Kara_Jane_Adams wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

He's pro Palestine, which some might argue is antisemitic? Maybe?

More anti-Israel.

His stance on the two state solution, but with the right to return coupled with his comments on the Balfour treaty and his speaking at Al Quds marches, tends to muddy the waters a bit.

Then there's the vocal support for Hamas and Hezbollah (friends), who have a long history of dressing up anti-semitism as anti-zionism as well as being very anti LGBTQ, then there's the mural, the wreath laying, the irony comment, vocally agreeing with a number of anti-semites and even hosting events for them, continually sharing a platform with prominent anti-semites, failing to deal with prominent cases of anti-semitism within the party, personally intervening in said cases and then claiming the opposite, writing the forward to a new edition of JA Hobson’s 1902 book Imperialism: A Study calling it "a great tome", his perpetuation of the myth that the Jews control the media, his support of a campaign to release terrorists guilty of bombing the Isreali Embassy building, his introduction of a motion to rename Holocaust remembrance Day, blaming the "zionist lobby" for Sheikh Raed Salah's expulsion from the UK (Salah claimed 9/11 was carried out by Jews and and claimed Jews used to blood of Christian babies to bake bread), and so on, and so on, and so on.

But it's probably just a smear campaign.

After all you know what Jews are like.

To be fair, I don't actually believe he is an anti-semite although I do have concerns, but equally I can understand why others do.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Kara_Jane_Adams wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

He's pro Palestine, which some might argue is antisemitic? Maybe?

More anti-Israel.

His stance on the two state solution, but with the right to return coupled with his comments on the Balfour treaty and his speaking at Al Quds marches, tends to muddy the waters a bit.

Then there's the vocal support for Hamas and Hezbollah (friends), who have a long history of dressing up anti-semitism as anti-zionism as well as being very anti LGBTQ, then there's the mural, the wreath laying, the irony comment, vocally agreeing with a number of anti-semites and even hosting events for them, continually sharing a platform with prominent anti-semites, failing to deal with prominent cases of anti-semitism within the party, personally intervening in said cases and then claiming the opposite, writing the forward to a new edition of JA Hobson’s 1902 book Imperialism: A Study calling it "a great tome", his perpetuation of the myth that the Jews control the media, his support of a campaign to release terrorists guilty of bombing the Isreali Embassy building, his introduction of a motion to rename Holocaust remembrance Day, blaming the "zionist lobby" for Sheikh Raed Salah's expulsion from the UK (Salah claimed 9/11 was carried out by Jews and and claimed Jews used to blood of Christian babies to bake bread), and so on, and so on, and so on.

But it's probably just a smear campaign.

After all you know what Jews are like.

To be fair, I don't actually believe he is an anti-semite although I do have concerns, but equally I can understand why others do.

What's wrong about the right of people displaced from their homes to be allowed to return?

Kara_Jane_Adams wrote:

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

What's wrong about the right of people displaced from their homes to be allowed to return?

Where the fuck did I say there was?

or did you just stop reading at that point.

fuck this shit, delete this account, I'm done.

GooberTheHat wrote:

Have you not seen the state of our previous ones?

MattyJ wrote:

Is there a legit calculator for the labour manifesto so I can see how it affects me?

acemuzzy wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

Quickest flounce ever?

No real need for that. Hopefully she'll be back.

monkey wrote:

Yeah I did pose it as a question because I remember reading it in the Times so mentally filed under ‘Dubious’. Re 1) the issue would be whether Israel would ever negotiate when the other side want to, from their POV, turn them back into a minority which would be defeating the whole point of Israel in the first place.

In the Times it was evidence of Corbyns unrealistic approach. Oh look, he wants this and this. They’re completely incompatible. What a wally etc.

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.