• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18645
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
chrisd said:
Yes of course we are all thick, dont understand what's going on in the world and I, for one, am so pleased that there are such expert people on a golf forum to put us right.
Click to expand...
It’s always a pleasure.. don’t turn your tape off and please remember to lift the toilet cover the next time you use it or ask someone who can. :ROFLMAO:
 
Liverpoolphil said:
What’s wrong ? Is that all you can answer ? You are very vocal against Corbyn and Labour which is your right but surely when someone ask for reasons why you call someone “appalling” you must have them to hand ? No ?

I’ll help you out -

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/music3/707-bruce-springsteen-the-wall

Below are Mr Waugh-Monger's ten commandments telling UK electors why they should not, under any circumstances, vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

1. Jeremy Corbyn wants to 'stop the war'.

Jeremy Corbyn opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia. He opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. He was against the invasion of Iraq. He was against bombing Libya and also voted against military action in Syria.

I ask you – is this the sort of man who is fit to be prime minister?

If Corbyn – heaven forbid – had been British Prime Minister in 2003 he would not have committed British troops to the invasion of Iraq. Just imagine what would have happened if we hadn't invaded Iraq! Well, I'll tell you what would have happened – the Middle East would now be a haven for terrorist groups which would be targeting British tourists on beaches when they go on their summer holidays. The whole Middle East would now be in turmoil. We'd be facing a refugee crisis with people fleeing all the countries that we hadn't destabilized.

2. Jeremy Corbyn is a dangerous leftist.

Just look at the sort of policies this man supports. He wants to re-nationalize the railways which have the highest fares in Europe.

He wants to scrap university tuition fees which consign students to a lifetime of debt. He would like to make housing affordable for ordinary people.

He wants an economy to suit the needs of the majority and not the 1%.

He wants to keep the Sunday trading laws as they are and not introduce 24/7 shopping. He is opposed to illegal wars which kill hundreds of thousands of people and he does not want to bring back fox-hunting. Quite clearly the man is some kind of left-wing nutcase.

3. Jeremy Corbyn has been critical of the US and Israel.

Outrageously, Corbyn has criticized US foreign policy and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. He seems to think that the US and Israel have to abide by international law – and should be held accountable for their actions. The man is quite obviously a communist and as such should not become Britain's prime minister.

4. Jeremy Corbyn has extremist links.

Not only is Corbyn a dangerous radical himself, he also associates with dangerous extremists. He once spoke at a meeting where one of the other speakers had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once praised Joseph Stalin – proving undeniably that Corbyn is a Stalinist.

Also on Twitter, Corbyn once retweeted a person who had once retweeted another person who had once retweeted another person who had retweeted a tweet from someone who I don't approve of – proving once again Corby's extremism.

5. Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable.

Jeremy Corbyn wants to do things which the majority of the British public wants, such as re-nationalize the railways and keep Britain out of Middle East wars. This makes him unelectable because politicians are only electable if they want to do things the public doesn't want.

At the last election, Labour lost heavily to the anti-austerity SNP in Scotland and also lost lots of votes to the anti-austerity Greens. So it's obvious that to get these votes back, Labour needs a leader who supports austerity, and not someone who opposes it, like Corbyn.

I'm a very wealthy right-wing, pro-austerity warmonger, but believe me, I only want the best for Labour – which is to be a right-wing pro-austerity, pro-war party – barely distinguishable from the Tories.

Having two main parties who have identical views on the main issues is what democracy is all about. Corbyn as Labour leader will be very different from the Conservatives, which would obviously be very bad for democracy as it would give the electorate a real choice.

6. Jeremy Corbyn wants to take us back to the 1970s.

In the 1970s the gap between the rich and poor was at its lowest in the UK's history. Living standards for ordinary people were rising all the time and large sections of the economy were in public ownership. The banks did not run the country and the taxation system was steeply progressive.

Corbyn wants to take us back to these times! Think how disastrous that would be for rich people like me who would have to pay much higher rates of tax which would be redistributed to horrible working class-type people and people on middle incomes. The 1% would really suffer and the most talented people – like myself – and my neocon friends, would leave the country. That's what lies in store for us if Corbyn succeeds!

7. Jeremy Corbyn would leave Britain defenseless and open to invasion.

Corbyn has promised to scrap Trident.

If Trident was scrapped there's no doubt that the Russians, Iranians, Syrians and Hezbollah would launch a full scale invasion of Britain within 45 minutes.

Britain would be carved up between the 'Axis of Evil', with the Russians taking England, the Iranians Scotland and the Syrians, Wales (and Hezbollah in charge of Northern Ireland).

