You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
September 21 2019 11.11pm

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 40 of 429 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >

 

View Johnny Eagles's Profile Johnny Eagles Flag berlin 28 Aug 15 7.49am Send a Private Message to Johnny Eagles Add Johnny Eagles as a friend

In 'the Economist' this week there's an article about Bernie Sanders, the socialist challenger to Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

Sanders' central argument is that the poor have been voting against their own economic interests. His supporters are mostly white, well-educated and middle-aged.

Then there's this great line which I find very apposite for this thread too:

"...there is nothing new about affluent lefties nagging angry voters to see that they are cross about the wrong things."

I'm going to quote that at Bert the Head every time he blames anything - from the miners' strike to the financial crash - on people believing what they read in the tabloids.

 


...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 28 Aug 15 8.38am

Quote leggedstruggle at 28 Aug 2015 7.46am

Quote nickgusset at 28 Aug 2015 6.52am

From the article...
Mr Jahjah told LBC Radio: "We had, I think, two times lunch or breakfast together so I cannot say that Mr Corbyn is a personal friend but he is absolutely a political friend."

Mr Jahjah said in a blog: "I am like Mr Corbyn a socialist, and we do share similar values. This does not mean that I agree with him on everything and I am sure that he also disagrees with me on some things."

Mr Corbyn has also faced accusations that some of his supporters have been posting anti-Jewish abuse on social media but he described racist views as "beyond appalling".

"I have spent my life opposing racism. Until my dying day I will be opposed to racism in any form," he told BBC Radio 4.

Seems they shared some anti war views but that's about it.

Hardly a ringing endorsement is it. Clutching at straws methinks

Also in the article that Jahjah said: "every dead American, British and Dutch soldier a victory". Corbyn, who JJ describes as a 'friend' invited his chum Jahjah to speak a two separate events in the UK and shared a platform with him - prior to JJ being banned from entering the UK because of his extremist associations.

It also said Corbyn didn't agree with everything Jahjah stood for.
The northern Ireland peace process wouldn't have happened if Major/blair/mowlem didn't share a platform with Sinn Fein. If they had your attitude the troubles would still be troublesome,

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View matt_himself's Profile matt_himself Flag Hard Brexit 28 Aug 15 12.38pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 28 Aug 2015 8.38am

Quote leggedstruggle at 28 Aug 2015 7.46am

Quote nickgusset at 28 Aug 2015 6.52am

From the article...
Mr Jahjah told LBC Radio: "We had, I think, two times lunch or breakfast together so I cannot say that Mr Corbyn is a personal friend but he is absolutely a political friend."

Mr Jahjah said in a blog: "I am like Mr Corbyn a socialist, and we do share similar values. This does not mean that I agree with him on everything and I am sure that he also disagrees with me on some things."

Mr Corbyn has also faced accusations that some of his supporters have been posting anti-Jewish abuse on social media but he described racist views as "beyond appalling".

"I have spent my life opposing racism. Until my dying day I will be opposed to racism in any form," he told BBC Radio 4.

Seems they shared some anti war views but that's about it.

Hardly a ringing endorsement is it. Clutching at straws methinks

Also in the article that Jahjah said: "every dead American, British and Dutch soldier a victory". Corbyn, who JJ describes as a 'friend' invited his chum Jahjah to speak a two separate events in the UK and shared a platform with him - prior to JJ being banned from entering the UK because of his extremist associations.

It also said Corbyn didn't agree with everything Jahjah stood for.
The northern Ireland peace process wouldn't have happened if Major/blair/mowlem didn't share a platform with Sinn Fein. If they had your attitude the troubles would still be troublesome,


Out of interest, what would you think if Teresa May met Nick Griffin to discuss immigration?

 


"The real question is, at the end of the day, do we want to run our country? Are we proud of who we are? Are we happy to be just a star on somebody else's flag, or do we want to be an independent nation? - Nigel Farage

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 28 Aug 15 12.51pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Seems to me to be a case of 'he who is without sin shall cast the first stone' here. Can we assume that no one on here has ever met and talked to a prick in their lives? Christ, I've lost count of the number of them I've engaged with on here, let alone throughout my life. I once met Theo Pathitis, and he used to be chairman of Millwall. Does it make me a Millwall fan, or even someone who condones Millwall FC? Absolutely not.

