Theresa May calls General Election for June 8

[stevewinn]

10 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

* An interesting comparison of the capacity for thought vis-a-vis kneejerk outraged bluster from J. Corbyn and B. Johnson.

Mr. Corbyn, in the aftermath of the Manchester attacks: “Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home.” 

Mr. Johnson, in response to this outrageous statement: “absolutely monstrous; absolutely extraordinary and inexplicable in this week of all weeks that there should be any attempt to justify or to legitimate the actions of terrorists in this way”.

Who sounds more the statesman here?

Who sounds more statesman like, well not Corbyn, if you have quoted him correctly then it highlights a very dangerous mindset.

How many terrorists or potential terrorist are in the UK? and what percentage of the UK population do they make up? 0.01% the people who carry out the attacks, make up an even smaller percentage barely measurable at less than 0.0001%

and if that 0.0001% of the population do not agree with UK foreign policy. - Are we as a country to now start saying as Corbyn as, terrorist acts such as suicide bombings and murder is justified or at least to be expected. if we are, then we are moving in a direction of serious consequences whereby we are now saying that the 0.01% or 0.0001% in the UK can dictate UK foreign policy.

Its maybe worth noting the terrorist attacks which happened long before Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria. The suicide bombing of the US peacekeepers in Lebanon 1983, attacks on Western embassies and interests in the middle east, the first world trade centre attacks in the early 1990's the list goes on and on. - We in the West have shied away from the goings on, and the wider threat, the growing wider threat posed by terrorists in the 21st century to the extent that terrorists where able to plan and carry out the 9/11 attacks. but lets not kid ourselves Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria have all played their part in the 60's 70's 80's etc...

Our politicians and the politics of this age have had us believe, we in the West live in a world of little danger, you can tell by the thinking and disconnect amongst the general population and a number of opposition political leaders such as Corbyn, the majority of citizens in the West live in a world of hypernormalisation were our lives have been managed, perception managed to such an extent we come up with all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories when the evils of this world are thrust upon on us, because we simply cannot believe such dangers exist; 9/11 is the best example, it had to be a inside job, the CIA the government etc... because to believe the truth shatters the illusion of the world in which we live. 

And here we are lauding up Corbyn, get rid of the Nukes, and allow terrorists to dictate UK foreign policy. its sheer, sheer, sheer madness. but what can one do, in interesting times we live.

Edited June 13, 2017 by stevewinn

[skookum]

29 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Who sounds more statesman like, well not Corbyn, if you have quoted him correctly then it highlights a very dangerous mindset.

How many terrorists or potential terrorist are in the UK? and what percentage of the UK population do they make up? 0.01% the people who carry out the attacks, make up an even smaller percentage barely measurable at less than 0.0001%

and if that 0.0001% of the population do not agree with UK foreign policy. - Are we as a country to now start saying as Corbyn as, terrorist acts such as suicide bombings and murder is justified or at least to be expected. if we are, then we are moving in a direction of serious consequences whereby we are now saying that the 0.01% or 0.0001% in the UK can dictate UK foreign policy.

Its maybe worth noting the terrorist attacks which happened long before Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria. The suicide bombing of the US peacekeepers in Lebanon 1983, attacks on Western embassies and interests in the middle east, the first world trade centre attacks in the early 1990's the list goes on and on. - We in the West have shied away from the goings on, and the wider threat, the growing wider threat posed by terrorists in the 21st century to the extent that terrorists where able to plan and carry out the 9/11 attacks. but lets not kid ourselves Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria have all played their part in the 60's 70's 80's etc...

Our politicians and the politics of this age have had us believe, we in the West live in a world of little danger, you can tell by the thinking and disconnect amongst the general population and a number of opposition political leaders such as Corbyn, the majority of citizens in the West live in a world of hypernormalisation were our lives have been managed, perception managed to such an extent we come up with all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories when the evils of this world are thrust upon on us, because we simply cannot believe such dangers exist; 9/11 is the best example, it had to be a inside job, the CIA the government etc... because to believe the truth shatters the illusion of the world in which we live. 

And here we are lauding up Corbyn, get rid of the Nukes, and allow terrorists to dictate UK foreign policy. its sheer, sheer, sheer madness. but what can one do, in interesting times we live.

Uturn offered tonight.  I fear a weakened Teresa May might have to back track.

[Chortle]

22 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

And here we are lauding up Corbyn, get rid of the Nukes, and allow terrorists to dictate UK foreign policy. its sheer, sheer, sheer madness. but what can one do, in interesting times we live.

Im uncertain when the decision not to kill indiscriminately with nuclear weapons became an unpopular attitude but that is a little saddening.

From the wiki page on the 1983 attacks mentioned in your post:

"The attack came in the wake of an intervention in the Lebanese Civil War by the U.S. and other Western countries"

I think JC hits it on the head here people dont blow up buildings or cut people down because they are "Muslim". Its in response to US and UK interventionism in the middle east.

[hetrodoxly]

16 minutes ago, Chortle said:

Im uncertain when the decision not to kill indiscriminately with nuclear weapons became an unpopular attitude but that is a little saddening.

From the wiki page on the 1983 attacks mentioned in your post:

"The attack came in the wake of an intervention in the Lebanese Civil War by the U.S. and other Western countries"

I think JC hits it on the head here people dont blow up buildings or cut people down because they are "Muslim". Its in response to US and UK interventionism in the middle east.

You seriously think muslims would kill themselves if they didn't think they were going straight to a carnal heaven where there sexually desires will be sated for eternity? and who are we bombing?

[hetrodoxly]

3 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

I'm not a fan of Jeremy, but I recognise he is a thoughtful and sincere man.

Surely most people now recognise such acts as invading Iraq in pursuit on non-existent WMD or Afghanistan in response to 911,without planning an exit strategy, was bonkers at best, and evil at worst?

I used to think he was 'sincere' until he started to making all those false promises, the majority would agree labours 'WMD or Afghanistan' was wrong but rolling over onto your back and showing your belly like a cowed dog isn't the answer.

[Space Commander Travis]

7 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

I used to think he was 'sincere' until he started to making all those false promises, the majority would agree labours 'WMD or Afghanistan' was wrong but rolling over onto your back and showing your belly like a cowed dog isn't the answer.

Huh? So you trusted all the false promises the Conservatives offered, then? I presume you mean by "rolling over onto your back and showing your belly like a cowed dog isn't the answer" you're referring to what you perceive as his approach to tackling terrorism? Why do you consider the approach of recent administrations to have been more effective?

[Chortle]

51 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

You seriously think muslims would kill themselves if they didn't think they were going straight to a carnal heaven where there sexually desires will be sated for eternity? and who are we bombing?

No i dont think I made any mention of the above in my last post. The delusional ideology of a minority isnt a robust litmus by which to judge an entire group. I referred to interventionism as the provacation.

The question is not who we are bombing in relation to nukes (because we arent using them) but that they exist for indiscriminate large scale killing. I found it incredible during the election campaign that the BBC and others considered it a pivotal factor on candidate suitability was whether they were willing to indiscriminately kill, maime and poison large number of noncombatants. That isnt particularly high on my list of leadership qualities frankly.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Chortle

[spud the mackem]

14 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

That might be one area where the Dups might be helpful, as they seem relatively pro-fairly soft Brexit, and they don't want a return to border controls and what have you on the border with the Republic. Whatever concessions they may ask for in return is entirely their business.

At least they are friendly unlike that Moo north of the border

[hetrodoxly]

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Huh? So you trusted all the false promises the Conservatives offered, then? I presume you mean by "rolling over onto your back and showing your belly like a cowed dog isn't the answer" you're referring to what you perceive as his approach to tackling terrorism? Why do you consider the approach of recent administrations to have been more effective?

What were the false promises the Conservatives made? Mays mistake was to tell the truth, well they haven't taken the terrorists out to lunch or think they can negotiate with 'the Islamic state'

[RAyMO]

21 hours ago, Chortle said:

will want a cushty deal so that it can continue to enjoy straightforward arrangements with the south

Hmm - you mean like a wall with only one way in or out. You would probably have to be from NI to undsrstand why I say that. 

I know their manifest wants a soft border - but I can't help feeling they included that under complusion, it goes against their normal mantra.

Edited June 13, 2017 by RAyMO
typo

[hetrodoxly]

1 hour ago, Chortle said:

No i dont think I made any mention of the above in my last post. The delusional ideology of a minority isnt a robust litmus by which to judge an entire group. I referred to interventionism as the provacation.

The question is not who we are bombing in relation to nukes (because we arent using them) but that they exist for indiscriminate large scale killing. I found it incredible during the election campaign that the BBC and others considered it a pivotal factor on candidate suitability was whether they were willing to indiscriminately kill, maime and poison large number of noncombatants. That isnt particularly high on my list of leadership qualities frankly.

Here it is

2 hours ago, Chortle said:

I think JC hits it on the head here people dont blow up buildings or cut people down because they are "Muslim". Its in response to US and UK interventionism in the middle e

What intervention are we doing in the middle east that's causing them to kill us.

Edited June 13, 2017 by hetrodoxly

[Chortle]

20 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Here it is

What intervention are we doing in the middle east that's causing them to kill us.

Wrong question "what have we done in the middle east.." is the correct question. Take your pick.

Right now British armed forces are deployed in over 80 countries worldwide many of them in the middle east. Not to mention being one of the biggest arms dealers in the world.

[hetrodoxly]

13 minutes ago, Chortle said:

Wrong question "what have we done in the middle east.." is the correct question. Take your pick.

Right now British armed forces are deployed in over 80 countries worldwide many of them in the middle east. Not to mention being one of the biggest arms dealers in the world.

Right question wrong answer. the only people we're bombing are ISIS.

[keithisco]

26 minutes ago, Chortle said:

Wrong question "what have we done in the middle east.." is the correct question. Take your pick.

Right now British armed forces are deployed in over 80 countries worldwide many of them in the middle east. Not to mention being one of the biggest arms dealers in the world.

UK maintains only 2 Middle East deployments; Bahrain and Qatar (with the permission of those countries). Of the 80 that you mention many consist of a single advisor and "all of Britain's permanent military installations are located on British Overseas Territories (BOTs) or former colonies which retain close diplomatic ties with the United Kingdom".-Wiki and British Army Website.

UK is 6th largest arms exporter in the world accounting for 4.5% of the trade-but I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that exporting armaments it reprehensible in some way?

[Space Commander Travis]

 

27 minutes ago, keithisco said:

UK is 6th largest arms exporter in the world accounting for 4.5% of the trade-but I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that exporting armaments it reprehensible in some way?

if it's to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, yes.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[keithisco]

6 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

 

if it's to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, yes.

If there was evidence of them using the weapons against their own people then I would tend to agree, however I am not aware of such evidence.

[Space Commander Travis]

Against their own people? Why are you only bothered about their own people? What about the Yemenis? or as they're friends of the mad terrorists the Hezzies and they're supported by the mad fanatical terrorist nation Iran, they deserve all they get?

[Space Commander Travis]

So the Conservatives are going to set out their vision of how they're going to ruin run the country for the next five years today, then.

 

 

 

 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

"Jobs and prosperity come first", says PM Theresa May. That's my job that comes first of course, in the face of all common sense.  

Edited June 21, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[eugenonegin]

22 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

"Jobs and prosperity come first", says PM Theresa May. That's my job that comes first of course, in the face of all common sense.  

She has constantly promised to make  "the families just managing" her priority, so it was odd that her snap election went against her.