Just imagine, Aberystywyth under the control of the evil dictator Bashar al-Assad. Russian troops patroling the streets of Godalming. Iran's Revolutionary Guard marching in Sauchiehall Street. A nightmare scenario indeed, but all this would be the reality if Corbyn gets his way. The very future of our country is at stake.

8. Jeremy Corbyn once welcomed an article by John Pilger.

In 2004, Jeremy Corbyn was one of 25 MPs who signed an Early Day Motion which welcomed a Pilger article on Kosovo.

How outrageous! To think, a man who is now the leader of one of Britain's major parties once welcomed an article by John Pilger!

No one who has ever cited John Pilger with approval – let alone signed a motion supporting him – should be allowed to stand for high public office in Britain. The freedom to hold and express views and opinions in a democracy should only apply to opinions and views that myself and fellow elite neocons approve of! And we most certainly do not approve of John Pilger!

9. Jeremy Corbyn opposes austerity.

Austerity is working brilliantly at the moment.

It's provided a great excuse for the government to flog off remaining state assets at below their true market value to 'the right people' in the City. The welfare payments of lower-class people who have far too many children are being cut. Libraries and local authority services are being closed. Yet, guess what? The bearded one opposes all of this. He says that "austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity."

He wants to protect public services and libraries from cuts – and instead wants to crackdown on tax evasion and increase taxes on the very wealthy! I ask you – is this the sort of man we want leading Labour – or worse still, the country?

And finally, but most importantly, the tenth commandment:

10. Jeremy Corbyn is very popular.

...And if he succeeds, it's game over for me and my little clique of elite warmongers. We won't get our wars and we'll have to pay more taxes and it'll be all perfectly horrible! So, don't vote for Jeremy Corbyn, because although he'll be very good news for you – his success will be terrible for us!


Such an appalling person ?
Click to expand...

I agree with both you and Chris. Its politics and its down to opinions.

If Chris doesn't want to qualify his opinion, he doesn't have to. Its his opinion.

Personally, for all the published material on Corbyn's past I still can't say I 'know' him. He says so many things I agree with but has so many things on his CV I disagree with. With Johnson its a lot easier. He's Trump-lite for me. How on earth he's reached the position he has floors me. But I could also say the same about Corbyn.

But, like Chris, its just my opinion.
 
Hobbit said:
I agree with both you and Chris. Its politics and its down to opinions.

If Chris doesn't want to qualify his opinion, he doesn't have to. Its his opinion.

Personally, for all the published material on Corbyn's past I still can't say I 'know' him. He says so many things I agree with but has so many things on his CV I disagree with. With Johnson its a lot easier. He's Trump-lite for me. How on earth he's reached the position he has floors me. But I could also say the same about Corbyn.

But, like Chris, its just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I have no issues with his opinion on why he wouldn’t vote or support Labour etc - he is in Tory heartland etc so it’s always going to be Tory - Kent will always be Tory

But for me all over the Internet you have people throwing derogatory comments towards certain politicians- and calling Corbyn all these names is one , but when you ask “why” he is an “appalling” person ( when it’s stated as if it’s a fact ) you don’t get any reasons and nothing but deflection posts as can be seen from Chris responses on here. I suspect the deflection posts are because he can’t actually provide the reasons. Just look at Corbyns beliefs - he wants total peace around the world , it maybe pure fantasy but how can someone like that be “appalling”

It’s the same if I called Boris appalling and didn’t give a reason - people would think the same about me

But the internet is full of all these comments and “fake news” pictures and memes etc and people think they are all gospel and truth - so people then start to grab these things and make them “fact”

This election campaign has lowered itself to who can drag up the worse level of derogatory remarks about the opposing party - it has been nithing about the manifestos and what the future could be.

I pity the nation having to chose between the two of them and shows for me what a poor state our politics is in
 
Calm down ladies....

1iauvp.jpg
 
Liverpoolphil said:
I have no issues with his opinion on why he wouldn’t vote or support Labour etc - he is in Tory heartland etc so it’s always going to be Tory - Kent will always be Tory

But for me all over the Internet you have people throwing derogatory comments towards certain politicians- and calling Corbyn all these names is one , but when you ask “why” he is an “appalling” person ( when it’s stated as if it’s a fact ) you don’t get any reasons and nothing but deflection posts as can be seen from Chris responses on here. I suspect the deflection posts are because he can’t actually provide the reasons. Just look at Corbyns beliefs - he wants total peace around the world , it maybe pure fantasy but how can someone like that be “appalling”

It’s the same if I called Boris appalling and didn’t give a reason - people would think the same about me

But the internet is full of all these comments and “fake news” pictures and memes etc and people think they are all gospel and truth - so people then start to grab these things and make them “fact”

This election campaign has lowered itself to who can drag up the worse level of derogatory remarks about the opposing party - it has been nithing about the manifestos and what the future could be.

I pity the nation having to chose between the two of them and shows for me what a poor state our politics is in
Click to expand...

Phil, you just dont get it. It's not because I cant give the reasons to support my views it's simply that you have been down this path on many subjects with many posters and occasionally me, and you'll keep on and on until you piss me off, it won't get resolved, you won't change your position even if I could prove you wrong in a high court and we'll agree in the end to agree to disagree.

So, I'm just saving all that time wasting ?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
I have no issues with his opinion on why he wouldn’t vote or support Labour etc - he is in Tory heartland etc so it’s always going to be Tory - Kent will always be Tory

But for me all over the Internet you have people throwing derogatory comments towards certain politicians- and calling Corbyn all these names is one , but when you ask “why” he is an “appalling” person ( when it’s stated as if it’s a fact ) you don’t get any reasons and nothing but deflection posts as can be seen from Chris responses on here. I suspect the deflection posts are because he can’t actually provide the reasons. Just look at Corbyns beliefs - he wants total peace around the world , it maybe pure fantasy but how can someone like that be “appalling”

It’s the same if I called Boris appalling and didn’t give a reason - people would think the same about me

But the internet is full of all these comments and “fake news” pictures and memes etc and people think they are all gospel and truth - so people then start to grab these things and make them “fact”

This election campaign has lowered itself to who can drag up the worse level of derogatory remarks about the opposing party - it has been nithing about the manifestos and what the future could be.

I pity the nation having to chose between the two of them and shows for me what a poor state our politics is in
Click to expand...

But won't Chris reasons be opinions based on what he's read/seen/heard? And, equally, you may feel that Corbyn is ok, based on the same information that Chris uses to say he's appalling. Chris could tell you why but you, using the same information, might say he's way off the mark. Who's right? Neither of you? Both of you?

Lets look at one example. Corbyn met Gerry Adams and Michael McGuinness. People split hairs on whether or not McGuinness was still the Northern Commander for the IRA at that time, and didn't leave the IRA till after world opinion turned against the IRA following the Enniskillen bombing. Some say Corbyn was acting as a peacemaker, whilst others say he was a traitor. Some will say it was an act of an appalling man. Are they wrong? Bear in mind its subjective. Both are right?

Corbyn wanting world peace... but at what cost? Some people would accept anything to achieve world peace, others not so. WW2 could have been stopped in 1940 if Churchill had agreed to sue for peace... hero or (appalling) villain? If Churchill had agreed to surrender in 1940, under the terms offered by Germany via Mussolini, what would have happened in Auschwitz and Buchenwald? Hero or (appalling) villain?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-data-sales-american-pharma-lack-transparency

So can this happen ? Selling data ?
Click to expand...

And thank God they did sell the data.

First of all, its anonymised. Its just numbers of people suffering certain conditions, not who they are. The article makes that very clear.

Secondly, would you, as a manufacturer of anything, make something without knowing the potential demand?

I'm not sure what point the article is trying to make but if its about selling patient data to drug companies is horrendously wrong it fails miserably to realise that it achieves two things. It generates money for the anonymised data. It helps a manufacturer focus research and creation of the drugs needed to cure people of their ills.
 
Hobbit said:
But won't Chris reasons be opinions based on what he's read/seen/heard? And, equally, you may feel that Corbyn is ok, based on the same information that Chris uses to say he's appalling. Chris could tell you why but you, using the same information, might say he's way off the mark. Who's right? Neither of you? Both of you?
Click to expand...

But I don’t know the reasons why people keep calling him appalling ? It’s just an insult at the moment with no substance behind it. No reasons have been given - just a statement of apparent fact. I just asked why he is supposed to be an “appalling person “ - I asked the same question the other day and the poster admitted that he had gone over the top and it’s was based just on not agreeing with his beliefs.

You even asked the same question yourself - is he really an “appalling man”
Lets look at one example. Corbyn met Gerry Adams and Michael McGuinness. People split hairs on whether or not McGuinness was still the Northern Commander for the IRA at that time, and didn't leave the IRA till after world opinion turned against the IRA following the Enniskillen bombing. Some say Corbyn was acting as a peacemaker, whilst others say he was a traitor. Some will say it was an act of an appalling man. Are they wrong? Bear in mind its subjective. Both are right?
Click to expand...

