General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 161 of 450 < 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 >

elgrande bedford 16 May 17 3.03pm
Originally posted by serial thriller Another interesting way of looking at Corbyn's leadership credentials: if he'd been leader at the time, would he have committed the same fck ups as recent leaders? Would he have sold off council housing without replacing it? Would he have deregulated the banks before the crash? Would he have gone in to Iraq? Would he have sold off the gold, the Royal Mail, the trains at record low prices? Would he have allowed the biggest referendum in our life times to have been a simple yes/no question? Would he have brought in the bedroom tax? Would he have fcked a dead pig as part of a bet with his Etonian chums? Who is the bad leader then? Well he f***ed Diane Abbott....is there a difference. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 16 May 17 3.03pm

Originally posted by serial thriller

Another interesting way of looking at Corbyn's leadership credentials: if he'd been leader at the time, would he have committed the same f*ck ups as recent leaders?

Would he have sold off council housing without replacing it?

Would he have deregulated the banks before the crash?

Would he have gone in to Iraq?

Would he have sold off the gold, the Royal Mail, the trains at record low prices?

Would he have allowed the biggest referendum in our life times to have been a simple yes/no question?

Would he have brought in the bedroom tax?

Would he have f*cked a dead pig as part of a bet with his Etonian chums?

Who is the bad leader then?

Well he f***ed Diane Abbott....is there a difference.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 16 May 17 3.09pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle How on earth can you possibly say you've got access to the unequivocal truth? Probably a fair enough criticism of me....I am an horrendously arrogant know-all....though if someone corrects me or changes my view on something I am grateful.....Accuracy is far more preferable to ego. Originally posted by CambridgeEagle I certainly believe that, if elected, the Labour party would carry out what it says in its manifesto in respect of defence. Their manifesto says nothing about what a particular person would do in respect of using Nucelar weapons, but I nor you can say with any certainty what anyone would actually do when presented with such an event. Neither can anyone who would, for whatever reason, wish to use a Nuclear weapon against the UK. That's the point. Corby made it clear that he would not use nuclear weapons...No pushing the button...May made it clear that she would be prepared to push the button. Massive difference.....Has Corbyn said that he would remove himself from responsibility on this decision? Nope. This is what irritates on this issue. I can respect while totally disagreeing with Corbyn but I respect that he's honest about it....Honesty has always been a noble aspect about some of the far left....However all these attempts to paint over the truth with 'policy' by others is unethical. Originally posted by CambridgeEagle So you can see. I've not actually lied - I merely pointed out that Labour's policy is not remotely in line with CND's aims. You're the only liar around here. I have no clue on what grounds you're calling my ethics into question either. Is it unethical to use published material to discredit unfounded statements? You can dance around the pin all you like. I'm not saying you are a terrible person or anything like that..I obviously don't know you... but I do definitely think I've correct in criticizing for repeating what is plainly a dishonest 'cover' by the Labour party. I only have an opinion but nothing you have said so far convinces me otherwise. A spade is a spade. Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Also, remember that, whatever Mrs May may wish, the PM is not an all powerful ruler. We still have the semblance of a parliamentary democracy where MPs can dissolve parliament and the leader of the opposition can be asked to form a government. Fair enough and how it should be. Though I think that how we currently do democracy is a little outdated but that's for another thread. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

16 May 17 3.09pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

How on earth can you possibly say you've got access to the unequivocal truth?

Probably a fair enough criticism of me....I am an horrendously arrogant know-all....though if someone corrects me or changes my view on something I am grateful.....Accuracy is far more preferable to ego.

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I certainly believe that, if elected, the Labour party would carry out what it says in its manifesto in respect of defence.

Their manifesto says nothing about what a particular person would do in respect of using Nucelar weapons, but I nor you can say with any certainty what anyone would actually do when presented with such an event. Neither can anyone who would, for whatever reason, wish to use a Nuclear weapon against the UK. That's the point.

Corby made it clear that he would not use nuclear weapons...No pushing the button...May made it clear that she would be prepared to push the button. Massive difference.....Has Corbyn said that he would remove himself from responsibility on this decision? Nope.

This is what irritates on this issue. I can respect while totally disagreeing with Corbyn but I respect that he's honest about it....Honesty has always been a noble aspect about some of the far left....However all these attempts to paint over the truth with 'policy' by others is unethical.

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

So you can see. I've not actually lied - I merely pointed out that Labour's policy is not remotely in line with CND's aims. You're the only liar around here. I have no clue on what grounds you're calling my ethics into question either. Is it unethical to use published material to discredit unfounded statements?

You can dance around the pin all you like. I'm not saying you are a terrible person or anything like that..I obviously don't know you... but I do definitely think I've correct in criticizing for repeating what is plainly a dishonest 'cover' by the Labour party. I only have an opinion but nothing you have said so far convinces me otherwise. A spade is a spade.

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Also, remember that, whatever Mrs May may wish, the PM is not an all powerful ruler. We still have the semblance of a parliamentary democracy where MPs can dissolve parliament and the leader of the opposition can be asked to form a government.

