Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

McDonnell comments in 2003 were




there is no question that to any decent and principled person that

1. this statement shows clear, unambiguous support for the IRA
2. this shows clear support for IRA killing innocent children, pregnant women and men with bombs and bullets
3. there is no question, that this is anything other than clear support for one side; it can't conceivably be interpreted as an even handed comment designed to reconcile the two sides of the dispute in NI
4. this is an appalling insult to the victims and friends and family of the victims of IRA violence


Linking the discussion to Black&Tans, Bloody Sunday, Glennane Gang (maybe remember Drogheda too) etc is irrelevant to the support of the IRA killing innocent people and is the typical distraction tactic of apologists, sympathisers and fellow travellers.

The wish for a socialist united Ireland is equally irrelevant to bombing and killing.

Combining my remarks above with your total refusal to even acknowledge the well known support of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott for the IRA causes me to regret not being firmer in my condemnation of your views.

IRRELEVANT to who? You obviously but to no-one who understands history of course! That's just ridiculous. You are the most bigotted internet persona I have ever come across. You have no knowledge of history or context and view the world through the narrow prism of your internet connection.....trolling away on here to your hearts content......having an opinion on all and sundry but in depth knowledge of very little. You also don't reflect on what others say to you in your responses. You just trot out the same old lines time and time again.....believing I'm sure that the more you repeat them the truer they will be.

I must be frank I was angry about you inferring I was a terrorist fellow traveller. It's a nasty thing to say about someone and costs you nothing because its from the safety of your anonymity. You know nothing about me to make such accusations! and I think you know nothing about decency and principles as you continually claim you do....because such a person wouldn't make such accusations! I recognise there is nothing I can do about it and from your empty post above it is clear that you are just playing games. So I'll leave it there and do whatever I can to avoid you in future.

It's damm hard though when it's someone who has now accumulated over 35000 posts! You must have such a rich and varied life;)

Generali

McSherbert wrote: »

What's wrong with Peoples QE? It would be a lot cheaper than the PFI deals making our Rail and Hospital Building a lot, lot dearer. We wouldn't have to borrow any dosh from the toffs and banking rogues.

Firstly it destroys the BoE's independence. Secondly it would be extremely inflationary and thus trash the economy.

If you print money to enable Government spending you end up with this:

Moby

gadgetmind wrote: »

And what are your feelings towards those people that think these actions were necessary for peace, and who support those who carried out these acts? How can you condemn the acts while supporting and defending those who feel they were justified?

Probably the same as your feelings towards people who support terrorism of any kind, I would condemn them. As I did condemn Margaret Thatcher inviting Pinochet to our country and giving him a haven from attempts to prosecute him for murdering thousands of his own citizens ...why do you ask?
You see you don't get to define the boundaries of terrorism! Already said this of course.

Moby

McSherbert wrote: »

What's wrong with Peoples QE? It would be a lot cheaper than the PFI deals making our Rail and Hospital Building a lot, lot dearer. We wouldn't have to borrow any dosh from the toffs and banking rogues.

I think it would be worth trying....can't do any worse than the banks are doing at present. They have taken all the dosh from the taxpayer, built up their equity holdings and at the same time tightened their lending terms.....just brilliant and so typical:rotfl:

Generali

Moby wrote: »

I think it would be worth trying....can't do any worse than the banks are doing at present. They have taken all the dosh from the taxpayer, built up their equity holdings and at the same time tightened their lending terms.....just brilliant and so typical:rotfl:

You mean that they've done what regulators and international agreements have asked then. 'Large Company Follows Rules' isn't a grabbing headline.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

You mean that they've done what regulators and international agreements have asked then. 'Large Company Follows Rules' isn't a grabbing headline.

....but now surely they've built up their reserves again there needs to be a change of tac? and to be frank people have been banging on about this for a couple of years now!

Generali

Moby wrote: »

....but now surely they've built up their reserves again there needs to be a change of tac? and to be frank people have been banging on about this for a couple of years now!

People want things both ways: they want 'responsible lending' (which means not lending to a lot of businesses and only lending unsecured at very high rates to the very best risks) while having loads of risky lending, e.g. to small businesses and high LTV mortgages.

Similarly banks are being urged to top up equity while lending loads. They can only do one of those things and the Government has decided for them which it should be.

The bit a lot of people seem to miss is that it isn't just a case of topping up equity and letting rip once again. Higher levels of equity mean permanently lower levels of lending.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

IRRELEVANT to who? You obviously but to no-one who understands history of course! That's just ridiculous. You are the most bigotted internet persona I have ever come across. You have no knowledge of history or context and view the world through the narrow prism of your internet connection.....trolling away on here to your hearts content......having an opinion on all and sundry but in depth knowledge of very little. You also don't reflect on what others say to you in your responses. You just trot out the same old lines time and time again.....believing I'm sure that the more you repeat them the truer they will be.

I must be frank I was angry about you inferring I was a terrorist fellow traveller. It's a nasty thing to say about someone and costs you nothing because its from the safety of your anonymity. You know nothing about me to make such accusations! and I think you know nothing about decency and principles as you continually claim you do....because such a person wouldn't make such accusations! I recognise there is nothing I can do about it and from your empty post above it is clear that you are just playing games. So I'll leave it there and do whatever I can to avoid you in future.

It's damm hard though when it's someone who has now accumulated over 35000 posts! You must have such a rich and varied life;)

I'll just stick to the facts


moby says

_Moby wrote:

In relation to your second point regarding Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott I do not recognise your characterisation of them as IRA supporters. I have told you this before. I know you don't accept that but that's the way it is. Also my view is based on having met all three of them.

McDonnell says

“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”

sadly one has to conclude that you are worse that a fellow traveller as you are in total denial about your 'god' figures.

however, you can comfort yourself that history shows many people have somehow managed to be in total denial about what goes on around them


When you met all three of your 'gods' did the matter of the IRA come up?

gadgetmind

Moby wrote: »

I did condemn Margaret Thatcher inviting Pinochet to our country and giving him a haven from attempts to prosecute him for murdering thousands of his own citizens

You're confusing supporting terrorism with undertaking diplomacy, which does sometimes involve dealing with those you don't agree with.

Suppose a senior conservative said this -

"“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by Augusto Pinochet that brought stability to Chile, and the peace they have now is due to the actions of his Junta.”

Would you perhaps think that this had strayed beyond diplomacy and into supporting violent people with no respect for human life or rights?

Surely you can understand the difference?

Generali

gadgetmind wrote: »

You're confusing supporting terrorism with undertaking diplomacy, which does sometimes involve dealing with those you don't agree with.

Suppose a senior conservative said this -

"“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by Augusto Pinochet that brought stability to Chile, and the peace they have now is due to the actions of his Junta.”

Would you perhaps think that this had strayed beyond diplomacy and into supporting violent people with no respect for human life or rights?

Surely you can understand the difference?

These guys are blind. They finally think that they have a chance of 'real Socialism' in the UK and will excuse almost anything in the name of it.