Ohhhhh Jeremy Corrrrrrbyn
Comments
-
Callumcafc said:
Go Paddy, go!!
@Callumcafc Glad to see that you support PaddyP17's views on CorbynPaddyP17 said:@Henry Irving I would still like to point out that you have many completely valid concerns re Corbyn and general anti-Semitism in the Labour Party that I share (as I've said before, I'll be voting Green until a leadership change), and I absolutely respect your views.
0 -
First Set,
First game
Paddy 30-15 Henry2 -
Yes, too long. I'll have a response for you, sentence by sentence if you like, sometime in 2020.Henry Irving said:
Well done for at least having a go rather than just dismissing it all by saying "you're obsessed".PaddyP17 said:
A couple of points:Henry Irving said:Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571924/Corbyn-s-30-years-talking-terrorists.html
- The Mail might just have an anti-Corbyn agenda. I say this before reading the article. Yes, doesn't make what it say automatically untrue
- This was thirty years ago. Change is possible in that time, surely? Any evidence that Corbyn has changed his stance
- This article is too long for me to refute every single claim individually, but I find the following particularly egregious: Too long?
"Following the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, Corbyn said he opposed police being allowed to shoot terror suspects, saying he's 'not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general'." Separate bit of evidence against Corbyn but doesn't invalidate the evidence.
Hang on. This is a bit of a false equivalence/straw man and recontextualises his words to fit the Mail's agenda.
Much of it is likely valid. But then you get stuff like this:
In 1981, London Labour Briefing, a far-Left monthly journal that Corbyn helped run, published a letter from Liam McCloskey, a convicted terrorist, inviting readers to 'help us along the road to a Socialist Republic free from the chains of capitalism'.
- What was Corbyn's role? "Helped run" could mean absolutely anything.
- Corbyn didn't publish the letter himself, did he? Or even write it. Or even necessarily express its views.
- ... Capitalism isn't exactly perfect, but that's by the by.
----------------------
So yes, it's miles too long to properly refute if I'm going to be exercising critical thought on literally every bullet point. It is much, much easier for me to shit on the Mail like I usually do (well, I don't, because I wouldn't even want to use it as toilet paper).8 -
Corbyn= politics of Envy......with a capital E.0
-
I'm not a fan of political zealots of any colour but the Corbyn faithful in particular remind me of religious fundamentalist witch burners.cafctom said:It’s not so much him that gets my blood boiling, but more so his ardent supporters - particularly the vicious ones who will spit blood at anyone who dares to suggest the sun doesn’t shine out of his arse.
3 -
The problem is and this thread sums it up beautifully, everything has to be black or white for the voting public. It’s what led us down this path with Brexit too.
Corbyn is either a disaster waiting to happen (as is every Labour opposition leader) or he’s the country’s saviour in waiting.
Brexit is either our ticket to the promised land or it’s going to leave us in absolute ruin.
There is no room for nuance in a debate in a 21st century democracy.19 -
I’d say Corbyn is part of this problem rather than suffering because of it. His views on most things come down to very black and white views.Callumcafc said:The problem is and this thread sums it up beautifully, everything has to be black or white for the voting public. It’s what led us down this path with Brexit too.
Corbyn is either a disaster waiting to happen (as is every Labour opposition leader) or he’s the country’s saviour in waiting.
Brexit is either our ticket to the promised land or it’s going to leave us in absolute ruin.
There is no room for nuance in a debate in a 21st century democracy.
1 -
Let's stick with facts rather than opinion. This is the one that convinced me Jezza was evil.
29 -
But why though - the Tory thread gets quite heated.Callumcafc said:
There was a “how does Labour need to change” thread but it got too heated and then sunk.palarsehater said:Also we have a whole thread bashing the tories/May so why can’t we have a labour one. Only seems fair
0 -
I would argue differently. Take his views on ‘shoot to kill’. He argued in his interview at the time of the Paris attacks that “if you can avoid shooting, you should”.kentaddick said:
I’d say Corbyn is part of this problem rather than suffering because of it. His views on most things come down to very black and white views.Callumcafc said:The problem is and this thread sums it up beautifully, everything has to be black or white for the voting public. It’s what led us down this path with Brexit too.
