Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 464 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 27 Jul 15 6.14pm
Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater. He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends. He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here. He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time! He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet. In short he's the new Michael Foot!
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 27 Jul 15 6.14pm

Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater.
He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends.
He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here.
He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time!
He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet.
In short he's the new Michael Foot!

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 27 Jul 15 6.30pm
Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater. He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends. He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here. He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time! He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet. In short he's the new Michael Foot! Privatising the railways has lead to a massive decline in efficiency. Ticket prices are the highest in Europe, while the £200 billion subsidy the railways received from the government almost exactly matched the figure given to shareholders as payouts last year. In other words it's as corrupt as f*ck. A nationalised bank is a very interesting economic idea, and one we have to various degrees already, so definitely not a particularly radical policy. I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows. The third point is about as generalised as it gets. At least he wants to take us to the politics of the 1980s as opposed to the 1880s which this government seems to want! In all seriousness, times have changed and so have the desires of the left. Austerity, tax avoidance and climate change are now huge issues that were barely discussed in the 80s. They are also issues which hold great levels of engagement for much of the public. He has ties with the unions because the whole purpose of the Labour party is to offer a parliamentary voice to the Labour movement. Would I rather he represented the voices of the 8 million trade union members in this country, or the couple of dozen major donors to the Conservative party who are able to influence key elements of policy? Hmm, tough choice... If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 27 Jul 15 6.30pm

Send a Private Message to serial thriller

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm

Privatising the railways has lead to a massive decline in efficiency. Ticket prices are the highest in Europe, while the £200 billion subsidy the railways received from the government almost exactly matched the figure given to shareholders as payouts last year. In other words it's as corrupt as f*ck. A nationalised bank is a very interesting economic idea, and one we have to various degrees already, so definitely not a particularly radical policy.

I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows.

The third point is about as generalised as it gets.

At least he wants to take us to the politics of the 1980s as opposed to the 1880s which this government seems to want! In all seriousness, times have changed and so have the desires of the left. Austerity, tax avoidance and climate change are now huge issues that were barely discussed in the 80s. They are also issues which hold great levels of engagement for much of the public.

He has ties with the unions because the whole purpose of the Labour party is to offer a parliamentary voice to the Labour movement. Would I rather he represented the voices of the 8 million trade union members in this country, or the couple of dozen major donors to the Conservative party who are able to influence key elements of policy? Hmm, tough choice...

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 27 Jul 15 6.36pm
Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 6.30pm Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater. He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends. He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here. He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time! He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet. In short he's the new Michael Foot! Privatising the railways has lead to a massive decline in efficiency. Ticket prices are the highest in Europe, while the £200 billion subsidy the railways received from the government almost exactly matched the figure given to shareholders as payouts last year. In other words it's as corrupt as f*ck. A nationalised bank is a very interesting economic idea, and one we have to various degrees already, so definitely not a particularly radical policy. I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows. The third point is about as generalised as it gets. At least he wants to take us to the politics of the 1980s as opposed to the 1880s which this government seems to want! In all seriousness, times have changed and so have the desires of the left. Austerity, tax avoidance and climate change are now huge issues that were barely discussed in the 80s. They are also issues which hold great levels of engagement for much of the public. He has ties with the unions because the whole purpose of the Labour party is to offer a parliamentary voice to the Labour movement. Would I rather he represented the voices of the 8 million trade union members in this country, or the couple of dozen major donors to the Conservative party who are able to influence key elements of policy? Hmm, tough choice... Do you remember life under BR?
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 27 Jul 15 6.36pm

Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 6.30pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm

I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows.

The third point is about as generalised as it gets.

Do you remember life under BR?

