Planet Rugby Forum

At least he's branched out to two threads.

This thread mirrors exactly how I imagine the brexit negotiations to be progressing.

, apprantly they're seriously discussing if Angela Rayner or Rebbeca Long Baily could be the next leader of the Labour Party.


Wonderful.

bimboman wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Frodder wrote:I see this thread is going well as ever......

I do wonder what mental barrier Bimboman has to any nuance. He must be the only person outside of Corbynista's in the entire UK who believe one political side is 100% entirely right and everything is perfect there and anything else is 100% entirely wrong and evil and that there can be no in-between what-so-ever.

Oh do f uck off, you want to claim that policies are seprate from political beliefs that's mint nuance that's plain stupid.

Plain stupid? Then explain why David Cameron held a EU referendum when he didn't believe we should leave the EU? Or why Tony Blair didn't take us into the Euro when he obviously believed we should do?

The question is why are you incapable of understanding that policies can be made based off pragmatism or people can see that their preferred political direction isn't a good idea in a certain climate so choosing or even from analysis and deciding that what they want is not the best option. I have no doubt about McDonnell having some communist supporting beliefs, but why then does his house building policy, which has no particular political slant can't be liked.

No one here even gets my political views correct they lazy pigeon hole all,the time. For example i'm not "right wing" , but lazy tropes by challenged lefties continue.

My view of socialism and further left as being wrong is my view, I don't say oh I don't like socialism but I like a little bit of it.

You every much take right wing, free market solves everything, little government spending positions and oppose everything viewed as even seen as vaguely left. You take these position in such a hard and demented fashion you can't even understand the concept of borrowing to invest and using the returns over time to repay the borrowing.

You every much take right wing, free market solves everything, little government spending positions and oppose everything viewed as even seen as vaguely left. You take these position in such a hard and demented fashion you can't even understand the concept of borrowing to invest and using the returns over time to repay the borrowing.

I'm absolutly on board with this concept what I objected too in your moronic example was that any borrowing of any amount repays itself and can be separated from a risk to the lender perspective from other state debt.

The hard and view lacking in nuance was your "invest to repay" without any other question about affordability.

bimboman wrote:

You every much take right wing, free market solves everything, little government spending positions and oppose everything viewed as even seen as vaguely left. You take these position in such a hard and demented fashion you can't even understand the concept of borrowing to invest and using the returns over time to repay the borrowing.

I'm absolutly on board with this concept what I objected too in your moronic example was that any borrowing of any amount repays itself and can be separated from a risk to the lender perspective from other state debt.

The hard and view lacking in nuance was your "invest to repay" without any other question about affordability.

I have never made that claim. I pointed specifically to borrow for policies that are proven to repay themselves, infrastructure, education and better health care. But you opposed any and all examples I gave. The idea you questioned the nuance is total bollocks, you opposed it on all grounds.

Plain stupid? Then explain why David Cameron held a EU referendum when he didn't believe we should leave the EU? Or why Tony Blair didn't take us into the Euro when he obviously believed we should do?

The Blair example is exactly my point about NOT following through with a policy rather than having one. The EU referendum didn't change David Cameron's policy though he campaigned to remain which was his beliefs.

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:

You every much take right wing, free market solves everything, little government spending positions and oppose everything viewed as even seen as vaguely left. You take these position in such a hard and demented fashion you can't even understand the concept of borrowing to invest and using the returns over time to repay the borrowing.

I'm absolutly on board with this concept what I objected too in your moronic example was that any borrowing of any amount repays itself and can be separated from a risk to the lender perspective from other state debt.

The hard and view lacking in nuance was your "invest to repay" without any other question about affordability.

I have never made that claim. I pointed specifically to borrow for policies that are proven to repay themselves, infrastructure, education and better health care.

"Proven"

but why then does his house building policy, which has no particular political slant can't be liked.

This is a very good example of a simple policy that we could easily agree on, the method of getting more houses and what eventually they'd look like and of course how they were paid for is the politics in action , those actions can't be separated from the policy ...

I see Keir Starmer has just made Corbyn's life easier.

No antisemites here.

Glaston wrote:


No antisemites here.

I wonder what these people think when the UK is repeatedly attacked by terrorists who are waving the same flag? Or indeed Barcelone, Nice, Paris etc

anti-semitism is a word created by Israel to suppress the fact that they are committing mass genocide by wiping out the Palestinians, pretty sure every terrorist attack in the Uk or France had the backing of Israel one way or another....watch this movie called "Shock and Awe" there are things about 9/11 we do not know..

sewa wrote:

Glaston wrote:


No antisemites here.

