On your first point, I have no issue with Cameron meeting Netanyahu. Admittedly instead of the Iran deal I would prefer him to be talking about his country blocking vital aid and infrastructure resources to the Palestinians, or the detainment of children without trial in Gaza, or even the illegal settlements on the West Bank Netanyahu condones, but oh well. Communication is always the best form of effective diplomacy. As for your distinction between choice and duty in response to KingV, I find that a very hard distinction to understand. Corbyn is, amongst other things, an MP, chair or leading member of several organisations such as Stop the War, the PSC and the CND. Does he not have a duty to engage in discussions and events on these platforms? Following from that, just as Cameron has no power over who the leaders of other nations are, do you really think Corbyn has a say over who others on a panel with him are, what there views are, etc?

On your second point. I didn't respond to your previous post because a) I didn't have time and b) I thought it was such a pernickety attempt at belittling my point I wouldn't waste my spare time on it. But clearly you've got a bee in your bonnet about it and are now accusing me of making up facts, so allow me to defend myself.

At this point, for anyone else reading, I apologise for what will be an incredibly boring rest of this post, feel free to move on to the next post or whatever.

What is a fact? Well, a quick scan on the web finds it to be 'a truth known by actual experience or observation'. This makes it a matter of empirical analysis: you can't have a fact which hasn't been checked, and likewise a fact isn't true on its own, but is true because it has been evaluated and recorded by a second party.

So what did I write?

A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Let's go through them one by one.

First sentence: yep, that is a fact. Here's a link to their findings: [Link]

Renationalisation: This is a statement based on the empirical findings of large polling organisations. If we look back to the definition of the word fact, we can see that these can be a good basis for claiming something to be 'fact', particularly if the same results are shown again and again. As they are: [Link] and [Link] and [Link]

What about the NHS? Well again Yougov's poll suggests over 4 in 5 support public healthcare, and even more than that, over twice the number of people who would be happy to be charged for healthcare would rather taxes were raised to protect the NHS: [Link] The NHS is also regarded as a source of more pride than the monarchy or the army: [Link]

Foreign policy: again, since I can't ask everyone in the country, I am basing my factual claims on the observations of other reputable sources. This is what scientists do throughout their profession, however so I hope you don't mind me following their lead. Here however, opinions fluctuate based on time. However, we can see that the public were against intervention in 2012: [Link] and 2013: [Link] On Iraq, I concede I was slightly wrong. This [Link] shows that the public supported intervention in to Iraq until 2004, when support fell below opposition, and stayed there until the present day. But given it has been over a decade since any organisation has suggested the public support military intervention, I again believe that, without coherent counter-evidence, my fact still stands.

Finally (thank God), the IMF's stance against austerity: [Link] and again, more recently, warning against needless cuts in nations like the UK as bad for growth: [Link]

My final sentence is really just an evaluation of the previous analysis. I'm not going to back the last statement about his opposing MPs up, as that would take me all night.

So I hope I've cleared up any doubts that I 'make up facts'. But please, Stuk, if you still have doubts, do provide your compelling counter-evidence, explain in philosophical terms why you believe my definition of 'fact' is wrong or, and I'm not holding my breathe, apologise for false accusations. Ta.

Maybe he's secretly pro-Israeli, maybe he's even Jewish but then anyone allying themselves with Sinn Fein, Russia and Iran would be of some concern. Not to mention Dianne Abbot.

Can I ask, When was the last time you enjoyed the company of a women? :-)

You've proved you're an idiot, nothing else.

Go back to my post that you didn't have the balls to address initially, make your points (short ones please I might add) and I'll tear them apart.

You didn't state any facts, you merely used research (links actually) from others that fits your criteria.

Didn't respond due to time, my arse. You write the longest posts on this website.

Edited by Stuk (28 Aug 2015 5.42pm)

I couldn't be politically anymore opposite to Corbyn but at least he is a politician with conviction.

The rest have already said "tell us what you want us yo be and we will be it" which quite frankly is a crock of s***

So was Hitler.

I agree, of course they are not. But conviction politicians tend to carry on with policies when when they are clearly going wrong, Thatcher did it with the Poll Tax.

So was Hitler.

I don't mind people who don't believe in anything, its the ones that believe that winning is more important than being right that concern me.