The only person that will know will be Corbyn himself - there hasn’t been enough information about these “meetings” - some day it started the process of peace off. Why else would a pacifist meet terrorists ? What was his reasons beyond trying to find a way to get peace ?

For me I don’t believe he had a mandate to look for peace talks but it was his beliefs that made him look for a way - right or wrong ? Who knows

Corbyn wanting world peace... but at what cost? Some people would accept anything to achieve world peace, others not so. WW2 could have been stopped in 1940 if Churchill had agreed to sue for peace... hero or (appalling) villain? If Churchill had agreed to surrender in 1940, under the terms offered by Germany via Mussolini, what would have happened in Auschwitz and Buchenwald? Hero or (appalling) villain?
Click to expand...

I’m no Corbyn fan - far from it , I certainly won’t be voting for him because I’m don’t believe he is right person to lead the country and I seriously question his judgement when I look at some of his picks for his shadow cabinet

But for me as I stated the whole thing right now isn’t about manifestos and what each party can do - it’s about throwing insults and fake news and derogatory comments And there appears to be far too many people going to vote based on these complete rubbish posted all over social media

It’s now impossible to have a “clean election campaign “ a it’s nothing but smear and insults. It seems that when someone is challenged when they post one of these statements they can’t provide the substance behind it - that for me sums up the whole political outlook in the UK right now - lots of hot air with zero substance
 
Hobbit said:
And thank God they did sell the data.

First of all, its anonymised. Its just numbers of people suffering certain conditions, not who they are. The article makes that very clear.

Secondly, would you, as a manufacturer of anything, make something without knowing the potential demand?

I'm not sure what point the article is trying to make but if its about selling patient data to drug companies is horrendously wrong it fails miserably to realise that it achieves two things. It generates money for the anonymised data. It helps a manufacturer focus research and creation of the drugs needed to cure people of their ills.
Click to expand...

Cheers ? seen two different opinions about it and it seemed to be something that has happened for a long time , with drug companies requiring some sort of data.

But the question I would ask - is it something that we should know about when visiting medical facilities etc ?
SocketRocket said:
Yes it can and it explains in the article why and how the data can be used to improve products and services. Is that a problem for you or would you prefer to believe it's used to help sell off the Nhs. As previously pointed out to you all this is subjective and we can make up our minds what we want to believe.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about ?! Where did I say anything about selling the NHS off or tell you what to believe. Maybe take a step back for once
 
harpo_72 said:
Down in Kent they are close to EDL.
They think that the immigration that they see, which are people jumping out of trucks will stop with Brexit. What they don’t understand is it will increase when the French stop using holding pens.
You know if that’s what people want let them have it ... and when the moaning starts just say that’s what you wanted. Looking forward to the beaches having the sewage pumped back out onto them as well ..
Click to expand...
You missed the bit about them wanting to exterminate millions of people in gas chambers due to their points based immigration system
 
Liverpoolphil said:
But I don’t know the reasons why people keep calling him appalling ? It’s just an insult at the moment with no substance behind it. No reasons have been given - just a statement of apparent fact. I just asked why he is supposed to be an “appalling person “ - I asked the same question the other day and the poster admitted that he had gone over the top and it’s was based just on not agreeing with his beliefs.

You even asked the same question yourself - is he really an “appalling man”


The only person that will know will be Corbyn himself - there hasn’t been enough information about these “meetings” - some day it started the process of peace off. Why else would a pacifist meet terrorists ? What was his reasons beyond trying to find a way to get peace ?

For me I don’t believe he had a mandate to look for peace talks but it was his beliefs that made him look for a way - right or wrong ? Who knows



I’m no Corbyn fan - far from it , I certainly won’t be voting for him because I’m don’t believe he is right person to lead the country and I seriously question his judgement when I look at some of his picks for his shadow cabinet

But for me as I stated the whole thing right now isn’t about manifestos and what each party can do - it’s about throwing insults and fake news and derogatory comments And there appears to be far too many people going to vote based on these complete rubbish posted all over social media

It’s now impossible to have a “clean election campaign “ a it’s nothing but smear and insults. It seems that when someone is challenged when they post one of these statements they can’t provide the substance behind it - that for me sums up the whole political outlook in the UK right now - lots of hot air with zero substance
Click to expand...

"Is he appalling?"

Your definition of whats appalling isn't someone else's. Its that simple. You arguing it to the nth degree doesn't change whether you're right or Chris is right. You're only defining what you believe is or isn't appalling.

Here's an off the cuff thought; why not respect Chris's opinion of Corbyn, which you can do without agreeing with it. Corbyn is, after all, an extreme left wing politician who admires the way Venezuela is run. That's not far short of appalling to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top