I wonder what these people think when the UK is repeatedly attacked by terrorists who are waving the same flag? Or indeed Barcelone, Nice, Paris etc

madness.
A rather distant branch of my family are jewish, so even though I'm a proddy Christian, this sort of anti Israel stuff staggers me. How on earth a left wing, jewish person can vote for Labour right now I just don't know - its almost as if Corbyn has gone "hmmm 280k jews in UK, 4m muslims, = +3.72m votes automatically if I become anti semitic"

I consistently find it bizarre how much energy Labour members and MPs expend by constantly fixating on Palestine - Thornberry for instance got a standing ovation for pledging that recognising Palestine would be one of the key pledges of a Labour government

I don't see them getting this agitated or vocal about the active liberation movements in Western Sahara, Kurdistan, Angola, Philippines etc

But of course where there's an opportunity to bash Jews...

comets wrote:anti-semitism is a word created by Israel to suppress the fact that they are committing mass genocide by wiping out the Palestinians, pretty sure every terrorist attack in the Uk or France had the backing of Israel one way or another....watch this movie called "Shock and Awe" there are things about 9/11 we do not know..

Goodbye

Palestinians are Semites too.

You can argue that some elements in the Labour party are genuinely anti-Jewish, so anti-Semitic in what's become it's common usage. You can also argue that significant parts of the Labour party are unquestioningly anti-Israel. Conflating the two points does not help anyone though and can be used to stifle good faith criticism of Israeli state policy.

I've worked with some Palestinians, lovely people. Had a tough time of it on the visa front they did.

I've worked with some Israelis, lovely people.

unseenwork wrote:I've worked with some Palestinians, lovely people. Had a tough time of it on the visa front they did.

did you let them 'swim' in your pool ?

Woddy wrote:Palestinians are Semites too.

You can argue that some elements in the Labour party are genuinely anti-Jewish, so anti-Semitic in what's become it's common usage. You can also argue that significant parts of the Labour party are unquestioningly anti-Israel. Conflating the two points does not help anyone though and can be used to stifle good faith criticism of Israeli state policy.

And which country most caused the state of Israel to exist in the first place? Here is a hint you won't have to look too far. The fact that so many of you people are utterly fixated on what goes on in a piece of land you abandoned like rats off a sinking ship is quite amusing

sewa wrote:

Woddy wrote:Palestinians are Semites too.

You can argue that some elements in the Labour party are genuinely anti-Jewish, so anti-Semitic in what's become it's common usage. You can also argue that significant parts of the Labour party are unquestioningly anti-Israel. Conflating the two points does not help anyone though and can be used to stifle good faith criticism of Israeli state policy.

And which country most caused the state of Israel to exist in the first place? Here is a hint you won't have to look too far. The fact that so many of you people are utterly fixated on what goes on in a piece of land you abandoned like rats off a sinking ship is quite amusing

I thought God gave the land to the Jews.

backrow wrote:

unseenwork wrote:I've worked with some Palestinians, lovely people. Had a tough time of it on the visa front they did.

did you let them 'swim' in your pool ?

It was St Andrews, would have been a little cold.

Mick Mannock wrote:I see Keir Starmer has just made Corbyn's life easier.

Over the last year Starmer has seen like the only grown up in the Labour party. If he was leader they would be the next govt.

etherman wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:I see Keir Starmer has just made Corbyn's life easier.

Over the last year Starmer has seen like the only grown up in the Labour party. If he was leader they would be the next govt.

I doubt it. Being sensible and moderate doesn't cut it in this new world. It's all about building a cult of personality through social media and having esteemed media outlets like the Canary and Breitbart writing headlines about how you "dominated" or "owned" the opposition

Mick Mannock wrote:

sewa wrote:

Woddy wrote:Palestinians are Semites too.

You can argue that some elements in the Labour party are genuinely anti-Jewish, so anti-Semitic in what's become it's common usage. You can also argue that significant parts of the Labour party are unquestioningly anti-Israel. Conflating the two points does not help anyone though and can be used to stifle good faith criticism of Israeli state policy.

And which country most caused the state of Israel to exist in the first place? Here is a hint you won't have to look too far. The fact that so many of you people are utterly fixated on what goes on in a piece of land you abandoned like rats off a sinking ship is quite amusing

I thought God gave the land to the Jews.

If you believe in something as ridiculous as God its not much of a stretch to believe that also

openclashXX wrote:

etherman wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:I see Keir Starmer has just made Corbyn's life easier.

Over the last year Starmer has seen like the only grown up in the Labour party. If he was leader they would be the next govt.

I doubt it. Being sensible and moderate doesn't cut it in this new world. It's all about building a cult of personality

Well yeah, but he's got the remain camp behind him without looking like a loon and without definitively pinning his flag to one particular mast. He did an interview a few months back in t-shirt and jeans walking around a council estate, which is a sure sign of someone with leadership ambition. He can convincingly eat a bacon sandwich, without talking about Hitler. Which basically makes him a god.

sewa wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

sewa wrote:

Woddy wrote:Palestinians are Semites too.

You can argue that some elements in the Labour party are genuinely anti-Jewish, so anti-Semitic in what's become it's common usage. You can also argue that significant parts of the Labour party are unquestioningly anti-Israel. Conflating the two points does not help anyone though and can be used to stifle good faith criticism of Israeli state policy.

And which country most caused the state of Israel to exist in the first place? Here is a hint you won't have to look too far. The fact that so many of you people are utterly fixated on what goes on in a piece of land you abandoned like rats off a sinking ship is quite amusing

I thought God gave the land to the Jews.

If you believe in something as ridiculous as God its not much of a stretch to believe that also

"You people" , crikey.

c69 wrote:

Go on, which ones ? Are we back on the 500 billion extra on education again ?
Please post a link to £500 billion on education

Surely he was just using a figure worked up by the Honourable Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington....

Woddy wrote:Palestinians are Semites too.

You can argue that some elements in the Labour party are genuinely anti-Jewish, so anti-Semitic in what's become it's common usage. You can also argue that significant parts of the Labour party are unquestioningly anti-Israel. Conflating the two points does not help anyone though and can be used to stifle good faith criticism of Israeli state policy.

An issue I find is that as soon a snti-semitism is brought up people bring up "But we should be able to criticise Israel". Often it's in unconnected things. WHen Corbyn was called out on liking the artists who clearly drew a stereotype of Jews as bankers running the world, that has nothing to do with criticism of Israel but suddenly you had people shouting "but we can't ban criticism of Israel".

However when Corbyn talks about some problem in got but brings in Israel as some secretive force behind the problem when they are completely unconnected with the topic, that's where it blends into racism using a trope of secretive Jewish state causing all the worlds problems with no evidence or even a vague connection.

Hence why the definition of Anti-semitism includes tropes about Israel. This is because it's clear a lot of Jew haters hide behind "criticism of Israel" when they are using Jewish Israel Tropes. Also a number of hard lefties absorb those Jewish tropes unthinkingly and use them.

etherman wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:I see Keir Starmer has just made Corbyn's life easier.

Over the last year Starmer has seen like the only grown up in the Labour party. If he was leader they would be the next govt.

I doubt it. Labour have surged due to the Corbyn hard left. He'd just be Miliband Part 2. He's too pro-EU. By accident or design Corbyn and McDonnell not quite revealing their true colours to their parties membership and supporters is a master stroke. McDonnell is perfectly aware they will make loses in the north if they go 100% for a new referendum or go anti-EU. If Labour's Brexit supporting heartlands start voting Tory, Labour may well never win another election.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

backrow wrote:

sewa wrote:

Glaston wrote:


No antisemites here.

I wonder what these people think when the UK is repeatedly attacked by terrorists who are waving the same flag? Or indeed Barcelone, Nice, Paris etc

madness.
A rather distant branch of my family are jewish, so even though I'm a proddy Christian, this sort of anti Israel stuff staggers me. How on earth a left wing, jewish person can vote for Labour right now I just don't know - its almost as if Corbyn has gone "hmmm 280k jews in UK, 4m muslims, = +3.72m votes automatically if I become anti semitic"

I thought you were a transylvanian gypsy?

Zero gypsy - half pom half Rom (old wallachia actually, Transylvania was about 20km north )
Up until some Austrian twat with a toothbrush on his face came along, there were plenty of yids in Romania, lots ended up in USA in the 1930’s

Some antisemites hide behind the freedom of speech to criticise any nation.
The freedom of speech to criticise any nation does not magically exclude Israel.

to ElDF:

I was responding to a picture of various people backing Palestine/Palestinian rights with a statement implying that that made them anti-Semites. My point was that being on the side of Palestinians in terms of their treatment by the state of Israel does not in itself mean you are anti-Semitic, either as a matter of semantics or of philosophy.

If people use anti-Jewish tropes as a means of criticising Israel (or for any other reason), then that is anti-Jewish and therefore anti-Semitic - I agree. However, in my view you are able to argue and should be able to show that without needing a direct line under a new definition of "anti-Semitic".

Plato'sCave wrote:Some antisemites hide behind the freedom of speech to criticise any nation.
The freedom of speech to criticise any nation does not magically exclude Israel.

I don't get this, I can call Bibi a horrible right wing prick because well he is. I criticise his governments crasy decision to relocate the embassy and their failure to tackle settlers. I wouldn't call that criticism of Israel, Israel is a country not a political party and there is people there from right across the political spectrum

Mick Mannock wrote:

sewa wrote:

Woddy wrote:Palestinians are Semites too.

You can argue that some elements in the Labour party are genuinely anti-Jewish, so anti-Semitic in what's become it's common usage. You can also argue that significant parts of the Labour party are unquestioningly anti-Israel. Conflating the two points does not help anyone though and can be used to stifle good faith criticism of Israeli state policy.

And which country most caused the state of Israel to exist in the first place? Here is a hint you won't have to look too far. The fact that so many of you people are utterly fixated on what goes on in a piece of land you abandoned like rats off a sinking ship is quite amusing

I thought God gave the land to the Jews.

We asked God to comment.

"Look, I said I'd see what I can do. But you know what Moses is like, he never stops talking. In the end, I had to set a bush on fire to shut him up.

Woddy wrote:to ElDF:

I was responding to a picture of various people backing Palestine/Palestinian rights with a statement implying that that made them anti-Semites. My point was that being on the side of Palestinians in terms of their treatment by the state of Israel does not in itself mean you are anti-Semitic, either as a matter of semantics or of philosophy.

I agree. I was expanding on the point.

If people use anti-Jewish tropes as a means of criticising Israel (or for any other reason), then that is anti-Jewish and therefore anti-Semitic - I agree. However, in my view you are able to argue and should be able to show that without needing a direct line under a new definition of "anti-Semitic".

Agreed. But as we know many critisms of Israel are form sides who also make use of Jewish tropes either with the criticism or at other times.

sewa wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Some antisemites hide behind the freedom of speech to criticise any nation.
The freedom of speech to criticise any nation does not magically exclude Israel.

I don't get this, I can call Bibi a horrible right wing prick because well he is. I criticise his governments crasy decision to relocate the embassy and their failure to tackle settlers. I wouldn't call that criticism of Israel, Israel is a country not a political party and there is people there from right across the political spectrum

I think by "Israel" people in that context mean the state of Israel and more specifically its government (currently led by Bibi) which carries out those actions in its name. It's not a calumny of the people of Israel.

sewa wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Some antisemites hide behind the freedom of speech to criticise any nation.
The freedom of speech to criticise any nation does not magically exclude Israel.

I don't get this, I can call Bibi a horrible right wing prick because well he is. I criticise his governments crasy decision to relocate the embassy and their failure to tackle settlers. I wouldn't call that criticism of Israel, Israel is a country not a political party and there is people there from right across the political spectrum

So you think countries are immune from criticism? If you see countries as the aggregation of people then I agree, I see them as the aggregation of politics. It’s generally accepted as fine to criticise Russia for example, but if we see Russia as the aggregation of its people then I see why this would be wrong.

The main logic states we should maintain international balance of critical definition

eldanielfire wrote:

Woddy wrote:to ElDF:

I was responding to a picture of various people backing Palestine/Palestinian rights with a statement implying that that made them anti-Semites. My point was that being on the side of Palestinians in terms of their treatment by the state of Israel does not in itself mean you are anti-Semitic, either as a matter of semantics or of philosophy.

I agree. I was expanding on the point.

If people use anti-Jewish tropes as a means of criticising Israel (or for any other reason), then that is anti-Jewish and therefore anti-Semitic - I agree. However, in my view you are able to argue and should be able to show that without needing a direct line under a new definition of "anti-Semitic".

Agreed. But as we know many critisms of Israel are form sides who also make use of Jewish tropes either with the criticism or at other times.

so attack the tropes...