• Corbyn biggest threat to Falklands, claims Fallon
    63 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Shadow801;49758773]It's wrong to accept any more dialogue on the matter. We've had a referendum. We've had a fucking war for christ's sake. There should be no further dialogue, the matter is settled.[/QUOTE]i agree with the referendum & that the falklands should be british, there is a difference between a dialogue and a war though. dialogues can absolutely be one-sided and at least put a stop to the issue from the argentinian side.
[QUOTE=Shadow801;49758773]It's wrong to accept any more dialogue on the matter. We've had a referendum. We've had a fucking war for christ's sake. There should be no further dialogue, the matter is settled.[/QUOTE] Case fucking closed. Corbyn is acting like a national disgrace for his comments regarding this subject matter.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49758781]Our countrymen died so Argentina would fuck off. What are you saying? Letting the islanders talk is fine, but this isn't just that if you have been reading anything at all. He wants to share power with Argentina and that is fucked. Why am I defending this point to another Brit?[/QUOTE]the power sharing thing comes from an interview the Argentina ambassor did for her own embassys website, and has no specific quotes from corbyn. the only thing i was defending was his response to the question and then you just attack me.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49758782]i agree with the referendum & that the falklands should be british, there is a difference between a dialogue and a war though. dialogues can absolutely be one-sided and at least put a stop to the issue from the argentinian side.[/QUOTE] are you legitimately drunk it should be one-sided. We have done everything and every method and still arisen as the 'owners' the idea of Argentina being involved shouldn't even be entertained [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=benzi2k7;49758794]the power sharing thing comes from an interview the Argentina ambassor did for her own embassys website, and has no specific quotes from corbyn. the only thing i was defending was his response to the question and then you just attack me.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the ambassador for Argentina was spreading fictitious rumours, then. I refuse to defend this point any more with you. What a fucking weird stance from a Brit to take on the Falklands
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49758798]are you legitimately drunk it should be one-sided. We have done everything and every method and still arisen as the 'owners' the idea of Argentina being involved shouldn't even be entertained[/QUOTE]uh, i'm saying it's one-sided as a positive. i don't see how having a dialogue with a country that is still inanely taking issue with it is a bad thing, even if the majority of the dialogue from our side is 'lol no', which it should be. this wasn't a policy he set out or anything, it was a response to an out of nowhere question specifically about the issue between britain and argentina.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49758765]love for corbyn?? where have i said i have love for corbyn [b]the issue is that the argentinians use the falklands as a political tool against their own people,[/b] as a distraction. he was asked the question by marr on the issue of the falklands being british, his response to that issue was "Yes, of course the islanders have an enormous say in this, let's bring about some sensible dialogue. It happened before, I'm sure it can happen again."[/QUOTE] Irony is now the falklands are being used by the brits as a political tool. @other folks They've done "corbyn is bad for the economy" They've done "corbyn is a terrorist" Now they're doing "don't support corbyn he'll give away the falklands" and by proxy, don't vote left wing/do vote tories because tories will keep british territories british (at least till scotland votes for independence). Just more propaganda aimed at tricking people into voting tory. Whatever happens, the future of the people there will be up to referendum by the people there, which if I recall passed by 99% last time and it will again. Thinking he's going to just surrender the islands without considering the people who actually live there is a silly conclusion to jump to and is either misleading or a sign of you yourself being mislead.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49758798]I'm sure the ambassador for Argentina was spreading fictitious rumours, then. I refuse to defend this point any more with you. What a fucking weird stance from a Brit to take on the Falklands[/QUOTE]right, all i said was "he was asked a question and answered it, it's not like he's going out of his way to mention the falklands." you disagreed saying he brings it up a lot and proceeded to send me 4 links, all talking about the same interview where it was asked out of the blue, and one referencing the comments of a diplomat from sep 2015. i was taking issue with the huge focus by the media on a pretty inane response to a random question. you proceeded to say "The first two are about the interview. I'm not here to hold your fucking hand through going to Google and typing in "Corbyn Falklands", because I grabbed the first four links to show how abundant the material on it is because you're clutching at straws like fuck. In the fourth link that's literally only the opening line and then the rest of it is content you probably didn't even bother to read. That pisses me off so much. Choosing to be politically and logically numb because you support a candidate." i made no mention of my opinion of the falklands, or my opinions on corbyns policies yet you declared me as a staunch supporter and attacked me for not reading the links while seemingly also not reading the links (cause you grabbed the first 4 links like you said). i'm not the one being a dick here.