hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 297 of 709 FirstFirst ... 197247287294295296297298299300307347397 ... LastLast
Results 5,921 to 5,940 of 14179

Thread: (UK EURO THREAD) UK POLITICS MK2

  1. #5921

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    4,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Gordon Brown also quoted Hobson in the house at one point or another:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...c/13/labour.uk

    He also wrote a foreword for an edition of The Wealth of Nations, which is by modern standards an incredibly racist piece of work.

    EDIT: The Fabian Society also used him as inspiration in a 2010 essay by Stuart White, http://www.nextleft.org/2010/11/cleg...iberalism.html
    Tell me, at what point will you guys finally admit that Corbyn, and certainly Milne, have a history of using and endorsing anti-Semitic tropes. Or that the old hard left of Labour have, and have had an issue with the Jews.

    Seriously, what will it finally take to admit to that. Corbyn already has you know ...

  2. #5922
    Movember 2012 Zekk Pacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    7,841
    I'm not sure where I denied that?

    Simply pointing out that the latest stick everyone is using to beat one man has previously been used in a very different manner when it suits.

    I try to stay out of this thread as much as possible because it's just round after round of shitflinging. I just thought the context was interesting.

    Plus if I want to be called a 'cultist' I can find other, much more fun places to be called that. Some of them serve alcohol.
    'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'

  3. #5923

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    5,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post

    Nice foreword BTW, Corbyn ... I notice that you send Long-Bailey out to put the fire out ... again ...
    And is Tony Blair also anti-Semitic as he's one of dozens of people who have praised Hobson?


    Is that praise? Really? Sort yourself out cultist.
    https://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co...how-about.html
    Still doesn't make that praise. More cultist whataboutism to defend the indefensible.
    The point is that people praise the likes of Dickens (Oliver Twist), Thackeray (White Squall), Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice), and others all the time without mentioning the anti-Semitic content. But for some reason it's different when Corbyn does it.

  4. #5924
    Donor Shiodome's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    I am a white male.
    Posts
    5,460
    it's because corncob is contemporary, and so the context in which he exists is less clear.

    (<3 the autocorrect there)

  5. #5925
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post

    Nice foreword BTW, Corbyn ... I notice that you send Long-Bailey out to put the fire out ... again ...
    And is Tony Blair also anti-Semitic as he's one of dozens of people who have praised Hobson?


    Is that praise? Really? Sort yourself out cultist.
    https://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co...how-about.html
    Still doesn't make that praise. More cultist whataboutism to defend the indefensible.
    The point is that people praise the likes of Dickens (Oliver Twist), Thackeray (White Squall), Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice), and others all the time without mentioning the anti-Semitic content. But for some reason it's different when Corbyn does it.
    I'm not involved, but listen to yourself. All those books where written by people who existed, more than 150 years ago. Corbyn would be the leader of a 21st Century country. He has seen the evidence of the Holocaust, and what anti-semitic thinking in Europe led to last time, just 70 years ago. Literally 70 years after Thackeray, which is unmitigated shit, btw.
    meh

  6. #5926
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,324
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post

    Nice foreword BTW, Corbyn ... I notice that you send Long-Bailey out to put the fire out ... again ...
    And is Tony Blair also anti-Semitic as he's one of dozens of people who have praised Hobson?


    Is that praise? Really? Sort yourself out cultist.
    https://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co...how-about.html
    Still doesn't make that praise. More cultist whataboutism to defend the indefensible.
    The point is that people praise the likes of Dickens (Oliver Twist), Thackeray (White Squall), Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice), and others all the time without mentioning the anti-Semitic content. But for some reason it's different when Corbyn does it.
    I'm not involved, but listen to yourself. All those books where written by people who existed, more than 150 years ago. Corbyn would be the leader of a 21st Century country. He has seen the evidence of the Holocaust, and what anti-semitic thinking in Europe led to last time, just 70 years ago. Literally 70 years after Thackeray, which is unmitigated shit, btw.
    we're talking about a book from 1902 that is considered a significant work, written by a author born in the mid 1800's, the comparison to Dickens and Thackeray is not unreasonable.

