donkey

Oh here we go again. Start by telling me what it is I think because it is easier to argue against the words you put into my mouth than what I've actually said, then come out with that staple "anyone who doesn't agree withe the Official Israeli Government version of reality is an anti-semite." Does that include the numerous Jewish groups who oppose Israeli policy? ---------- Post added 27-08-2014 at 09:40 ---------- Thery are in contravention of international law, not according to me, but to numerous UN resolutions.

The only ones talking about ISIS are you and Firemanbob. I was refering to the actions of Israel. Yet, in your mind, my being opposed to the actions of one bunch of tyrants automatically means I must support a different bunch of tyrants, to be randomly named by you??? Stirling logic Sherlock. I'd keep quiet about that low IQ thing...you know, people in glass houses. Although your accusations are so bizzarre I think it must actually go beyond mere stupidity. The rantings of a fanatical lunatic

No Bob, I don't support terrorists. Do you support ethnic cleansing? Because that is what you appear to be doing. How do you feel about ethnic cleansing, because you appear to be supporting the forcible removal of Palistinians from their lands through violence and intimidation. What a low-down, dishonest way of conducting a duscussion. Shame on you.

I support ISIS do I? Why not accuse me of being a personal friend of Fred West while you are at it? Attack the person when you can't give a reasoned reply to what they are saying. Occupying the territory of a miltary opponent is different from driving the civilians who live their out so you can take their land. The allies occupied Germany after the war, but they stopped short of sending the Germans to live in refugee camps so British and Americans could move onto their lands. Surely even someone so militantly fanatic that they accuse anyone who disagrees with their opinions as being terrorist supporters can see that.

And you STILL haven't answered that question. What's the matter? Would answering it show up the contradictions in your own rhetoric? There must be some reason, because you are clearly ducking it. Perhaps you didn't see it, I've only asked it three times.

Slaughtering large numbers of civilians isn't the same as 'defending against terrorist attacks.' It is terrorist attacks. And you still havn't adequately answered the question about how you can assert illegal settlements are not driving Palestinans off their land. Can you explain in what way forcibly driving Palestinans off their land and building Jewish settlements in the areas they have been forced by the Israeli militants to vacate' is somehow different from driving Palestinians off their land? (Something which you assure me isn't happening outside of imaginary conspiracy theories)

OK, fair enough, lets say 'equally acceesible to all' instead of 'free' then, and the point stands.

So you think the ever expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank - which are built on land forcibly taken from Palestinians and protected by the IDF - are a figment of my imagination?

I can see how you might think that if you choose to ignore the fact that Israel is engaged in a long term strategy of driving the Palestinans off their land through illegal settlements enforced by violence from the IDF and the settlers themselves, and the cruel and inhuman seige of Gaza, which has been going on for years now.

The only thing I'm looking forward to about the way the NHS is going is seeing the faces of certain working class tory cheerleaders when they realise good treatment is no longer free and they can't afford to pay for it.

It is perfectly simple to avoid it happening. Just change your name to 'Amazon' or 'Starbucks' or make a donation to the Conservative campaign fund and you'll be fine. They'll probably throw you a few insider trading tips to boot

It hasn't escaped everyone's attention. As far as I know, we don't supply arms to Assad. As far as I know, our prime minister isn't the poster boy for an organisation formed to prop up the Syrian regime involving several senior government figures called 'Friends of Syria' http://www2.cfoi.co.uk/ As far as I know we don't have extensive trading links with the Assad regime. As far as I know, the BBC doesn't change its editorial line to favour the Assad regime under pressure from a powerful pro-Assad lobby. So, these facts - which are out in the public domain for all who don't conciously choose to ignore them to see - demonstate that there are good reasons - other than anti-semitism - why many British people -including Jewish ones - feel more directly involved with the slaughter in Gaza, than that in Syria, or in Timbuktu, Mali or Burma. Furthermore, labling the people opposed to what Israel are doing to the civilians of Gaza as 'anti-semitic' is the logical equivalent of labling the western opponents of ISIS as 'Islamophobes.' Lets face it, that old 'Anti-Semite' card is starting to look decidedly frayed round the edges, and if it gets played much more, it is going to fall apart altogether.

Nothing wrong with people renting because that is what they choose to do, but what is happening is more and more people are left with no option but to rent, and the increase in private landlords other people buying homes as an investment is pushing up prices and exacerbating the situation.

You can't make such sweeping statements about either landlords or tenants. You get good and bad ones in both groups. I can't agree that private landlords 'save' tenants from homelessness. The houses would still be there if the landlords didn't buy them. The increase of private landlords pushes up house prices, thus making home ownership unaffordable to more and more people, who are then forced to rent from the professional landlords who, in turn, are then able to use those rents to buy more property and push the prices up even further. Paying rent to someone else for profit ultimately means that their mortgage gets paid off by other people, and those people who paid for it end up with nothing to show for their labours. I can only see one party truly benefits from such transaction.

IMO they won't build any new housing for the same reason they introduced 'Help To Buy'. It actually pushes the cost of housing up, which is financially good if you already - like most MPs - own property. But if you don't it means you are paying an increasingly large proportion of your income in rent. Therefore you are working harder and harder to pay so others can earn increasing profit from essentially doing nothing. It is part of the wider general push to increase the wealth of a minority at the expense of the majority. Housing policy is no longer about providing reasonable homes at affordable prices. Continual property bubbles are not happening by accident.

I wasn't aware it was neccessary to study the subject matter at university level and provide a referenced bibliography to accompany posts on SF. Perhaps you are suffering from delusions of grandeur?

So if there are problems of poverty, poor/unaffordable housing in certain places, it is because the entire population of those places need to change their attitude, and the government is therefore exhonerated of any responsibity to take action? I don't really see that as an outlook or a policy that is going to bear any fruit. It was the same kind of 'undeserving poor' rubbish the goverment and their well to do supporters came out with in the reccession before the war, until the excrement hit the air conditioning, and it was realised that they required these good for nothing poor people with their bad attitudes to risk their lives to save a country in which they had virtually no stake, yet nonetheless gave their lives by the thousands.

£30m!!! OMG!!!! That is almost one hundreth of one percent of the £400 billion it cost to bail the banks out (leaving aside the fact it probably isn't true anyway). What I'm wondering is, will I still be entitled to emigrate to another European country if these little Englanders get their way?

The only channel I've seen which can even begin to rival them for sheer bile and dishonesty is Fox News. The broadcasters at RT are the worst kind of toadies and hypocrites, whinging on incessantly about how bad everything in the West is, whilst pointedly ignoring their own massive problems of corruption and oppression. Their real gripe is not that the west is morally dubious, but that it still can exert the kind of global influence to which Russia aspires, and god help us if that day ever comes round.

Just read through this thread. A simple question was asked, yet so many people seem to confuse "What do you want?" with "Which group of people (and don't be put off here if the subjects don't exist outside your own imagination) do you look down on?".

Ditto those, and a return to affordable housing through rent controls and a massive government funded home building initiative.

:hihi: That's a good one

Gerry Adams was arrested because Sinn Fein were potentially about to become the second biggest party in the Republic of Ireland. That would cause a major headache not only for the Irish Establisment, but for Westminster (Tories - full name Conservative and UNIONIST Party). Catholics in the North are too savvy not to realise that here is bound to be a hidden agenda at play here, but people in the south are less clued in. If you throw enough mud, etc. This will almosty certainly impact on Sinn Fein in the upcoming elections in the south. As usual, a straw poll of British public opinion (this thread) once more demonstates most people don't really have a clue what is - and has for a long time - been going in Northern Ireland. Ram the same old crap down their throats through media outlets, year in and year out, then give them a Republican baddy to boo and hiss at, then watch them dance like little clockwork dolls.

I'd never heard of Nelson Mandela until he died yesterday. I'm so glad the BBC devoted the whole evening on both its' main channels to bringing p to speed on who he was and what he did. I wonder what they'll have tonight 'Breaking News: Mandela Still Dead. We go over live to see what Wayne Rooney thinks about it.'

Q:Why isn't there a police department especially for investigating political corruption? A:Because it would have to be authorized by the government I'd like a system where buying influence ('lobbying') in any form, blatant or subtle, was a serious criminal offence. A system where rules on MPs financial vested interests and links to big business were a lot tighter, with lengthy jail terms for wrong-doing. Then we would see a different type of politician. However, I don't expect this to happen, as no pig is going to vote to ban itself from sticking its nose in the trough, which leaves the only hope of changing the situation to the - not at all easily hoodwinked, ill informed or apathetic - British public.