Corbyn is either a disaster waiting to happen (as is every Labour opposition leader) or he’s the country’s saviour in waiting.
Brexit is either our ticket to the promised land or it’s going to leave us in absolute ruin.
There is no room for nuance in a debate in a 21st century democracy.
Later that day every press outlet reports “Corbyn says he wouldn’t shoot terrorists”.12 - Sponsored links:
-
I imagine it means he had a leading role within the paper, wiki would agreePaddyP17 said:
Yes, too long. I'll have a response for you, sentence by sentence if you like, sometime in 2020.Henry Irving said:
Well done for at least having a go rather than just dismissing it all by saying "you're obsessed".PaddyP17 said:
A couple of points:Henry Irving said:Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571924/Corbyn-s-30-years-talking-terrorists.html
- The Mail might just have an anti-Corbyn agenda. I say this before reading the article. Yes, doesn't make what it say automatically untrue
- This was thirty years ago. Change is possible in that time, surely? Any evidence that Corbyn has changed his stance
- This article is too long for me to refute every single claim individually, but I find the following particularly egregious: Too long?
"Following the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, Corbyn said he opposed police being allowed to shoot terror suspects, saying he's 'not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general'." Separate bit of evidence against Corbyn but doesn't invalidate the evidence.
Hang on. This is a bit of a false equivalence/straw man and recontextualises his words to fit the Mail's agenda.
Much of it is likely valid. But then you get stuff like this:
In 1981, London Labour Briefing, a far-Left monthly journal that Corbyn helped run, published a letter from Liam McCloskey, a convicted terrorist, inviting readers to 'help us along the road to a Socialist Republic free from the chains of capitalism'.
- What was Corbyn's role? "Helped run" could mean absolutely anything.
- Corbyn didn't publish the letter himself, did he? Or even write it. Or even necessarily express its views.
- ... Capitalism isn't exactly perfect, but that's by the by.
----------------------
So yes, it's miles too long to properly refute if I'm going to be exercising critical thought on literally every bullet point. It is much, much easier for me to shit on the Mail like I usually do (well, I don't, because I wouldn't even want to use it as toilet paper).
"Jeremy Corbyn, later Leader of the Labour Party, became a regular contributor to London Labour Briefing in the 1980s, and was described by The Times in 1981 as "Briefing's founder".[2] The Economist in a 1982 article named Corbyn as "Briefing's general secretary figure",[3] as did a profile on Corbyn compiled by parliamentary biographer Andrew Roth in 2004,[4][5] which alleges that he joined the editorial board as General Secretary in 1979.[6] "
Helped run seems fairly accurate! If he was Indeed an editor then surely he's, at least partly responsible for what They print?2 -
Same with his views on nuclear deterrence. Would he press the button?
ITS NOT A YES OR NO QUESTION1 -
I think some pretty nasty stuff was said about Diane Abbott but I might be wrong.palarsehater said:
But why though - the Tory thread gets quite heated.Callumcafc said:
There was a “how does Labour need to change” thread but it got too heated and then sunk.palarsehater said:Also we have a whole thread bashing the tories/May so why can’t we have a labour one. Only seems fair
Either way, it turns out that that thread wasn’t just sunk. A google search tells me it’s been blown off the face of the earth.0 -
His views on nuclear deterrence is we shouldn’t have one. As black and white as you can get.Callumcafc said:Same with his views on nuclear deterrence. Would he press the button?
ITS NOT A YES OR NO QUESTION1 -
I wasn't referencing every point in that article though. Just that one point i mentioned.PaddyP17 said:
Yes, too long. I'll have a response for you, sentence by sentence if you like, sometime in 2020.Henry Irving said:
Well done for at least having a go rather than just dismissing it all by saying "you're obsessed".PaddyP17 said:
A couple of points:Henry Irving said:Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571924/Corbyn-s-30-years-talking-terrorists.html
- The Mail might just have an anti-Corbyn agenda. I say this before reading the article. Yes, doesn't make what it say automatically untrue
- This was thirty years ago. Change is possible in that time, surely? Any evidence that Corbyn has changed his stance
- This article is too long for me to refute every single claim individually, but I find the following particularly egregious: Too long?