People seem to getting their knickers in a twist purely for the reason that JC doesn't take the 'shout-them-down-and-bomb-them' approach to solving diplomatic disputes that has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy for the last however many years. Forget the fact that Blair met Sinn Fein, Nixon met Mao, Obama met the Iranians etc etc etc, it is different with Corbyn, because him sitting on a panel with some nutter a couple of times almost definitely means he shares all of said nutters' principles.

If people are going to have a go at Corbyn, have a go at what HE actually says, don't just make up views you want him to have and smear him for that.

Oh, and speaking of high-ranking British political figures meeting foreign war criminals and murderers... [Link]

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 28 Aug 15 1.14pm

Quote nickgusset at 28 Aug 2015 8.38am

Quote leggedstruggle at 28 Aug 2015 7.46am

Quote nickgusset at 28 Aug 2015 6.52am

From the article...
Mr Jahjah told LBC Radio: "We had, I think, two times lunch or breakfast together so I cannot say that Mr Corbyn is a personal friend but he is absolutely a political friend."

Mr Jahjah said in a blog: "I am like Mr Corbyn a socialist, and we do share similar values. This does not mean that I agree with him on everything and I am sure that he also disagrees with me on some things."

Mr Corbyn has also faced accusations that some of his supporters have been posting anti-Jewish abuse on social media but he described racist views as "beyond appalling".

"I have spent my life opposing racism. Until my dying day I will be opposed to racism in any form," he told BBC Radio 4.

Seems they shared some anti war views but that's about it.

Hardly a ringing endorsement is it. Clutching at straws methinks

Also in the article that Jahjah said: "every dead American, British and Dutch soldier a victory". Corbyn, who JJ describes as a 'friend' invited his chum Jahjah to speak a two separate events in the UK and shared a platform with him - prior to JJ being banned from entering the UK because of his extremist associations.

It also said Corbyn didn't agree with everything Jahjah stood for.
The northern Ireland peace process wouldn't have happened if Major/blair/mowlem didn't share a platform with Sinn Fein. If they had your attitude the troubles would still be troublesome,

The difference is Major/Blair/Mowlem did not share the views of Sinn Fein or make apologies for their methods. Corbyn is rabid pro-Irish-Republicanism and pro-Palestain and anti-Israel. The 'troubles' by the way are merely in a peaceful interlude, as has happened in the past. Sooner or later violence will erupt again and always will until there is a united Ireland.

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 28 Aug 15 2.12pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 28 Aug 2015 12.51pm

Seems to me to be a case of 'he who is without sin shall cast the first stone' here. Can we assume that no one on here has ever met and talked to a prick in their lives? Christ, I've lost count of the number of them I've engaged with on here, let alone throughout my life. I once met Theo Pathitis, and he used to be chairman of Millwall. Does it make me a Millwall fan, or even someone who condones Millwall FC? Absolutely not.

People seem to getting their knickers in a twist purely for the reason that JC doesn't take the 'shout-them-down-and-bomb-them' approach to solving diplomatic disputes that has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy for the last however many years. Forget the fact that Blair met Sinn Fein, Nixon met Mao, Obama met the Iranians etc etc etc, it is different with Corbyn, because him sitting on a panel with some nutter a couple of times almost definitely means he shares all of said nutters' principles.

If people are going to have a go at Corbyn, have a go at what HE actually says, don't just make up views you want him to have and smear him for that.

Oh, and speaking of high-ranking British political figures meeting foreign war criminals and murderers... [Link]


He's a Prime Minister you numpty and we sent Blair to meet enough people while he was PM.

"Don't just make up views", you make up your own "facts" ffs.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kingvagabond's Profile Kingvagabond Flag London 28 Aug 15 3.06pm Send a Private Message to Kingvagabond Add Kingvagabond as a friend

Quote Stuk at 28 Aug 2015 2.12pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 Aug 2015 12.51pm

Seems to me to be a case of 'he who is without sin shall cast the first stone' here. Can we assume that no one on here has ever met and talked to a prick in their lives? Christ, I've lost count of the number of them I've engaged with on here, let alone throughout my life. I once met Theo Pathitis, and he used to be chairman of Millwall. Does it make me a Millwall fan, or even someone who condones Millwall FC? Absolutely not.

