View Poll Results: 10 days left, what'll it be?

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hard Brexit (crash out)

    45 48.91%
  • No Brexit (Remain by revoking A50)

    24 26.09%
  • Withdrawal Agreement (after a new session is called)

    0 0%
  • Extension + Withdrawal Agreement

    3 3.26%
  • Extension + Crashout

    9 9.78%
  • Extension + Remain

    11 11.96%
  1. #26081
    The Lightbringer Lollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    Actualy it was laws from under labour that got him released.

    I'm all for throwing shade but it needs to be shit that's actualy right.
    Actually, no. There were plenty of other sentencing options that could have been used that didn't permit automatic release.

    See more here:

    https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/...early-release/
    Speciation Is Gradual

  2. #26082
    Quote Originally Posted by Lollis View Post
    Actually, no. There were plenty of other sentencing options that could have been used that didn't permit automatic release.

    See more here:

    https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/...early-release/
    Actualy yes, the choice of sentencing option is entirely up to the judge once the defendant is found guilty. The fact he/she chose that option is entirly that judges fault not the blame of the political institutions, but the fact it was an option the judge had is labour's fault.

  3. #26083
    Quote Originally Posted by rewtlance View Post
    Yes, if someone gets let off for murder it is all the fault of the Whig party for writing the statute 200 years ago, or something.
    Your statment as sarcasm agrees with my point and points out the ludicracy of the person I was replying to's point. I'm not sure you intended that but OK.

    A conviction / non conviction and level of sentence given is entirly a matter of the judge in a court and what they choose to apply on a case by case basis is up to them free of politics.

    What options they have to choose from though in sentencing is the responsibility of politicians.

    Or to put it so even simple minds could understand, its not the politicians who sentences a man to death but it is the politician who allowed such a sentence to exhist.
    Last edited by Monster Hunter; 2019-12-09 at 03:25 AM.

  4. #26084
    The Lightbringer Lollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    Your statment as sarcasm agrees with my point and points out the ludicracy of the person I was replying to's point. I'm not sure you intended that but OK.

    A conviction / non conviction and level of sentence given is entirly a matter of the judge in a court and what they choose to apply on a case by case basis is up to them free of politics.

    What options they have to choose from though in sentencing is the responsibility of politicians.

    Or to put it so even simple minds could understand, its not the politicians who sentences a man to death but it is the politician who allowed such a sentence to exhist.
    Clearly didn't look at the link. Maybe your mind is too simple.

    Automatic release exists for people who genuinely should be released. There were options that could have been used that did not allow for automatic release.

    Just because the option exists it does not at all mean that A. It should have been used and B. It is the LAST GOVERNMENT'S fault that it was chosen instead of the multitude of none automatic sentences.

    The point you are trying to make? It doesn't fucking exist.
    Speciation Is Gradual

  5. #26085
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    Your statment as sarcasm agrees with my point and points out the ludicracy of the person I was replying to's point. I'm not sure you intended that but OK.

    A conviction / non conviction and level of sentence given is entirly a matter of the judge in a court and what they choose to apply on a case by case basis is up to them free of politics.

    What options they have to choose from though in sentencing is the responsibility of politicians.

    Or to put it so even simple minds could understand, its not the politicians who sentences a man to death but it is the politician who allowed such a sentence to exhist.
    It was up to the parole board, but they decided they didn't want to intervene. He should have been on the de-radicalisation program, but he wasn't. He should have been under watch from the probation service, they were understaffed. He was literally at a rehabilitation meeting. He was probably being watched by the security services as well.

    To say it's the failing of a government 9 years ago, when there's opportunity in that time to change the law, provide the probation and parole, and prison services the means to do their jobs, and the security services to do their fucking job is just fucking sick. Jog on with your tory bullshit.

    Meanwhile, the guys who actually tackled him were released under the same fucking program.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2019-12-09 at 11:41 AM.

  6. #26086
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,290
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    No he didn't.

    He apologised for antisemitism shown by other members of his party (as he has done many times) and stated his party was taking/had taken action against it. He also mentioned the fact other parties are neither taking action nor apologising for incidents of racism/bigotry by their members (In fairness the Tories can't really do either ATM as their leader is one of their biggest sources of racism/bigotry and they're trying to win an election).