    this is akin to dismissing the works of Adam Smith on the basis of his explicit racism w.r.t. "Savage people", where it actually played a significant role in his reasoning, i haven't read Hobson's work myself but the wiki page makes it out to be basically offhand anti-Semitism scarcely relevant to the work itself.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  7. #5927

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Simply pointing out that the latest stick everyone is using to beat one man has previously been used in a very different manner when it suits.
    Because for one of these men it fits a consistent pattern of behaviour.

    Because one of these men is actually relevant to the discourse of today's left.

    Because if nothing else it's amusing to time just how quickly we can go from "Oh dear Jeremy did something antisemitic as he fell over himself to look super left wing again" to Rodj Blake spouting "BUT WHAT ABOUT BLAIR" and ranting again about how people who disagree with him are automatically tories and therefore child murderers.
    Last edited by elmicker; May 1 2019 at 03:36:30 PM.

  8. #5928
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post

    Nice foreword BTW, Corbyn ... I notice that you send Long-Bailey out to put the fire out ... again ...
    And is Tony Blair also anti-Semitic as he's one of dozens of people who have praised Hobson?


    Is that praise? Really? Sort yourself out cultist.
    https://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co...how-about.html
    Still doesn't make that praise. More cultist whataboutism to defend the indefensible.
    The point is that people praise the likes of Dickens (Oliver Twist), Thackeray (White Squall), Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice), and others all the time without mentioning the anti-Semitic content. But for some reason it's different when Corbyn does it.
    I'm not involved, but listen to yourself. All those books where written by people who existed, more than 150 years ago. Corbyn would be the leader of a 21st Century country. He has seen the evidence of the Holocaust, and what anti-semitic thinking in Europe led to last time, just 70 years ago. Literally 70 years after Thackeray, which is unmitigated shit, btw.
    we're talking about a book from 1902 that is considered a significant work, written by a author born in the mid 1800's, the comparison to Dickens and Thackeray is not unreasonable.

    this is akin to dismissing the works of Adam Smith on the basis of his explicit racism w.r.t. "Savage people", where it actually played a significant role in his reasoning, i haven't read Hobson's work myself but the wiki page makes it out to be basically offhand anti-Semitism scarcely relevant to the work itself.
    Point stands. It occurred before all the nastiness of WW2. We should know better now.
    meh

  9. #5929

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    i haven't read Hobson's work myself but the wiki page makes it out to be basically offhand anti-Semitism scarcely relevant to the work itself.
    No, Hobson was a notable and egregious antisemite. The difficulty here is this isn't just an off-hand reference to the man or to his work and its significance, it's an eight page long foreword that never mentions, acknowledges or criticises that huge tracts of Hobson's work in this book and others basically boil down to "the hook nosed blood drinking rothschilds did it".

    One could argue that it's fair to engage only with the relevant parts of the work (which are relevant - Hobson's influence is significant even today), but it's a bit of a stretch for a man who claims to have spent his life fighting hatred to say he didn't notice the racist bits. Which is why this time, unlike the other times, he hasn't bothered even saying that.

  10. #5930
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,324
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    He literally bought up the points I answered, but ok. That also occurred before the holocaust, and is at this point, 117 years ago. What was YOUR point?
    that books get republished all the time, and a great many works dating to before the mid 1940's have anti-Semitic and/or racist undertones, if not outright anti-Semitism/racism woven into the narrative of the work itself, and we're not crucifying people for writing forewords to those, yet when Corbyn does it, it's suddenly the greatest hate-crime since the holocaust.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    i haven't read Hobson's work myself but the wiki page makes it out to be basically offhand anti-Semitism scarcely relevant to the work itself.
    No, Hobson was a notable and egregious antisemite. The difficulty here is this isn't just an off-hand reference to the man or to his work and its significance, it's an eight page long foreword that never mentions, acknowledges or criticises that huge tracts of Hobson's work in this book and others basically boil down to "the hook nosed blood drinking rothschilds did it".

