General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
She's really fucked up with the dementia tax and combined with labour bringing forward abolition of tuition fees to get young voters to register, this could yet get interesting.

I wonder at what point Dacre and Murdoch will tell her she has to take off her invisibility cloak and grow some.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Pathetic

I do not know how old you are - I assume less than 45, because how anyone older than that can worship someone that actively supported the IRA is a mystery to me and speaks IMO to their own utter shallowness

As for RWNJ - me?? What a dick you are

There will be a lot of people (like me) that could not possibly be considered to be RWNJs that will have nothing but contempt for any English person that actively supported the IRA
Click to expand...

As PIRA ain't actrive at present how can you actively support them?
 
mcfc1632 said:
If I have understood the flow of this post correctly then we are saying essentially the same, or at least similar, things

I got called a RWNJ for saying:

"I would have had more respect if he had the balls to simply state his active support for the IRA....."

Your are saying:

"Which means you have to go back through history and work out why he or she has that opinion....."

Which, I am reading to mean recognition that, notionally, there can be reasons, if you go back in history, to explain Corbyn's support for the IRA.

I can accept that, but what he is doing now is dissembling - if there is a valid reason in his history for him to actively support the IRA then he should explain that if he is hoping to earn the trust and respect of the voting public - all this prevarication demonstrates that he is not the man of principle he has been portrayed to be
Click to expand...

First he was a sympathiser, now he's an active supporter. By your next post he'd have been on the frontline and was responsible for Omagh.

Anyone with half a brain cell would be sympathetic to one degree or another of the plight of Republicans and specifically catholics in Ireland. Not specifically over the modern times 30 year conflict but of the hundreds of years of British intrusion and control of a part of their land.

I've just watched that SKY news interview and this is a complete non-story brought about by desperate RWNJ's and showing us all the effect the media has on people. He condemned the killings and the violence whilst the interviewer was so busy looking for a sensationalist headline that she didn't hear him. I go back to a point I made in a previous post, you can be sympathetic to a position without supporting their actions. Ultimately Corbyn wanted peace in Northern Ireland and the way he tried it was the only way it was ever going to work.
 
jay_mcfc said:
Hold on, which way is it? Is he a terrorist advocate who supports violent organisations or is he a man who wants peace and will do everything he can to not go to war? This is where the waters get muddy with the IRA links and the type of person he is.

And remember in the late 60's the catholics in Northern Ireland weren't fighting only for nationalisation but for civil rights, social justice and to end the sectarian discrimination against them. In that sense there are many people that sympathise with their position at that time but that doesn't mean they support the actions of the IRA in the following years.

I suppose those that are against Corbyn because of his stance (whatever that is) on the IRA also have the same view on the British Army and the Government? After all, they themselves have indiscriminately killed innocent people in Northern Ireland. Are they terrorists?
Click to expand...

The British Army was defending it's citizens and whether they did it right or not I don't really care. British soliders were killed defending the rights of Northern Ireland and Corbyn undermines all of that. The IRA was trying to assert a view through violence that no-one else held so that is the definition of terrorism is it not?

I am not saying Corbyn is a terrorism advocate, he is quite the opposite. What I am saying is he endangers this country because he has shown in a similar situation he would be completely unwilling to stand up for his own citizens. He will put pacifism before our rights, rights that were hard won through years of war and sacrifice. He is the kind of person who would hang the Northern Irish, the Falklanders and our fellow Gibraltan citizens out to dry for the sake of avoiding a war.

If it came to it and because of his views, do you think we can trust Corbyn to defend this country? If the IRA started up again to push a United Ireland agenda again do you think it would be a good idea for someone like Corbyn to be in charge? Do you think Corbyn would resort to a military response if a bomb went off in Manchester again this time killing hundreds tomorrow? Would you want him to open dialogue with the IRA to air their views? I say stuff their views.

Two weeks after the Brighton bombings where an elected MP was killed, Corbyn invited Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams and others to Parliament.. What do you think this kind of behaviour says to our enemies?

In all of this it isn't about his inability to condemn the actions of the IRA because he does, it is the fact he condemns our part equally that rings the biggest alarm bells.
 
inbetween said:
The British Army was defending it's citizens and whether they did it right or not I don't really care. British soliders were killed defending the rights of Northern Ireland and Corbyn undermines all of that. The IRA was trying to assert a view through violence that no-one else held so that is the definition of terrorism is it not?

I am not saying Corbyn is a terrorism advocate, he is quite the opposite. What I am saying is he endangers this country because he has shown in a similar situation he would be completely unwilling to stand up for his own citizens. He will put pacifism before our rights, rights that were hard won through years of war and sacrifice. He is the kind of person who would hang the Northern Irish, the Falklanders and our fellow Gibraltan citizens out to dry for the sake of avoiding a war.

