Leaderboard

Laughing at what will be the plight of people you couldn't give two shites about too. Fuck off, you small-minded, horrible Cory Tunt.

There are displaced "tribes" who've been shit upon and usurped from their natural territories all around the world. I think the Jews think they have a special case due to their "divine right" definition. I have no problem in saying that makes their case less viable in my opinion but its their treatment of Palestinians even to this day that should make people more courageous in speaking out against them. I also think considering what happened to them, such an easy attitude to oppression is hard to take as well. Of course making that allusion isnt allowed either.

Why is the staunch leaver Dominic Raab saying this? If this is project fear 2.0, why is it coming from the eurosceptics, reported in eurosceptic papers? I've said for months now that the choice is binary, no deal or bino/remain. I'm being proven right. You on the other hand predicted 2 weeks ago May's white paper was the right solution. You've been proven wrong. Glad you don't think there will be civil unrest if this shit storm is reversed though. I had guessed most you gammons can't get up from your keyboards. However, I think there is now a sizeable right wing racist and potentially violent section in society who might react differently.

At least if it did - and I can't believe I'm saying this, but - there'd be considerably more of a mandate for no deal, albeit one demonstrably based on lies, racism and bluster, than there is now. If that really is what enough people want to believe, if that really is how they tick, if they really are that willing to ignore the facts of the matter, then let them do so and face the consequences. The closer you get to an actual mandate for saying "we don't want anything from the EU", the less the absolute shysters involved in executing those actions can blame any failure on the EU not being accommodating enough.

So only 14% think we're going to get a good deal yet 40% are against a vote on that deal.

I don't think an individual who is basically a disaster capitalist is particularly suited to football club ownership....

The fat cunt is ridiculously short sighted. We’ve nearly doubled our money on our two most expensive signings made under him. The best chance of making money on transfers, tickets, sponsorship and prize money is to spend reasonable money in the first place.

And the former two are the logical conclusions of that. But reason - it's not for everyone.

You do know that Britain opposed the creation of an Israeli state after WW2 and due to the Jewish uprising and the weakened state post WW2 handed over the issue to the UN.

How dare he call me British.

I think you could comfortably argue that when the British, Americans, and yes, the Jewish lobbyists in those countries, looked at the middle east and where Israel would 'be', they considered the lives, cultures and humanity of those they were displacing to be of far lesser importance. Presumably because these were brown people who they are moving around like chess pieces. So yeah, tbh, I think that was racist. I defy anyone to say it isn't, frankly. And it was racist when it was done to other countries too. Are we not allowed to say that about Iran? The whole splitting up of the Middle East was a British clusterfuck born out of our profound ignorance or possibly apathy about the cultures and tribal alliances we were splitting up. Yes mate, this was racist. I acknowledge the left has a particular focus on Israel, but in fairness, of all the countries you've mentioned, they are by far and away the most powerful, and with the most support from Western governments. It is indeed wrong to say Jewish people shouldn't have a home, not that I've seen anyone phrase it that way, but I'm not sure we can say it's right that "Jewish people should have a home at the expense of brown people who have been settled in the area for hundreds of years, and who have no power or say in the matter, at the behest of a bunch of rich white guys who feel guilty about what a bunch of other rich white guys did to the Jews in the first place (and also because a key ally in the middle east is politically expedient to encircle Stalin)". If Germany had turned around and offered Jewish people their own state from some part of their own country, I doubt the left would be quite so worked up about it. I do accept that there's a water under the bridge element to this of course, but I'm not entirely sure that stopping people saying this is acceptable. People should be free to point out and discuss how Israel came to be, and how insanely unfair it was on the people already living in that area - and that this stupid notion has created decades of conflict and the loss of many lives. Something which, for the record, I hold Britain almost entirely responsible for. I guess I could get on board with the notion that even if people -should- be able to say this, if it has the potential to stir up tensions and cost lives, it should not be said. But is there evidence of this? There may well be for all I know, I'm woefully uninformed on the narrative with respect of Israel, I've only really bothered looked at the history, and even then only on a cursory level. Is Ian Austin being investigated for criticizing the party, or for being abusive or something else inappropriate? Serious question, I don't know the answer. It would certainly be depressingly hypocritical if he simply disagreed with them and was investigated for it. I don't consider Friedland's opinion worthwhile I'm afraid but I read it anyway, breaking a year long embargo on his articles just to educate myself better (you're welcome ). His contention seems to be that the left wing anti-semites believe that Jewish people shouldn't have a home full stop, and to give them one anywhere is racist. Yes, I would concur that this is antisemitic. If that's what people are saying, and that's what the fuss is about, then I guess I agree with you - Labour should rule that out of acceptable parlance and be done with it. If people are saying that Israel itself, as it came to be in 'our timeline' was a racist endeavour, then I'm still struggling with that one. It does look like one in terms of the total lack of consideration for all the other people in the equation - that's not the same as saying the actual plan had racist intent, I might add.

Look, I haven’t had a cup of coffee today yet, ok?

Let me address this. Why couldn’t labour just accept the IHRA definition? Critics will say it’s so they can evade expelling antisemites in the party. As for the creation of Israel as a national homeland for the jews, why is it a racist endeavour and under what circumstances would it be acceptable to say it is? That Israel is a disgustingly racist country now is without a doubt but it has a right to exist just like all the other countries that were created (after liberation from their colonial masters). Look at the Indian sub continent and the enmity between India and Pakistan - created/given statehood and now at each other’s throats. Almost every country in Africa subdivided by men with maps and pens, sitting around large tables in the early twentieth century. The people who had to live in different cultural groups - the Sunnis and the Shia, the Muslims v the Hindus etc etc. They had to accept the state they were given. Why have Iran and Iraq hated each other and been at war for years? These were all countries that were “created”. Why are they not racist endeavours? The only country whose inception is deemed a racist endeavour by the left is Israel because Jews are not recognised as a nation but as a religion and therefore are undeserving of a place to call home. This is fundamentally wrong and it’s what makes the issue of Israel antisemitic - not criticism of what the state is doing now. Ian Austin’s grandparents were literally murdered in the Holocaust and now he’s being “investigated” by the Labour Party for criticising it on antisemitism. While Livingstone was allowed to remain for way too long before he was eventually ousted for being a total embarrassment. Why couldn’t labour just consult the Jewish community and accept its definition? Its code was designed to address the antisemitism question within the party, wasn’t it? Why is it that the Jews are the ones who are being investigated? Why not just accept the international standards, end this PR disaster and move on? This post is getting into tldr fish territory. But read the latest by Jonathan Friedland. It’s illuminating https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/jewish-anger-labour-listen-antisemitism-opinion

That tweet from Jenkins is gibberish. It's not the EU being inhumane, its the completely predictable consequence of becoming a third country and removing ourselves from the EMA. Not to mention Euratom, EASA and a host of other regulatory agencies. All because we don't want to be subject to jurisdiction from the ECJ (although nobody has yet been able to tell me why). "And why would the EU want to impoverish their own pharma sector by stopping theirexports to the EU?" What the fuck does this actually even mean? I'm beginning to think Leavers are a bit dim.