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 27 Jul 15 6.38pm
Cameron and the Eton elite and the vast majority of Tory MPs since way back are all class warriors. They have fought tooth and nail for their class and throw out a few crumbs as required to keep the rest docile and unquestioning. Marx was right about a helluvalot of things too. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 27 Jul 15 6.38pm

Cameron and the Eton elite and the vast majority of Tory MPs since way back are all class warriors. They have fought tooth and nail for their class and throw out a few crumbs as required to keep the rest docile and unquestioning.

Marx was right about a helluvalot of things too.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 27 Jul 15 6.41pm
Quote chris123 at 27 Jul 2015 6.36pm Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 6.30pm Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater. He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends. He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here. He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time! He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet. In short he's the new Michael Foot! Privatising the railways has lead to a massive decline in efficiency. Ticket prices are the highest in Europe, while the £200 billion subsidy the railways received from the government almost exactly matched the figure given to shareholders as payouts last year. In other words it's as corrupt as f*ck. A nationalised bank is a very interesting economic idea, and one we have to various degrees already, so definitely not a particularly radical policy. I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows. The third point is about as generalised as it gets. At least he wants to take us to the politics of the 1980s as opposed to the 1880s which this government seems to want! In all seriousness, times have changed and so have the desires of the left. Austerity, tax avoidance and climate change are now huge issues that were barely discussed in the 80s. They are also issues which hold great levels of engagement for much of the public. He has ties with the unions because the whole purpose of the Labour party is to offer a parliamentary voice to the Labour movement. Would I rather he represented the voices of the 8 million trade union members in this country, or the couple of dozen major donors to the Conservative party who are able to influence key elements of policy? Hmm, tough choice... Do you remember life under BR? I do. Cheap rail tickets for a crap service as opposed to the stupidly expensive ones today but which are also for a crap service. And not owned by lots of foreign companies either funnelling the profits out of the UK. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 27 Jul 15 6.41pm

Quote chris123 at 27 Jul 2015 6.36pm

Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 6.30pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm

I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows.

The third point is about as generalised as it gets.

Do you remember life under BR?

I do. Cheap rail tickets for a crap service as opposed to the stupidly expensive ones today but which are also for a crap service. And not owned by lots of foreign companies either funnelling the profits out of the UK.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 27 Jul 15 6.43pm
Quote chris123 at 27 Jul 2015 6.36pm Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 6.30pm Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater. He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends. He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here. He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time! He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet. In short he's the new Michael Foot! Privatising the railways has lead to a massive decline in efficiency. Ticket prices are the highest in Europe, while the £200 billion subsidy the railways received from the government almost exactly matched the figure given to shareholders as payouts last year. In other words it's as corrupt as f*ck. A nationalised bank is a very interesting economic idea, and one we have to various degrees already, so definitely not a particularly radical policy. I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows. The third point is about as generalised as it gets. At least he wants to take us to the politics of the 1980s as opposed to the 1880s which this government seems to want! In all seriousness, times have changed and so have the desires of the left. Austerity, tax avoidance and climate change are now huge issues that were barely discussed in the 80s. They are also issues which hold great levels of engagement for much of the public. He has ties with the unions because the whole purpose of the Labour party is to offer a parliamentary voice to the Labour movement. Would I rather he represented the voices of the 8 million trade union members in this country, or the couple of dozen major donors to the Conservative party who are able to influence key elements of policy? Hmm, tough choice... Do you remember life under BR? Yes.Don't remember it,overall and taking cost into account,as worse than life with Network South East,not to mention Great Western or Virgin.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

27 Jul 15 6.43pm

Quote chris123 at 27 Jul 2015 6.36pm

Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 6.30pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm

I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows.

The third point is about as generalised as it gets.

Do you remember life under BR?

Yes.Don't remember it,overall and taking cost into account,as worse than life with Network South East,not to mention Great Western or Virgin.

Alert a moderator to this post

CheeseRolls Cheshire 27 Jul 15 6.45pm
As I see it, the Conservatives won with 24% of the population voting for them, about 35% of those registered to vote. That suggests a large proportion not aligned with them and their policies. No-one is going to out-Tory the Tories, they have the centre-right sewn up. Therefore, surely an effective opposition has to offer a real alternative. Labour, as it has been proven, largely supports (or won't oppose) the policies of both the coalition and the current government. They offer no opposition as it stands. Personally, I think they have to elect Corbyn and offer a modern set of social/left policies that offer something different even if only to start debates about the important issues and then see if enough of the 65% of the electorate who did not vote for this government side more with them and possibly inspire those who don't vote to do so. Tough ask though!
Alert a moderator to this post

CheeseRolls

Cheshire 27 Jul 15 6.45pm

As I see it, the Conservatives won with 24% of the population voting for them, about 35% of those registered to vote. That suggests a large proportion not aligned with them and their policies. No-one is going to out-Tory the Tories, they have the centre-right sewn up. Therefore, surely an effective opposition has to offer a real alternative. Labour, as it has been proven, largely supports (or won't oppose) the policies of both the coalition and the current government. They offer no opposition as it stands. Personally, I think they have to elect Corbyn and offer a modern set of social/left policies that offer something different even if only to start debates about the important issues and then see if enough of the 65% of the electorate who did not vote for this government side more with them and possibly inspire those who don't vote to do so. Tough ask though!

Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 27 Jul 15 7.10pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 27 Jul 2015 5.13pm Quote phillanth at 27 Jul 2015 5.08pm What's wrong with being a Marxist? Please explain? The mountains of corpses they tend to generate? If you are blaming Marx (and by extension COrbyn( ith the deaths say in the Soviet Union are you also willing to accept that Hayek/Friendman and therefore Cameron and Thatcher are responsible for the mass murders in Chile?
Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe

Sedlescombe 27 Jul 15 7.10pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 27 Jul 2015 5.13pm

Quote phillanth at 27 Jul 2015 5.08pm

What's wrong with being a Marxist? Please explain?

The mountains of corpses they tend to generate?

If you are blaming Marx (and by extension COrbyn( ith the deaths say in the Soviet Union are you also willing to accept that Hayek/Friendman and therefore Cameron and Thatcher are responsible for the mass murders in Chile?

Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 27 Jul 15 7.12pm
Well the far left posters seem to think that Corbyn is the mut's nuts. They don't see him as an idealistic clown who would place this country in great danger, but then they'd be happy living in a Marxist utopia where the rich and upwardly mobile are burnt at the stake whilst money is lavished on the terminally selfish, stupid and lazy. Welcome to socialist paradise.
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 27 Jul 15 7.12pm

Well the far left posters seem to think that Corbyn is the mut's nuts. They don't see him as an idealistic clown who would place this country in great danger, but then they'd be happy living in a Marxist utopia where the rich and upwardly mobile are burnt at the stake whilst money is lavished on the terminally selfish, stupid and lazy.
Welcome to socialist paradise.

Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 27 Jul 15 7.13pm
Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 5.27pm Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2015 5.02pm Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 4.58pm Well where to start! The guys as marxist as they come. Anyone see him on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday? I was listening to BBC Radio 5live this morning on the way to work and apparently even Tories are signing upto the Labour party and putting in a vote for him in the leadership race, along with hard line crazy leftists. Would be hilarious if he won the leadership contest. Labour would be even more unelectable, which serves them right after what they've done to this country. So which part of his proposed policies do you not agree with and why? How will he make labour more unelectable? I'm genuinely interested in what you think about 70% of the public agreeing with rail nationalisation. What are your concerns about Corbyn's plans for a national bank? Do you not agree with investment for growth? 1) Nationalising the railways? That didn't work 2) He wants to return to the politics of the eighties 3) He's another union stooge 4) Has utter contempt for the middle class, which makes up a big swave of the population. 5) He won't deny that he's a marxist and has the support of extreme left factions, need I say more. Edited by fed up eagle (27 Jul 2015 5.33pm) Seriously. You are using the Railways AGAINST Corbyn. Ha Ha Ha Ha I presume extreme left is anything you don't agree with. Point 2 is actually the one valid argument you have. He does seem to be fighting the 1983 election all over again
Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe

Sedlescombe 27 Jul 15 7.13pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 5.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2015 5.02pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 4.58pm

Well where to start! The guys as marxist as they come. Anyone see him on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday? I was listening to BBC Radio 5live this morning on the way to work and apparently even Tories are signing upto the Labour party and putting in a vote for him in the leadership race, along with hard line crazy leftists. Would be hilarious if he won the leadership contest. Labour would be even more unelectable, which serves them right after what they've done to this country.

So which part of his proposed policies do you not agree with and why?

How will he make labour more unelectable?

I'm genuinely interested in what you think about 70% of the public agreeing with rail nationalisation.

What are your concerns about Corbyn's plans for a national bank?

Do you not agree with investment for growth?

1) Nationalising the railways? That didn't work

2) He wants to return to the politics of the eighties

3) He's another union stooge

4) Has utter contempt for the middle class, which makes up a big swave of the population.

5) He won't deny that he's a marxist and has the support of extreme left factions, need I say more.

Edited by fed up eagle (27 Jul 2015 5.33pm)

Seriously. You are using the Railways AGAINST Corbyn. Ha Ha Ha Ha

I presume extreme left is anything you don't agree with.

Point 2 is actually the one valid argument you have. He does seem to be fighting the 1983 election all over again

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 27 Jul 15 7.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 7.12pm Well the far left posters seem to think that Corbyn is the mut's nuts. They don't see him as an idealistic clown who would place this country in great danger, but then they'd be happy living in a Marxist utopia where the rich and upwardly mobile are burnt at the stake whilst money is lavished on the terminally selfish, stupid and lazy. Welcome to socialist paradise. A well thought out and reasoned response full of fact and evidence. Well done. There aren't enough posters of your calibre on HOL.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 27 Jul 15 7.32pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 7.12pm

A well thought out and reasoned response full of fact and evidence. Well done. There aren't enough posters of your calibre on HOL.

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 27 Jul 15 7.53pm
Quote Sedlescombe at 27 Jul 2015 7.10pm Quote leggedstruggle at 27 Jul 2015 5.13pm Quote phillanth at 27 Jul 2015 5.08pm What's wrong with being a Marxist? Please explain? The mountains of corpses they tend to generate? If you are blaming Marx (and by extension COrbyn( ith the deaths say in the Soviet Union are you also willing to accept that Hayek/Friendman and therefore Cameron and Thatcher are responsible for the mass murders in Chile? Certainly I blame Marx whose dictatorship of the proletariat under Stalin caused at least 20,000,000 deaths - compared to deaths by the fascists in Chile put at between 4000 and 30,000 max. Obviously Corbyn is not responsible in any way for the crimes of the various Marxist regimes as Cameron is obviously not responsible for fascist Chile. The point is that Marxists tend to accelerate their atrocities when their mad schemes are seen to fail; they have to find victims to blame when reality contradicts their deluded beliefs. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 27 Jul 15 7.53pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 27 Jul 2015 7.10pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 27 Jul 2015 5.13pm

Quote phillanth at 27 Jul 2015 5.08pm

What's wrong with being a Marxist? Please explain?

The mountains of corpses they tend to generate?

Certainly I blame Marx whose dictatorship of the proletariat under Stalin caused at least 20,000,000 deaths - compared to deaths by the fascists in Chile put at between 4000 and 30,000 max. Obviously Corbyn is not responsible in any way for the crimes of the various Marxist regimes as Cameron is obviously not responsible for fascist Chile. The point is that Marxists tend to accelerate their atrocities when their mad schemes are seen to fail; they have to find victims to blame when reality contradicts their deluded beliefs.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 464 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Jeremy Corbyn

Site Map

Sponsors