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49758821]Irony is now the falklands are being used by the brits as a political tool. @other folks They've done "corbyn is bad for the economy" They've done "corbyn is a terrorist" Now they're doing "don't support corbyn he'll give away the falklands" and by proxy, don't vote left wing/do vote tories because tories will keep british territories british (at least till scotland votes for independence). Just more propaganda aimed at tricking people into voting tory. Whatever happens, the future of the people there will be up to referendum by the people there, which if I recall passed by 99% last time and it will again. Thinking he's going to just surrender the islands without considering the people who actually live there is a silly conclusion to jump to and is either misleading or a sign of you yourself being mislead.[/QUOTE] Corbyn has [I]objectively[/I] expressed support for various terrorist groups, or, at the very least, made comments that the British public would find distasteful about Hamas and the IRA. Corbyn is certainly a danger to the Falklands: He couldn't even bring himself to support Britain when it was against a mildly fascistic military junta trying to invade the islands and has expressed views repeatedly about 'dialogue' when there is quite clearly none to be had (the islands are either British or Argentinean with little room in between). It's obvious that the Falklanders want to be British and I don't get why he's bringing it up other than to pander to his desire to appear 'anti-imperialist'. However, I agree with your general point that the Falklands shouldn't be used by politicians as a political tool with the exception of course if Corbyn really did do something outrageous regarding them.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49759027]Corbyn has [I]objectively[/I] expressed support for various terrorist groups, or, at the very least, made comments that the British public would find distasteful about Hamas and the IRA. Corbyn is certainly a danger to the Falklands: He couldn't even bring himself to support Britain when it was against a mildly fascistic military junta trying to invade the islands and has expressed views repeatedly about 'dialogue' when there is quite clearly none to be had (the islands are either British or Argentinean with little room in between). It's obvious that the Falklanders want to be British and I don't get why he's bringing it up other than to pander to his desire to appear 'anti-imperialist'. However, I agree with your general point that the Falklands shouldn't be used by politicians as a political tool with the exception of course if Corbyn really did do something outrageous regarding them.[/QUOTE] His approach to diplomacy is to encourage dialogue to end violence. It's not to oppress these organisations and continue violence, that's not how you make them go away and it never has been. Look at the IRA, we didn't kill them all until they stopped. Secret peace talks were held, and the joint government was established, and then they stopped. (Meanwhile Corbyn was getting flak for having the same peace talks publically) Corbyn's talking about a similar approach to stop another Falklands war before it starts. It's a pragmatic, sensible approach to global conflict.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49759027]Corbyn has [I]objectively[/I] expressed support for various terrorist groups, or, at the very least, made comments that the British public would find distasteful about Hamas and the IRA. Corbyn is certainly a danger to the Falklands: He couldn't even bring himself to support Britain when it was against a mildly fascistic military junta trying to invade the islands and has expressed views repeatedly about 'dialogue' when there is quite clearly none to be had (the islands are either British or Argentinean with little room in between). It's obvious that the Falklanders want to be British and I don't get why he's bringing it up other than to pander to his desire to appear 'anti-imperialist'. However, I agree with your general point that the Falklands shouldn't be used by politicians as a political tool with the exception of course if Corbyn really did do something outrageous regarding them.[/QUOTE] Objectively expressed support for Hamas. By referring to them politely... during a peace talk... with Hamas. You are objectively talking out of your arse.
[QUOTE=David29;49758741]Personally, if it was my family members who had fought in the Falklands War I would be getting pissed off that there are people who are arbitrarily disregarding their efforts.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cypher_09;49758720] Hell yeah, I have family who fought in the Falklands and I respect them like fuck for that. The soldiers who gave their lives to defending our sovereign territory should not have died in vain in the name of an aging Grateful Dead roadie who's suddenly decided to flip the table[/QUOTE] goddam right, i've got a shitload of family who died in the falklands war and they sure as hell didn't lose their lives for this shit, i don't give a fuck if people view it as a "petty" conflict, it still happened and it damn sure didn't happen for someone like corbyn to try to undo it. argentina wanna reclaim the land because they think it's rightfully theirs? might as well return the UK to the fucking celts while we're at it.
[QUOTE=TCB;49759431]goddam right, i've got a shitload of family who died in the falklands war and they sure as hell didn't lose their lives for this shit, i don't give a fuck if people view it as a "petty" conflict, it still happened and it damn sure didn't happen for someone like corbyn to try to undo it. argentina wanna reclaim the land because they think it's rightfully theirs? might as well return the UK to the fucking celts while we're at it.[/QUOTE] Agreed wholeheartedly and rest in peace to your family members.
[QUOTE=TCB;49759431]goddam right, i've got a shitload of family who died in the falklands war and they sure as hell didn't lose their lives for this shit, i don't give a fuck if people view it as a "petty" conflict, it still happened and it damn sure didn't happen for someone like corbyn to try to undo it. argentina wanna reclaim the land because they think it's rightfully theirs? might as well return the UK to the fucking celts while we're at it.[/QUOTE] Where has he stated that he wants to return the Islands? (Islands that cannot be returned since they never owned it but whatever)
Maybe I'm just not seeing the full picture but it feels like corbyn has been the target of a smear campaign since the moment he came to prominence.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;49760172]Maybe I'm just not seeing the full picture but it feels like corbyn has been the target of a smear campaign since the moment he came to prominence.[/QUOTE] p. much. The opposition to him largely repeat the same few points of shit every time he comes up in any discussion; "ugghh he's friends with turrists!!", "ughhh he wont bow to the queen!!!", "ughh he wants to [I]talk[/I] to Argentina!!!". Without understanding either the context of the things those claims are based on or even considering to look further than the Daily Mail for answers to any questions they have about the many. His reasoning for trying to start discourse with Argentina makes sense, right now there's just constant sabre-ratling about the Falklands. It's not going to stop if we ignore them or just shout at them once in a while to shut it, and "winning" that weird war clearly hasn't proven any points to them. So having a proper political sit down and trying to set shit straight, discussing important things such as the fact the islanders don't even want to be part of that failing state, might be a start to getting Argentina to actually shut the hell up for once. Constant warmongering and just being assholes isn't going to win us any friends or solve any of our problems.
"how dare this man attempt diplomacy with another country" [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;49760739]p. much. The opposition to him largely repeat the same few points of shit every time he comes up in any discussion; "ugghh he's friends with turrists!!", "ughhh he wont bow to the queen!!!", "ughh he wants to [I]talk[/I] to Argentina!!!". Without understanding either the context of the things those claims are based on or even considering to look further than the Daily Mail for answers to any questions they have about the many. His reasoning for trying to start discourse with Argentina makes sense, right now there's just constant sabre-ratling about the Falklands. It's not going to stop if we ignore them or just shout at them once in a while to shut it, and "winning" that weird war clearly hasn't proven any points to them. So having a proper political sit down and trying to set shit straight, discussing important things such as the fact the islanders don't even want to be part of that failing state, might be a start to getting Argentina to actually shut the hell up for once. Constant warmongering and just being assholes isn't going to win us any friends or solve any of our problems.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. Anyone who finds this unreasonable has a very strange stance on the matter.
[QUOTE=Mesothere;49760931]"how dare this man attempt diplomacy with another country" [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] Pretty much this. Anyone who finds this unreasonable has a very strange stance on the matter.[/QUOTE] Diplomacy used in any and all circumstances does not make it right simply because it's diplomacy. The fact is that there is nothing to discuss - nothing [I]should[/I] be discussed. The Islanders have unanimously stated they wish to remain British, and to entertain the slightest notion of anything contrary is to against their wishes. This is essentially undemocratic and undermines the obligation of the UK to look after the foreign affairs of British Overseas Territories. It's like if Scotland had voted unanimously to leave the UK and then Cameron said "well, actually, let's discuss the idea of you staying anyway". There would be uproar if this happened - and it is little different from what Corbyn is attempting to do.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49758626]keep selling weapons to saudis, fallon[/QUOTE] *strawman intensifies*
[url]http://daviddpaxton.com/2015/07/21/the-diplomat-of-islington-north/[/url] Almost every thread on Corbyn will inevitably end with me posting a link to a David Paxton blog, so here it goes again. [QUOTE][B]BFFs[/B] As mentioned, only the word ‘friends’ was brought up in the interview and without full context, Corbyn’s explanation has legs. Try this: “We are gathered here for an important meeting of opposing views. On my right are some friends from the Black Panther Party and on my left are friends from the Ku Klux Klan. Hopefully by coming together as friends we can… etc” That could get in under the excuse of being ‘diplomatic’. Now try this: “It is my pleasure and my honour to host an event where my friends from Stormfront will be speaking. I also invited friends from the Ku Klux Klan to speak but unfortunately the FBI won’t allow them to travel so it will only be friends from Stormfront. The Ku Klux Klan is an organisation dedicated towards the good of American people and bringing about long-term peace and social justice, and political justice.” How does that sound to you? I don’t believe the latter example would be consistent with Corbyn’s claim “I use it in a collective way saying ‘our friends were prepared to talk'”. It goes well beyond standard diplomatic niceties... If he profoundly disagrees with them