"Following the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, Corbyn said he opposed police being allowed to shoot terror suspects, saying he's 'not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general'." Separate bit of evidence against Corbyn but doesn't invalidate the evidence.
Hang on. This is a bit of a false equivalence/straw man and recontextualises his words to fit the Mail's agenda.
Much of it is likely valid. But then you get stuff like this:
In 1981, London Labour Briefing, a far-Left monthly journal that Corbyn helped run, published a letter from Liam McCloskey, a convicted terrorist, inviting readers to 'help us along the road to a Socialist Republic free from the chains of capitalism'.
- What was Corbyn's role? "Helped run" could mean absolutely anything.
- Corbyn didn't publish the letter himself, did he? Or even write it. Or even necessarily express its views.
- ... Capitalism isn't exactly perfect, but that's by the by.
----------------------
So yes, it's miles too long to properly refute if I'm going to be exercising critical thought on literally every bullet point. It is much, much easier for me to shit on the Mail like I usually do (well, I don't, because I wouldn't even want to use it as toilet paper).
We can argue about how much influence that Corbyn had on the journal but these are very small, controlled magazines. Things like that wouldn't be published "by mistake" or without either Corbyn knowing or agreeing. But it is a "weaker" link than others, I agree even if it is consistent with his long held and public pro-IRA stance which he has never, to my knowledge, changed.
Edit Stu has proved my point rather better than I could have done.1 -
However much Corbyn's opinions differ from mine, I don't think it's right to suppose that if he became prime minister, he'll get it all his way and do everything he wanted to achieve. This will no doubt annoy his more extreme supporters, but for me is a good thing. In fact, one of my main criticisms of Corbyn is that he's a really useless leader, both of labour and the opposition in general.2
-
Fair play. Even so, we've just put in collectively, I imagine, several minutes' worth of research and typing and refutation to each other/the Mail, going off of one (seemingly accurate, in fairness) claim made in one sentence of a pretty long article.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I imagine it means he had a leading role within the paper, wiki would agreePaddyP17 said:
Yes, too long. I'll have a response for you, sentence by sentence if you like, sometime in 2020.Henry Irving said:
Well done for at least having a go rather than just dismissing it all by saying "you're obsessed".PaddyP17 said:
A couple of points:Henry Irving said:Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571924/Corbyn-s-30-years-talking-terrorists.html
- The Mail might just have an anti-Corbyn agenda. I say this before reading the article. Yes, doesn't make what it say automatically untrue
- This was thirty years ago. Change is possible in that time, surely? Any evidence that Corbyn has changed his stance
- This article is too long for me to refute every single claim individually, but I find the following particularly egregious: Too long?
"Following the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, Corbyn said he opposed police being allowed to shoot terror suspects, saying he's 'not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general'." Separate bit of evidence against Corbyn but doesn't invalidate the evidence.
Hang on. This is a bit of a false equivalence/straw man and recontextualises his words to fit the Mail's agenda.
Much of it is likely valid. But then you get stuff like this:
In 1981, London Labour Briefing, a far-Left monthly journal that Corbyn helped run, published a letter from Liam McCloskey, a convicted terrorist, inviting readers to 'help us along the road to a Socialist Republic free from the chains of capitalism'.
- What was Corbyn's role? "Helped run" could mean absolutely anything.
- Corbyn didn't publish the letter himself, did he? Or even write it. Or even necessarily express its views.
- ... Capitalism isn't exactly perfect, but that's by the by.
----------------------
So yes, it's miles too long to properly refute if I'm going to be exercising critical thought on literally every bullet point. It is much, much easier for me to shit on the Mail like I usually do (well, I don't, because I wouldn't even want to use it as toilet paper).
"Jeremy Corbyn, later Leader of the Labour Party, became a regular contributor to London Labour Briefing in the 1980s, and was described by The Times in 1981 as "Briefing's founder".[2] The Economist in a 1982 article named Corbyn as "Briefing's general secretary figure",[3] as did a profile on Corbyn compiled by parliamentary biographer Andrew Roth in 2004,[4][5] which alleges that he joined the editorial board as General Secretary in 1979.[6] "
Helped run seems fairly accurate! If he was Indeed an editor then surely he's, at least partly responsible for what They print?