    One could argue that it's fair to engage only with the relevant parts of the work (which are relevant - Hobson's influence is significant even today), but it's a bit of a stretch for a man who claims to have spent his life fighting hatred to say he didn't notice the racist bits. Which is why this time, unlike the other times, he hasn't bothered even saying that.
    or, he chose only to engage with the relevant bits, trusting the reader to be able to sort off the hogwash themselves?

    i don't think iv'e ever read a foreword to a book that actually deplores part of the content or the authors views, a couple make a point out of highlighting the era it was written in and perhaps summarize its context for the readers benefit, but nothing beyond that.
    Last edited by Liare; May 1 2019 at 03:40:06 PM.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  11. #5931

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    it's suddenly the greatest hate-crime since the holocaust.
    oh wind your neck in

  12. #5932
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,324
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    it's suddenly the greatest hate-crime since the holocaust.
    oh wind your neck in
    im sorry, i cant hear you over the braying of the yellow press over this tepid, boring and quite frankly amateurish attempt at a smear campaign.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  13. #5933

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    im sorry, i cant hear you over the braying of the yellow press over this tepid, boring and quite frankly amateurish attempt at a smear campaign.
    The other timer that's worth tracking is how long it takes Liare to wade in and declare that, in actual fact and contrary to overwhelming opinion (including Jeremy's own admissions in public) no incidents of antisemitism have occurred and that this is in fact a conspiracy by the global neoliberal press backed by a network of insidious israeli jewish agents hell-bent on bringing down left wing politics

  14. #5934

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    or, he chose only to engage with the relevant bits, trusting the reader to be able to sort off the hogwash themselves?
    In which case he neglected an opportunity to decry virulent antisemitism of the worst kind, in order to be able to focus his eight pages of foreword on just how bloody great anti-imperialism is. Which is kind of the point - hardly the actions of a man who has dedicated his life to hope, not hate. Very much the actions of a man who just loves to look at fashionably fringe left wing as he can without heed to the consequences.

    i don't think iv'e ever read a foreword to a book that actually deplores part of the content or the authors views, a couple make a point out of highlighting the era it was written in and perhaps summarize its context for the readers benefit, but nothing beyond that.
    Oh, I certainly have. But yes, even a note explaining the context of the age would have been useful.

  15. #5935
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    He literally bought up the points I answered, but ok. That also occurred before the holocaust, and is at this point, 117 years ago. What was YOUR point?
    that books get republished all the time, and a great many works dating to before the mid 1940's have anti-Semitic and/or racist undertones, if not outright anti-Semitism/racism woven into the narrative of the work itself, and we're not crucifying people for writing forewords to those, yet when Corbyn does it, it's suddenly the greatest hate-crime since the holocaust.
    He should know better. The fact he doesn't either makes him racist, or retardedly tone deaf. Either of which make him a terrible choice as a leader.
    meh

  16. #5936
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,324
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    im sorry, i cant hear you over the braying of the yellow press over this tepid, boring and quite frankly amateurish attempt at a smear campaign.
    The other timer that's worth tracking is how long it takes Liare to wade in and declare that, in actual fact and contrary to overwhelming opinion (including Jeremy's own admissions in public) no incidents of antisemitism have occurred and that this is in fact a conspiracy by the global neoliberal press backed by a network of insidious israeli jewish agents hell-bent on bringing down left wing politics
    Do better Elmicker, the ownership structure of the UK press is a matter of public record, the british media is famous for being particularly vile and this sort of shit has been going on since he was a candidate for the leadership post.

