O/T Jeremy corbyn

[ragingpup]

Jeremy Corbyn day 2...How JC intends to bankrupt the country, todays topic Taxation

Jeremy's and his marxist friend McDoughnut dont have no clue regarding economics, in fact Corbyns nearly been bankrupt before as he wasnt able to manage his bills. How can he be expected to manage the world 5th biggest economy.

Secondly, his taxation plans will mean some of our world leading companies deserting theses shores and as a result we will see less investment, lower paid jobs, more companies not being able to compete with those on continental europe.

This will lead to cuts in the health budget, education and welfare hitting those who need it most.

JC's 1970s hard socialism isnt relevent in todays global economy.

We will pick this up tomorrow with reason number 3 JC will bankrupt us

Specifically which tax plans are you pointing to from the last manifesto GM? Please take me through in a bit more detail how they will cause sufficient companies to shift and which countries they are willing to uproot to to gain preferential tax treatment?

[BigLadonOS]

Completely wrong.
There's a groundswell of Labour MPs in leave constituencies who are urging Corbyn not to back a 2nd referendum. Some of these MPs personally prefer to stay in the EU but are rightly taking their constituents views into account and are seeking to deliver Brexit.

https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/stat...itics-48694223

I would advise him on more than not having a 2nd referendum I would advise him to get rid of any MP who is going against their constituents vote of leave including our very own (I have a cushy job) MP.

[BigLadonOS]

Specifically which tax plans are you pointing to from the last manifesto GM? Please take me through in a bit more detail how they will cause sufficient companies to shift and which countries they are willing to uproot to to gain preferential tax treatment?

You can throw that manifesto in to the bin because it changes from week to week at the moment.

[ragingpup]

You can throw that manifesto in to the bin because it changes from week to week at the moment.

Which changes are you referring to BL?

[BigLadonOS]

Which changes are you referring to BL?

The ones he is refusing to comment on because he has no clue if that is where he wants the party to go at the moment. I think the ones he is not commenting on is the whole of it. lol

[KerrAvon]

There is no personal attack in saying that you should be ashamed for not supporting seeking greater evidence before triggering a way that led to our soldiers getting killed.

You persist in your tabloid-esque chest beating about Corbyn et al being apologists for terrorism but refuse to engage in the discussion about their reasons for historically opposing the British State and supporting the cause (though crucially not the terrorism in support of the cause) with the intention of stopping the conflicts and saving human lives. You are as blinkered as a tabloid reader manipulating headlines in favour, unquestioning, in support of the British state. Corbyn is absolutely right to be suspicious of any evidence and request that the evidence provided before international intervention is robust. I don’t trust Palestine leaders and more than I trust Israeli leaders, I don’t trust Russian leaders and more than I trust American leaders and it is wise to always be suspicious of your own leaders, not just Corbyn.

The bottom line is that Corbyn is a genuine pacifist. That will alarm the twitching red faced tabloid fodder that want a twitching finger on our nuclear button and are convinced that foreigners are out to get them, but that is bottom line what he is.
It is ridiculous to think that he would support any actions of violence for a cause, but that mean that the cause itself shouldn't still be supported. He has condemned the IRA and any terrorist organisation for its murderous approach to political troubles (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...ists-1.3091883) I judge a person on their voting record over history and their actions over history. Corbyn has made some stupid errors of judgement in his 50 years of activity that will continue to haunt him (appearing on Iran TV, defending the Mural) but your statement that he apologises for terrorists is just plain ignoring the facts and history, twisting one dimensionally in favour of your own agenda. Just as bad as Grist and Fire. It can never win around people that only take on the side of the State of the country that they live in, but Corbyn’s belief that you have to take evidence and sides as you see them, and talk to your ‘enemies’ is correct if you want to bring about a change from a position of war. It is a shame that unthinking, blinkered people who can’t look beyond the relentless propaganda of their own state immediately call such people ‘apologists’ and ‘terrorist sympathisers’ but we have to be pragmatic and try and stop the conflict. This worked in Ireland to a greater extent. It has far from worked in the middle East and won’t for a long time to come. But the more we acknowledge the history of the problem and the grievances of both sides, not just the Israeli one, and the more you encourage the leaders of both sides to enter a room to talk, the closer peace will come.

I’m perfectly comfortable on this topic but happy to do Farage any time the cynical bigot comes into view. But you’re the one that expresses blinkered, ill researched views so I’m focusing on that. And I repeat, Corbyn would have avoided the Iraq war by asking for clear evidence of Blair’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’, and he would not have sent our troops to their deaths. You appear content that this happened and perfectly happy to make the same mistakes again. Not personal, but again, shame on you for that.

I have to say that you’ve got all the moves, raging. That was an almost seamless shift from whataboutery to wordy flim-flam with a touch of straw man thrown in.

When have I been asked to engage in discussions about the Republican cause, let alone refused? I suspect that I have forgotten more about Irish history and of the troubles in particular than you will ever know, but there is nothing in there that justifies what happened in Warrington, Guildford, Birmingham and a hundred other places or which excuses Abbott’s comment. But that’s only my opinion, so why not apply the ability to understand nuance and complexity in political ideas that was so apparently lacking in my earlier post to the Abbott quote. Was PIRA’s ‘victory’ in killing a 3 year old and a 12 year old in Warrington a ‘victory’ for us all as she would have it?

As for Corbyn’s suppose pacifism, isn’t a bit strange that he only seems to pick one side of a fight to talk to? PIRA, but not the UVF. Hamas and Hezbollah, but not Israel. And how can a pacifist be ‘friends’ with Hamas and Hezbollah – two organisations that are set on genocide, like to kill people- perhaps with a few indiscriminate rockets fired in to Israeli towns - and have probably done more to bring misery to the lives of Palestinians than the Israelis. And is it, do you think, a coincidence that Israel is an American ally whilst Hamas and Hezbollah really don’t like our cousins from across the Atlantic.

Do pacifists attend wreath layings for terrorists? Given that the terrorist movement in question remains active, doesn’t that smack of tacit support? In saying that, I do appreciate that he has explained that he was 'present but not participating'. That sort of thing happens to me all the time.

How, exactly, does ‘supporting a cause’ as you put it demonstrate an intention to 'stop conflict' when it is the cause that drives the conflict?

Why is it that Corbyn, a member of the NUJ apparently finds no difficulty in taking significant sums of money to appear on Iranian state TV, when journalists within that country either toe the line or find life becoming very difficult? Can you apply your understanding of nuance and complexity in political ideas to that one? I note that you try to sweep it under the carpet as an error of judgement, but that is meaningless given that he doesn’t accept that it was. Iran doesn’t like America or the West… Coincidence, no doubt.

As for Corbyn’s support for the blatantly antisemitic mural, at least you have made progress. I recall the good old days when you faithfully stuck to each of the different and evolving explanations put out by your party – dishonesty as well as stupidity on his part on that occasion, it seems. But the question has to be asked, how many errors ‘of judgement’ does it take for you to stop trying to spin him out of the realities of his actions?

On pacifism generally, it has to be said that Corbyn’s usual stance is to want to kick an issue up to the UN – an organisation that has turned inaction into an art form given that all it takes is for a country to have friend on the Security Council for any meaningful action to be taken against it to be vetoed. That was his position with Kosovo, where the Serbs (who, by pure coincidence, I’m sure, are allies of Russia and don’t like the Americans) were engaging in a bit of ethnic cleansing until NATO intervened. He wanted a UN led response – perhaps a UN peacekeeping force like the Dutch soldiers who loaded Muslims onto Serb vehicles in Srebrenica so that they could be driven away and murdered.

Even the successful British intervention in Sierra Leone should have been UN led, apparently (we’d probably still be waiting as the RUF murdered, raped and burnt its way across the country).

Oh, and we had his pacifism when the Argentinians invaded The Falklands and people who lived by consent in a democracy found themselves under the rule of a military junta. That must have been a tough one for Corbs given that the junta in question were far right, but he found a way to oppose the liberation of the Islands by denouncing the whole thing as a ‘Tory plot’. I kid you not.

Keep polishing, raging.

[rolymiller]

Is it something about being of a Left Wing persuasion that causes some people to have selective memories, Roly?

How can you say that I don't criticise the right? Was I not deemed to be one of your favourite posters when I spent quite a lot of time debating with the likes of Ellis D over his views on Islam?

In general, I don't like either extreme right or extreme left politics. Both tend to end in tears.

Agreed but not on right wing economic policies so I can only presume that you think that fight wing economic policies are ok.

Is that a fair statement?

[KerrAvon]

With respect, I think it's a statement based upon a simplistic and tribal view of economics that I don't recognise and certainly don't want to be part of.

At a basic level, I think it necessary to create wealth before thought can be given to how it is distributed.

[rolymiller]

With respect, I think it's a statement based upon a simplistic and tribal view of economics that I don't recognise and certainly don't want to be part of.

At a basic level, I think it necessary to create wealth before thought can be given to how it is distributed.

For whom and will it be?

[KerrAvon]

For nobody and because of that, no under current Labour policies.