If she caves into the DUP demands for £2billion, or if she doesn't, her job is going to be under threat anyway now, due to the Barnett formula: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/exclusive-dup-broke-off-talks-with-tories-for-36-hours-this-week-as-they-demand-£2billion-for-northern-ireland/ar-BBD0d5Z?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=uie11msnhpl

Edited June 22, 2017 by eugeneonegin

[bee]

 

Theresa May is being demonized unfairly IMO - and it reminds me of the psychological operation against Donald Trump -

None of our politicians are perfect but I like Theresa May and I don't have a problem with her as our Prime Minister at
this point in time - mistakes were made with the election and she was, it seems, given (and followed) bad advice - 
also the strength of the opposition working through social media was underestimated -

and now we are where we are with it all - :/ 

I definitely prefer Theresa May as PM than Philip Hammond or Boris Johnson -

 

[stevewinn]

2 hours ago, bee said:

 

Theresa May is being demonized unfairly IMO - and it reminds me of the psychological operation against Donald Trump -

None of our politicians are perfect but I like Theresa May and I don't have a problem with her as our Prime Minister at
this point in time - mistakes were made with the election and she was, it seems, given (and followed) bad advice - 
also the strength of the opposition working through social media was underestimated -

and now we are where we are with it all - :/ 

I definitely prefer Theresa May as PM than Philip Hammond or Boris Johnson -

 

The Media outlets, the ones which are anti-Brexit think if they can get rid of May Brexit wont happen, they are furthering trying to create the conditions for a snap election as they think labour would win and thus stop Brexit. They seem to forget Labour for all their celebrations after the election they were 55 seats behind and no closer to government than they where before the election. 

Theresa May is damaged, but its survivable at least until 2022, it has been done before with Howard Wilson (labour) and James Callaghan (Labour)

I wouldn't risk another general election this side of Brexit, But, the Tories could change their leader and by default the PM. David Davis or Jacob Rees Mogg, would be my two,

Edited June 22, 2017 by stevewinn

[hetrodoxly]

40 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

The Media outlets, the ones which are anti-Brexit think if they can get rid of May Brexit wont happen, they are furthering trying to create the conditions for a snap election as they think labour would win and thus stop Brexit. They seem to forget Labour for all their celebrations after the election they were 55 seats behind and no closer to government than they where before the election. 

Theresa May is damaged, but its survivable at least until 2022, it has been done before with Howard Wilson (labour) and James Callaghan (Labour)

I wouldn't risk another general election this side of Brexit, But, the Tories could change their leader and by default the PM. David Davis or Jacob Rees Mogg, would be my two,

The only people who can remove May are in her own party (though Labour and it's supporters  for some strange reason think they can) i don't think that will happen the media are interpreting every sneeze and twitch as a move to challenge the leadership but it's erroneous just fake news, i think shes the best man for the job, though when Brexits done and dusted i'd like to see JRM 'The Mogg' as PM.

[Setton]

15 hours ago, bee said:

 mistakes were made with the election 

Ah, that favourite phrase of politicians. 'Mistakes were made' notice the complete lack of taking responsibility. It's never 'I made mistakes', never 'X made mistakes' always just 'mistakes were made'.

Tell you something, it was a great way to meet the government's ridiculous target for 10 year olds to understand the passive voice.

11 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

The only people who can remove May are in her own party (though Labour and it's supporters  for some strange reason think they can)

Probably because they can. The opposition can call a vote of no confidence either in the government or in the Queen's speech.

For precedent, see Callaghan and Baldwin.

[hetrodoxly]

27 minutes ago, Setton said:

Ah, that favourite phrase of politicians. 'Mistakes were made' notice the complete lack of taking responsibility. It's never 'I made mistakes', never 'X made mistakes' always just 'mistakes were made'.

You need to get up to speed she took full responsibility.

27 minutes ago, Setton said:

Probably because they can. The opposition can call a vote of no confidence either in the government or in the Queen's speech.

For precedent, see Callaghan and Baldwin.

How would that work as the conservatives with the DUP have more seats than all the other parties put together? Labour didn't even come close they lost by over 50 seats forget it you didn't win, could you pass the message on to Jeremy.

Edited June 23, 2017 by hetrodoxly