This will come as a shock to many people, but I have better things to do that go through that article point by point, and I presume this back-and-forth demonstrates the necessity for nuance, as Callum so correctly summarises above.4 -
If Corby had his way, we couldn't even ask the question, he's as dangerous as they comeCallumcafc said:Same with his views on nuclear deterrence. Would he press the button?
ITS NOT A YES OR NO QUESTION0 -
Yes, although I believe he listened to his party on that one and left the nuclear deterrent in the manifesto at the General Election.kentaddick said:
His views on nuclear deterrence is we shouldn’t have one. As black and white as you can get.Callumcafc said:Same with his views on nuclear deterrence. Would he press the button?
ITS NOT A YES OR NO QUESTION
As to whether he would push the button on the deterrent, anyone is going to have a hugely hard time saying yes to killing millions of innocents.
The frothing at the mouth of some Question Time audience members a year and a half ago around that particular topic was bizarre to say the least - they wanted death and destruction.4 -
You don’t get time to react to a nuclear war, that and game theory dictates you should say “I would push the button”.2
- Sponsored links:
-
Actually, yes it is.Callumcafc said:Same with his views on nuclear deterrence. Would he press the button?
ITS NOT A YES OR NO QUESTION0 -
I was observing a teacher I'm firing next week, so I really had nothing better to do!PaddyP17 said:
Fair play. Even so, we've just put in collectively, I imagine, several minutes' worth of research and typing and refutation to each other/the Mail, going off of one (seemingly accurate, in fairness) claim made in one sentence of a pretty long article.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I imagine it means he had a leading role within the paper, wiki would agreePaddyP17 said:
Yes, too long. I'll have a response for you, sentence by sentence if you like, sometime in 2020.Henry Irving said:
Well done for at least having a go rather than just dismissing it all by saying "you're obsessed".PaddyP17 said:
A couple of points:Henry Irving said:Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571924/Corbyn-s-30-years-talking-terrorists.html
- The Mail might just have an anti-Corbyn agenda. I say this before reading the article. Yes, doesn't make what it say automatically untrue
- This was thirty years ago. Change is possible in that time, surely? Any evidence that Corbyn has changed his stance
- This article is too long for me to refute every single claim individually, but I find the following particularly egregious: Too long?
"Following the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, Corbyn said he opposed police being allowed to shoot terror suspects, saying he's 'not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general'." Separate bit of evidence against Corbyn but doesn't invalidate the evidence.
Hang on. This is a bit of a false equivalence/straw man and recontextualises his words to fit the Mail's agenda.
Much of it is likely valid. But then you get stuff like this:
In 1981, London Labour Briefing, a far-Left monthly journal that Corbyn helped run, published a letter from Liam McCloskey, a convicted terrorist, inviting readers to 'help us along the road to a Socialist Republic free from the chains of capitalism'.
- What was Corbyn's role? "Helped run" could mean absolutely anything.
- Corbyn didn't publish the letter himself, did he? Or even write it. Or even necessarily express its views.
- ... Capitalism isn't exactly perfect, but that's by the by.
----------------------
So yes, it's miles too long to properly refute if I'm going to be exercising critical thought on literally every bullet point. It is much, much easier for me to shit on the Mail like I usually do (well, I don't, because I wouldn't even want to use it as toilet paper).
"Jeremy Corbyn, later Leader of the Labour Party, became a regular contributor to London Labour Briefing in the 1980s, and was described by The Times in 1981 as "Briefing's founder".[2] The Economist in a 1982 article named Corbyn as "Briefing's general secretary figure",[3] as did a profile on Corbyn compiled by parliamentary biographer Andrew Roth in 2004,[4][5] which alleges that he joined the editorial board as General Secretary in 1979.[6] "
Helped run seems fairly accurate! If he was Indeed an editor then surely he's, at least partly responsible for what They print?
