|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 16, 2017 20:28:40 GMT
There is a facsimile of a letter on the Copeland thread. Oh. Is the "I would have lost my baby without West Cumberland" letter a fake? Genuine question. What you think? And even if written by a genuine person from experience it is probably not true but a figment of a tribal imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 16, 2017 20:38:09 GMT
Furthermore, while I do not like communal voting, when you have a Kipper posting "vote Labour for a Jihadi neighbour" it.... Do you have any proof of this? Or has someone unconnected with the UKIP campaign posting this? Because if the individual who posted this is not a UKIP campaign member, but UKIP must be condemned nevertheless; then if any imam who says "Vote Labour or answer for it on judgment day" is not an official Labour campaign member, then Labour must be condemned nevertheless. Sauce for one and the other. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 16, 2017 20:39:14 GMT
But that has nothing to do with the very poor behaviour by Labour in both constituencies where lies and trivia take the place of substantive policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were an admirer of Trump's Presidental campaign. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your characterisation of the Labour campaigns is accurate, why applaud that approach on the other side of the pond but not here in the UK? You were and are wrong. It was often a dire campaign but I recognized why it had traction with heartland real America. It was often very negative and I empathized with what all those people despised about the Democratic consensus and how it had not just let them down but made them willingly expendable for false liberal objectives. I don't think it was all lies and hype but I acknowledge there was a deal of it to bash through the massed ranks of multinationals, the old guard, the usual channels, the power nexus there to suit itself and to serve its own. Once the blue collars had been the core of their own but they were dumped for blacks, Hispanics, college trendies and smooth suburbanites. I took inordinate pleasure in seeing that nexus broken into bits and to see the smug bastards so upset. I would pay a heavy price to see that again at the next election, because they so richly deserve it, just as they do here. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 16, 2017 20:56:44 GMT
But that has nothing to do with the very poor behaviour by Labour in both constituencies where lies and trivia take the place of substantive policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were an admirer of Trump's Presidental campaign. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your characterisation of the Labour campaigns is accurate, why applaud that approach on the other side of the pond but not here in the UK? I don't think Carlton43 views Trump a liar. Trump promised a wall and a #MuslimBan, and he would deliver that, but he is held up only by his enemies and the Supreme Court. It does not follow that Trump is a liar if he cannot enact his promises because of other people's obstructionism. Or would you, greenchristian, prefer Trump to be able to wipe the objection aside and build the wall and ban the Muslims? In Copeland and Stoke, on the other hand, Labour claim that Tories are sub-human baby-killers and UKIP are sub-human monsters, respectively. These are lies that go beyond a Republican President who cannot enact his agenda because of Democratic and CIA obstructions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 21:03:26 GMT
Furthermore, while I do not like communal voting, when you have a Kipper posting "vote Labour for a Jihadi neighbour" it is not irrational to describe UKIP as an anti-Islamic party. Do you have any proof of this? Or has someone unconnected with the UKIP campaign posting this? Because if the individual who posted this is not a UKIP campaign member, but UKIP must be condemned nevertheless; then if any imam who says "Vote Labour or answer for it on judgment day" is not an official Labour campaign member, then Labour must be condemned nevertheless. Sauce for one and the other. John Bickley, perennial UKIP Northern by-election candidate, retweeted it. As he is the Party Treasurer, on the NEC and the party's Immigration spokesman, I think you can call him a UKIP campaign member. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 16, 2017 21:25:17 GMT