why claim the bit about social and political justice? Hamas’ form of ‘political justice’ is to execute their political opponents. Hamas’s ‘social justice’ is to murder people for being gay. Hamas’ ‘long-term peace’ includes a Charter clause calling for the destruction of Israel and the divinely ordained killing of Jews. And feeling ‘honoured’ to host holocaust deniers means either A: Corbyn thinks ‘honour’ means something it doesn’t or B: He has some fundamental problems with his morality. To go as far in his praise as Corbyn does is grotesque and hints far more at outright support than the forced diplomatic nicety, while holding his nose, which one might tolerate or expect. Who would possibly say such a thing if they were not ‘friends’ or did in fact ‘profoundly disagree’? I think he is being deceptive in the Channel 4 interview and this should be taken into consideration by those so willing to repeat the claim that Corbyn is the straight-shooting candidate of unflinching honesty and integrity.[/QUOTE] Corbyn is not practicing diplomacy because he is only meeting one side of the extremes. He is not meeting both Hamas and Zionist settlers, or meeting both the IRA and the Orange Order, he's meeting just one side, and always, predictably, the side which hates the West the most. Furthermore, he goes well beyond what can be explained as just being diplomatic niceties when he praises these groups. [QUOTE][B]Who invited you anyway?[/B] Yes, peace talks without a unconditional surrender require compromise, they require some holding of noses. After a successful peace has been forged such actions can indeed appear noble and worthy. However, this realisation can also be used to cover a multitude of sins and just talking, per se, is not necessarily a worthy and noble act. John Major, who happened to be the actual prime minister and leader of the government, did a difficult and presumably correct thing in starting talks with the IRA. It was a careful and deliberate process that was straining against the idea that rewarding violence with power and representation might lead to more of the same. Do I have to laud Corbyn with the same praise when he invites IRA representatives to the Commons a fortnight after the Brighton bombing? This isn’t the brave and principled putting aside of grievance, this is rewarding and forgiving brutal terrorist violence directly following its most clearly anti-democratic expression by saying that the more they bomb the more they should be given a seat at the table. Imagine your young child is throwing a nasty tantrum in the supermarket because you refuse to give him sweets. Corbyn’s unilateral intervention is the equivalent of the unwelcome shop assistant butting in and saying ‘don’t be a meany, look at his little face, give him a Mars Bar.’ It’s undermining, it’s unwelcome, it’s not really his business. But these aren’t sweets in a supermarket, this is a murderous terror campaign. This is not to say that a backbench MP cannot engage in dialogue that has little to do with his own constituents. However, in this case it is undermining the position of his own, and successive, governments at a time when its citizens were being murdered. Corbyn’s stands on Israel and Northern Ireland require no holding of the nose and no compromise. He supports their positions. Ultimately the Northern Ireland peace process was about changing the means and agreeing to disagree on the ends. In Israel any future dealings with any groups will require the same. The difference between those outcomes and approaches and that of our renegade diplomat is that he wants an end to Israel and have it replaced with a Palestinian majority state. He also wants the reunification of Ireland. He supports the aims of these groups and doesn’t seem to think the means should exclude them from anything.[/QUOTE] Corbyn is not a grand diplomat going about negotiations with the enemy. He instead more or less fully supports their aims and wants to help them, whilst undermining what the British state itself is actually doing. [QUOTE][B]The Diplomacy of Adrian Mole Aged 66 & 1/4[/B] He met with the IRA, but fine, some will consider this just Jezza the Diplomat diplomating, as he is wont to do. But at a Troops Out meeting in 1987, Jeremy stood for a minute’s silence to “honour” eight IRA terrorists killed at Loughall. That event brought about the end of activities of an Active Service Unit from the East Tyrone Brigade that had been blowing up police stations and executing those present. What principle and belief can we deduce from that? ... Corbyn has repeatedly praised members of Hamas. They kill gays, deny the holocaust and speak of starting a fresh one. He calls them a force for social justice. ... Corbyn asserts that despite the wishes of the Falklands islanders, expressed through the ballot box, and despite a fascist junta invading them causing British servicemen to fight and die, the islands should be owned by Argentina. [I][for once I don't quite agree with him on this. I think more he is indifferent towards the islands when he should clearly be on our side, though he did say some pretty awful things at the time but not more recently about the war.][/I] ... Taken on their own each of these could be a difference of opinion or a forgivable misjudgment. But combined as a life’s work? So is there a theme in Corbyn’s choice to consistently side with theocrats, homophobic thugs, genocidal fascists, murderers, terrorists, demagogues, deniers of freedom and exponents of oppression? Is there a belief in evidence when he praises the people who believe his own constituents are legitimate targets for car bombs and suicide vests? I think there is: Whatever his own government (Labour or Tory) wants, he is against. Wherever The Man is represented Corbyn is sticking it to him. And