This will come as a shock to many people, but I have better things to do that go through that article point by point, and I presume this back-and-forth demonstrates the necessity for nuance, as Callum so correctly summarises above.4 -
Or even intends to stand by everything he says he wants to achieveMcBobbin said:However much Corbyn's opinions differ from mine, I don't think it's right to suppose that if he became prime minister, he'll get it all his way and do everything he wanted to achieve. This will no doubt annoy his more extreme supporters, but for me is a good thing. In fact, one of my main criticisms of Corbyn is that he's a really useless leader, both of labour and the opposition in general.
0 -
If you want a black and white world, I suppose it is. :-)Henry Irving said:
Actually, yes it is.Callumcafc said:Same with his views on nuclear deterrence. Would he press the button?
ITS NOT A YES OR NO QUESTION1 -
Although, I agree that the answer to the deterrent question should be “Yes IF x y z conditions are met” but I can see why any political is hesitant to condition their answers like that.0
-
Agreed.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Or even intends to stand by everything he says he wants to achieveMcBobbin said:However much Corbyn's opinions differ from mine, I don't think it's right to suppose that if he became prime minister, he'll get it all his way and do everything he wanted to achieve. This will no doubt annoy his more extreme supporters, but for me is a good thing. In fact, one of my main criticisms of Corbyn is that he's a really useless leader, both of labour and the opposition in general.
0 -
All true @leuth rather sneeringly suggested he find any attempt to present evidence as funny. Where was the nuance there?PaddyP17 said:
Fair play. Even so, we've just put in collectively, I imagine, several minutes' worth of research and typing and refutation to each other/the Mail, going off of one (seemingly accurate, in fairness) claim made in one sentence of a pretty long article.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I imagine it means he had a leading role within the paper, wiki would agreePaddyP17 said:
Yes, too long. I'll have a response for you, sentence by sentence if you like, sometime in 2020.Henry Irving said:
Well done for at least having a go rather than just dismissing it all by saying "you're obsessed".PaddyP17 said:
A couple of points:Henry Irving said:Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571924/Corbyn-s-30-years-talking-terrorists.html
- The Mail might just have an anti-Corbyn agenda. I say this before reading the article. Yes, doesn't make what it say automatically untrue
- This was thirty years ago. Change is possible in that time, surely? Any evidence that Corbyn has changed his stance
- This article is too long for me to refute every single claim individually, but I find the following particularly egregious: Too long?
"Following the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, Corbyn said he opposed police being allowed to shoot terror suspects, saying he's 'not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general'." Separate bit of evidence against Corbyn but doesn't invalidate the evidence.
Hang on. This is a bit of a false equivalence/straw man and recontextualises his words to fit the Mail's agenda.
Much of it is likely valid. But then you get stuff like this:
In 1981, London Labour Briefing, a far-Left monthly journal that Corbyn helped run, published a letter from Liam McCloskey, a convicted terrorist, inviting readers to 'help us along the road to a Socialist Republic free from the chains of capitalism'.
- What was Corbyn's role? "Helped run" could mean absolutely anything.
- Corbyn didn't publish the letter himself, did he? Or even write it. Or even necessarily express its views.
- ... Capitalism isn't exactly perfect, but that's by the by.
----------------------
So yes, it's miles too long to properly refute if I'm going to be exercising critical thought on literally every bullet point. It is much, much easier for me to shit on the Mail like I usually do (well, I don't, because I wouldn't even want to use it as toilet paper).
"Jeremy Corbyn, later Leader of the Labour Party, became a regular contributor to London Labour Briefing in the 1980s, and was described by The Times in 1981 as "Briefing's founder".[2] The Economist in a 1982 article named Corbyn as "Briefing's general secretary figure",[3] as did a profile on Corbyn compiled by parliamentary biographer Andrew Roth in 2004,[4][5] which alleges that he joined the editorial board as General Secretary in 1979.[6] "
Helped run seems fairly accurate! If he was Indeed an editor then surely he's, at least partly responsible for what They print?
This will come as a shock to many people, but I have better things to do that go through that article point by point, and I presume this back-and-forth demonstrates the necessity for nuance, as Callum so correctly summarises above.
Evidence is being presented but like you I have things to do just know but will come back with more.0 -
Read up on game theory and mutually assured destruction. A well tred and highly successful use of game theory.Callumcafc said:
If you want a black and white world, I suppose it is. :-)Henry Irving said:
Actually, yes it is.Callumcafc said:Same with his views on nuclear deterrence. Would he press the button?
ITS NOT A YES OR NO QUESTION0 -
You don't play cricket with Leuth and I - our relationship dynamic is barely what one could call functionalHenry Irving said:
All true @leuth rather sneeringly suggested he find any attempt to present evidence as funny. Where was the nuance there?PaddyP17 said:
Fair play. Even so, we've just put in collectively, I imagine, several minutes' worth of research and typing and refutation to each other/the Mail, going off of one (seemingly accurate, in fairness) claim made in one sentence of a pretty long article.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I imagine it means he had a leading role within the paper, wiki would agreePaddyP17 said:
Yes, too long. I'll have a response for you, sentence by sentence if you like, sometime in 2020.Henry Irving said:
Well done for at least having a go rather than just dismissing it all by saying "you're obsessed".PaddyP17 said:
A couple of points:Henry Irving said:Evidence 2. Corbyn takes part in a minute's silence for terrorists,
At an Irish Republican event in 1987, Corbyn took part in a minute's silence to commemorate eight IRA men shot dead by the SAS as they travelled to attack a police station in County Armagh. 'I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571924/Corbyn-s-30-years-talking-terrorists.html
- The Mail might just have an anti-Corbyn agenda. I say this before reading the article. Yes, doesn't make what it say automatically untrue
- This was thirty years ago. Change is possible in that time, surely? Any evidence that Corbyn has changed his stance
- This article is too long for me to refute every single claim individually, but I find the following particularly egregious: Too long?
"Following the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, Corbyn said he opposed police being allowed to shoot terror suspects, saying he's 'not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general'." Separate bit of evidence against Corbyn but doesn't invalidate the evidence.
Hang on. This is a bit of a false equivalence/straw man and recontextualises his words to fit the Mail's agenda.
Much of it is likely valid. But then you get stuff like this:
In 1981, London Labour Briefing, a far-Left monthly journal that Corbyn helped run, published a letter from Liam McCloskey, a convicted terrorist, inviting readers to 'help us along the road to a Socialist Republic free from the chains of capitalism'.
- What was Corbyn's role? "Helped run" could mean absolutely anything.
- Corbyn didn't publish the letter himself, did he? Or even write it. Or even necessarily express its views.
- ... Capitalism isn't exactly perfect, but that's by the by.
----------------------
So yes, it's miles too long to properly refute if I'm going to be exercising critical thought on literally every bullet point. It is much, much easier for me to shit on the Mail like I usually do (well, I don't, because I wouldn't even want to use it as toilet paper).
"Jeremy Corbyn, later Leader of the Labour Party, became a regular contributor to London Labour Briefing in the 1980s, and was described by The Times in 1981 as "Briefing's founder".[2] The Economist in a 1982 article named Corbyn as "Briefing's general secretary figure",[3] as did a profile on Corbyn compiled by parliamentary biographer Andrew Roth in 2004,[4][5] which alleges that he joined the editorial board as General Secretary in 1979.[6] "
Helped run seems fairly accurate! If he was Indeed an editor then surely he's, at least partly responsible for what They print?
This will come as a shock to many people, but I have better things to do that go through that article point by point, and I presume this back-and-forth demonstrates the necessity for nuance, as Callum so correctly summarises above.
Evidence is being presented but like you I have things to do just know but will come back with more.
3 -
Nuence is not something Corbyn and the far left are famous for.Callumcafc said:The problem is and this thread sums it up beautifully, everything has to be black or white for the voting public. It’s what led us down this path with Brexit too.
Corbyn is either a disaster waiting to happen (as is every Labour opposition leader) or he’s the country’s saviour in waiting.
Brexit is either our ticket to the promised land or it’s going to leave us in absolute ruin.
There is no room for nuance in a debate in a 21st century democracy.0