    Maybe you should watch the videos you post instead of reading the titles and guessing ^^
    Whatever, can't vote Corbyn because of anti-semitism he's apologised for and set up new systems to deal with, and go with the fucking openly racist, anti-semite, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, transphobic bigot that is Boris. At least you know you're signing up to all that shit with him. Yeah, hold him to lower standards and see how that works out.

    Tommy Robinson, who is very openly anti-semitic supports Boris. Corbyn must be the problem.

    And you can't see the ridiculous deflection all this is?

  7. #26087
    Quote Originally Posted by rewtlance View Post
    Wow! You must tell everyone who works for the government that the judiciary has no independence from the legislative. We thought we had separation of powers since Magna Carta according to everyone, ever, but now Monster Hunter has shown us the fucking truth.
    1. Magna carta is meaningless it was thrown out shortly after being accepted (God knows why people keep pointing to it)
    2. There is speration that's entirly my point, that's why you can't blame the tory gov just because they happend to be in power when he was arrested, if you can't read that's not my issue.
    3. Though there is speration and parliament can't interfear in a judicial case, judges sentencing is still based on the guidelines and options dictated in the legislature from Parliament. Which in this case if we're gonna nit pick the sentencing option that saw him released early would be one added by Labour.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Whatever, can't vote Corbyn because of anti-semitism he's apologised for and set up new systems to deal with, and go with the fucking openly racist, anti-semite, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, transphobic bigot that is Boris. At least you know you're signing up to all that shit with him. Yeah, hold him to lower standards and see how that works out.

    Tommy Robinson, who is very openly anti-semitic supports Boris. Corbyn must be the problem.

    And you can't see the ridiculous deflection all this is?
    First how is Boris homophobic or transphobic, he's definatly a racist cunt but he broke the wip to vote for gay rights, are you just throwing out labels to be edgy or what?

    Secound Hamas supports corbyn so are people to be judged by who shows support for them? Because there's Alot more innocent blood on Hamas hands. Also Tommy the twat might support Boris but Boris hasn't shown any support back, same can't be said for corbyn and Hamas or the IRA.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    It was up to the parole board, but they decided they didn't want to intervene. He should have been on the de-radicalisation program, but he wasn't. He should have been under watch from the probation service, they were understaffed. He was literally at a rehabilitation meeting. He was probably being watched by the security services as well.

    To say it's the failing of a government 9 years ago, when there's opportunity in that time to change the law, provide the probation and parole, and prison services the means to do their jobs, and the security services to do their fucking job is just fucking sick. Jog on with your tory bullshit.

    Meanwhile, the guys who actually tackled him were released under the same fucking program.
    I'm not saying its the failing of the goverment 9 years ago, don't jump into a conversation in the middle and pretend you know the jist. I said his sentence was one introduced by Labour and the goverment don't inteffear with the judiciary so that's the start and end of the political involvement.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lollis View Post
    Clearly didn't look at the link. Maybe your mind is too simple.

    Automatic release exists for people who genuinely should be released. There were options that could have been used that did not allow for automatic release.

    Just because the option exists it does not at all mean that A. It should have been used and B. It is the LAST GOVERNMENT'S fault that it was chosen instead of the multitude of none automatic sentences.

    The point you are trying to make? It doesn't fucking exist.
    I didn't say it was the last government's fault it was chosen. I even explicitly said its entirly up to the judge multiple times, Maybe some one should work on there own reading comprehension. What I did say is very clearly that the fact that option exists is because of Labour, I also never sated that I disagree it should exhist, you lot simply assumed that.

  8. #26088
    Banned Rochana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    St. Augustine, Florida
    Posts
    4,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    I didn't say it was the last government's fault it was chosen. I even explicitly said its entirly up to the judge multiple times, Maybe some one should work on there own reading comprehension. What I did say is very clearly that the fact that option exists is because of Labour, I also never sated that I disagree it should exhist, you lot simply assumed that.
    In the end it was just mismanagement of justice by the Tories. A better government, less focused on slashing funds from the judiciary, penintiary and law enforcement, more than likely could've prevented it.