this stands in contrast to the slogans and lofty ideals spouted at the rallies he is so often seen at. This therefore isn’t the CV of a great diplomat or a campaigner for peace and human rights. Nor do his pretensions for a role in international relations add up to a statesman of value and importance. He’s not even a gifted amateur. This is merely adolescence dragged out into late middle-age. He is less Otto Von Bismark than Otto from The Simpsons. Laughable in a pub bore but fairly tragic at the forefront of a political party with a noble history. Corbyn should be seen as what he is, a 66 year old teenager using the stature of his MP status to make a bigger noise than a man of his ability otherwise could or should. If you are looking for the next Clement Attlee, keep looking. To observe the likes of Corbyn is to see the worst of the modern Left, where being seen to fight is more important than achieving the goals congruent with their slogans. Seemingly unaware of the victories the Left have won already, the need to keep sidestepping left has meant they’ve come out the other side and are now friends, allies and enablers of facists, racists, murderers and thugs. And worst of all, they expect a halo for being so.[/quote] Corbyn is more or less the college peace campaigner whose politics didn't grow up with him. He will always oppose the West no matter how unsavoury its opponents.
Hahaha You brits smart enough to keep falling for these kind of commentaries? Guess some people can't understand that if Corbyn wins, others will have less dosh or lose their post. Therefore, they'll hang from whatever they can. We can't defend our frontiers against narco cessna planes, and the UK is worried about Argentina? I mean, Jesus, we've got less stuff than in 1982. Either the narcos are WAY too fucking clever, or this Fallon chap is a twat.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49759461]Where has he stated that he wants to return the Islands? (Islands that cannot be returned since they never owned it but whatever)[/QUOTE] I doubt I'll ever get a response but opposing the Falklands having Veto power in diplomacy with regards to Argentina is not giving up the Island. Most Brits don't wanna ever give up those Islands. You should probably be working towards normalizing diplomacy with this country anyway. The United States was attacked by Japan in ww2 and never gave Hawaiians the same privilege.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49758668]Actually, you're wrong as he does bring it up very often and with worrying expressions: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12160972/From-Trident-to-the-Falklands-Jeremy-Corbyn-is-still-fighting-the-battle-of-the-1980s.html[/url] [url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-blasts-bbc-interview-7194033[/url] [B]Jeremy Corbyn wants a Northern Ireland-style 'power sharing' deal for the Falklands[/B] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/12117755/Jeremy-Corbyn-wants-a-Northern-Ireland-style-power-sharing-deal-for-the-Falklands.html[/url] [url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/636427/David-Cameron-Jeremy-Corbyn-PMQs-Falklands-talks-Argentina[/url][/QUOTE] No, you're not getting away with that. Your sources are completely, undeniably biased and only serve to prove that this whole debate is nothing but our right wing media digging up as much shit as possible to fling at the first genuine left wing political option the electorate has had in years. The Telegraph pretends to be a broadsheet but I ask you, can a newspaper that prints articles like this [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741861/How-you-can-help-Jeremy-Corbyn-win-and-destroy-the-Labour-Party.html[/url] hold itself under this definition: "a newspaper with a large format, regarded as more serious and less sensationalist than tabloids." You'll notice that the only outlets even giving this a mention are ones just like the Telegraph. The right are running scared, desperate to find whatever scrap of an opinion that the public might disagree with to throw his character off and distract us from the genuine good that his policies can bring. Hell, I was a long time Guardian reader and even their bias against him was too much for me. I count myself lucky enough to have been able to see it before I believed it but you, it seems; [quote]I support him in a lot of ways and I've made that public in London, but on Trident and the Falklands he just has it wrong.[/quote] Have not been so lucky. The Marr interview was frankly bizarre, Argentina's opinions haven't been relevant for decades so why are they being brought up now. Someone on Facepunch told me that it was because the issue of 'security' basically overruled public option on anything else (protect us first, serve us second) but I'm not so sure that applies when we have: The first doctors strike since 1975 - [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18270523[/url] People dying due to inaccurate DWP assessments - [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34074557[/url] A housing crisis our government refuses to ignore - [url]http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns_/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis/what_is_the_housing_crisis[/url] And plenty of other issues I could go on about but I'm sick to death of cleaning up the mess our media bias leaves in its wake. My point is, our own citizens are becoming ill, poor and literally dying due to the actions of this government and we're sitting here refusing to vote for a man (no, a party) who are offering a real alternative to what we're going through, with policies you have admitted to supporting, just because he wants to involves some dialogue between two countries at odds with each other? Get some perspective.