People seem to getting their knickers in a twist purely for the reason that JC doesn't take the 'shout-them-down-and-bomb-them' approach to solving diplomatic disputes that has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy for the last however many years. Forget the fact that Blair met Sinn Fein, Nixon met Mao, Obama met the Iranians etc etc etc, it is different with Corbyn, because him sitting on a panel with some nutter a couple of times almost definitely means he shares all of said nutters' principles.

If people are going to have a go at Corbyn, have a go at what HE actually says, don't just make up views you want him to have and smear him for that.

Oh, and speaking of high-ranking British political figures meeting foreign war criminals and murderers... [Link]


He's a Prime Minister you numpty and we sent Blair to meet enough people while he was PM.

"Don't just make up views", you make up your own "facts" ffs.

His point was if you're going to slag off Corbyn for the people he's met you must keep the same value with your right wing friends. He's not saying it's wrong for Cameron to meet Netanyahu. He's saying if YOU want to slag off Corbyn then YOU must slag off everyone right and left for doing the same as him.

 


Part of Holmesdale Radio: The Next Generation
@KingvagabondHOL

Quote cornwalls palace at 24 Oct 2012 9.37am

He was right!!!...and we killed him!!... poor Orpinton Eagles........

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 28 Aug 15 3.14pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote Kingvagabond at 28 Aug 2015 3.06pm

Quote Stuk at 28 Aug 2015 2.12pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 Aug 2015 12.51pm

Seems to me to be a case of 'he who is without sin shall cast the first stone' here. Can we assume that no one on here has ever met and talked to a prick in their lives? Christ, I've lost count of the number of them I've engaged with on here, let alone throughout my life. I once met Theo Pathitis, and he used to be chairman of Millwall. Does it make me a Millwall fan, or even someone who condones Millwall FC? Absolutely not.

People seem to getting their knickers in a twist purely for the reason that JC doesn't take the 'shout-them-down-and-bomb-them' approach to solving diplomatic disputes that has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy for the last however many years. Forget the fact that Blair met Sinn Fein, Nixon met Mao, Obama met the Iranians etc etc etc, it is different with Corbyn, because him sitting on a panel with some nutter a couple of times almost definitely means he shares all of said nutters' principles.

If people are going to have a go at Corbyn, have a go at what HE actually says, don't just make up views you want him to have and smear him for that.

Oh, and speaking of high-ranking British political figures meeting foreign war criminals and murderers... [Link]


He's a Prime Minister you numpty and we sent Blair to meet enough people while he was PM.

"Don't just make up views", you make up your own "facts" ffs.

His point was if you're going to slag off Corbyn for the people he's met you must keep the same value with your right wing friends. He's not saying it's wrong for Cameron to meet Netanyahu. He's saying if YOU want to slag off Corbyn then YOU must slag off everyone right and left for doing the same as him.

I haven't slagged off Corbyn for his company, so I don't have to slag off our PM for meeting the PM of another country.

Corbyn's meetings however were out of choice, whereas this is a duty. That's the stupidity of the comparison that I was getting to.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 28 Aug 15 3.15pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 28 Aug 2015 1.14pm

Quote nickgusset at 28 Aug 2015 8.38am

Quote leggedstruggle at 28 Aug 2015 7.46am

Quote nickgusset at 28 Aug 2015 6.52am

From the article...
Mr Jahjah told LBC Radio: "We had, I think, two times lunch or breakfast together so I cannot say that Mr Corbyn is a personal friend but he is absolutely a political friend."

Mr Jahjah said in a blog: "I am like Mr Corbyn a socialist, and we do share similar values. This does not mean that I agree with him on everything and I am sure that he also disagrees with me on some things."

Mr Corbyn has also faced accusations that some of his supporters have been posting anti-Jewish abuse on social media but he described racist views as "beyond appalling".

"I have spent my life opposing racism. Until my dying day I will be opposed to racism in any form," he told BBC Radio 4.

Seems they shared some anti war views but that's about it.

Hardly a ringing endorsement is it. Clutching at straws methinks

Also in the article that Jahjah said: "every dead American, British and Dutch soldier a victory". Corbyn, who JJ describes as a 'friend' invited his chum Jahjah to speak a two separate events in the UK and shared a platform with him - prior to JJ being banned from entering the UK because of his extremist associations.

It also said Corbyn didn't agree with everything Jahjah stood for.
The northern Ireland peace process wouldn't have happened if Major/blair/mowlem didn't share a platform with Sinn Fein. If they had your attitude the troubles would still be troublesome,

The difference is Major/Blair/Mowlem did not share the views of Sinn Fein or make apologies for their methods. Corbyn is rabid pro-Irish-Republicanism and pro-Palestain and anti-Israel. The 'troubles' by the way are merely in a peaceful interlude, as has happened in the past. Sooner or later violence will erupt again and always will until there is a united Ireland.

Strange because I've read that Corbyn advocates a 2 state solution re: Israel Palestine.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 28 Aug 15 4.37pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote Stuk at 28 Aug 2015 2.12pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 Aug 2015 12.51pm

Seems to me to be a case of 'he who is without sin shall cast the first stone' here. Can we assume that no one on here has ever met and talked to a prick in their lives? Christ, I've lost count of the number of them I've engaged with on here, let alone throughout my life. I once met Theo Pathitis, and he used to be chairman of Millwall. Does it make me a Millwall fan, or even someone who condones Millwall FC? Absolutely not.

People seem to getting their knickers in a twist purely for the reason that JC doesn't take the 'shout-them-down-and-bomb-them' approach to solving diplomatic disputes that has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy for the last however many years. Forget the fact that Blair met Sinn Fein, Nixon met Mao, Obama met the Iranians etc etc etc, it is different with Corbyn, because him sitting on a panel with some nutter a couple of times almost definitely means he shares all of said nutters' principles.

If people are going to have a go at Corbyn, have a go at what HE actually says, don't just make up views you want him to have and smear him for that.

Oh, and speaking of high-ranking British political figures meeting foreign war criminals and murderers... [Link]


He's a Prime Minister you numpty and we sent Blair to meet enough people while he was PM.

"Don't just make up views", you make up your own "facts" ffs.


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.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View eagles1230_3's Profile eagles1230_3 Flag Coulsdon 28 Aug 15 4.43pm Send a Private Message to eagles1230_3 Add eagles1230_3 as a friend

I like you!

Quite frankly the left can do one!

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.


 


We had joy we had fun we had Brighton on the run, but the joy didn't last as the bastards ran to fast

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 28 Aug 15 4.45pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 28 Aug 2015 4.37pm

Quote Stuk at 28 Aug 2015 2.12pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 Aug 2015 12.51pm

Seems to me to be a case of 'he who is without sin shall cast the first stone' here. Can we assume that no one on here has ever met and talked to a prick in their lives? Christ, I've lost count of the number of them I've engaged with on here, let alone throughout my life. I once met Theo Pathitis, and he used to be chairman of Millwall. Does it make me a Millwall fan, or even someone who condones Millwall FC? Absolutely not.

People seem to getting their knickers in a twist purely for the reason that JC doesn't take the 'shout-them-down-and-bomb-them' approach to solving diplomatic disputes that has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy for the last however many years. Forget the fact that Blair met Sinn Fein, Nixon met Mao, Obama met the Iranians etc etc etc, it is different with Corbyn, because him sitting on a panel with some nutter a couple of times almost definitely means he shares all of said nutters' principles.

If people are going to have a go at Corbyn, have a go at what HE actually says, don't just make up views you want him to have and smear him for that.

Oh, and speaking of high-ranking British political figures meeting foreign war criminals and murderers... [Link]


He's a Prime Minister you numpty and we sent Blair to meet enough people while he was PM.

"Don't just make up views", you make up your own "facts" ffs.


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.

With the amount of waffle you type i'm not surprised, because I don't even have time to read all that.

Making a post really long doesn't mean it's a good one.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 40 of 429 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn