This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
General Election 2017
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Stirlingsays  22 May 17 2.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
That could make you appear to some to be a sympathiser of terrorists like a certain MR Corbyn is being accused of. "The UVF has killed more people than any other loyalist paramilitary group. Malcolm Sutton's Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland, part of the Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN), states that the UVF and RHC was responsible for at least 485 killings during the Troubles, and lists a further 256 loyalist killings that have not yet been attributed to a particular group. Of those killed by the UVF and RHC: 414 (~85%) were civilians, 11 of whom were civilian political activists I'm no supporter of terrorism against the British state or against civilians. Indeed, no supporter of violence against peaceful people of any hue. Any loyalists guilty of that should be treated exactly the same way any IRA man is. That fact that you couldn't understand that from my comments says far more about you Kermy than anything else. Also criminal gangs who used the cover of the 'troubles' for violence and criminality also have no sympathy from me. But yeah, I have loyalist family in Belfast and know a little of this so you create your equivalency between those who were active in the murdering of British soldiers and civilians and those who weren't and I'll see it for what it is.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 22 May 17 2.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Are you still voting for Tim and la la fairies, Michael? What did you think of his refusal to answer whether he thought abortion was wrong? Lib Dems are more your bag, surely? Run by a puritan.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 22 May 17 2.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'm no supporter of terrorism against the British state or against civilians. Indeed, no supporter of violence against peaceful people of any hue. Any loyalists guilty of that should be treated exactly the same way any IRA man is. That fact that you couldn't understand that from my comments says far more about you Kermy than anything else. Also criminal gangs who used the cover of the 'troubles' for violence and criminality also have no sympathy from me. But yeah, I have loyalist family in Belfast and know a little of this so you create your equivalency between those who were active in the murdering of British soldiers and civilians and those who weren't and I'll see it for what it is.
Good. With that then that mean's that you don't assume vocal support of Irish republicanism to automatically mean also support of the IRA. However, the UVF were the enemies of the IRA. Do you wish to reconsider calling them, in so many words, your 'friend'?
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 17 2.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Are you still voting for Tim and la la fairies, Michael? What did you think of his refusal to answer whether he thought abortion was wrong? Just to jump in I thought Farron was perfectly reasonable about this. And that's not something I say very often about the lib dems. I thought the attempted attack on him was unfair. It's the policy that is important not his adherence to the morality of an ancient book.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 17 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Good. With that then that mean's that you don't assume vocal support of Irish republicanism to automatically mean also support of the IRA. However, the UVF were the enemies of the IRA. Do you wish to reconsider calling them, in so many words, your 'friend'? No I don't. I made that clear in my previous posts. That doesn't mean that I consider the equivalences that Mr Corbyn made and makes in any way acceptable for a potential PM. As for the UVF, haven't I just made my position clear in regards to loyalists? Let me state it again for the hard of reading. I don't support vigilantism. I'm pro the British state. I don't make equivalences between those who wished and planned to murder British soldiers and civilians and those who didn't. It's you and others who do that. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2017 2.42pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 2.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
How on earth can they claim they know how much they need to collect from this policy if they say one thing is necessary one minute and then climb down from that position the next. Strong and stable.
|
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 2.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
The problem is by listening and tailoring policies based on public feedback..afterall what a demonstrations for(?)..it reduces the anti / protest elements basis for argument. So I can see why you are trying to flower it up as anything other than listening to what people have been complaining about. Would be nice if they did it for the other 5 years they were in power for though...but I guess you have to start somewhere. So if people complain about something the government should just cave in, even if they think it's a fair and necessary policy? Hardly strong and stable. Why say it in the first place if they had any comprehension about what's fair and necessary?
|
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 May 17 2.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
How on earth can they claim they know how much they need to collect from this policy if they say one thing is necessary one minute and then climb down from that position the next. Strong and stable. Jeremy Hunt was unequivocally vocal about saying there wouldn't be a cap on Friday's Today programme. Yet May said today in her (not a) u turn it hadn't been decided.. She also accused Corbyn tlof scaremongering
|
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 22 May 17 3.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
So if people complain about something the government should just cave in, even if they think it's a fair and necessary policy? Hardly strong and stable. Why say it in the first place if they had any comprehension about what's fair and necessary?
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 3.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Jeremy Hunt was unequivocally vocal about saying there wouldn't be a cap on Friday's Today programme. Yet May said today in her (not a) u turn it hadn't been decided.. She also accused Corbyn tlof scaremongering Or you could stop playing politics(as If that would ever happen)and admit that this is a sensible policy to address the looming crisis of care for the elderly.