Fair enough and how it should be.

Though I think that how we currently do democracy is a little outdated but that's for another thread.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 16 May 17 3.23pm
Originally posted by serial thriller Another interesting way of looking at Corbyn's leadership credentials: if he'd been leader at the time, would he have committed the same fck ups as recent leaders? Would he have sold off council housing without replacing it? Would he have deregulated the banks before the crash? Would he have gone in to Iraq? Would he have sold off the gold, the Royal Mail, the trains at record low prices? Would he have allowed the biggest referendum in our life times to have been a simple yes/no question? Would he have brought in the bedroom tax? Would he have fcked a dead pig as part of a bet with his Etonian chums? Who is the bad leader then? Thank you once again for giving me a bloody good laugh. The above is just bollocks because who could say that he wouldn't have swapped the gold reserves for magic beans or dissolved the army and then Putin invaded? Take off the Maoist glasses, my lad, and think clearly. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 16 May 17 3.23pm

Originally posted by serial thriller

Another interesting way of looking at Corbyn's leadership credentials: if he'd been leader at the time, would he have committed the same f*ck ups as recent leaders?

Would he have sold off council housing without replacing it?

Would he have deregulated the banks before the crash?

Would he have gone in to Iraq?

Would he have sold off the gold, the Royal Mail, the trains at record low prices?

Would he have allowed the biggest referendum in our life times to have been a simple yes/no question?

Would he have brought in the bedroom tax?

Would he have f*cked a dead pig as part of a bet with his Etonian chums?

Who is the bad leader then?

Thank you once again for giving me a bloody good laugh.

The above is just bollocks because who could say that he wouldn't have swapped the gold reserves for magic beans or dissolved the army and then Putin invaded?

Take off the Maoist glasses, my lad, and think clearly.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 May 17 3.31pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Fair enough and how it should be. Though I think that how we currently do democracy is a little outdated but that's for another thread. Implying that if MPs became so worried about this within the next 5 years they could get rid of the PM and back the opposition leader. But the actual truth is noone knows what Corbyn would do in such a (very unlikely) situation. There are more important issues in this election. The reality is that Labour have committed to maintaining trident and sticking to NATO defence spending commitments.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 16 May 17 3.31pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Fair enough and how it should be.

Though I think that how we currently do democracy is a little outdated but that's for another thread.

Implying that if MPs became so worried about this within the next 5 years they could get rid of the PM and back the opposition leader. But the actual truth is noone knows what Corbyn would do in such a (very unlikely) situation.

There are more important issues in this election.

The reality is that Labour have committed to maintaining trident and sticking to NATO defence spending commitments.

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 16 May 17 3.33pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Everything is the voters fault actually. Including brexit but also the failure to vote for a representative voting system. The one partv state is probably here to stay and its the voters own fault. A dictator could easily happen here. Are you actually for real? No responsibility on the respective sides of the debate then? No responsibility on the Lib Dems for allowing the Tories to water down PR proposals until they became a farcical negative-voting system? No responsibility on Cameron for calling a referendum and then going to Europe to get a deal and coming back with his tail between his legs? No responsibility on Junker for coming out prior to the referendum (during which Cameron was suggesting we "stay in a reformed EU") and saying "there will be no reform"? It's all just because the voters are stupid. This, sadly (as a more leftward leaning voter as I get older) is a classic fault of the left - the fallback if you lose a vote is just "the voters are stupid". Voted Brexit? Idiot. Voted Tory? Muppet. You don't win arguments like that, you just make people stop listening to you. Why have the polls been so hopelessly wrong lately? Because people (and mainly on the left, I'm afraid) are so quick to judge - "Excuse me, we are conducting a poll, could I ask you which way you'll be voting?" "hmmm well, I'm not admitting Brexit, Trump, UKIP, Tory, etc because this person will be judging me, but it won't matter because in the privacy of the ballot box, that's exactly where my cross is going" Add to all that, of course, the fact that if theere WAS a PR system in place, UKIP would have dozens of parliamentary seats, not just one Edited by npn (16 May 2017 3.34pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 16 May 17 3.33pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Everything is the voters fault actually.

Including brexit but also the failure to vote for a representative voting system.

The one partv state is probably here to stay and its the voters own fault.

A dictator could easily happen here.

Are you actually for real?

No responsibility on the respective sides of the debate then?
No responsibility on the Lib Dems for allowing the Tories to water down PR proposals until they became a farcical negative-voting system?
No responsibility on Cameron for calling a referendum and then going to Europe to get a deal and coming back with his tail between his legs?
No responsibility on Junker for coming out prior to the referendum (during which Cameron was suggesting we "stay in a reformed EU") and saying "there will be no reform"?

It's all just because the voters are stupid.

This, sadly (as a more leftward leaning voter as I get older) is a classic fault of the left - the fallback if you lose a vote is just "the voters are stupid". Voted Brexit? Idiot. Voted Tory? Muppet.