Do you have any proof of this? Or has someone unconnected with the UKIP campaign posting this? Because if the individual who posted this is not a UKIP campaign member, but UKIP must be condemned nevertheless; then if any imam who says "Vote Labour or answer for it on judgment day" is not an official Labour campaign member, then Labour must be condemned nevertheless. Sauce for one and the other. John Buckley, perennial UKIP Northern by-election candidate, retweeted it. As he is the Party Treasurer, on the NEC and the party's Immigration spokesman, I think you can call him a UKIP campaign member. I have Bickley's Twitter on my screen here, cannot see this tweet. I do see him retweeting "Labour's Vote Snell or Go to Hell". But the whole is irrelevant. "Vote Labour because you are Muslim" is abhorrent; "Vote Snell or Go to Hell" is abhorrent; "Vote against Labour because you oppose Islamism" is not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 21:28:26 GMT
John Buckley, perennial UKIP Northern by-election candidate, retweeted it. As he is the Party Treasurer, on the NEC and the party's Immigration spokesman, I think you can call him a UKIP campaign member. I have Bickley's Twitter on my screen here, cannot see this tweet. I do see him retweeting "Labour's Vote Snell or Go to Hell". But the whole is irrelevant. "Vote Labour because you are Muslim" is abhorrent; "Vote Snell or Go to Hell" is abhorrent; "Vote against Labour because you oppose Islamism" is not. He removed the Tweet, which was not "Vote against Labour because you oppose Islamism" but "If you want a Jihadi for a neighbour, vote Labour", with a tasteless image....Ring any worrying bells for you? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 16, 2017 21:31:38 GMT
Oh why not?!! I think Snell and Nuttall are fucking up enough, so I am changing my vote back from UKIP to Conservative. I feel lucky. It has been a lucky two years.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 16, 2017 21:43:54 GMT
I have Bickley's Twitter on my screen here, cannot see this tweet. I do see him retweeting "Labour's Vote Snell or Go to Hell". But the whole is irrelevant. "Vote Labour because you are Muslim" is abhorrent; "Vote Snell or Go to Hell" is abhorrent; "Vote against Labour because you oppose Islamism" is not. He removed the Tweet, which was not "Vote against Labour because you oppose Islamism" but "If you want a Jihadi for a neighbour, vote Labour", with a tasteless image....Ring any worrying bells for you? Not really, actually. People are increasingly rejecting your "OMG! Islamophobia!" hysteria in the face of the Berlin Christmas Market, the Nice Bastille Day Parade, the Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, etc (so many more in the Third World). We really couldn't give a damn for your protectiveness over the most radicalised section of the population but your indifference to the blown-up... no, I can live with it. I guess I will go to hell. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 16, 2017 21:48:56 GMT
it's a perfectly legitimate tactic to keep your candidate away from the media and even the electorate. Labour seem to have been doing the former to a certain extent. The candidate's sole job is to sign 3 pieces of paper before the election and 1 piece of paper after the election. Anything else that he or she does is only likely to cause trouble. On a previous paper candidate run, I informed the agent that I would be signing papers either side of the election and doing nothing else other than attending the count to assist with straw polling and attending my own count and declaration. Those were the conditions for me running, and were readily accepted. I thought I was getting a good deal but they probably got the better end of it as I would have been distinctly off-message for the local party! |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Feb 16, 2017 22:01:57 GMT
Furthermore, while I do not like communal voting, when you have a Kipper posting "vote Labour for a Jihadi neighbour" it.... ? Or has someone unconnected with the UKIP campaign posting this? Because if the individual who posted this is not a UKIP campaign member, but UKIP must be condemned nevertheless; then if any imam who says "Vote Labour or answer for it on judgment day" is not an official Labour campaign member, then Labour must be condemned nevertheless. Sauce for one and the other. Yes. Read the thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 23:08:30 GMT
He removed the Tweet, which was not "Vote against Labour because you oppose Islamism" but "If you want a Jihadi for a neighbour, vote Labour", with a tasteless image....Ring any worrying bells for you? Not really, actually. People are increasingly rejecting your "OMG! Islamophobia!" hysteria in the face of the Berlin Christmas Market, the Nice Bastille Day Parade, the Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, etc (so many more in the Third World). We really couldn't give a damn for your protectiveness over the most radicalised section of the population but your indifference to the blown-up... no, I can live with it. I guess I will go to hell. Really... you have no idea where that quote comes from? The Smethwick byelection. I do not recognise any of the characterisation of me that you present, as I am sure most of those on this forum will acknowledge. You are aiming at the wrong target. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 17, 2017 0:33:39 GMT
