Ge 2017

Liverpoolphil said:
You are all as bad and as pathetic as each other - every single political thread descends into the same level of petty name calling and nasty arrogance and it's always the same people. It's the reason why the political threads are dominated by the same handful of people.
Click to expand...

I have to say I am in total agreement with LP on this.

It doesnt make pleasant reading and could be off putting to a new member from either joining in or even posting. Im not having that.
The petty arguments need to stop and stop now.

Everyone has a different opinion and take on things, we need to respect those, by all means argue the point, but if things start to get petty, that should ring an alarm bell in certain posters heads and you should take a break.

"Agree to disagree and move on" is the mantra

Lets see how you do with it
 
PhilTheFragger said:
I have to say I am in total agreement with LP on this.

It doesnt make pleasant reading and could be off putting to a new member from either joining in or even posting. Im not having that.
The petty arguments need to stop and stop now.

Everyone has a different opinion and take on things, we need to respect those, by all means argue the point, but if things start to get petty, that should ring an alarm bell in certain posters heads and you should take a break.

"Agree to disagree and move on" is the mantra

Lets see how you do with it
Click to expand...
Let's hope your mantra is noted by people discussing Arsenal on the footie thread :thup:
 
PhilTheFragger said:
I have to say I am in total agreement with LP on this.

It doesnt make pleasant reading and could be off putting to a new member from either joining in or even posting. Im not having that.
The petty arguments need to stop and stop now.

Everyone has a different opinion and take on things, we need to respect those, by all means argue the point, but if things start to get petty, that should ring an alarm bell in certain posters heads and you should take a break.

"Agree to disagree and move on" is the mantra

Lets see how you do with it
Click to expand...

But I am innocent and never start it, I only respond if provoked...

ahh crap, I'm starting another petty argument aren't I..... ;)
 
Some credit due BBC for yesterday's Leader tv show, they get a lot of stick for perceived bias from both sides but Dimbleby controlled the show very well and questioning was on point. Audience was fairly balanced too. Dimbleby pressed the pair of them at the right time on points they weren't answering with clarity which was good.
In terms of who did better, hard to say, both did quite well in my view, Corbyn's obvious media training is working well and he stayed on the front foot pretty well, May was better than usual with a few stuttery moments under pressure but perhaps had a harder time as the incumbent on social care, NHS and u-turns in particular and an actual record to defend. Corbyn's defence questioning was more hypothetical so harder to pin him down on.
Actually making them (particularly May) answer questions made a refreshing change.
For any floating voters out there I think the show would have been a little helpful at least. Does make the election presidential which maybe makes people focus on people/personalities as much as or more than policy which isn't so good imo.
 
Corbyn was very obtuse when pushed on his stance on using nuclear weapons in a retaliatory role, he just would not answer the question.
 
SocketRocket said:
Corbyn was very obtuse when pushed on his stance on using nuclear weapons in a retaliatory role, he just would not answer the question.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is because he knows that when he started lobbing nukes about there would be no world left to save.

Corbyn's views seemed to be popular with the audience and unpopular with the small group of angry old Corbyn hating men.
 
Doon frae Troon said:
Perhaps it is because he knows that when he started lobbing nukes about there would be no world left to save.

Corbyn's views seemed to be popular with the audience and unpopular with the small group of angry old Corbyn hating men.
Click to expand...
Blinkered as usual or maybe the normal fishing trip.
 
SocketRocket said:
Corbyn was very obtuse when pushed on his stance on using nuclear weapons in a retaliatory role, he just would not answer the question.
Click to expand...

I don't get the obsession with this. There have been so many important and far reaching issues in the last few years, and so many more to come that our politicians have to deal with. Other countries, far larger and more successful than us (Germany/Japan) have managed perfectly well without them.

When the Tories go nuke, you know it's because they want you to stop looking somewhere else...
 
So what's the point in Labour agreeing to spend hundreds of billion replacing Trident if they have a leader that won't use it? I've seen various figures on the cost of it ranging from £150 billion up to £300 billion. I have no problem with Corbyn's stance on this as unlike many politicians he hasn't changed his views to gain votes but if he isn't prepared to use it then surely that money could be better spent elsewhere - NHS, education, social care etc.
 
ColchesterFC said:
So what's the point in Labour agreeing to spend hundreds of billion replacing Trident if they have a leader that won't use it? I've seen various figures on the cost of it ranging from £150 billion up to £300 billion. I have no problem with Corbyn's stance on this as unlike many politicians he hasn't changed his views to gain votes but if he isn't prepared to use it then surely that money could be better spent elsewhere - NHS, education, social care etc.
Click to expand...

He doesn't like or support trident renewal personally but Labour voted the renewal policy in, he follows the Labour party democratic will, yes he tries to influence it his way but ultimately the Party says that's how the policy is to be. Of course money could be better spent elsewhere, they're a necessary expensive evil in governments eyes, those NATO member countries that aren't nuclear weaponed themselves but are backed up by others who are, have a big advantage economically over us, who cant really afford them in these days of austerity and debt.
Only time they've been used in war by USA was when no-one else had them, since multiple countries developed them since there is no advantage any longer, the nuclear arms race really is madness and arsenals have been reduced but no-one will give them up totally.
 