    Tories are basically just a really bad choice to govern anything. And the only other viable option left then in a FPTP system is labour.

  9. #26089
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    In the end it was just mismanagement of justice by the Tories. A better government, less focused on slashing funds from the judiciary, penintiary and law enforcement, more than likely could've prevented it.

    Tories are basically just a really bad choice to govern anything. And the only other viable option left then in a FPTP system is labour.
    It was bad decision making of the judge and the CPS.

    Seriously, the very last thing you want to do is make this political, because the eye of public fury will land first on who made the light sentence an option for the judge to pick first long befor it falls on any notion of how having one or two less secutarys made the CPS's job harder. I can tell you from experience as a victim of crime the CPS isn't lacking in jobs worths and incompitant box tickers.

    FPTP can go fuck it's self, there's no way in hell I'll ever vote tory or Labour as long as I live.
    Last edited by Monster Hunter; 2019-12-09 at 04:20 PM.

  10. #26090
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    1. Magna carta is meaningless it was thrown out shortly after being accepted (God knows why people keep pointing to it)
    2. There is speration that's entirly my point, that's why you can't blame the tory gov just because they happend to be in power when he was arrested, if you can't read that's not my issue.
    3. Though there is speration and parliament can't interfear in a judicial case, judges sentencing is still based on the guidelines and options dictated in the legislature from Parliament. Which in this case if we're gonna nit pick the sentencing option that saw him released early would be one added by Labour.

    - - - Updated - - -



    First how is Boris homophobic or transphobic, he's definatly a racist cunt but he broke the wip to vote for gay rights, are you just throwing out labels to be edgy or what?

    Secound Hamas supports corbyn so are people to be judged by who shows support for them? Because there's Alot more innocent blood on Hamas hands. Also Tommy the twat might support Boris but Boris hasn't shown any support back, same can't be said for corbyn and Hamas or the IRA.
    Tank topped bum boys, gay marriage equating 3 men and a dog?

    Shelving the gender recognition act?

    I'm not saying its the failing of the goverment 9 years ago, don't jump into a conversation in the middle and pretend you know the jist. I said his sentence was one introduced by Labour and the goverment don't inteffear with the judiciary so that's the start and end of the political involvement.
    When he received his sentence it was indeterminate. When it was changed, it had an order on it to put it to review when the determined periods were reached. The Tories then changed those laws.

    And in the intervening time, Tory cuts to the prison and probation services meant he could not be appropriately monitored or rehabilitated. He was just passed through a check box system till he was done and kicked out of it.

    It’s clear you will not hold politicians to equal standards. You regurgitate right wing claptrap about Corbyn while ignoring similar or worse offences by Tory or Lib Dems and even argued they’re false equivalence or whataboutism.

    How does he get support from Tommy Robinson and his crowd? With his overt bigotry. He doesn’t need to call it directly as many of his councillors do (to get suspended for a matter of hours before reinstatement).

    It just seems all that shit is baked in to Conservative policy, so it’s ignored. So the standards to be met are unachievable for the left, even though the likes of Boris would have been kicked out of any other party years ago, same as he was sacked from prior employment for the same behaviour. Instead, they make him leader.

    His own fucking book is full of racism and antisemitism by these accounts.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...box=1575907891
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2019-12-09 at 04:51 PM.

  11. #26091
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Tank topped bum boys, gay marriage equating 3 men and a dog?

    Shelving the gender recognition act?


    When he received his sentence it was indeterminate. When it was changed, it had an order on it to put it to review when the determined periods were reached. The Tories then changed those laws.

    And in the intervening time, Tory cuts to the prison and probation services meant he could not be appropriately monitored or rehabilitated. He was just passed through a check box system till he was done and kicked out of it.

    It’s clear you will not hold politicians to equal standards. You regurgitate right wing claptrap about Corbyn while ignoring similar or worse offences by Tory or Lib Dems and even argued they’re false equivalence or whataboutism.

    How does he get support from Tommy Robinson and his crowd? With his overt bigotry. He doesn’t need to call it directly as many of his councillors do (to get suspended for a matter of hours before reinstatement).