    surely you remember the whole "HE WAS A SPY DURING THE COLD WAR!" bollocks that, unsurprisingly fizzled out ? quite frankly the UK press seems actively look for any excuse, no matter how minor to somehow paint Corbyn and his supporters as the greatest monsters in living memory.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    or, he chose only to engage with the relevant bits, trusting the reader to be able to sort off the hogwash themselves?
    In which case he neglected an opportunity to decry virulent antisemitism of the worst kind, in order to be able to focus his eight pages of foreword on just how bloody great anti-imperialism is. Which is kind of the point - hardly the actions of a man who has dedicated his life to hope, not hate. Very much the actions of a man who just loves to look at fashionably fringe left wing as he can without heed to the consequences.
    this line of reasoning just opens the door to "he didn't decry the antisemitism enough! he should have spend half of the eight pages doing that!" and the like.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    i don't think iv'e ever read a foreword to a book that actually deplores part of the content or the authors views, a couple make a point out of highlighting the era it was written in and perhaps summarize its context for the readers benefit, but nothing beyond that.
    Oh, I certainly have. But yes, even a note explaining the context of the age would have been useful.
    have you actually read this eight page foreword ? because i can't find it anywhere and this would not be the first attempt at creating a essentially manufactured controversy whole cloth.

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    He literally bought up the points I answered, but ok. That also occurred before the holocaust, and is at this point, 117 years ago. What was YOUR point?
    that books get republished all the time, and a great many works dating to before the mid 1940's have anti-Semitic and/or racist undertones, if not outright anti-Semitism/racism woven into the narrative of the work itself, and we're not crucifying people for writing forewords to those, yet when Corbyn does it, it's suddenly the greatest hate-crime since the holocaust.
    He should know better. The fact he doesn't either makes him racist, or retardedly tone deaf. Either of which make him a terrible choice as a leader.
    he should yea, but the absence of one thing is not the proof of something else, and neglecting to view the media's role in this shit with a critical eye in light of the Tories raging Islamophobia is rather naive.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  17. #5937
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    He literally bought up the points I answered, but ok. That also occurred before the holocaust, and is at this point, 117 years ago. What was YOUR point?
    that books get republished all the time, and a great many works dating to before the mid 1940's have anti-Semitic and/or racist undertones, if not outright anti-Semitism/racism woven into the narrative of the work itself, and we're not crucifying people for writing forewords to those, yet when Corbyn does it, it's suddenly the greatest hate-crime since the holocaust.
    He should know better. The fact he doesn't either makes him racist, or retardedly tone deaf. Either of which make him a terrible choice as a leader.
    he should yea, but the absence of one thing is not the proof of something else, and neglecting to view the media's role in this shit with a critical eye in light of the Tories raging Islamophobia is rather naive.
    This is a trap though. Whatabout is a terrible, terrible excuse. Its the entire reason the democrats will probably lose in the US. And yeah, the absence of understanding that you can't be appear anti-semite after ww2, does disqualify one from leadership.
    meh

  18. #5938

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    7,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Do better Elmicker, the ownership structure of the UK press is a matter of public record, the british media is famous for being particularly vile and this sort of shit has been going on since he was a candidate for the leadership post.
    So if I'm reading your nonsensical tangent into the ownership structures of "the british media" correctly what you're saying is the Jews made this up? Classic Liare.

    surely you remember the whole "HE WAS A SPY DURING THE COLD WAR!" bollocks that, unsurprisingly fizzled out ? quite frankly the UK press seems actively look for any excuse, no matter how minor to somehow paint Corbyn and his supporters as the greatest monsters in living memory.
    Looking for an excuse and repeatedly being served excuses on a platter are not the same thing. Sending out a class incompetent like Rebecca Long-Bailey to literally laugh in the face of the accusations rather than accepting them yourself compounds the issue further.

    this line of reasoning just opens the door to "he didn't decry the antisemitism enough! he should have spend half of the eight pages doing that!" and the like.
    Nah I don't think so, but maybe in this case yeah, especially as this is part of a pattern of absolute blindness towards obvious antisemitism past and present when an opportunity to preen one's champagne lefty credentials presents itself.

    have you actually read this eight page foreword ? because i can't find it anywhere
    I'm sorry are you suggesting this is actually, literally made up? Jesus christ. You can find it in your local library; it's still under copyright.