Oh why not?!! I think Snell and Nuttall are fucking up enough, so I am changing my vote back from UKIP to Conservative. I feel lucky. It has been a lucky two years. Had the Conservative party not ceded first dibs to UKIP they would quite possibly have been in with a chance of a good second ( I don't think there is enough base for them to do better - unlike in Copeland) but since they did it is probably too late to do anything about it now. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 17, 2017 0:56:49 GMT
He removed the Tweet, which was not "Vote against Labour because you oppose Islamism" but "If you want a Jihadi for a neighbour, vote Labour", with a tasteless image....Ring any worrying bells for you? Not really, actually. People are increasingly rejecting your "OMG! Islamophobia!" hysteria in the face of the Berlin Christmas Market, the Nice Bastille Day Parade, the Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, etc (so many more in the Third World). We really couldn't give a damn for your protectiveness over the most radicalised section of the population but your indifference to the blown-up... no, I can live with it. I guess I will go to hell. you seem to be mistaking CatholicLeft for George Galloway. This is not a mistake anyone has made before. Consider yourself a pioneer. You aren't going to hell. Nobody on this forum is going to hell. Limbo possibly.... |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 17, 2017 2:29:35 GMT
Well, yes, given that BME voters are a generally good demographic group for Labour and that "liberal elite" is essentially a right-wingers' snarl word for certain people the user doesn't like and who are not very likely to vote UKIP or Conservative, that is probably true. And it has probably been true for a rather long time. But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Well, he means people who are daft enough to actually believe that Labour help the working man. And, people who despise the lkower classes and wouldn't know a working man if they fell over one in the street, but like to patronise themThat's a lovely description of your Dear Leader AC. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 17, 2017 2:31:56 GMT
Funny....I thought Hustings were where the candidates appeared in public, to be scrutinised, in person, by the people they expect to vote for them? Why Hustings, why not Shureham or Worthing? Let other misspelt Sussex towns see their candidates! You mean Wurthing... |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 17, 2017 2:33:32 GMT
it's a perfectly legitimate tactic to keep your candidate away from the media and even the electorate. Labour seem to have been doing the former to a certain extent. The candidate's sole job is to sign 3 pieces of paper before the election and 1 piece of paper after the election. Anything else that he or she does is only likely to cause trouble. Indeed, legal necessity... |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 17, 2017 8:41:09 GMT
That's a lovely description of your Dear Leader AC. What, you think Theresa despises the working classes then? Is that just a stock opinion that you apply to anyone who is leader of the Conservative party, or do you have any evidence to support this? No, just Theresa. I think she holds pretty much everyone in contempt. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 17, 2017 8:48:05 GMT
Oh why not?!! I think Snell and Nuttall are fucking up enough, so I am changing my vote back from UKIP to Conservative. I feel lucky. It has been a lucky two years. I was looking at the Ladbrokes odds yesterday and saw the odds on the Conservatives winning both seats was 50/1. i was quite tempted by that but then checked the odds for Stoke itself and the Tories were at 50/1 there so I figured there was no point doing the double at those odds in case you end up with the dreaded Grimsby/Ashfield scenario - if you think the Tories might win in Stoke may as well just bet on that. I didn't because I think the Conservative have close to zero chance of winning in Stoke. If you do think they might it could be worth betting on the double now at 33/1 (against 25/1 to win in Stoke) |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 17, 2017 9:28:36 GMT
You aren't going to hell. Nobody on this forum is going to hell. Limbo possibly.... My first thought was 'What? We have unchristened infant members?' My second thought was, 'Ah, Benji of course.' |
|