Doon frae Troon said:
Goodness I am considered blinkered.... because I want to save the world from fools who want to destroy it.
Would you use first or second strike ? Tell us under what circumstances you would wish to start a nuclear wipe out..
Click to expand...
I already answered that but as you didn't comprehend it I will explain again slowly for you. No civilised country would use nuclear weapons as a first strike, to do so would be abhorrent, the problem the world isn't made up of civilised people and we have no way of understanding what threats may occur in the future. Unless all countries agree to nuclear proliferation then giving them up makes the world a much more dangerous place, having a deterrent makes unstable governments think twice about using them as they know the consequences would be self destruction. Regarding the use of them in retaliation, yes I agree we should let people know we would do this, this is the deterrent, if you destroy millions of our people we will destroy yours , yes this sounds barbaric but it is the best we can do. If we gave up our nuclear weapons then there would be one more country unable to defend NATO. Countries like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran would then take great pleasure in our new found impedance.

I hope for the last time this makes my view clear to you but somehow knowing the way you operate I somehow doubt it.
 
I'm not a fan of it but unfortunately other more unstable regimes like France and the US have so there is a need but if your not even capable of considering a first strike option then you might as well get rid. Using it in retaliation is a bit late IMHO.
 
Old Skier said:
I'm not a fan of it but unfortunately other more unstable regimes like France and the US have so there is a need but if your not even capable of considering a first strike option then you might as well get rid. Using it in retaliation is a bit late IMHO.
Click to expand...
Not if it's launched from a sub. As long as the perpetrator understands you will do it its a deterrent. Corbyn wont even use it in retaliation.
 
SocketRocket said:
Not if it's launched from a sub. As long as the perpetrator understands you will do it its a deterrent. Corbyn wont even use it in retaliation.
Click to expand...

I think Corbyn is considering pillow fights to resolve major conflicts. I can picture a Monty Python-esque skit...
 
SocketRocket said:
Not if it's launched from a sub. As long as the perpetrator understands you will do it its a deterrent. Corbyn wont even use it in retaliation.
Click to expand...

My point is, if the country has been destroyed not sure what the point would be as everyone else with one would have launched. If we going to use them let everyone know you are happy to wipe everyone out first.

Remember well as trip to our deployment site which was under the control of the yanks. The big cheese told us all that if the bad boys came to expect a tac nuclear warhead to drop on our heads.
 
I watched QT. Whilst May didn't screw up I have a real problem with how she deals with the cap on payments for social care. Under questioning on this she was adamant that there was always going to be a cap. Just that they hadn't decided what it would be and would do so following 'consultation'. I just do not believe this - she is lying through her teeth. No wonder she usually looks uncomfortable being questioned. She knows she's lying.

May is treating the electorate as idiots - as gullible fools. If there was going to be a cap then the policy in the manifesto and her presentation of it would have said that there was going to be a cap - to be decided through consultation. The existence of a cap would be fundamental to the policy (as she discovered) but there was absolutely no mention of a cap whatsoever. But she stands there lying to us - affronted that we might suggest a cap was never in the plan. She is lying so obviously it is disgraceful.

And where is Hammond to answer the question on what assumption have they made in respect of this 'budget raising' measure. Because un undefined cap will raise an undefined amount of money.

Yes - politicians make promises - some they keep- some they don't - some they might never really intend to deliver. But May lying about the cap is different because she is asking us to trust HER. Much is said about Corbyn being dangerous for UK - ay least he has principles that he sticks to - absolutely. I fear that May is looking more and more dangerous and unreliable day-by-day.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I watched QT. Whilst May didn't screw up I have a real problem with how she deals with the cap on payments for social care. Under questioning on this she was adamant that there was always going to be a cap. Just that they hadn't decided what it would be and would do so following 'consultation'. I just do not believe this - she is lying through her teeth. No wonder she usually looks uncomfortable being questioned. She knows she's lying.

May is treating the electorate as idiots - as gullible fools. If there was going to be a cap then the policy in the manifesto and her presentation of it would have said that there was going to be a cap - to be decided through consultation. The existence of a cap would be fundamental to the policy (as she discovered) but there was absolutely no mention of a cap whatsoever. But she stands there lying to us - affronted that we might suggest a cap was never in the plan. She is lying so obviously it is disgraceful.

And where is Hammond to answer the question on what assumption have they made in respect of this 'budget raising' measure. Because un undefined cap will raise an undefined amount of money.

Yes - politicians make promises - some they keep- some they don't - some they might never really intend to deliver. But May lying about the cap is different because she is asking us to trust HER. Much is said about Corbyn being dangerous for UK - ay least he has principles that he sticks to - absolutely. I fear that May is looking more and more dangerous and unreliable day-by-day.
Click to expand...

Its obvious that the red mist takes over. To categorically call Theresa May a liar in writing may not be your wisest move.

In your simple world TM lies yet JC is the front of truth. Is this the same wonderland where Alice has conversations with a White Rabbit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Surrey Golf Course Membership
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Doon frae Troon
D
R
motocaddy s1 pro doesn't stop
Replies
1
Views
718
Ridger
R
Klimski
Honma TW XP-1 driver
Replies
7
Views
854
Orikoru
Orikoru
Crazyface
Competition Secretary
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
irip
I
G
Powakaddy CT6 intermittent problem
Replies
0
Views
1K
Grimmett
G
Top