't you feel that we've had enough conflict over thousands of years.

Very noble sentiment, but I don't think that the world works that way (unfortunately). So no, I don't think capitulating to Argentinian aggression on this one would be the way to avoid future conflict.

I'm speaking about before any aggression begins, why are people always hell bent on war to solve problems that can be avoided in the first place, has nothing been learned from history?

If there has been no aggression, then why does he wish to change the status quo, despite the overwhelming referendum result? Or does he dismiss peoples' right to determine their future as just "nationalism" as well?"

Because it's still an issue, what about the rights of the people killed and their families, all because of what a small group of people " want", as oppose to Need?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *my-blackTV/TS  over a year ago

Poole

falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind.

Or else what? It gets "destroyed"? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are reliant on the financial services sector and the City would be thrilled.

What has happened, has happened. You can't turn back the clock. Sensible reform, yep. "Destroy", no. "

You cannot have a state within a state doing as it pleases, it has lost this country far more than its ever made.

They're bean counters, they grow no beans, the charade was we sold our industry, technology, oil and mortgaged our youths future, to fund this nonsense and property booms and buying foreign often British designed products, wake up, do we really need more insurance salesman, accountants, bankers, estate agents, advertising men.

They will still exist in the future by they should be seen as merely auxiliaries, not the driving force.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *appyguy17Man  over a year ago

walthamstow

I think in the short term it is good he became leader of the Labour party....

The government of the moment doesn't really reflect the views of all the people.....partly to do with "the first past the post system".....

I think Jeremy Corben will send a shiver through the political set up.....

And hopefully it may spur change....

I think his position as Labour leader will be short lived......

But good for politics in general x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier."

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again. "

Not everyone who is not a pacifist is a "warmonger". There are very few people in this world who enjoy people being killed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

Not everyone who is not a pacifist is a "warmonger". There are very few people in this world who enjoy people being killed."

Then why not try finding another way of solving problems that doesn't involve people being killed or maimed?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *at69driveMan  over a year ago

Hertford


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country."
. Our whole economy is dependent on the city Nearly everyone is better off now than they were 36 years ago..Anyone PM who refused to work with the City would fail to get to power in any event . Most voters have sufficient common sense to realize that without the City many public services would fail..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them...."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

But important enough for the loss of life?

Actually, yes, I do. I don't think it's rampant nationalism either. Any loss of life is always regrettable.

More so if it's somebody else's loved ones, and not your own. Surely if we can find a peaceful way of avoiding conflict without loss of life, shouldn't we take it, don't you feel that we've had enough conflict over thousands of years.

Very noble sentiment, but I don't think that the world works that way (unfortunately). So no, I don't think capitulating to Argentinian aggression on this one would be the way to avoid future conflict.

I'm speaking about before any aggression begins, why are people always hell bent on war to solve problems that can be avoided in the first place, has nothing been learned from history?

If there has been no aggression, then why does he wish to change the status quo, despite the overwhelming referendum result? Or does he dismiss peoples' right to determine their future as just "nationalism" as well?

Because it's still an issue, what about the rights of the people killed and their families, all because of what a small group of people " want", as oppose to Need?"

You dismiss their right to determine their own sovereignty as if it's the same as choosing between ketchup and brown sauce. I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself anyway.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

Not everyone who is not a pacifist is a "warmonger". There are very few people in this world who enjoy people being killed.

Then why not try finding another way of solving problems that doesn't involve people being killed or maimed?"

Oh I wonder why no one has ever thought of that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *at69driveMan  over a year ago

Hertford


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD."
. With these policies , I cannot see him gaining much support . He will never be prime minister ..He may however succeed in destroying the Labour Party .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind.

Or else what? It gets "destroyed"? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are reliant on the financial services sector and the City would be thrilled.

What has happened, has happened. You can't turn back the clock. Sensible reform, yep. "Destroy", no.

You cannot have a state within a state doing as it pleases, it has lost this country far more than its ever made.

They're bean counters, they grow no beans, the charade was we sold our industry, technology, oil and mortgaged our youths future, to fund this nonsense and property booms and buying foreign often British designed products, wake up, do we really need more insurance salesman, accountants, bankers, estate agents, advertising men.

They will still exist in the future by they should be seen as merely auxiliaries, not the driving force."

As an accountant, quite frankly if I was running the place we wouldn't be in this shit in the first place. Don't dismiss us as bean counters

As I said, you can't turn back time to some halcyon time that never existed.

I agree there should be reform and rebalance, but I also think you're being naive.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

Not everyone who is not a pacifist is a "warmonger". There are very few people in this world who enjoy people being killed.

Then why not try finding another way of solving problems that doesn't involve people being killed or maimed?

Oh I wonder why no one has ever thought of that. "

It's not that people haven't thought of it, the problem seems to be that people always see war as the way to deal with problems, why do you feel war is the right thing to do as oppose to finding a peaceful solution? I really am interested.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

Not everyone who is not a pacifist is a "warmonger". There are very few people in this world who enjoy people being killed.

Then why not try finding another way of solving problems that doesn't involve people being killed or maimed?

Oh I wonder why no one has ever thought of that.

It's not that people haven't thought of it, the problem seems to be that people always see war as the way to deal with problems, why do you feel war is the right thing to do as oppose to finding a peaceful solution? I really am interested."

I don't feel war is always the right thing to do. But I don't think the peaceful solution being suggested is the right thing to do either. I don't believe in peace at all costs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

Not everyone who is not a pacifist is a "warmonger". There are very few people in this world who enjoy people being killed.

Then why not try finding another way of solving problems that doesn't involve people being killed or maimed?

Oh I wonder why no one has ever thought of that.

It's not that people haven't thought of it, the problem seems to be that people always see war as the way to deal with problems, why do you feel war is the right thing to do as oppose to finding a peaceful solution? I really am interested.

I don't feel war is always the right thing to do. But I don't think the peaceful solution being suggested is the right thing to do either. I don't believe in peace at all costs."

What costs are these, and who pays those costs of peace?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place? "

I'm speaking about before any aggressive action begins.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind.

Or else what? It gets "destroyed"? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are reliant on the financial services sector and the City would be thrilled.

What has happened, has happened. You can't turn back the clock. Sensible reform, yep. "Destroy", no.

You cannot have a state within a state doing as it pleases, it has lost this country far more than its ever made.

They're bean counters, they grow no beans, the charade was we sold our industry, technology, oil and mortgaged our youths future, to fund this nonsense and property booms and buying foreign often British designed products, wake up, do we really need more insurance salesman, accountants, bankers, estate agents, advertising men.

They will still exist in the future by they should be seen as merely auxiliaries, not the driving force.

As an accountant, quite frankly if I was running the place we wouldn't be in this shit in the first place. Don't dismiss us as bean counters

As I said, you can't turn back time to some halcyon time that never existed.

I agree there should be reform and rebalance, but I also think you're being naive."

I can assure you accountants have fucked up many businesses around here. Penny wise, pound foolish most you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place?

I'm speaking about before any aggressive action begins."

Ask the argentinians not to attack us then. We didn't start it they did. We owe them nothing but they got the better deal from that war- they became a democracy of sorts.

War is nasty - i admire your stance but doesn't work in the real world

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind.

Or else what? It gets "destroyed"? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are reliant on the financial services sector and the City would be thrilled.

What has happened, has happened. You can't turn back the clock. Sensible reform, yep. "Destroy", no.

You cannot have a state within a state doing as it pleases, it has lost this country far more than its ever made.

They're bean counters, they grow no beans, the charade was we sold our industry, technology, oil and mortgaged our youths future, to fund this nonsense and property booms and buying foreign often British designed products, wake up, do we really need more insurance salesman, accountants, bankers, estate agents, advertising men.

They will still exist in the future by they should be seen as merely auxiliaries, not the driving force.

As an accountant, quite frankly if I was running the place we wouldn't be in this shit in the first place. Don't dismiss us as bean counters

As I said, you can't turn back time to some halcyon time that never existed.

I agree there should be reform and rebalance, but I also think you're being naive.

I can assure you accountants have fucked up many businesses around here. Penny wise, pound foolish most you."

I think you misunderstand the role of an accountant tbh. But, we're an easy target I'm sure so go ahead

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again. "

You're right of course, aggression should be avoided.

However virtually 99% of the Falklands populace want to remain part of the UK.

Corbyn appears to want to ignore that and pretty much hand it over to the country that invaded it not that long ago and caused the deaths of hundreds.

So by your logic we just ignore the wishes of the populace and hand them over to Argentina with a handshake and a smile?

I wonder if he'll completely ignore the wishes of those back here who voted for him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place?

I'm speaking about before any aggressive action begins.

Ask the argentinians not to attack us then. We didn't start it they did. We owe them nothing but they got the better deal from that war- they became a democracy of sorts.

War is nasty - i admire your stance but doesn't work in the real world"

I'm speaking about now, not 1982, it doesn't work because people defend it so readily.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

You're right of course, aggression should be avoided.

However virtually 99% of the Falklands populace want to remain part of the UK.

Corbyn appears to want to ignore that and pretty much hand it over to the country that invaded it not that long ago and caused the deaths of hundreds.

So by your logic we just ignore the wishes of the populace and hand them over to Argentina with a handshake and a smile?

I wonder if he'll completely ignore the wishes of those back here who voted for him."

It at least needs working on, surely, if we can prevent this and other conflicts by continuously looking at all possibilities, we owe it to the people who would lose their lives, as much as to the people wanting sovereignty, the hypocrisy astounds me, how people wear poppies and lay wreaths at the cenotaph, and yet stand cheering when people go off to do the same thing again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *my-blackTV/TS  over a year ago

Poole


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

Not everyone who is not a pacifist is a "warmonger". There are very few people in this world who enjoy people being killed.

Then why not try finding another way of solving problems that doesn't involve people being killed or maimed?

Oh I wonder why no one has ever thought of that.

It's not that people haven't thought of it, the problem seems to be that people always see war as the way to deal with problems, why do you feel war is the right thing to do as oppose to finding a peaceful solution? I really am interested.

I don't feel war is always the right thing to do. But I don't think the peaceful solution being suggested is the right thing to do either. I don't believe in peace at all costs.

What costs are these, and who pays those costs of peace?"

Sorry, im not a warmonger, i hate violence, i have never ever started a fight, rarely been involved in them - however sometimes its unavoidable.

some people you cant reason with

some people think with their fists.

some people get off on being bullies.

(in the case of argentina some people have a screwed economy so have to divert attention of their public to a nationalistic fervour)

in those cases being nice and friendly doesnt work and you either walk away or stand up and be counted.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

The freedom to post your admirable stance had to be fought for. It shouldn't be taken lightly to send troops into harms way but some people don't think like us and love death more than life.

It is a necessary evil

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place?

I'm speaking about before any aggressive action begins.

Ask the argentinians not to attack us then. We didn't start it they did. We owe them nothing but they got the better deal from that war- they became a democracy of sorts.

War is nasty - i admire your stance but doesn't work in the real world"

I think you mean "ask the Argentinians nicely........"

Diplomacy only works when both sides want a diplomatic solution and are prepared to accept that solution.

The moment one side doesn't like the result, it walks away and gets out the guns.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I'm off for much needed sleep now, I'll leave you with a quote from Confucius.

"It's Only when a mosquito lands on your testicles, that you realise, there is always a way to solve problems without using violence"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

Not everyone who is not a pacifist is a "warmonger". There are very few people in this world who enjoy people being killed.

Then why not try finding another way of solving problems that doesn't involve people being killed or maimed?

Oh I wonder why no one has ever thought of that.

It's not that people haven't thought of it, the problem seems to be that people always see war as the way to deal with problems, why do you feel war is the right thing to do as oppose to finding a peaceful solution? I really am interested.

I don't feel war is always the right thing to do. But I don't think the peaceful solution being suggested is the right thing to do either. I don't believe in peace at all costs.

What costs are these, and who pays those costs of peace?

Sorry, im not a warmonger, i hate violence, i have never ever started a fight, rarely been involved in them - however sometimes its unavoidable.

some people you cant reason with

some people think with their fists.

some people get off on being bullies.

(in the case of argentina some people have a screwed economy so have to divert attention of their public to a nationalistic fervour)

in those cases being nice and friendly doesnt work and you either walk away or stand up and be counted.

"

This.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"The freedom to post your admirable stance had to be fought for. It shouldn't be taken lightly to send troops into harms way but some people don't think like us and love death more than life.

It is a necessary evil"

And this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind.

Or else what? It gets "destroyed"? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are reliant on the financial services sector and the City would be thrilled.

What has happened, has happened. You can't turn back the clock. Sensible reform, yep. "Destroy", no.

You cannot have a state within a state doing as it pleases, it has lost this country far more than its ever made.

They're bean counters, they grow no beans, the charade was we sold our industry, technology, oil and mortgaged our youths future, to fund this nonsense and property booms and buying foreign often British designed products, wake up, do we really need more insurance salesman, accountants, bankers, estate agents, advertising men.

They will still exist in the future by they should be seen as merely auxiliaries, not the driving force.

As an accountant, quite frankly if I was running the place we wouldn't be in this shit in the first place. Don't dismiss us as bean counters

As I said, you can't turn back time to some halcyon time that never existed.

I agree there should be reform and rebalance, but I also think you're being naive.

I can assure you accountants have fucked up many businesses around here. Penny wise, pound foolish most you.

I think you misunderstand the role of an accountant tbh. But, we're an easy target I'm sure so go ahead "

As someone who had to employ one to check the figures to sign off my accounts, I can assure you I don't really understand what they do.

All mine ever says is cut costs and when I ask where its the very area that will get the most return short term and bled it dry in the medium long term, if I'd made a mistake and failed to spot, he has no liability at all, despite his outrageous fee.

Did you know that GB has more accountants than Japan and Germany combined, makes you think.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *at69driveMan  over a year ago

Hertford


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind.

Or else what? It gets "destroyed"? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are reliant on the financial services sector and the City would be thrilled.

What has happened, has happened. You can't turn back the clock. Sensible reform, yep. "Destroy", no.

You cannot have a state within a state doing as it pleases, it has lost this country far more than its ever made.

They're bean counters, they grow no beans, the charade was we sold our industry, technology, oil and mortgaged our youths future, to fund this nonsense and property booms and buying foreign often British designed products, wake up, do we really need more insurance salesman, accountants, bankers, estate agents, advertising men.

They will still exist in the future by they should be seen as merely auxiliaries, not the driving force."

The money and profits earned by industry funds the welfare state either directly or indirectly ..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ilberryMan  over a year ago

Scarborough

A change is good as a rest?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *my-blackTV/TS  over a year ago

Poole


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious"

Probably would have suggested sitting down around a big table and talking it over. Actually I can really see how this kind of approach would really have worked with:-

Hitler

Saddam Hussein

Al-quaida

ISIS

to name a few..................

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind.

Or else what? It gets "destroyed"? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are reliant on the financial services sector and the City would be thrilled.

What has happened, has happened. You can't turn back the clock. Sensible reform, yep. "Destroy", no.

You cannot have a state within a state doing as it pleases, it has lost this country far more than its ever made.

They're bean counters, they grow no beans, the charade was we sold our industry, technology, oil and mortgaged our youths future, to fund this nonsense and property booms and buying foreign often British designed products, wake up, do we really need more insurance salesman, accountants, bankers, estate agents, advertising men.

They will still exist in the future by they should be seen as merely auxiliaries, not the driving force.

As an accountant, quite frankly if I was running the place we wouldn't be in this shit in the first place. Don't dismiss us as bean counters

As I said, you can't turn back time to some halcyon time that never existed.

I agree there should be reform and rebalance, but I also think you're being naive.

I can assure you accountants have fucked up many businesses around here. Penny wise, pound foolish most you.

I think you misunderstand the role of an accountant tbh. But, we're an easy target I'm sure so go ahead

As someone who had to employ one to check the figures to sign off my accounts, I can assure you I don't really understand what they do.

All mine ever says is cut costs and when I ask where its the very area that will get the most return short term and bled it dry in the medium long term, if I'd made a mistake and failed to spot, he has no liability at all, despite his outrageous fee.

Did you know that GB has more accountants than Japan and Germany combined, makes you think."

Well why on earth are you asking your accountant where to cut your costs then? You're the business owner/manager/whatever, you're the one who should understand your business enough to understand the cost drivers.

That's my point, anyway. If the decisions about a business are being made by its accountant, it's because fundamentally that business is failing or not being properly run. Otherwise the accountant is just there as an enabler.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again. "

So you also think it's better to avoid democracy? Respect the result of the referendum, what gives you or Corbyn the right to take away the Falklands islanders democracy, they voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom. If there is any aggression it will be Argentinian aggression, we will be acting in self defence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is a breath of fresh air, after the last 36 years of frankly awful rule.

There is a great number of people who have lost hope will be given a shot in the arm by this result and I hope he becomes Pm and doesn't try to work with the City, doesn't try to work with press, doesn't do deals with tax dodgers, but reforms them or destroys them. Love to see News Corp run out of this country.

He will have to work with the City. If he destroys it, we're all fucked. Like it or not, it has become a significant part of our economy, and that can't just be thrown away. He can seek to redress the balance and effect reform, but that's got to be done gradually.

Actually it has thrown this country into unimagineable debt and got rewarded. Beside I said reform, ie work for Britain, or else.

Its all a charade, a fake, Cameron would love the the British economy that went cap in hand to the IMF and never needed the loan after all. The debt this country and citizens have boggle the mind.

Or else what? It gets "destroyed"? I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are reliant on the financial services sector and the City would be thrilled.

What has happened, has happened. You can't turn back the clock. Sensible reform, yep. "Destroy", no.

You cannot have a state within a state doing as it pleases, it has lost this country far more than its ever made.

They're bean counters, they grow no beans, the charade was we sold our industry, technology, oil and mortgaged our youths future, to fund this nonsense and property booms and buying foreign often British designed products, wake up, do we really need more insurance salesman, accountants, bankers, estate agents, advertising men.

They will still exist in the future by they should be seen as merely auxiliaries, not the driving force.

The money and profits earned by industry funds the welfare state either directly or indirectly .."
.

Well seen as all money is created by states in the beginning.. You could argue that corporations are being funded by the state!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"I'm off for much needed sleep now, I'll leave you with a quote from Confucius.

"It's Only when a mosquito lands on your testicles, that you realise, there is always a way to solve problems without using violence" "

Must have had small testicles, sounds like a coward. You posted a thread the other day about martial arts. Martial arts is very violent but you learn it for self defence in case someone attacks you I expect. Same principle applies, if Argentina attack the Falklands why shouldn't we defend ourselves?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *illwill69uMan  over a year ago

moston

I for 1 am glad to see a true socialist back in charge of the labour party. Maybe he will be able to stop the continual shift to the right that has got us to where we are today.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious"

I was all for it, but have seen through War and it's hypocrisy and bizarre justifications since.

Why do people put so much energy into war, and so little into peace?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

So you also think it's better to avoid democracy? Respect the result of the referendum, what gives you or Corbyn the right to take away the Falklands islanders democracy, they voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom. If there is any aggression it will be Argentinian aggression, we will be acting in self defence. "

I'm talking about avoiding that aggression in the first place, why is this so difficult for people to comprehend?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious

Probably would have suggested sitting down around a big table and talking it over. Actually I can really see how this kind of approach would really have worked with:-

Hitler

Saddam Hussein

Al-quaida

ISIS

to name a few.................."

Why do people behave this way when somebody suggests looking for peaceful ways to resolve conflicts, then they say " I'm not a warmonger".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I'm off for much needed sleep now, I'll leave you with a quote from Confucius.

"It's Only when a mosquito lands on your testicles, that you realise, there is always a way to solve problems without using violence"

Must have had small testicles, sounds like a coward. You posted a thread the other day about martial arts. Martial arts is very violent but you learn it for self defence in case someone attacks you I expect. Same principle applies, if Argentina attack the Falklands why shouldn't we defend ourselves? "

You obviously didn't read the thread properly, true martial arts has become about avoiding violence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

So you also think it's better to avoid democracy? Respect the result of the referendum, what gives you or Corbyn the right to take away the Falklands islanders democracy, they voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom. If there is any aggression it will be Argentinian aggression, we will be acting in self defence.

I'm talking about avoiding that aggression in the first place, why is this so difficult for people to comprehend? "

Britain is not the aggressor in this instance though. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? We acted in self defence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *vsnikkiTV/TS  over a year ago

Limavady


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier."

Was that not what Jesus preached? He's been reasonably influential.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

So you also think it's better to avoid democracy? Respect the result of the referendum, what gives you or Corbyn the right to take away the Falklands islanders democracy, they voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom. If there is any aggression it will be Argentinian aggression, we will be acting in self defence.

I'm talking about avoiding that aggression in the first place, why is this so difficult for people to comprehend?

Britain is not the aggressor in this instance though. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? We acted in self defence. "

I'm not disputing self defence, please read my comments, I'm talking about the way people see war as right, it isn't, it's insane, people are killed and maimed, it causes more problems than it solves, surely this doesn't need pointing out to people, so why are people so ready for war all the time, why not work out a solution without conflict, people support war so readily, it's killing our loved ones and yet we stand and cheer and wave flags and all the rest of it, sit and watch the news and say how terrible it is when a child's body is being dug out of the rubble, or a soldier comes home with no legs, then support the next war in the same way, it's insane, and has been for thousands of years. Why the fuck do we not work hard to avoid it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious

Probably would have suggested sitting down around a big table and talking it over. Actually I can really see how this kind of approach would really have worked with:-

Hitler

Saddam Hussein

Al-quaida

ISIS

to name a few..................

Why do people behave this way when somebody suggests looking for peaceful ways to resolve conflicts, then they say " I'm not a warmonger"."

People react that way because you can't reason with or pacify people like the ones listed. The language of force is the only language they understand. Britain made various concessions to try to pacify Hitler, it didn't work.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"I'm off for much needed sleep now, I'll leave you with a quote from Confucius.

"It's Only when a mosquito lands on your testicles, that you realise, there is always a way to solve problems without using violence"

Must have had small testicles, sounds like a coward. You posted a thread the other day about martial arts. Martial arts is very violent but you learn it for self defence in case someone attacks you I expect. Same principle applies, if Argentina attack the Falklands why shouldn't we defend ourselves?

You obviously didn't read the thread properly, true martial arts has become about avoiding violence."

I did read the thread, that's why I brought it up. Martial arts is learned so you can defend yourself from an aggressor when you are attacked. That's why they are called self defence classes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious

Probably would have suggested sitting down around a big table and talking it over. Actually I can really see how this kind of approach would really have worked with:-

Hitler

Saddam Hussein

Al-quaida

ISIS

to name a few..................

Why do people behave this way when somebody suggests looking for peaceful ways to resolve conflicts, then they say " I'm not a warmonger".

People react that way because you can't reason with or pacify people like the ones listed. The language of force is the only language they understand. Britain made various concessions to try to pacify Hitler, it didn't work. "

But why glorify it all, why do people think it's a noble thing when " us Brits", are going of to war?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I'm off for much needed sleep now, I'll leave you with a quote from Confucius.

"It's Only when a mosquito lands on your testicles, that you realise, there is always a way to solve problems without using violence"

Must have had small testicles, sounds like a coward. You posted a thread the other day about martial arts. Martial arts is very violent but you learn it for self defence in case someone attacks you I expect. Same principle applies, if Argentina attack the Falklands why shouldn't we defend ourselves?

You obviously didn't read the thread properly, true martial arts has become about avoiding violence.

I did read the thread, that's why I brought it up. Martial arts is learned so you can defend yourself from an aggressor when you are attacked. That's why they are called self defence classes. "

Originally, MAs were for warriors to use in battle as unarmed combat, they have become something more than that, we don't live on a battlefield, the true masters are peaceful and kind, they learn the arts to relinquish fear, so without fear they do not respond aggressively, they have to be gentle and sensitive in daily life, self defence is a very narrow minded approach to MAs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious

Probably would have suggested sitting down around a big table and talking it over. Actually I can really see how this kind of approach would really have worked with:-

Hitler

Saddam Hussein

Al-quaida

ISIS

to name a few..................

Why do people behave this way when somebody suggests looking for peaceful ways to resolve conflicts, then they say " I'm not a warmonger".

People react that way because you can't reason with or pacify people like the ones listed. The language of force is the only language they understand. Britain made various concessions to try to pacify Hitler, it didn't work.

But why glorify it all, why do people think it's a noble thing when " us Brits", are going of to war?"

See now you are putting words in people's mouths, no one here has glorified it or has said it is a noble thing, the general consensus seems to be it is a necessary evil.

Given the number of people who commented on this thread your view appears to be in the minority. If Corbyn has the same view he will find he is in the minority of the electorate come election time and he will lose the election.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious

Probably would have suggested sitting down around a big table and talking it over. Actually I can really see how this kind of approach would really have worked with:-

Hitler

Saddam Hussein

Al-quaida

ISIS

to name a few..................

Why do people behave this way when somebody suggests looking for peaceful ways to resolve conflicts, then they say " I'm not a warmonger".

People react that way because you can't reason with or pacify people like the ones listed. The language of force is the only language they understand. Britain made various concessions to try to pacify Hitler, it didn't work.

But why glorify it all, why do people think it's a noble thing when " us Brits", are going of to war?

See now you are putting words in people's mouths, no one here has glorified it or has said it is a noble thing, the general consensus seems to be it is a necessary evil.

Given the number of people who commented on this thread your view appears to be in the minority. If Corbyn has the same view he will find he is in the minority of the electorate come election time and he will lose the election. "

I'm not putting words in peoples mouths, I'm pointing out that we need to find alternatives to war, it doesn't have to be a " necessary evil", people do glorify war, I went to the Falklands victory parade in the city of London, behind the crowds who were cheering and waving flags, was a Para in a wheelchair, why wasn't he on a float in the parade, maybe because everyone wants to see the glory, as oppose to the truth, and what exactly are we celebrating, the lives that were taken to get the Islanders there home back, dead Argentinians?

What is there to celebrate about war?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Who knows what will happen, to be honest unless you live and work in the westminister bubble you have no say and are totally disconnected with politics until you get your chance to vote in 2020.

They do not live in the real world and one item still continues to prove it and that's

EXPENSES

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *vsnikkiTV/TS  over a year ago

Limavady


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious

Probably would have suggested sitting down around a big table and talking it over. Actually I can really see how this kind of approach would really have worked with:-

Hitler

Saddam Hussein

Al-quaida

ISIS

to name a few..................

Why do people behave this way when somebody suggests looking for peaceful ways to resolve conflicts, then they say " I'm not a warmonger".

People react that way because you can't reason with or pacify people like the ones listed. The language of force is the only language they understand. Britain made various concessions to try to pacify Hitler, it didn't work.

But why glorify it all, why do people think it's a noble thing when " us Brits", are going of to war?

See now you are putting words in people's mouths, no one here has glorified it or has said it is a noble thing, the general consensus seems to be it is a necessary evil.

Given the number of people who commented on this thread your view appears to be in the minority. If Corbyn has the same view he will find he is in the minority of the electorate come election time and he will lose the election.

I'm not putting words in peoples mouths, I'm pointing out that we need to find alternatives to war, it doesn't have to be a " necessary evil", people do glorify war, I went to the Falklands victory parade in the city of London, behind the crowds who were cheering and waving flags, was a Para in a wheelchair, why wasn't he on a float in the parade, maybe because everyone wants to see the glory, as oppose to the truth, and what exactly are we celebrating, the lives that were taken to get the Islanders there home back, dead Argentinians?

What is there to celebrate about war?"

Your right that the treatment of the disabled and injured soldiers at the parade was awful; that was widely raised at the time by a large number of MPS on a cross party basis. Even at the time it was called a commemoration and NOT a celebration.

Even now Argentina puts economic sanctions against the Falklands and describe their annual commemoration of the war as a fiesta.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious

Probably would have suggested sitting down around a big table and talking it over. Actually I can really see how this kind of approach would really have worked with:-

Hitler

Saddam Hussein

Al-quaida

ISIS

to name a few..................

Why do people behave this way when somebody suggests looking for peaceful ways to resolve conflicts, then they say " I'm not a warmonger".

People react that way because you can't reason with or pacify people like the ones listed. The language of force is the only language they understand. Britain made various concessions to try to pacify Hitler, it didn't work.

But why glorify it all, why do people think it's a noble thing when " us Brits", are going of to war?

See now you are putting words in people's mouths, no one here has glorified it or has said it is a noble thing, the general consensus seems to be it is a necessary evil.

Given the number of people who commented on this thread your view appears to be in the minority. If Corbyn has the same view he will find he is in the minority of the electorate come election time and he will lose the election.

I'm not putting words in peoples mouths, I'm pointing out that we need to find alternatives to war, it doesn't have to be a " necessary evil", people do glorify war, I went to the Falklands victory parade in the city of London, behind the crowds who were cheering and waving flags, was a Para in a wheelchair, why wasn't he on a float in the parade, maybe because everyone wants to see the glory, as oppose to the truth, and what exactly are we celebrating, the lives that were taken to get the Islanders there home back, dead Argentinians?

What is there to celebrate about war?

Your right that the treatment of the disabled and injured soldiers at the parade was awful; that was widely raised at the time by a large number of MPS on a cross party basis. Even at the time it was called a commemoration and NOT a celebration.

Even now Argentina puts economic sanctions against the Falklands and describe their annual commemoration of the war as a fiesta."

The whole world is as bad as each other when it comes to war, just feel it's about time we took another route through all of it, disabled ex service people are still treated like crap, charities like Help for Heroes, shouldn't exist, the governments should be looking after them, but they don't want them when they are of no use anymore, more like victims than Heroes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Could i ask what your response would have been in 1982? Not to pillory it just curious

Probably would have suggested sitting down around a big table and talking it over. Actually I can really see how this kind of approach would really have worked with:-

Hitler

Saddam Hussein

Al-quaida

ISIS

to name a few..................

Why do people behave this way when somebody suggests looking for peaceful ways to resolve conflicts, then they say " I'm not a warmonger".

People react that way because you can't reason with or pacify people like the ones listed. The language of force is the only language they understand. Britain made various concessions to try to pacify Hitler, it didn't work.

But why glorify it all, why do people think it's a noble thing when " us Brits", are going of to war?

See now you are putting words in people's mouths, no one here has glorified it or has said it is a noble thing, the general consensus seems to be it is a necessary evil.

Given the number of people who commented on this thread your view appears to be in the minority. If Corbyn has the same view he will find he is in the minority of the electorate come election time and he will lose the election.

I'm not putting words in peoples mouths, I'm pointing out that we need to find alternatives to war, it doesn't have to be a " necessary evil", people do glorify war, I went to the Falklands victory parade in the city of London, behind the crowds who were cheering and waving flags, was a Para in a wheelchair, why wasn't he on a float in the parade, maybe because everyone wants to see the glory, as oppose to the truth, and what exactly are we celebrating, the lives that were taken to get the Islanders there home back, dead Argentinians?

What is there to celebrate about war?

Your right that the treatment of the disabled and injured soldiers at the parade was awful; that was widely raised at the time by a large number of MPS on a cross party basis. Even at the time it was called a commemoration and NOT a celebration.

Even now Argentina puts economic sanctions against the Falklands and describe their annual commemoration of the war as a fiesta."

They need to listen to The Pogues rendition of Waltzing Matilda.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place?

I'm speaking about before any aggressive action begins."

Admirable and very British attitude. Unfortunately there are countless people on this planet who do not have the ability or desire to think and act with reason.

The current flavour of the month enemy are Islamic terrorists. Their belief is that death is better than life and that to kill Infidels is a duty to God. Killing infidels will provide them with a path to heaven and countless riches in the afterlife. Just how do you stop a guy who wants to die and wants to take you out as well?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place?

I'm speaking about before any aggressive action begins.

Admirable and very British attitude. Unfortunately there are countless people on this planet who do not have the ability or desire to think and act with reason.

The current flavour of the month enemy are Islamic terrorists. Their belief is that death is better than life and that to kill Infidels is a duty to God. Killing infidels will provide them with a path to heaven and countless riches in the afterlife. Just how do you stop a guy who wants to die and wants to take you out as well?"
..

If you read back on a different thread you said

You can't bomb and shoot your way out of an Islamic revolutionary ideology!.

I think you can have a defensive army without being aggressive, I think what corbyn is saying is what I believe, NATO is no longer a suitable defence in the 21st century

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *vsnikkiTV/TS  over a year ago

Limavady


"How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place?

I'm speaking about before any aggressive action begins.

Admirable and very British attitude. Unfortunately there are countless people on this planet who do not have the ability or desire to think and act with reason.

The current flavour of the month enemy are Islamic terrorists. Their belief is that death is better than life and that to kill Infidels is a duty to God. Killing infidels will provide them with a path to heaven and countless riches in the afterlife. Just how do you stop a guy who wants to die and wants to take you out as well?..

If you read back on a different thread you said

You can't bomb and shoot your way out of an Islamic revolutionary ideology!.

I think you can have a defensive army without being aggressive, I think what corbyn is saying is what I believe, NATO is no longer a suitable defence in the 21st century

"

Without giving an exhaustive reply, I think you're correct that NATO of the 1990s with 2010's weapons is unfit for role but updating it is more sensible than abandoning it, given the instability in the former USSR

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otlovefun42Couple  over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...


"How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place?

I'm speaking about before any aggressive action begins.

Admirable and very British attitude. Unfortunately there are countless people on this planet who do not have the ability or desire to think and act with reason.

The current flavour of the month enemy are Islamic terrorists. Their belief is that death is better than life and that to kill Infidels is a duty to God. Killing infidels will provide them with a path to heaven and countless riches in the afterlife. Just how do you stop a guy who wants to die and wants to take you out as well?"

Not letting him live in your back yard would be a start.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"How do you stop an aggressor that's attacked you in the first place?

I'm speaking about before any aggressive action begins.

Admirable and very British attitude. Unfortunately there are countless people on this planet who do not have the ability or desire to think and act with reason.

The current flavour of the month enemy are Islamic terrorists. Their belief is that death is better than life and that to kill Infidels is a duty to God. Killing infidels will provide them with a path to heaven and countless riches in the afterlife. Just how do you stop a guy who wants to die and wants to take you out as well?..

If you read back on a different thread you said

You can't bomb and shoot your way out of an Islamic revolutionary ideology!.

I think you can have a defensive army without being aggressive, I think what corbyn is saying is what I believe, NATO is no longer a suitable defence in the 21st century

Without giving an exhaustive reply, I think you're correct that NATO of the 1990s with 2010's weapons is unfit for role but updating it is more sensible than abandoning it, given the instability in the former USSR"
.

I hear what your saying but

Packs didn't stop the first ww, in fact they helped to start it!

The second one started because we couldn't come to a sensible agreement on the end of the first one!

I'm pretty sure they won't stop the third one either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

This country will never be a socialist one. Its a country that's run by the establishment, for the establishment. It has a tory heart whether we like it or not. Scargill tried, maggie fucked him in the ass.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uckandbunnyCouple  over a year ago

The Wild Wetness


"

The whole world is as bad as each other when it comes to war, just feel it's about time we took another route through all of it, disabled ex service people are still treated like crap, charities like Help for Heroes, shouldn't exist, the governments should be looking after them, but they don't want them when they are of no use anymore, more like victims than Heroes."

If the people don't want to live under foreign rule they should be allowed that right.

You talk about not using force but you want to force on these people a settlement that will suit you but not them.

It's not like we don't allow people to choose.

The Falklands can choose their own rule just like the Scottish and the Irish.

How dare you force them to accept rule of another entity to satisfy your own agenda you call it peace, I call it passive aggressive.

I'm sure if Argentina wanted rule over you area of Sheffield you be just as accommodating to their claim.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Scargill took Soviet money during the Miners' strike

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Exactly. Socialism and greed don't make good bedfellows.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD..

As prime minister he wouldn't have the power to do any of that though!

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament

NATO has been tremendously successful and by having collective defence and sharing military capabilities with other members we have been able to drastically reduce our defence spending since the end of WWII. What would you see as the benefits of pulling out? .

Do you really want my honest answer to that question?.

NATO is a thing of the past, built out of mistrust between dozens of countries, today it's used as a bullying stick.

Somebody needs to be the first to pull back and say, come on let's deal with it like adults and civilised people.

Or we can just keep pointing guns at one another and wait for the inevitable

That was pretty much along JC's line when he was on C4 last week- he's not looking to leave NATO (unless you read the Tory rags BS), he wants to re-evaluate what its role is as the Cold War it was founded to combat finished 25 years ago, and although Putin is a bit of a tit at times, the Russian oligarchs like the money they get from the west, which keeps him a little under control, so what does NATO actually do and does it provide a relevant service now?"

Admittedly only picking out a small part of your comment;

"so what does NATO actually do and does it provide a relevant service now?"

Why not ask the countries where NATO are currently offering protection and those from the past, what it does and if they feel it was relevant...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uckandbunnyCouple  over a year ago

The Wild Wetness


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict."

I'm not too bothered about the conflict. Foreign policy and borders change all the time. Soldiers enemies become allies etc etc.

The underlying principal has to be respect the self determination.

If they want to join Russia, China, USA, Argentina or IS so long as it's their free will and the other party agrees then that's all that matters.

Argentina could buy their votes, that would be a free choice.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

The Falklanders actually want self determination and remain a British overseas territory.

Of course so did the people of Diego Garcia!

Now what's that you were saying about crazy Argentinans throwing people of their land and the british supporting them!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict.

I'm not too bothered about the conflict. Foreign policy and borders change all the time. Soldiers enemies become allies etc etc.

The underlying principal has to be respect the self determination.

If they want to join Russia, China, USA, Argentina or IS so long as it's their free will and the other party agrees then that's all that matters.

Argentina could buy their votes, that would be a free choice. "
.

They tried a few years back, they flatly turned them down!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple  over a year ago

in Lancashire


"The Falklanders actually want self determination and remain a British overseas territory.

Of course so did the people of Diego Garcia!

Now what's that you were saying about crazy Argentinans throwing people of their land and the british supporting them!"

yeah but that was ok because we were looking after our allies..

principles get binned when its our friends doing the bad things..

bit like Thatcher and Pinochet..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uckandbunnyCouple  over a year ago

The Wild Wetness

And the Romans and Greeks and Egyptians and the Mongols and the French and the German and the myains and the Spanish and the Indian tribes (both continents) and the British and many others.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *L RogueMan  over a year ago

London


"Make Labour unelectable, or is he just what this country needs?

Probably Both

Possibly the best answer, unfortunately. "

I agree.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ildt123Man  over a year ago

Huddersfield


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

But important enough for the loss of life?"

You seem to be suggesting here that if loss of life is a possibility then democracy should be ignored. Virtually the entire population doesn't want co- rule so why consider it? If France says gives us Cornwall or fight do you give it them regardless of what the population say? I know the geography is different but the principle is the same

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uckandbunnyCouple  over a year ago

The Wild Wetness

Would not like to be a child of his.

Give me your kids or else there will be trouble.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *my-blackTV/TS  over a year ago

Poole


"Would not like to be a child of his.

Give me your kids or else there will be trouble. "

gladly. you can have them. i will even pay transportation. i wont demand co governance.

only joking of course. love em to bits.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arry247Couple  over a year ago

Wakefield


"I think he is totally unelectable as PM. For many reasons, the one that particulary strikes a cord with me though is his seeming disregard/under appreciation/hatred of our Armed Forces and what they have shed blood for in the names of our elected governments. He wants NI to join with the Republic of Ireland, co-administer the Falklands with Argentina, get rid of our nuclear deterrent, virtually pull out of NATO, and allow tax payers to conscientiously object to paying taxes for the MOD..

As prime minister he wouldn't have the power to do any of that though!

Although personally I'm with him on pulling out of NATO and nuclear disarmament

NATO has been tremendously successful and by having collective defence and sharing military capabilities with other members we have been able to drastically reduce our defence spending since the end of WWII. What would you see as the benefits of pulling out? .

Do you really want my honest answer to that question?.

NATO is a thing of the past, built out of mistrust between dozens of countries, today it's used as a bullying stick.

Somebody needs to be the first to pull back and say, come on let's deal with it like adults and civilised people.

Or we can just keep pointing guns at one another and wait for the inevitable

That was pretty much along JC's line when he was on C4 last week- he's not looking to leave NATO (unless you read the Tory rags BS), he wants to re-evaluate what its role is as the Cold War it was founded to combat finished 25 years ago, and although Putin is a bit of a tit at times, the Russian oligarchs like the money they get from the west, which keeps him a little under control, so what does NATO actually do and does it provide a relevant service now?"

If you think NATO was simply as the result of the cold war you need to think again.

That was only one of its three aims

The other two are still relevant today

To deter the rise of militant nationalism and to provide the foundation of collective security that would encourage democratization and political integration in Europe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uckandbunnyCouple  over a year ago

The Wild Wetness


"Would not like to be a child of his.

Give me your kids or else there will be trouble.

gladly. you can have them. i will even pay transportation. i wont demand co governance.

only joking of course. love em to bits.

"

How about a time share.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Corbyn has brought in a radically different shadow cabinet!! It's disaster!! Didn't he get the memo that Labour should stay exactly the same in order to win the next election?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *entaur_UKMan  over a year ago

Cannock


"Corbyn has brought in a radically different shadow cabinet!! It's disaster!! Didn't he get the memo that Labour should stay exactly the same in order to win the next election? "

It would have to be different, most of the front bench quit. Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?"

So you think we should have let Germany have Poland? I've lived on the Falklands, it's as British as Sheffield!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Corbyn has brought in a radically different shadow cabinet!! It's disaster!! Didn't he get the memo that Labour should stay exactly the same in order to win the next election? "

Yeah, it worked so well for them last time

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

So you think we should have let Germany have Poland? I've lived on the Falklands, it's as British as Sheffield!"
.

Most of the problems with Germany stemmed from the treaty of Versailles... They didn't call it a twenty year amnesty for nothing!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *yrdwomanWoman  over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"Corbyn has brought in a radically different shadow cabinet!! It's disaster!! Didn't he get the memo that Labour should stay exactly the same in order to win the next election?

It would have to be different, most of the front bench quit. Lol "

Buncha quislings!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict."

This.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Corbyn has brought in a radically different shadow cabinet!! It's disaster!! Didn't he get the memo that Labour should stay exactly the same in order to win the next election?

It would have to be different, most of the front bench quit. Lol "

Don't you just love it when people who've basically just been fired not only by a general election vote against them but by their own parties internal leadership election then have a little huff and say "right! that's it I'm leaving" lol It seems like the message is finally getting through to them... Yes! Please! Please! Leave! And take your portraits of Tony Bliar and Margret Thatcher with you please

As one pundit said on the radio the other day... here ends the 20 year Tory coup of the Labour party

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict.

This."

I haven't really thought about the Falkland Islands... but I just wanted to respond to the second point. At some point after every conflict... we need to forgive and forget in order to move towards peace... otherwise conflict will drag on indefinitely or the thought of revenge will always be in the background.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"falklands - the people of the falklands wish to be british - they havent the power to stand on their own against argentinian aggression. As a nation we stand together with them.

Anyone that says otherwise, were you the sort that when the bullies started beating on your best mate you just ran away? Same problem just bigger nastier.

Not at all, as I said earlier, I feel it would be better to avoid the aggression in the first place, but the warmongers seem to like people being killed over and over again.

So you also think it's better to avoid democracy? Respect the result of the referendum, what gives you or Corbyn the right to take away the Falklands islanders democracy, they voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom. If there is any aggression it will be Argentinian aggression, we will be acting in self defence. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *yrdwomanWoman  over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict.

This.

I haven't really thought about the Falkland Islands... but I just wanted to respond to the second point. At some point after every conflict... we need to forgive and forget in order to move towards peace... otherwise conflict will drag on indefinitely or the thought of revenge will always be in the background. "

The UK only wants them for the possibility of needing to dig up the Antarctic for oil etc when we finally run out. Thatcher was on the verge of giving them back before Argentina invaded.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

He has 4 years to impress us. then we can decide

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict.

This.

I haven't really thought about the Falkland Islands... but I just wanted to respond to the second point. At some point after every conflict... we need to forgive and forget in order to move towards peace... otherwise conflict will drag on indefinitely or the thought of revenge will always be in the background.

The UK only wants them for the possibility of needing to dig up the Antarctic for oil etc when we finally run out. Thatcher was on the verge of giving them back before Argentina invaded."

Do you mean that since the 1800's the only reason the islanders wanted to be British is for the oil???

An amazing grasp of history!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict.

This.

I haven't really thought about the Falkland Islands... but I just wanted to respond to the second point. At some point after every conflict... we need to forgive and forget in order to move towards peace... otherwise conflict will drag on indefinitely or the thought of revenge will always be in the background. "

Good point and I'll pretty much agree; forgive but never forget.

It's the memory of past horrors that should drive us towards finding a peaceful solution.

Assuming the other side wants a peaceful solution of course.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *yrdwomanWoman  over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict.

This.

I haven't really thought about the Falkland Islands... but I just wanted to respond to the second point. At some point after every conflict... we need to forgive and forget in order to move towards peace... otherwise conflict will drag on indefinitely or the thought of revenge will always be in the background.

The UK only wants them for the possibility of needing to dig up the Antarctic for oil etc when we finally run out. Thatcher was on the verge of giving them back before Argentina invaded.

Do you mean that since the 1800's the only reason the islanders wanted to be British is for the oil???

An amazing grasp of history!"

That's straw man and you know it. The islands are strategically important only for access to the Antarctic, and having a colony there was to our advantage when the higher ups found that out. If there wasn't a drop of oil under the Antarctic they would have been handed back years ago. What point is there exactly paying for a garrison on an island known only for sheep and penguins?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict.

This.

I haven't really thought about the Falkland Islands... but I just wanted to respond to the second point. At some point after every conflict... we need to forgive and forget in order to move towards peace... otherwise conflict will drag on indefinitely or the thought of revenge will always be in the background.

The UK only wants them for the possibility of needing to dig up the Antarctic for oil etc when we finally run out. Thatcher was on the verge of giving them back before Argentina invaded.

Do you mean that since the 1800's the only reason the islanders wanted to be British is for the oil???

An amazing grasp of history!

That's straw man and you know it. The islands are strategically important only for access to the Antarctic, and having a colony there was to our advantage when the higher ups found that out. If there wasn't a drop of oil under the Antarctic they would have been handed back years ago. What point is there exactly paying for a garrison on an island known only for sheep and penguins?"

Is it because they're delicious?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *mmabluTV/TS  over a year ago

upton wirral

If you want high unemployment high inflation and terrorist attacks then vote for him ,he is a half witted exentric who appeals to non thinking computer educated youngsters and people with an IQ of about 25 on a good day

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *inky-MinxWoman  over a year ago

Grantham


"People will vote for him in the same way that people will vote for Farage- both are seen as conviction politicians (who express opinions they genuinely believe in) as opposed to regular politicians who are seen as untrustworthy because they only say what they think people want to hear in order to get elected and constantly fail to keep promises.

"

Perfectly said

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

not read all the political stuff - just saw him on the news - one thing i would say is scruffy sod - whoever and whatever side hes on

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you want high unemployment high inflation and terrorist attacks then vote for him ,he is a half witted exentric who appeals to non thinking computer educated youngsters and people with an IQ of about 25 on a good day"

It's always the irony of someone questioning intelligence, and then clearly showing they can't spell. The point of being able to vote is that we all get a go - and they all hold equal value. What would you say was the IQ we should have before we're allowed to vote?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *at69driveMan  over a year ago

Hertford


"If you want high unemployment high inflation and terrorist attacks then vote for him ,he is a half witted exentric who appeals to non thinking computer educated youngsters and people with an IQ of about 25 on a good day"
. Nicely expressed. I am shocked at how many labour party supporters admire him.. His policies will destroy the party as they will only appeal to a small number of militant hotheads .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you want high unemployment high inflation and terrorist attacks then vote for him ,he is a half witted exentric who appeals to non thinking computer educated youngsters and people with an IQ of about 25 on a good day"

I think you're being rather generous

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Your all missing the point it's not corbyns win that's got them all in a flap

It's the fact that the public voted for him!

I mean the public!... Deciding on party leaders... Good grief whatever next!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?

But the people who actually lived there voted overwhelmingly (99.8% to 0.2%) to remain a UK overseas territory in a referendum in 2013.

Nationalism again, did they think it's worth the loss of life if another conflict flares up, Whenever somebody sees a peaceful solution, the patriots shout them down, why?

Because they fundamentally feel that this is the way they wish the place they live to be governed? It's obviously quite important to them....

But important enough for the loss of life?

You seem to be suggesting here that if loss of life is a possibility then democracy should be ignored. Virtually the entire population doesn't want co- rule so why consider it? If France says gives us Cornwall or fight do you give it them regardless of what the population say? I know the geography is different but the principle is the same "

Democracy for the dead?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Only one way we'll find out, at least he has compassion."

Unless perhaps you're a Jew?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *mmabluTV/TS  over a year ago

upton wirral


"If you want high unemployment high inflation and terrorist attacks then vote for him ,he is a half witted exentric who appeals to non thinking computer educated youngsters and people with an IQ of about 25 on a good day

It's always the irony of someone questioning intelligence, and then clearly showing they can't spell. The point of being able to vote is that we all get a go - and they all hold equal value. What would you say was the IQ we should have before we're allowed to vote?"
It is a big subject but I do not believe that voting should be allowed under 25.I did vote when I was 18 but did not have enough knowledge so should not have been allowed the vote.This is a debate in itself but my views ae unusual

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *inkyHnSCouple  over a year ago

The Council of Elrond

He needs to come out quick on what he plans to do with Trident

He appoints Maria Eagle as Shadow defence secretary when she was all for Trident renewal makes no sense since Corbyn is suppose to be anti Trident.

He will quickly lose all credibility on this one issue alone

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Only one way we'll find out, at least he has compassion.

Unless perhaps you're a Jew? "

I'm guessing you're inferring from his neutrality on the Palestinian issue that he must be anti-semitic What's somebody got to do to be pro Jewish these days? Eat a small Palestinian child?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslutTV/TS  over a year ago

Central

He's what labour needs and wanted. Who knows about the next election.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *at69driveMan  over a year ago

Hertford


"If you want high unemployment high inflation and terrorist attacks then vote for him ,he is a half witted exentric who appeals to non thinking computer educated youngsters and people with an IQ of about 25 on a good day

I think you're being rather generous "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I don't agree with his ideas for the Falklands, allowing them to be co-governed by Argentina.

Surely it's better than lives being lost in a war?"

You assume it would stop a war.

What stops wars is the squadron of typhoons and the ever present danger and astute could be near by.

Do you really want to live in a country that would give you up as an acceptable loss?

They are British, they are our people, they will be defended not traded away like animals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you want high unemployment high inflation and terrorist attacks then vote for him ,he is a half witted exentric who appeals to non thinking computer educated youngsters and people with an IQ of about 25 on a good day

It's always the irony of someone questioning intelligence, and then clearly showing they can't spell. The point of being able to vote is that we all get a go - and they all hold equal value. What would you say was the IQ we should have before we're allowed to vote?It is a big subject but I do not believe that voting should be allowed under 25.I did vote when I was 18 but did not have enough knowledge so should not have been allowed the vote.This is a debate in itself but my views ae unusual"

Just because you chose not to educate yourself doesn't mean others are the same.

Plus by disenfranchising people till they are 25 you will almost garrantee lower voter turn outs and greater voter apathy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Your all missing the point it's not corbyns win that's got them all in a flap

It's the fact that the public voted for him!

I mean the public!... Deciding on party leaders... Good grief whatever next! "

Well except all the people they revoked the right to vote from

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"For me the Falklands has 2 issues.

1, the majority of people in the falkands want to remain part of the UK.

2, Allowing Argentina to co rule, is turning you back on all those that lost their lives during the conflict.

This.

I haven't really thought about the Falkland Islands... but I just wanted to respond to the second point. At some point after every conflict... we need to forgive and forget in order to move towards peace... otherwise conflict will drag on indefinitely or the thought of revenge will always be in the background.

The UK only wants them for the possibility of needing to dig up the Antarctic for oil etc when we finally run out. Thatcher was on the verge of giving them back before Argentina invaded.

Do you mean that since the 1800's the only reason the islanders wanted to be British is for the oil???

An amazing grasp of history!

That's straw man and you know it. The islands are strategically important only for access to the Antarctic, and having a colony there was to our advantage when the higher ups found that out. If there wasn't a drop of oil under the Antarctic they would have been handed back years ago. What point is there exactly paying for a garrison on an island known only for sheep and penguins?

Is it because they're delicious? "

What I find amusing is the constant use of "handed back" they were never theirs in the first place

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"He seems a genuinely sincere man,,,, but that in itself probably alienates him right across the entire political spectrum,,,,,

I'm not on his side of the political divide, but I do hope he does good things....

I feel people who are prepared to do the right things for the right reasons are few and far between in politics but I think his motives are genuine,,,

"

This

Which is why I won't attack him personally but, as I don't think I'll be agreeing with many of his policies, I will attack those as when we know what they really are and what the implications of them may be.

For now, congratulations and good luck to him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"I think he could be divisive for the country as he preaches socialism and this country has constantly rejected socialist ideals in the past save for the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.

I entirely identify with his views on nuclear disarmament and some of his views on the redistribution of wealth but we are a nation of moderates that's why you cannot put a hair between the likes of Blair and Cameron and they are, I am sad to say, are electable because of the slick communications machine behind them and the voting system itself.

In my view there was no finer man on the planet than Michael Foot. A kind, gentle and thoughtful person who was basking in the Kier Hardie era which has long since gone. I fear JC falls into that category.

If you want a current comparison you need look no further than Nigel Farrage and the UKIP surge and their attempted lurch to the right. It was rejected by the electorate. Before the kippers start bleating on about the 5m votes the registered in May the system did not allow them to win anymore than one seat and that will not change in my life time.

JC will bask in the midday sun of victory and for his 250,000 voters who elected him they need to remember that number; it's very small in terms of the electorate. The immediate winners of the Labour Party leadership struggle (and it was) will be the Tories, sadly."

I'm inclined to agree with this analysis with the exception that I'm neither particularly sad or happy about it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

  

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Not sure if this country is ready for a truly left PM, but at least us lefties have someone to vote for.

This is true."

But to win a general election you need the votes of liberals (with a small L) who previously voted either LibDem or Conservative. Without their votes Labour cannot win.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

4 great reasons to join:

Free to use, not just free to join. Free cams, pics, search, mails.

We show small ads so you don't have to pay.

Run by swingers, for swingers, for free.

Only takes a minute or two to get started.

Join today

Copyright © 2006-2025 Fabulous Entertainment | Link to us | @fabswingers on twitter | Sexual Health | Safer Meets
Terms | Privacy Policy | FAQ | 2257 Exemption Statement | Report Content | Glossary | Contact | Mobile Web App

0.3124

0