If it came to it and because of his views, do you think we can trust Corbyn to defend this country? If the IRA started up again to push a United Ireland agenda again do you think it would be a good idea for someone like Corbyn to be in charge? Do you think Corbyn would resort to a military response if a bomb went off in Manchester again this time killing hundreds tomorrow? Would you want him to open dialogue with the IRA to air their views? I say stuff their views.

Two weeks after the Brighton bombings where an elected MP was killed, Corbyn invited Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams and others to Parliament.. What do you think this kind of behaviour says to our enemies?

In all of this it isn't about his inability to condemn the actions of the IRA because he does, it is the fact he condemns our part equally that rings the biggest alarm bells.
Click to expand...


Worth noting he wouldn't have carpet bombed Iraq illegally either which helped fan the flames of Islamic terrorists to our borders
 
urban genie said:
As PIRA ain't actrive at present how can you actively support them?
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with a lot you post - if not directly, I at least understand where you are coming from and can understand your POV - but this is not your cleverest post

I clearly said:

"actively supported the IRA"

That I was meaning active support in the past - when the PIRA was active - is obvious
 
Last edited:
jay_mcfc said:
First he was a sympathiser, now he's an active supporter. By your next post he'd have been on the frontline and was responsible for Omagh.

Anyone with half a brain cell would be sympathetic to one degree or another of the plight of Republicans and specifically catholics in Ireland. Not specifically over the modern times 30 year conflict but of the hundreds of years of British intrusion and control of a part of their land.

I've just watched that SKY news interview and this is a complete non-story brought about by desperate RWNJ's and showing us all the effect the media has on people. He condemned the killings and the violence whilst the interviewer was so busy looking for a sensationalist headline that she didn't hear him. I go back to a point I made in a previous post, you can be sympathetic to a position without supporting their actions. Ultimately Corbyn wanted peace in Northern Ireland and the way he tried it was the only way it was ever going to work.
Click to expand...

Desperate stuff - really desperate

You are just twisting in the wind and determined to be blind to what is so obvious for anyone with objectivity - or anyone who is not desperate to brush under the carpet that this man was an active supporter of the IRA and in no way can be positioned as 'impartial' to both sides of the conflict in a search for the ending of the conflict
 
inbetween said:
The British Army was defending it's citizens and whether they did it right or not I don't really care. British soliders were killed defending the rights of Northern Ireland and Corbyn undermines all of that. The IRA was trying to assert a view through violence that no-one else held so that is the definition of terrorism is it not?

I am not saying Corbyn is a terrorism advocate, he is quite the opposite. What I am saying is he endangers this country because he has shown in a similar situation he would be completely unwilling to stand up for his own citizens. He will put pacifism before our rights, rights that were hard won through years of war and sacrifice. He is the kind of person who would hang the Northern Irish, the Falklanders and our fellow Gibraltan citizens out to dry for the sake of avoiding a war.

If it came to it and because of his views, do you think we can trust Corbyn to defend this country? If the IRA started up again to push a United Ireland agenda again do you think it would be a good idea for someone like Corbyn to be in charge? Do you think Corbyn would resort to a military response if a bomb went off in Manchester again this time killing hundreds tomorrow? Would you want him to open dialogue with the IRA to air their views? I say stuff their views.

Two weeks after the Brighton bombings where an elected MP was killed, Corbyn invited Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams and others to Parliament.. What do you think this kind of behaviour says to our enemies?

In all of this it isn't about his inability to condemn the actions of the IRA because he does, it is the fact he condemns our part equally that rings the biggest alarm bells.
Click to expand...
It is true that he gets harsh treatment from the media. As a human being, he's much more personable than his election rivals and a better speaker too. He has two key problems.

First is that he used to be free to air views in the expectation that he'd always be just a "protester". A bit like you and I might do down the pub. Now, with the (albeit small) prospect of accountability, he's been forced to be mealy-mouthed, never quite admitting, never quite denying. Unfortunately for him, that's not compatible with leading a government or being take seriously on the world stage.

Second, his views are simply too left wing to command a majority.
 
Len Rum said:
See the climb down on social care is already beginning.
Float a policy.
See what the Daily Mail says.
If they don't like it.
Drop it.
Strong and stable?
My arse.
Click to expand...
I have not seen any evidence of a climb down yet - but hope you are right and have seen something I have missed.

It is weak IMO - others would say that it is being responsive and flexible. For me that though would be as vacillating as now trying to paint Jeremy as a someone that worked with both sides of the NI conflict to achieve peace.

That said - was it not though what Labour did with their entire manifesto?
 
Len Rum said:
See the climb down on social care is already beginning.
Float a policy.
See what the Daily Mail says.
If they don't like it.
Drop it.
Strong and stable?
My arse.
Click to expand...

Don't know your source but I hope you are right.

Given her self-appointed "strong and stable" tag, though, it's hard to see how she can climb down without seriously undermining her credibility. Maybe she should have thought about that before coming up with such a shit, ill-conceived policy. She either has poor advisers or thought she was too big to listen.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Desperate stuff - really desperate

You are just twisting in the wind and determined to be blind to what is so obvious for anyone with objectivity - or anyone who is not desperate to brush under the carpet that this man was an active supporter of the IRA and in no way can be positioned as 'impartial' to both sides of the conflict in a search for the ending of the conflict
Click to expand...

Here is an ex-member of the IRA.

Gatland.jpg
Maria_gatland_1125295c.jpg


Maria Gatland is a Tory councillor in Croydon, South London. But in a previous life she was known as Maria McGuire; a member of the Provisional IRA and lover of one of it’s top dogs David O’Connell. She detailed her life in the group in a book called To Take Arms: My Year With The IRA Provisionals.

In that book she wrote

"I remember occasions where we heard late at night that a British soldier had been shot and seriously wounded in Belfast or Derry and we would hope by the morning he would be dead. I accepted the bombing of Belfast and when civilians were accidentally blown to pieces dismissed this as one of the unfortunate effects of urban guerrilla warfare."

Yet you say a man who is on record as saying he is against ALL bombing is now a terrorist supporter.

Now think about you shit smear and tell us why you support a party that has terrorists on board. You are beyond hypocrisy.


You also clearly have no idea who Arlene Foster is. Now there is terrorist and you you seem happy with her.
 
inbetween said:
The British Army was defending it's citizens and whether they did it right or not I don't really care. British soliders were killed defending the rights of Northern Ireland and Corbyn undermines all of that. The IRA was trying to assert a view through violence that no-one else held so that is the definition of terrorism is it not?

I am not saying Corbyn is a terrorism advocate, he is quite the opposite. What I am saying is he endangers this country because he has shown in a similar situation he would be completely unwilling to stand up for his own citizens. He will put pacifism before our rights, rights that were hard won through years of war and sacrifice. He is the kind of person who would hang the Northern Irish, the Falklanders and our fellow Gibraltan citizens out to dry for the sake of avoiding a war.

If it came to it and because of his views, do you think we can trust Corbyn to defend this country? If the IRA started up again to push a United Ireland agenda again do you think it would be a good idea for someone like Corbyn to be in charge? Do you think Corbyn would resort to a military response if a bomb went off in Manchester again this time killing hundreds tomorrow? Would you want him to open dialogue with the IRA to air their views? I say stuff their views.

Two weeks after the Brighton bombings where an elected MP was killed, Corbyn invited Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams and others to Parliament.. What do you think this kind of behaviour says to our enemies?

In all of this it isn't about his inability to condemn the actions of the IRA because he does, it is the fact he condemns our part equally that rings the biggest alarm bells.
Click to expand...

So you agree with indiscriminate murders of innocent people so long as it's the British doing it?

I believe that it's about time there was a leader of Britain (and the US for that matter) that do things around the table rather than dropping bombs in all directions. The only way that peace was ever going to be possible in Ireland was by politicians sitting around a table and listening to people whose actions they deplored previously. Thatcher finally worked that one out, Major knew it, Blair knew it, Clinton knew it and Stormont finally realised it too so I'm not going to castigate Corbyn for wanting to do that long before any of the others.
 
jay_mcfc said:
So you agree with indiscriminate murders of innocent people so long as it's the British doing it?
Click to expand...
I'm certainly glad the SAS slotted the 8 cunts as they were bombing a police station for which corbyn had his munute's silence.

Corbyn was around no table. He was no where near the Loyalists. He had no part in the peace process. He was no middle man. He was just an IRA supporter.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Desperate stuff - really desperate

You are just twisting in the wind and determined to be blind to what is so obvious for anyone with objectivity - or anyone who is not desperate to brush under the carpet that this man was an active supporter of the IRA and in no way can be positioned as 'impartial' to both sides of the conflict in a search for the ending of the conflict
Click to expand...

Did you watch the interview? Where was he an active supporter of the IRA? He condemned the violence and he spoke to all sides, including those in Stormont, to bring peace. He is very clearly sympathetic to the situation of the catholics and Republicans, but what is wrong with that?

The fact we're even talking about the IRA shows how desperate things are getting. And now another u-turn from the script reader. This could be the biggest comeback since Agueroooooo.
 
KenTheLandlord said:
You also clearly have no idea who Arlene Foster is. Now there is terrorist and you you seem happy with her.
Click to expand...
That's a lie isn't it.

As for her, I wouldn't vote Tory if she was leader. I wouldn't vote Tory if she was my candidate either. I hope she doesn't win her constituency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top