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 3.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Over 2,400 posts on this thread. Waste of time really. Everyone knows that the electorate is not daft enough to vote Neil from The Young Ones into power. I don't think Gusset is running. You must mean Compo.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 3.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
No I don't. I made that clear in my previous posts. That doesn't mean that I consider the equivalences that Mr Corbyn made and makes in any way acceptable for a potential PM. As for the UVF, haven't I just made my position clear in regards to loyalists? Let me state it again for the hard of reading. I don't support vigilantism. I'm pro the British state. I don't make equivalences between those who wished and planned to murder British soldiers and civilians and those who didn't. It's you and others who do that. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2017 2.42pm) Unless they were Irish Catholics of course. Of course, neither side really comes off as superior, because they all have blood on their hands. Republican or Loyalist, ultimately, it was unavoidable in picking a side in the Troubles to avoid association with violence, once the civil rights movement fell apart. Of course Corbyn was also right, to an extent, that peace could not be achieved without listening to the republican movement and granting it political legitimacy - What ever emotive issues people may have had about the Troubles. Its lazy politics to score points on person, rather than policies. In truth, the UK probably f**ked up its handling of the troubles from the start, and should have accepted the UN's offer to provide peace keeping duties.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 4.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Or you could stop playing politics(as If that would ever happen)and admit that this is a sensible policy to address the looming crisis of care for the elderly. The point is that it's not a particularly fair way of operating a system of welfare as diseases such as dementia are fairly indiscriminate. Furthermore the payments are proportionate with wealth or some other measure that would ensure it's those who can afford most that pay the most. The system should work in a similar way to the NHS - i.e. it's available for all no matter your circumstances and free at the point of delivery. You pay in over your lifetime according to your means to ensure that, should you need it, the care is there and you don't have the worry of having to try and avoid discriminatory charges. The problem of critically underfunded social care should be separated from issues around inheritance tax as age impacts on everyone differently and (often) not in accordance with their ways and means.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 17 4.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Unless they were Irish Catholics of course. Of course, neither side really comes off as superior, because they all have blood on their hands. Republican or Loyalist, ultimately, it was unavoidable in picking a side in the Troubles to avoid association with violence, once the civil rights movement fell apart. Of course Corbyn was also right, to an extent, that peace could not be achieved without listening to the republican movement and granting it political legitimacy - What ever emotive issues people may have had about the Troubles. Its lazy politics to score points on person, rather than policies. In truth, the UK probably f**ked up its handling of the troubles from the start, and should have accepted the UN's offer to provide peace keeping duties. I suppose this has to just be another area where we don't see eye to eye on anything. Though I will say that your take and approach seems to be the popular view.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 17 4.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hansy
I think I'd vote Labour if I was still in Streatham, just because Chuka does a fantastic job. However that also means voting for Corbyn. I follow alot of the Labour MPs on twitter and can't see alot of them retweeting what Corbyn posts, or campaigning with him. But then again 3/4 of the Labour MPs did vote no confidence in him last year, now suddenly he can run a country? My area is also a Brexit area, but had a Lib Dem who is running again (He voted against invoking Article 50), so Tory will end up getting my vote. Best thing imo to happen, is Labour make some gains. Corbyn resigns and someone on the lines of Chuka gets the leadership. If not, and Corbyn fails to resign I could see a split. Please remember to register though, whatever the result; your voice needs to be heard.
Is that the same Chuka who doesn't believe in free speech and wants social media companies to filter and ban views?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Hansy 22 May 17 4.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Not sure this is the same Chuka, care to enlighten? Chuka Umunna was one of the leaders in the vote of No confidence on Corbyn. And more of a Centrist, which I prefer.
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 4.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
The point is that it's not a particularly fair way of operating a system of welfare as diseases such as dementia are fairly indiscriminate. Furthermore the payments are proportionate with wealth or some other measure that would ensure it's those who can afford most that pay the most. The system should work in a similar way to the NHS - i.e. it's available for all no matter your circumstances and free at the point of delivery. You pay in over your lifetime according to your means to ensure that, should you need it, the care is there and you don't have the worry of having to try and avoid discriminatory charges. The problem of critically underfunded social care should be separated from issues around inheritance tax as age impacts on everyone differently and (often) not in accordance with their ways and means. I totally disagree. Dementia will soon be the biggest cause of death so it needs particular attention. This system will ensure that people have help when needed and not have to give up their home. It is a brave proposal which effects traditional Tory voters and one that acknowledges that tough medicine is needed to avoid a total breakdown of care for the infirm.
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 4.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hansy
I think I'd vote Labour if I was still in Streatham, just because Chuka does a fantastic job. However that also means voting for Corbyn. I follow alot of the Labour MPs on twitter and can't see alot of them retweeting what Corbyn posts, or campaigning with him. But then again 3/4 of the Labour MPs did vote no confidence in him last year, now suddenly he can run a country? My area is also a Brexit area, but had a Lib Dem who is running again (He voted against invoking Article 50), so Tory will end up getting my vote. Best thing imo to happen, is Labour make some gains. Corbyn resigns and someone on the lines of Chuka gets the leadership. If not, and Corbyn fails to resign I could see a split. Please remember to register though, whatever the result; your voice needs to be heard.
It's surreal. They don't want him but they expect the public to vote for him as PM. You couldn't make it up.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.