General Election 2017

[midnight_rendezvous]

Dialogue suggests that both sides are engaging in talks. A simple question - how does having sandwiches with Adams but inviting no-one else along and constantly praising their armed struggle promote political dialogue?

You want hypocritical - claiming you want a political dialogue whilst making a huge thing of praising the armed struggle is about as hypocritical as you can get. But anyway, I digress - this dialogue that Corbyn tried to bring about... please explain how your link is nothing more than proof that Corbyn and Adams had lunch together.

As he has explained repeatedly — for instance in the article I posted — his campaigning on this issue in the past was shaped both by a belief ‘that Ireland should be reunited’ and by a desire for ‘a peace process’. He claims to have always been insistent that there would never be ‘a military victory for either side in Northern Ireland’. You dispute that fact. Your argument relies on the factual accuracy of previously discussed media sources. My question is, why are your sources more trust worthy? Why should I believe them over JC?

 

[jakarta]

As he has explained repeatedly — for instance in the article I posted — his campaigning on this issue in the past was shaped both by a belief ‘that Ireland should be reunited’ and by a desire for ‘a peace process’. He claims to have always been insistent that there would never be ‘a military victory for either side in Northern Ireland’. You dispute that fact. Your argument relies on the factual accuracy of previously discussed media sources. My question is, why are your sources more trust worthy? Why should I believe them over JC?

The point being he never talked to the Unionist side, just the IRA, mind you if his belief is 'that Ireland should be reunited' then I suppose that is consistent, just not with any likely 'peace process'.

Of course at the time he was an insignificant back bencher so no one really gave a flying **** (although I would put money on MI5 having a File on him)

It makes all the difference now he is trying to be PM.

Luckily for us he won't as he will be too busy suing the Sunday Times for the libellous reporting of the facts on their front page today.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

The point being he never talked to the Unionist side, just the IRA, mind you if his belief is 'that Ireland should be reunited' then I suppose that is consistent, just not with any likely 'peace process'.

Of course at the time he was an insignificant back bencher so no one really gave a flying **** (although I would put money on MI5 having a File on him)

It makes all the difference now he is trying to be PM.

Luckily for us he won't as he will be too busy suing the Sunday Times for the libellous reporting of the facts on their front page today.

What's not been mentioned here among all this outrage is the context in which Corbyn was protesting. This is a time when the Birmingham Six, the Guilford Four and the Maguire Seven were all still in prison and the evidence of their innocence was mounting. In all these three cases it eventually emerged that these people, British citizens, had been tortured in order to extract conferssions and that evidence of their guilt had been fabricated. Also worth noting that no police were ever convicted in any of these cases.

Corbyn was not protesting the innocence of those on trial, but at a time when it was clear that the British forces were happy to send anyone to prison for show, he wanted people to have a fair trial.

 

[Blue3]

Do you get out much?

Bed time reading much better than counting sheep

 

[worthingseagull123]

Still insulting pay rises for public sector workers

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

By supporting the IRA. And yes, I bloody well do. The IRA murdered British people on British soil and abroad. Corbyn honoured dead IRA terrorists and active "soldiers" - the people murdering British people in Hyde Park, Warrington, Oxford Street... McDonnell is even more of a fanboy and he's got the awards to prove it, quite literally.

Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that he didn't support the IRA.

To be fair I think the previous poster was thinking about current terrorsts (ISIS etc). Agree with you WRT the embarassing claptrap fron the 80s. I don't recall Corbyn and Spare Head Three having 'outreach' meetings with Combat 18 and the other 'freedom fighters' such as the yobs who used to terrorise Asian mums in Crawley town centre in the early 80s. So why go a-groveling to the IRA? If they were students at the time (like the Bullingdon boys, who have so brilliantly salvaged their reputations in later years - ahem) then all could be forgiven, though . . . maybe.

 

[jakarta]

To be fair I think the previous poster was thinking about current terrorsts (ISIS etc). Agree with you WRT the embarassing claptrap fron the 80s. I don't recall Corbyn and Spare Head Three having 'outreach' meetings with Combat 18 and the other 'freedom fighters' such as the yobs who used to terrorise Asian mums in Crawley town centre in the early 80s. So why go a-groveling to the IRA? If they were students at the time (like the Bullingdon boys, who have so brilliantly salvaged their reputations in later years - ahem) then all could be forgiven, though . . . maybe.

I think you need to run that past us all again, but this this time in English...

 

[Albumen]

Corbyn anti nucleur + consistently says you need to talk to stop wars = He's a pacifist.
Corbyn held talks with the IRA = He's a supporter of the IRA.

Well which is it? I wonder ....

 

[Ernest]

I think you need to run that past us all again, but this this time in English...

I think you might need to as well

 

[Grombleton]

To be fair I think the previous poster was thinking about current terrorsts (ISIS etc). Agree with you WRT the embarassing claptrap fron the 80s. I don't recall Corbyn and Spare Head Three having 'outreach' meetings with Combat 18 and the other 'freedom fighters' such as the yobs who used to terrorise Asian mums in Crawley town centre in the early 80s. So why go a-groveling to the IRA? If they were students at the time (like the Bullingdon boys, who have so brilliantly salvaged their reputations in later years - ahem) then all could be forgiven, though . . . maybe.

I come for the politics, I stay for the Red Dwarf references.

 

[jakarta]

Corbyn anti nucleur + consistently says you need to talk to stop wars = He's a pacifist.
Corbyn held talks with the IRA = He's a supporter of the IRA.

Well which is it? I wonder ....

From the mighty George Orwell's masterpiece:

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance—thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

 

[Machiavelli]

It'll be the world's shortest manifesto.

All May can do is slag off other parties and turn the conversation to criticism of rivals ( After saying 'strong and stable' a few hundred times ).

Yup. This is what 'taking back control' and 'getting our sovereignty back' constitutes. Bollocks to the rule of law, the separation of powers, and parties providing detailed manifestos that they implement, and hello to all power to the executive ...
... which tells us that we'll have a future that's exciting, strong and stable, just so long as we leave them to get on with it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think you need to run that past us all again, but this this time in English...

I recommend an upgrade to 'understanding English 2.0'. Or perhaps its just your contextual reference library that needs refreshment.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

From the mighty George Orwell's masterpiece:

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance—thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

I have no idea whether you understand what you just cut and pasted from Wikipedia.

However, the ability to accept (or believe, depending on your vernacular preferences) contradictory items is one of the human species' great strengths. Why? Because we can't know everything, especially when it comes to predicting the future, yet we need to make decisions or else the world runs us over.

Orwell did not seem to quite understand this, and his work seemed to be a futile quest for absolute truth, but unfortunately about questions for which there are no simple answers.

With respect to (WRT - update for previous post that baffled you) the election, just because you really like the Conservatives, and they win, it doesn't mean its right. Triumph can eventually lead to a hard chair in a cold room. If not for you, then perhaps your children. Or perhaps not. How can we know?

 

[brakespear]

Please don't take us back to the bad old days of strikes and that's is what will happen if you renationalise the post office and railways etc.

Certainly seeing no rail strikes at present

 

[TSB]

It'll be the world's shortest manifesto.

All May can do is slag off other parties and turn the conversation to criticism of rivals ( After saying 'strong and stable' a few hundred times ).

Which, you might notice, is the only thing Tory voters seem to be able to do too.
'Vote for us or you'll get them'
Which is bullshit anyway. This is not a two-party system.
If you don't do or think anything positive, all you can do is attack those opposed.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yup. This is what 'taking back control' and 'getting our sovereignty back' constitutes. Bollocks to the rule of law, the separation of powers, and parties providing detailed manifestos that they implement, and hello to all power to the executive ...

and yet the entire purpose of this election is dispense with an older manifesto, with its inconveniences, and bring in a new one to reflect the new political reality.

 

[essbee1]

Here's a question for you that I have been pondering on. I like and respect Corbyn - but many see
him as un-electable as PM. So - if he stood down tomorrow, would Labour do better in the election than
they are on course for (if say, Yvette Cooper took over)?

 

[jakarta]

I have no idea whether you understand what you just cut and pasted from Wikipedia.

However, the ability to accept (or believe, depending on your vernacular preferences) contradictory items is one of the human species' great strengths. Why? Because we can't know everything, especially when it comes to predicting the future, yet we need to make decisions or else the world runs us over.

Orwell did not seem to quite understand this, and his work seemed to be a futile quest for absolute truth, but unfortunately about questions for which there are no simple answers.

With respect to (WRT - update for previous post that baffled you) the election, just because you really like the Conservatives, and they win, it doesn't mean its right. Triumph can eventually lead to a hard chair in a cold room. If not for you, then perhaps your children. Or perhaps not. How can we know?

Yes it was taken from Wikepedia - so what? It absolutely describes Corbyn's position regarding the use of force & violence.

Lots of people on the Left hate Orwell because he saw right through them.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes it was taken from Wikepedia - so what? It absolutely describes Corbyn's position regarding the use of force & violence.

Lots of people on the Left hate Orwell because he saw right through them.

I don't hate Orwell. Cracking writer. But not a political philosopher. As he would not claim it said on his tin.