To be fair, [I]The Guardian[/I] and [I]The Telegraph[/I] are almost the exact same quality of news but on the opposite sides of the spectrum nowadays, primarily caused by free journalism in my view. [editline]17th February 2016[/editline] No-one is running scared. Corbyn is being decimated in the polls and no, it isn't because the public have been manipulated by the right-wing media, its because they don't like his views.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49761867] No-one is running scared. Corbyn is being decimated in the polls and no, it isn't because the public have been manipulated by the right-wing media, its because they don't like his views.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/03/jeremy-corbyn-labour-oldham-byelection-jim-mcmahon[/url] (The Guardian is not 'one side' of the spectrum, it is the same side) [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_West_and_Royton_by-election,_2015[/url] (increase of 7.3%) As a Labour supporter, I don't put much stock in polls after 2015. Election results I can believe in, however.
[QUOTE=theenemy;49761980][url]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/03/jeremy-corbyn-labour-oldham-byelection-jim-mcmahon[/url] (The Guardian is not 'one side' of the spectrum, it is the same side) [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_West_and_Royton_by-election,_2015[/url] (increase of 7.3%) As a Labour supporter, I don't put much stock in polls after 2015. Election results I can believe in, however.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously using a Labour safe-seat as evidence? I'm fully aware that polls aren't perfect, but they usually [I]overestimate[/I] not underestimate Labour, and they would have to be ridiculously wrong (like, on another planet incorrect, not 2015 election incorrect) to be getting it all messed up at this point. Also, remember that the claims UKIP could do well in Oldham were pure speculation as there was no polling done in a by-election because Lord Ashcroft decided he couldn't be bothered, ie. it was based off of pure media claims rather than incorrect polling. [media]https://twitter.com/ComResPolls/status/698593755746570240[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/696093397564727296[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/689812242083246080[/media]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49762034]Graphs n shit[/QUOTE] You know you fucked up when people would rather have Blair than you.
[QUOTE=Britain;49763064]You know you fucked up when people would rather have Blair than you.[/QUOTE] The media and the tories declaring him a threat to national security/terrorist/communist did all the hard work tbh. Pretty disgusting that a government can do that tbh
It's strange to see so much hand on heart blind patriotism and then using it as hatred to the only man in office with half a heart and thinks about the people not only of our country but of others as well. I still dont know who I'm voting for but corbyn is high on the list. The ability to talk with your adversary is a strength not a weakness.
[QUOTE=Faunze;49765153]It's strange to see so much hand on heart blind patriotism and then using it as hatred to the only man in office with half a heart and thinks about the people not only of our country but of others as well. I still dont know who I'm voting for but corbyn is high on the list. The ability to talk with your adversary is a strength not a weakness.[/QUOTE] You're wrong about the blind patriotism. It's definitely not blind. Dude we went to fucking war with them and some of [B]our[/B] (facepuncher's) families died there. Stop cheapening that, I wouldn't call it BLIND PATIRIOTISM if were were sticking up for ourselves going to WW1 or WW2.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49765222]You're wrong about the blind patriotism. It's definitely not blind. Dude we went to fucking war with them and some of [B]our[/B] (facepuncher's) families died there. Stop cheapening that, I wouldn't call it BLIND PATIRIOTISM if were were sticking up for ourselves going to WW1 or WW2.[/QUOTE] I'm in no way saying that war was unnecessary or cheapening it at all. But to say corbyn is a threat to the Falklands because he would talk with Argentina about it is once again childish slander from the tabloids and people are emotionally buying into it. If corbyn sat down for a real interview and said he doesn't mind if Argentina have the islands back then I have no problem at all with people criticising him but untill then I recommend abstinence from bullshit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.