• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Jeremy Corbyn: A very old fashioned breath of fresh air?

I tend to agree with many of the commenters - that has to be a joke. I have no idea what Laura Kenssberg's opinion of Jeremy Corbyn is but I can't see anybody using the phrase "alphabetical discrimination" seriously. If it's genuine then it really should be up for some kind of award for most hilariously ridiculous political rant of the year. Zebedee is not in the Shadow Cabinet?!? Ban this sick filth!!! :D
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/09/guest-post-by-the-bbcs-laura-kuenssberg/

...
Click to expand...

Shambles said:
I tend to agree with many of the commenters - that has to be a joke. I have no idea what Laura Kenssberg's opinion of Jeremy Corbyn is but I can't see anybody using the phrase "alphabetical discrimination" seriously. If it's genuine then it really should be up for some kind of award for most hilariously ridiculous political rant of the year. Zebedee is not in the Shadow Cabinet?!? Ban this sick filth!!! :D
Click to expand...

I don’t know whether to congratulate Craig or express dismay that the satire is so close to the truth that many readers couldn’t spot it immediately.
Click to expand...

And

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-34252768

What a country. What an unbiased media.
 
Just so as you know, while the Left are up in arms complaining that Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet (which he has had to assemble out of whoever was available) has too many white men in it, deaths from Tory cuts have not been suspended.

Pay attention to what you're paying attention to. Be meta-careful. I didn't get where I am today by not knowing a diversionary tactic when I spot one .....
 
It's hard not to notice the blatant media bias at the moment: they push the 'not enough women in the cabinet' meme all morning on monday, until the whole cabinet was announced with a majority of women (for the first time ever), then it was 'not enough women in the 'top jobs'' followed by a quiet 'mumble mumble majority of women mumble'.

It seems he's expected (by such totally-not-establishment-approved figures as falconer and benn (the crap one)) to commit to campaiging to stay in the EU whatever happens and whatever they do - what sort of negotiating position is that? What's wrong with him saying 'if you force ttip on us you can fuck off' or 'beef up the social chapter or fuck off', or 'stop being gansters in greece or fuck off'

A sign of how worried the tories actually are is that cameron quietly dropped his demand for further weakening the social chapter in his current negotiations with the EU - that was going to be one of the main prizes he brought back to convince some of his right wing supporters to go with europe (they're the sort of divs that are pleased by the 'freedom' from worker protection (the ones who aren't bosses anyway)) - he's dropped it in response to corbyn (unnoticed by most of the media). He's probably had word from his masters (i often think about how much the city of london establishment needs its pet 'left wing' party to keep it in europe (a key part of the neoliberal project (as currently configured anyway))

EDIT: and another thing...Now they're going on about 'ooh he didn't sing god save the queen in the memorial for battle of britain - what a nazi' - what the fuck has the queen got to do with WW2, except for practising the nazi salute a few years earlier, or maybe listening to uncle bertie talking about that jolly nice mister hitler. He's a fucking republican you twats what did you expect? Not singing her imperialist-celebrating, rebellious-scot-crushing bollocks anthem is the least he could do (i'd have spat on the floor (at least (maybe change the p for h))
 
Last edited:
^That the country should follow the geneva convention perhaps? (and maybe stop creating refugees in the first place (via proxies or not))
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-34252768

What a country. What an unbiased media.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with the former sentiment. Problem with the latter one is that most of the media - certainly the print media - make no claim to be unbiased. The BBC is supposed to be "balanced" but not sure even they would really claim to be unbiased. There's no such thing as an unbiased source really. That's really not a problem either - or doesn't have to be - as long as people are aware of the biases of any given source. The problem comes when a source claims to be unbiased - that would either be an outright lie or self-deception and neither are good. The other problem being that I'm very far from sure that "The Public" (broad brushstroke public that is) are properly aware of the biases of whichever media sources they choose to use.

I would say the real problem is the fact that so much of the media - worldwide not just here - is owned by so few corporate interests. They very definitely have biases (which is far more of a problem because they tend to be the same biases virtually across the board) and by owning so many media sources they get to give the impression that there is a meaningful variety of viewpoints available to "the average person" (ie the vast majority of us who frankly can't be arsed to trawl through a genuinely representative selection of sources in order to be able to form a more realistic and nuanced opinion). I don't see any way around media bias, but the lack of real choice is a big problem. This ridiculous anti-Corbyn hysteria is a perfect example of how the existing media set-up creates a false impression of reflecting national opinion rather than the (frankly somewhat reeking of desperation - odd unless they really are feeling threatened somehow) attempts to set the tone and parameters of an illusory pretence of a national debate.
 
I fully endorse and admire the living daylights out of Jeremy Corbyn's stand on the National Antbem.

From the age of about 6 years, I have wondered -- and nobody has ever been able to give me a satisfactory explanation -- why grown-ups continue to make such a show of pretending to believe in a God. A God who is almighty one minute, then we are trying to fool the next, and -- given the prevalence of lightning conductors on church steeples -- don't particularly trust much anyway.

As a republican, I find the words to the better-known verses of God Save the Queen meaningless -- and the rest deeply offensive.

Jeremy Corbyn has shown that he is quite willing to stand up for his own principles, not defer to some romanticised ideal (especially one where we can't even properly explain why we romanticise it). And how that deserves anything besides praise is a mystery to me.
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
nobody cares what the latest thing that offends you is, jules. quit whining and get a haircut already
Click to expand...
You obviously care, although it isn't doing you any good. I don't think I've ever seen you post anything that wasn't bsing nasty to someone. You are clearly poisoning yourself with negativity. Why don't you go and live in America, if you think capitalism is so fantastic?
 
Fuckin hell... All the recent media shitstorm over Jeremey Corbyn not singing along makes me fuckin gag. So bloody wot?? I have NEVER sung along in any public situation, whether it be Christenings, Birthdays, Weddings or Funerals.

The simple fact of the matter is 'I can't fuckin sing and I'm not prepared to make a cunt of myself publicly'.

I'm still glad he got in though...
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
that the stinking commie has his priorities all wrong

and pls, geneva convention? try reading what it covers
lefty scum
Click to expand...

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

i meant the 1951 refugee convention which we're a signatory of (which i thought came under the term geneva convention (it was signed in geneva afaik)).

As for priorities, i'd say sorting out inequality, reinstating a mixed economy and creating 21st century infrastructure in this country are corbyn's highest priority; then you get being human about refugees/immigrants (and by sorting out the former, being human about the latter becomes much less of an issue).

What are better priorities? Making sure we stay the 5th richest country by keeping hold of all the wealth we built up by dominating the world, and then refusing to help the people who suffer from that situation? (don't give me the empire did good bollocks - just look up the history of bengal (and glorious churchill's role in the later part - link)).

And i don't think you're scum - i think you're lovely :) (i guess that confirms my status as lefty scum)
 
Last edited:
Is the big house reference for me? - i've never owned a car let alone a house and live in a council semi - about as small as semis go actually (my computer's the most expensive item i've ever owned (no, my speakers are (maybe i could fit a very small refugee in them but i don't want to mess up my bass)).

I understood the 1951 convention on refugees to state that anyone with refugee status has to be given refuge by a signatory; participation in a war or geographical position is not relevant (except for the war they're fleeing i suppose)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top