    Let's try another tack. Are there any scandals involving Mr Corbyn's Merry Band Of Totally Not Antisemitic Lefties that you don't think are completely manufactured by a neoliberal/zionist blood-drinking conspiracy? Do any of them have even a mite of merit? Do you think his behaviour towards the Jewish communities of the UK and the world is faultless? Because that's the impression you most definitely give off.

  19. #5939
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,324
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    This is a trap though. Whatabout is a terrible, terrible excuse. Its the entire reason the democrats will probably lose in the US. And yeah, the absence of understanding that you can't be appear anti-semite after ww2, does disqualify one from leadership.
    it's the members of labour that actually decides that though, not the press or ivory tower internet posters.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Do better Elmicker, the ownership structure of the UK press is a matter of public record, the british media is famous for being particularly vile and this sort of shit has been going on since he was a candidate for the leadership post.
    So if I'm reading your nonsensical tangent into the ownership structures of "the british media" correctly what you're saying is the Jews made this up? Classic Liare.
    i was referencing the rather strong conservative bias of the UK media landscape, something you damn well knew before you decided to be a dick about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    surely you remember the whole "HE WAS A SPY DURING THE COLD WAR!" bollocks that, unsurprisingly fizzled out ? quite frankly the UK press seems actively look for any excuse, no matter how minor to somehow paint Corbyn and his supporters as the greatest monsters in living memory.
    Looking for an excuse and repeatedly being served excuses on a platter are not the same thing. Sending out a class incompetent like Rebecca Long-Bailey to literally laugh in the face of the accusations rather than accepting them yourself compounds the issue further.
    no, they're not and the UK press is actively looking for these sort of controversies.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    this line of reasoning just opens the door to "he didn't decry the antisemitism enough! he should have spend half of the eight pages doing that!" and the like.
    Nah I don't think so, but maybe in this case yeah, especially as this is part of a pattern of absolute blindness towards obvious antisemitism past and present when an opportunity to preen one's champagne lefty credentials presents itself.
    this is not evidence of anti-Semitism on Corbyn's part either.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    have you actually read this eight page foreword ? because i can't find it anywhere
    I'm sorry are you suggesting this is actually, literally made up? Jesus christ. You can find it in your local library; it's still under copyright.
    no, i cannot because i am in a DIFFERENT FUCKING COUNTRY and my local library does not carry english-language versions of works by Hobson.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Let's try another tack. Are there any scandals involving Mr Corbyn's Merry Band Of Totally Not Antisemitic Lefties that you don't think are completely manufactured by a neoliberal/zionist blood-drinking conspiracy? Do any of them have even a mite of merit? Do you think his behaviour towards the Jewish communities of the UK and the world is faultless? Because that's the impression you most definitely give off.
    i thought the Jewdas bit was needlessly provocative in that he allowed himself to get "hijacked". when you consider the whole shitshow is part of a ongoing powerstruggle within Labour i would say that it's basically a ongoing smear campaign.

    that doesn't mean there aren't some issues in the overall orginisation as can be evidenced by assorted exclusions and charges, but rather that the whole thing is being massively abused as a bludgeon by both the media and as part of a internal power struggle, this view is in turn supported by the rather large number of academics and studies who basically go "there's fuck all to see here beyond the norm seen in society as a whole."
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  20. #5940
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    This is a trap though. Whatabout is a terrible, terrible excuse. Its the entire reason the democrats will probably lose in the US. And yeah, the absence of understanding that you can't be appear anti-semite after ww2, does disqualify one from leadership.
    it's the members of labour that actually decides that though, not the press or ivory tower internet posters.

    [
    No, I agree. This is why they've completely wrested power from the completely incompetent tories, who can't even fucking brexit properly.
    meh

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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