You don't win arguments like that, you just make people stop listening to you.

Why have the polls been so hopelessly wrong lately? Because people (and mainly on the left, I'm afraid) are so quick to judge - "Excuse me, we are conducting a poll, could I ask you which way you'll be voting?"
"hmmm well, I'm not admitting Brexit, Trump, UKIP, Tory, etc because this person will be judging me, but it won't matter because in the privacy of the ballot box, that's exactly where my cross is going"

Add to all that, of course, the fact that if theere WAS a PR system in place, UKIP would have dozens of parliamentary seats, not just one

Edited by npn (16 May 2017 3.34pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 May 17 3.33pm
Originally posted by matt_himself Thank you once again for giving me a bloody good laugh. The above is just bollocks because who could say that he wouldn't have swapped the gold reserves for magic beans or dissolved the army and then Putin invaded? Take off the Maoist glasses, my lad, and think clearly. On the balance of probabilities, neither of these is particularly likely. A Corbyn government having policies broadly in line with how he's historically voted, distinctly more likely. May's main policy seems to be strong and stable fox hunting.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 16 May 17 3.33pm

Originally posted by matt_himself

Thank you once again for giving me a bloody good laugh.

The above is just bollocks because who could say that he wouldn't have swapped the gold reserves for magic beans or dissolved the army and then Putin invaded?

Take off the Maoist glasses, my lad, and think clearly.

On the balance of probabilities, neither of these is particularly likely. A Corbyn government having policies broadly in line with how he's historically voted, distinctly more likely.

May's main policy seems to be strong and stable fox hunting.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 16 May 17 3.39pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Implying that if MPs became so worried about this within the next 5 years they could get rid of the PM and back the opposition leader. But the actual truth is noone knows what Corbyn would do in such a (very unlikely) situation. There are more important issues in this election. The reality is that Labour have committed to maintaining trident and sticking to NATO defence spending commitments. We differ quite dramatically on how important this issue is. The security of the country is just about as important as it gets. However, I get it that an 'internationalist' just wouldn't see it this way. These threat situations can come about very quickly. The processes you are talking about are not on the same scale. Besides you just don't elect someone who you knowingly would later have to remove.....It's incoherent. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 May 2017 3.40pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

16 May 17 3.39pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

There are more important issues in this election.

The reality is that Labour have committed to maintaining trident and sticking to NATO defence spending commitments.

We differ quite dramatically on how important this issue is. The security of the country is just about as important as it gets. However, I get it that an 'internationalist' just wouldn't see it this way.

These threat situations can come about very quickly. The processes you are talking about are not on the same scale.

Besides you just don't elect someone who you knowingly would later have to remove.....It's incoherent.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 May 2017 3.40pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 16 May 17 3.42pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays We differ quite dramatically on how important this issue is. The security of the country is just about as important as it gets. However, I get it that an 'internationalist' just wouldn't see it this way. These threat situations can come about very quickly. The processes you are talking about are not on the same scale. Besides you just don't elect someone who you knowingly would later have to remove.....It's incoherent. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 May 2017 3.40pm) You know there will be a nuclear attack on the UK? When?
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 16 May 17 3.42pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

These threat situations can come about very quickly. The processes you are talking about are not on the same scale.

Besides you just don't elect someone who you knowingly would later have to remove.....It's incoherent.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 May 2017 3.40pm)

You know there will be a nuclear attack on the UK? When?

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 16 May 17 3.43pm
Open question to Tory HOlers: Without resorting to rhetoric and clichés, I am genuinely interested to hear your specific points of argument with the key planks to Jezza's manifesto and what you'd do differently on the same topics. Thanks in advance. Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 16 May 17 3.43pm

Open question to Tory HOlers:

Without resorting to rhetoric and clichés, I am genuinely interested to hear your specific points of argument with the key planks to Jezza's manifesto and what you'd do differently on the same topics.

Thanks in advance.

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 16 May 17 3.44pm
Sorry double post Edited by Mr_Gristle (16 May 2017 3.44pm) Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 16 May 17 3.44pm

Sorry double post

Edited by Mr_Gristle (16 May 2017 3.44pm)

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 16 May 17 3.49pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle You know there will be a nuclear attack on the UK? When? Really Cambs...really? All you 'former Tories' are all the same. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

16 May 17 3.49pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

You know there will be a nuclear attack on the UK? When?

Really Cambs...really?

All you 'former Tories' are all the same.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 16 May 17 3.49pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle Open question to Tory HOlers: Without resorting to rhetoric and clichés, I am genuinely interested to hear your specific points of argument with the key planks to Jezza's manifesto and what you'd do differently on the same topics. Thanks in advance. I did that a few pages back and you didn't respond. Why should I do it again? "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 16 May 17 3.49pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

Open question to Tory HOlers:

Thanks in advance.

I did that a few pages back and you didn't respond.

Why should I do it again?

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 161 of 450 < 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors