ot jeremy corbyn

[great_fire]

Poddington hasn't posted on here in years.

Love this thread though, every day Corbyn does something incredibly stupid, cynical or nasty and his supporters struggle to justify it.

[frogmiller]

You are also getting into a deeply philosophical debate about "breaking the law" Frog. What is the law? Who makes the laws? Why? Who do they serve to protect? Can laws be changed? What IS breaking the law? I could go on...all very subjective stuff. My arguments with Kerr are often based on me believing the law is unfair to certain groups of people he plainly thinks it is fair to all-no he'll pick me up on that..as fair as it can be in his opinion. Get ya sen a book on sociology and law and you'll understand what i'm getting at.

Too busy responding to folk on here Roly . If someone isn't what they're saying they are on here then they're making a rod for their own backs.

You know what I'm like. As long as there is not too much personal abuse or unnormal behaviour for other members to feel unwelcome then I'm Ok with most things.

[rolymiller]

Yep fair enough Frog.

[animallittle3]

Poddington hasn't posted on here in years.

Love this thread though, every day Corbyn does something incredibly stupid, cynical or nasty and his supporters struggle to justify it.

I said earlier fire only people to blame for Jeremy Corbyn are the Tories themselves .

They wanted power so badly they told a pack lies about New Labour aided by their media on the 2008 crash and aftermath and the mud stuck making them unelectable .

Their austerity driven ideology , the less well off and the disabled paying for the wealthy's pay increases brought Mr Corbyn into the game .

Clearly Liz Kendall and co weren't trusted enough to take the tories on by the membership and Mr Corbyn clearly was , twice in fact .

They might want to change their tactics if they want to defeat him and get some policies out there that appeal to the many and not the few .

The latest smear campaign saw yet another significant increase in momentum and party membership , it always does following one of their little escapades .

So now not only did the tories create Corbyn they are also responsible for his funding .

Laughing so much it hurts pal .

[ragingpup]

How is that relevant?

Whether the economy gets better or worse we voted to leave not leave in name only.

Corbyn knows the EU won't accept his "Customs Union" idea anyway, he's just politicking to try and bring down the government, the lie of him being a "principled" politician has been busted forever, it's a Blair-like move.

But does that mean a hard Brexit at any price? Would you personally be willing to send us into a substantial recession to curtail free movement within the EU? Especially when we can and do recruit as many as we need immigrants from non eu countries and therefore there is likely to be limited impact.

Comes down to the level of risk you're willing to take and it's too big in my opinion based on current information to leave without a deal on the CU.

[great_fire]

I said earlier fire only people to blame for Jeremy Corbyn are the Tories themselves .

They wanted power so badly they told a pack lies about New Labour aided by their media on the 2008 crash and aftermath and the mud stuck making them unelectable .

Laughing so much it hurts pal .

Erm, they have been elected, the last 2 times.

[KerrAvon]

Answer my question first eh? How do we stop the problems in the world? Prove you at least care even if you don't know the answer. The trickle down comment by the way was not contested by you the last time i made it but in any case you are avoiding my point.

How wealthy should people be allowed to be in a world where there is poverty? Its a straight forward question? Do people need excess wealth? Why? Whats your view?

Do you deserve the wealth you have? Why? Are you more valuable to society than other people who work a lot harder and are a lot more valuable but earn a lot less?eg nurses. teachers, careworkers etc.

You haven’t really got the hang of this debate things have you Roly? I ask you questions and you do a Gisjbert body swerve, get all upset, start calling me names and then run off without answering them. And yet I’m supposed to answer yours at the drop of a hat, irrespective of whether they are on the topic of the thread.

You don’t ask for much do you? I’m supposed to offer solutions for all the problems of the world? Blimey. Given that you are asking the question, I’m guessing that you have solutions? If you want to chunk it down a bit, let us have your solution for Syria first.

On the subject of wealth, perhaps you’d care to explain how you define it and ’excess wealth’ in particular? As I think I’ve mentioned before, in my experience ‘Socialists’ tend to define ‘wealthy’ as meaning ‘having more money than they have’. Take animal, for example, when he’s not blaming Muslims for all the ills of the country he likes to tell the Tykes board that he has a fund with which he intends to retire to Spain. Now I don’t have a problem with that as I’m planning to retire to France, but the point is that he also likes to wring his hands about, say, the homeless. Retiring to Spain is beyond the means of the majority of people in this country, so why isn’t he putting his money where his keyboard is and giving up his stash rather than demanding that others do?

You have referred on this thread to people not being able to afford a decent holiday as thought that is some sort of Human Right. As you point out there are people starving in this world and yet you are concerned with whether people get their fortnight in Benidorm. Don’t you think there is more than a touch of hypocrisy there?

I can’t say whether I deserve the wealth that I have. Some of it is down to the luck of being born in a stable and relatively wealthy country like the UK to parents who taught me the value of education and hard work. I also have the luck of having an above average IQ (that’s not arrogance – it’s fact). But I’ve worked hard – 60+ hour weeks are certainly not unusual for me - if I pick up a case at 6pm for the next day, I have to be ready and on the ball before the sun comes up- not being isn’t an option. I would observe that not many people can do what I do, which helps.

As for the value of what I do – that’s for others to judge. You will have noticed on other threads that I have repeatedly made the point that I think that non-academic work is not valued as it should be in this country.

You don’t know how much I earn, so how can you say that I earn a lot more than e.g. nurses. teachers, careworkers etc.? We do know about some of the earnings of others though:

The Great Leader earns £137 000 per year, (but does the Socialist thing of not regarding himself as being wealthy) - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-a7212811.html And, of course, he gets other gigs, such as when he presented a TV programme on Iranian state controlled TV and trousered £20 000. Do you think he is more valuable than nurses. teachers, careworkers etc.?

What about the union leaders on six figure salaries? http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-...ation-packages Do you think they are more valuable than the workers that they are supposed to represent, the majority of whom will get nowhere near their income?

Write to them to ask them their views on wealth, publish their responses on here and then we can talk about my wealth.

[KerrAvon]

I haven't called all Mail readers bigots Kerr - I was pulling you up on your statement that the Mail is "simply pandering to the tastes of a particular mind set" - in other words saying why don't you just call them bigots?! (hence "just say .bigots Kerr, for the love of God"). So don't put words in my mouth fella when you don't like that from others.

In my opinion Mogg and a minority of extremely wealthy individuals are bucking the general trend of business (that support the current status quo, a SMALL PART of which is the use of immigration as a means of cheap labour (I accept that this is quite small scale, very few employers do it but it still needs tackling for those that do) by weighing up that if we leave the EU, even in an economically damaging hard Brexit, Mogg et al stand to make a relatively large difference to their ability to make profits by stripping away work, environmental and health standards at home and by cutting deals with any sweatshop market willing to trade with us.

In short, I don't think that Mogg and the Mail owner's stance on a hard Brexit is for our economic and cultural good. Their proposals are the worst possible move for the majority of people in our country but they are capable of using their privilege and power to push us in that direction, first of all forcing the Brexit in the first place (some of which I agree would be a good thing) but then going further and forcing us over an economic cliff, damaging the vast majority of people (businesses too) for the free gain of the super wealthy.

Assuming that anyone other than us is still actually reading this thread, they will be able to see what you wrote about Mail readers and will be able to draw their own conclusions about what you were saying, just as Shark27 and I have. How is a post that begins You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? not accusing Mail readers of being bigots?

As I mentioned earlier, your Rees-Mogg conspiracy theory smacks of desperation. Do you have any evidence to support it or is it just something you have made up to explain the apparent contradiction between the Mail’s clear anti-immigration stance and the repeated assertion from the Left that the Tories and big business like mass immigration?

[KerrAvon]

Oh my God - look at what you have just said: "in liberal democracies like the UK, there are a wide range of political views freely available within the media for those who want it. animal can continue to read The Guardian and gf can continue to read The Daily Mail. Long may that remain, even if Chomsky would find little difference between them".

So you are arguing that the huge range of views between the Guardian (who advised us to vote Lib Dem as recently as 2010 amd slaughtered Corbyn in his first 2 years actively encouraging the PLP to depose him) is the full scope of political opinion that you are delighted with??! You are saying that this is the range of mass media views to be celebrated?

I know Chomsky's over arching views and what he would ideally like in his society. But as you say, he knows he has to live in the real world and accepts that we are no where near that now. It's about direction of travel. Unlike you, he would not accept that our mass media is as good as we can get it where there are "a wide range of political views freely available" - he's trying to influence a long term game, a movement away from the illusion of free press that we are under.

You say: "If you believe that he would support The Great Leader, you are mistaken; he would see little if any difference between Labour and the Tories and between The Great Leader and May."

Oh really?

Why did he say that he would vote for Corbyn if he was British? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7729526.html

Chompers knows that he lives in "the real world" and that to get to where he would like to be (which will never happen in his and even my lifetime) then you have to make whatever small strides that would at least stop the movement in the other direction. To start us going in the way that we think is better for greater society.

Maybe a bit of research before you make such completely wrong assertions on a person/subject, you try desperately to appear knowledgeable on?

I think the Guardian to the Mail covers a spectrum of views. There is also the internet so that people can plug themselves directly into Labour propaganda if they wish. They can also go out and buy a copy of The Socialist Worker if they want to.

I’d remind you that the best you can do is to propose an element of state (for which read political) control of the media, apparently to rid ourselves of the scourge of the Mail capitalising words in the headlines of factual articles about Labour policy announcements.

I know which I prefer, a media that offers a range of views or one that reports what politicians will allow it to.

Are you sure that you aren’t just sore that people prefer The Sun to The Mirror?

As I said, IBS is the expert on Chomsky. As far as I’m concerned, the notion of an anarcho-syndicalist supporting any politician over another is like the chair of a Vegan Society saying they prefer Burger King to McDonalds.

[KerrAvon]

This thread has been moved to the Internet Millers Board. It is something that I'm trying out on the main board that will give visability to the O/T subjects but not over the football subjects.

The football subjects will have a full line of info yet these O/T topics won't.

It may change back and if it does then normal access with information will return

I think that is a sound move, Frog. I get irritated by these threads so I can understand how non-participants must feel.