    It just seems all that shit is baked in to Conservative policy, so it’s ignored. So the standards to be met are unachievable for the left, even though the likes of Boris would have been kicked out of any other party years ago, same as he was sacked from prior employment for the same behaviour. Instead, they make him leader.
    1. I want a source in those comments as I've seen his voting record and for a tory its exemplary in lgbt rights

    2. Changes to sentencing laws don't apply to crimes committed and allready sentenced. That's why there's still that Manchester kid in prison for over a decade for stealing a bike because of the indeterminant sentencing, https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.c...r-9133385/amp/

    Let's real talk here, Indeterminate sentences were a fucking crime against human rights and Blair should be held accountable for introducing them, it was right that a review order was placed and the fuck up is entirly with the legislation relating to that review orders, I determinant sentencing and then the parole board and cps. Which has been my point. But all of that has nothing to do with the torys, the parole board and cps has always been fucking incompetent and a little to do with labour in that it's just another example of how fucking awful the Blair administration was at writing legislation.

    Ofc I don't hold politicians to equal standards, I hold left wing politicians to much higher standards because there supposed to be of much higher standard. The left wins by holding the moral high ground and you don't get that unless you have the higher morals, when a criminal commits a crime no one blinks, when a charity worker does the same everyone's outraged, why? Because there supposed to be better than that and its fucking right that those who espouse higher morals should be held to them. If your willing to fight in the dirt with the right you have no buissness calling your self left wing. The world dosnt get better by the left wing lowering itself to meet the right.

    4.How does corbyn get the support of Hamas and there crowed,with his anti-semetic dog whistles, he dosnt have to be overt about it like his suspended party memebers and councilors do. < see how that works, the simple fact that this can be brought up shows how fucking far into the mud Labour have fallen.

    If the standard of being a decent human being without courting groups that stone gays and blow up shopping centers is unachievable to labour then they should fucking quit, if labour can't live up to the moral standards they say they advocate then they have no more fucking buissness getting my vote than the racist shit hole torys do. This election should be a fucking walk over for Labour, after austerity and after a decade of tory rule but people don't trust corbyn and you can have a little paddy about the media just like Boris supporters do when ever the BBC puts up an inclusive video, but you know full fucking well what corbyns said in interviews over the years thats given them that ammunition.
    Last edited by Monster Hunter; 2019-12-09 at 05:10 PM.

  12. #26092
    Quote Originally Posted by rewtlance View Post
    I was actually going to defend Johnson here because I'm not crazy about too much restriction on the use of language, but if you look at the original context it doesn't mitigate it at all, he was discussing Labour's Peter Mandelson (a gay man) in a context that seem unambiguous. In short it was just straight out gay hate.

    I suspect ordinary people would end up in trouble with the police saying stuff like Johnson does.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Are you actually too stupid to locate a primary source? How do you function as an adult?
    I wouldn't expect you to know much about citing where sources come from. Or should we play that game again about making accusations without sources?

    I fully expect there is a source, but this is how bourdon of proof works, you make a claim, you provide a link to a source to back it up.

    It's not about can I find the source it's about why I should provide a source for some one else's claim.

  13. #26093
    Quote Originally Posted by rewtlance View Post
    I would, in fact, expect someone with at least a double-digit IQ to be able to take the 10-20 seconds necessary to google the discussion in question, because that is more efficient than asking someone else to do it for you like they were your fucking butler or something.
    That's not how it works on principle. The person your trying to prove something to has no responsibility to find your evidence for you.

    And that's what your doing when you don't provide sources, you are asking some one else to do the leg work to prove your argument to them, like a butler. If it's your point, you provide the source, don't expect others to prove your point for you that's being entitled. It's something you learn on the first day at university's, cite and source your arguments. You wouldn't expect the person reading a paper to find your sources for you so don't expect a member of the public to either.

  14. #26094
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    That's not how it works on principle. The person your trying to prove something to has no responsibility to find your evidence for you.

    And that's what your doing when you don't provide sources, you are asking some one else to do the leg work to prove your argument to them, like a butler. If it's your point, you provide the source, don't expect others to prove your point for you that's being entitled. It's something you learn on the first day at university's, cite and source your arguments. You wouldn't expect the person reading a paper to find your sources for you so don't expect a member of the public to either.
    Those quotes have been very public knowledge for weeks, if not months, or even years. To plead ignorance and demand proof of them is honestly ridiculous at this point. But now it's been provided, and you're twisting the argument and shifting the goalposts. Still you deflect and defend a racist bigot that takes advice from a guy that espouses eugenics and pushes a manifesto (check page 48 of it) that seeks to weaken the judiciary and parliament to centralise power into the executive. He's showing all the signs of actual fascism in this.

    And still you hold him to lower standards than the competition.

  15. #26095
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    That's not how it works on principle. The person your trying to prove something to has no responsibility to find your evidence for you.

    And that's what your doing when you don't provide sources, you are asking some one else to do the leg work to prove your argument to them, like a butler. If it's your point, you provide the source, don't expect others to prove your point for you that's being entitled. It's something you learn on the first day at university's, cite and source your arguments. You wouldn't expect the person reading a paper to find your sources for you so don't expect a member of the public to either.
    There's your source. Took all of 3 seconds to Google it.

    If you were even slightly interested in educating yourself, instead of "winning" an internet debate by ignoring any comment unless it is "proved" then you could have done that yourself and saved us several posts. I'm literally astonished, however, that somebody apparently interested enough in politics to post on this thread as much as you have, has not heard of this story numerous time before. Where are you doing your political reading?
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

  16. #26096
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    8,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    That's not how it works on principle.
    Actually it is, you see the principles are different depending on context. When your disputing easily/previously verifiable information or common knowledge then the onus is on you to disprove it. Here's some analogises to explain:

    If you tell me the Paris revolution of 1848 was caused by the king introducing a cheese tax then the onus is on you to back that up.
    If you tell me it's raining where you are then there's no onus on you to prove it and if I disbelieve you the onus would be on me to prove otherwise.
    If you tell me that it gets dark after the sun goes down then there's no onus on you to prove it because that's information that I should know.
    If we're discussing WW2 and you tell me that Germany lost then there's no onus on you to prove it because that's basic information that I should know to be participating in the discussion.

    There's also another factor to it, if somebody enters an ongoing discussion where something has already been sourced/verified and demands a source when it is mentioned again (as was the case here) then as long as it's easily traceable somebody who isn't feeling particularly helpful is perfectly entitled to tell them to find it by themselves.

  17. #26097
    Also helps to not be entering a discussion in good faith with an abject retard.
    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    Damnit hubcap, you are such a retard.
    Seriously guys, this forum would be a better place if everyone just stopped acknowledging Zenkai. It's just demeaning to everyone.

  18. #26098
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Those quotes have been very public knowledge for weeks, if not months, or even years. To plead ignorance and demand proof of them is honestly ridiculous at this point. But now it's been provided, and you're twisting the argument and shifting the goalposts. Still you deflect and defend a racist bigot that takes advice from a guy that espouses eugenics and pushes a manifesto (check page 48 of it) that seeks to weaken the judiciary and parliament to centralise power into the executive. He's showing all the signs of actual fascism in this.

    And still you hold him to lower standards than the competition.
    just provide the bloody quotes its really not hard to state something and then provide a link, fuck i managed it for the guy who's spent a decade in jail for nicking a bike thanks to Blair.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    There's your source. Took all of 3 seconds to Google it.

    If you were even slightly interested in educating yourself, instead of "winning" an internet debate by ignoring any comment unless it is "proved" then you could have done that yourself and saved us several posts. I'm literally astonished, however, that somebody apparently interested enough in politics to post on this thread as much as you have, has not heard of this story numerous time before. Where are you doing your political reading?
    cool thanks, wasn't fucking hard to source a statement fuck me.
    im not here to "educate" my self, its a fucking internet forum about an MMO, and you lot certainly are not educators or authority's, if i ask for proof of a point, possibly because i missed it or i don't consume the same media as who ever, then fucking provide it, the default for all arguments is false until proven true on the internet.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    Also helps to not be entering a discussion in good faith with an abject retard.
    you wouldn't know good faith if it slapped you in the face with all the soc accounts you make. i think you forgot your not logged in your funtwant account when you posted that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    Actually it is, you see the principles are different depending on context. When your disputing easily/previously verifiable information or common knowledge then the onus is on you to disprove it. Here's some analogises to explain:

    If you tell me the Paris revolution of 1848 was caused by the king introducing a cheese tax then the onus is on you to back that up.
    If you tell me it's raining where you are then there's no onus on you to prove it and if I disbelieve you the onus would be on me to prove otherwise.
    If you tell me that it gets dark after the sun goes down then there's no onus on you to prove it because that's information that I should know.
    If we're discussing WW2 and you tell me that Germany lost then there's no onus on you to prove it because that's basic information that I should know to be participating in the discussion.

    There's also another factor to it, if somebody enters an ongoing discussion where something has already been sourced/verified and demands a source when it is mentioned again (as was the case here) then as long as it's easily traceable somebody who isn't feeling particularly helpful is perfectly entitled to tell them to find it by themselves.
    but its not previously verifiable information. thats the problem, there has been nothing on this in the BBC or normal media channels i have been watching or have seen.

    the statement is boris is a homophobe and transphobe, first thats a very forward accusation, something that would normally require a good body of evidence or specific irrefutable statement. its not a verified position or commonly known thing. so the onus is on the person making the accusation to prove it and provide a source.

    if i said caervek is a homophobe because i read it in a blog post and i know tons of others have also read it and that blog post linked to some random time you said f slur. thats not verified, and you would be perfectly in the right to ask for a source, the same applies here, it's a bold claim and based on the nature and vitriol of political discourse currently, and how frequently labels are thrown around now, asking for a source is the right thing to do if you have doubts, and as it's not my statement and it's not varified common knowledge the bourdon of proof is on the one who make the statment as you have said.
    Last edited by Monster Hunter; 2019-12-09 at 07:39 PM.

  19. #26099
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post

    but its not previously verifiable information. thats the problem, there has been nothing on this in the BBC or normal media channels i have been watching or have seen.
    Then you haven't been paying attention. Now, the proof has been posted. Stop deflecting the argument. Why are you happy to sit there on your hands and let such a man into the highest office in the land?

    I did post a link to a source with excerpts from his book to show him also to be an anti-semite and racist as well (as well there are others).

    Why do you not hold him to the same standards you hold Corbyn?

  20. #26100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Then you haven't been paying attention. Now, the proof has been posted. Stop deflecting the argument. Why are you happy to sit there on your hands and let such a man into the highest office in the land?

    I did post a link to a source with excerpts from his book to show him also to be an anti-semite and racist as well (as well there are others).

    Why do you not hold him to the same standards you hold Corbyn?
    because Boris Jhonsons isn't the leader of the largest left wing party in Britain, that should be of a much higher moral standard than the conservatives in championing rights and equality's in the UK, the left wing must be held to a higher standard or its not right calling its self the left wing. what don't you get about that? is it ok the cons are racist? fuck no, is it a surprise? also no. but ill tell you want is a shock and fills me with fury the fact the only alternative is also busy pissing in the racist mud with conservatives. this should be an easy election, but people like you are determined to crash the left wing into a flaming pit and let the right wing dominate for decades and decades to defend that filthy old racist white man and give the people the only choice between two brands of racist when the left and labour SHOULD be better than that.

    also the cons and boris never had a chance of ever getting my vote, labour could have had it, if it wasn't dominated by a different brand of human garbage like the con's. unlike you, i wont bow to a racist just to keep out another racist. there both the same, only one of them is expected to be better.

    all you have managed to do is look exactly like the conservatives and then bitch at me for caring that my own house is on fire before complaining the guy across the streets is a rat infested smouldering dump. though ill give the burner guy (funtwant or w/e he's called now) one thing, i didn't like the response i got from my email to the lib-dems about antisemitism in the party so ill be either voting green or spoiling my ballot.
    Last edited by Monster Hunter; 2019-12-09 at 08:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •