Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Nigel Farage V Nick Clegg....


Mr Mosquito

Recommended Posts

What I am saying is it shows the mind blowing hypocrisy of labour in power and labour in opposition, must be a new policy shift labour now need evidence to go to war.

Blair,Mandelson etc were the decision makers in power,different people make the decisions now.

Yes,a policy shift, or is that wrong as well!

Hypocrisy is when the same people make different decisions.

For example, do you think Cameron is a hypocrit for changing the view of the Thatcher Tory party over Hillsborough?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would they bollocks!!! Missed opportunity in Syria, as we've since not only seen chemicle weapons used, but the rebellion infiltrated by Jihadists.

The Labour government sat and did nothing while 6 million were slaughtered in Congo. Dafaur? George Clooney did more than our government. I guess Blaire was too busy hugging Gadaffi to care.

As I understand it, the chemical weapons were used " before" the commons debate Esmond refers to?

As for the Congo, how about Rwanda? Did John Major do anything while the slaughter went on in that country?

I guess he was to busy shagging Edwina.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blair,Mandelson etc were the decision makers in power,different people make the decisions now.

Yes,a policy shift, or is that wrong as well!

Hypocrisy is when the same people make different decisions.

For example, do you think Cameron is a hypocrit for changing the view of the Thatcher Tory party over Hillsborough?

 

There are plenty of the then decision makers left in this latest version of the labour party and also a plethora of the sheep happy to go along with all of the decisions.

 

As I understand it, the chemical weapons were used " before" the commons debate Esmond refers to?

As for the Congo, how about Rwanda? Did John Major do anything while the slaughter went on in that country?

 

The chemical weapons were used in 1988, the 1st gulf war should have dealt with that, it's a bit of stretch for even for the labour party to link the 2.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of the then decision makers left in this latest version of the labour party and also a plethora of the sheep happy to go along with all of the decisions.

The chemical weapons were used in 1988, the 1st gulf war should have dealt with that, it's a bit of stretch for even for the labour party to link the 2.

We were talking about Syria.
Link to post
Share on other sites

We were talking about Syria.

 

I wasn't, I was replying to your referencing of the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a reasonable reason to invade 15 years after the event and referencing that the same happened in Syria and even a week after the event Labour didn't think it was that important.

 

Anyway earlier you asked for balance and I would say that apart from you and 2 others the balance is there, because most people on this thread believe that given the choices of the 3rd rate, self promoting, shameless ,lying politicians and their parties and their/and their parties recent histories, that the prefix politician means at least a 90% chance of them being as useless and corrupt as the rest of them past or present, the reason that people hate politicians so much and voting numbers are going down, just watch Harman on newsnight last night or the transcript of Blair's advice to Rebecca Brooks or the way that all politicians of whatever persuasion made excuses and are still making excuses over the expenses scandal.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would they bollocks!!! Missed opportunity in Syria, as we've since not only seen chemicle weapons used, but the rebellion infiltrated by Jihadists.

The Labour government sat and did nothing while 6 million were slaughtered in Congo. Dafaur? George Clooney did more than our government. I guess Blaire was too busy hugging Gadaffi to care.

So your view is that the UK should send task forces everywhere there are conflicts, is it? So Cameron should send forces to Darfur (it's still going on) and the South Sudan? Major should've interfered in East Timor and Rwanda?

You're on your own with that one. There were international peacekeeping forces in the DRC but not including Britain.

Still you can't fault your Daily Mail logic: Labour was wrong to lead us into an illegal war in Iraq but then also wrong not to support an illegal intervention in Syria. And we'd of had as much chance of damping down extremism there as we had in Iraq.

Anyway, back to the OP's topic. I reckon Clegg will founder on a debate entirely based on the EU, but if he goes on the offensive and widens the debate it will be Farrage on the defensive. But I can't see that happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't, I was replying to your referencing of the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a reasonable reason to invade 15 years after the event and referencing that the same happened in Syria and even a week after the event Labour didn't think it was that important.

Anyway earlier you asked for balance and I would say that apart from you and 2 others the balance is there, because most people on this thread believe that given the choices of the 3rd rate, self promoting, shameless ,lying politicians and their parties and their/and their parties recent histories, that the prefix politician means at least a 90% chance of them being as useless and corrupt as the rest of them past or present, the reason that people hate politicians so much and voting numbers are going down, just watch Harman on newsnight last night or the transcript of Blair's advice to Rebecca Brooks or the way that all politicians of whatever persuasion made excuses and are still making excuses over the expenses scandal.

I'll say it again.i was answering Barr Court's post on Syria.

But I'm glad I have you the chance to have a rant ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So your view is that the UK should send task forces everywhere there are conflicts, is it? So Cameron should send forces to Darfur (it's still going on) and the South Sudan? Major should've interfered in East Timor and Rwanda?

You're on your own with that one. There were international peacekeeping forces in the DRC but not including Britain.

Still you can't fault your Daily Mail logic: Labour was wrong to lead us into an illegal war in Iraq but then also wrong not to support an illegal intervention in Syria. And we'd of had as much chance of damping down extremism there as we had in Iraq.

Anyway, back to the OP's topic. I reckon Clegg will founder on a debate entirely based on the EU, but if he goes on the offensive and widens the debate it will be Farrage on the defensive. But I can't see that happening.

What a stupid post. I was adding context to Blairs war mongering, and how he avoided much worse suffering.

As it happens, I do think ouselves and France have a duty to Africa. As shown in Mali recently, the timely intervention of Western forces can contain a situation before the conflict spreads. You could also say the same about Libya.

We'll also never know if intervention would have been illeagal, as the moment we ruled it out it would never have got through the UN. What do we see a few months later? Chemicle weapons used in Hommes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a stupid post. I was adding context to Blairs war mongering, and how he avoided much worse suffering.

As it happens, I do think ouselves and France have a duty to Africa. As shown in Mali recently, the timely intervention of Western forces can contain a situation before the conflict spreads. You could also say the same about Libya.

We'll also never know if intervention would have been illeagal, as the moment we ruled it out it would never have got through the UN. What do we see a few months later? Chemicle weapons used in Hommes.

China and Russia would never have allowed an intervention. Your post focuses on Labour's failings while ignoring failures by Tory administrations. The subject of Mugabe was brought up earlier and the question of why did Labour not intervene there was raised. Of course, it's a different problem entirely to Iraq which had invaded neighbours twice in 12 years, however if you wanted to make a case you'd need to ask why the Tories didn't intervene in the late 80s/early 90s when Mugabe was using North Korean troops in a near genocidal way against Matabeleland and his political opponents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 80's? How far do you intend to go back in your efforts to deflect the spotlight from Labour?

I believe we invaded a few countries back when the Royals were in charge, should we bring them into it?

Anyways, this thread isn't about what a wonderful Labour government we had and I'll leave it there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

China and Russia would never have allowed an intervention. Your post focuses on Labour's failings while ignoring failures by Tory administrations. The subject of Mugabe was brought up earlier and the question of why did Labour not intervene there was raised. Of course, it's a different problem entirely to Iraq which had invaded neighbours twice in 12 years, however if you wanted to make a case you'd need to ask why the Tories didn't intervene in the late 80s/early 90s when Mugabe was using North Korean troops in a near genocidal way against Matabeleland and his political opponents.

 

The problem is the smoking gun discovered in 2011 from Blair's own paperwork, that he and Bush had already agreed to go in to Iraq with or without UN support 5 months earlier than the dodgy UN resolution, they were going in come what may.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the smoking gun discovered in 2011 from Blair's own paperwork, that he and Bush had already agreed to go in to Iraq with or without UN support 5 months earlier than the dodgy UN resolution, they were going in come what may.

Quite agree. It was a done deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 80's? How far do you intend to go back in your efforts to deflect the spotlight from Labour?

I believe we invaded a few countries back when the Royals were in charge, should we bring them into it?

Anyways, this thread isn't about what a wonderful Labour government we had and I'll leave it there.

If you'd read my post it raised questions about conflicts now, Darfur; South Sudan; I could add Irian Jaya, the Celebes; Somalia and many more. All humanitarian crises, none seeing UK intervention.

If you took off your blue coloured specs you might be able to see the world as it is.

We are not Team UK world police. You rightly slate Blair for his pretensions in that direction, but then to criticise Britain for not getting mixed up in more foreign conflicts is a bit rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Asinine comments aside - probably when one side feels they have some sort of advantage. And I would love to see this on ITV.

 

I reckon that any televized debate on our EU membership involving the UKIP leadership versus the EU loving traitor leadership of the Lib-Lab-Con will attract a massive TV audience. UKIP have certainly made politics interesting again and I've overheard quite a lot of non political type people saying they'll be voting UKIP in the upcoming Euro elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can attest to that RG - life long Red and Blue voters are openly saying to me that they are fed up with the way their votes have been wasted, and intend to vote UKIP in 2014/2015

 

Let's hope that the 1944 'Red House Report' gets to be discussed in any TV debate on the German led EU project. The 1944 meeting between top Waffen SS personnel and German industrialists is at the very heart of the EU project vision where Germany will economically dominate a Post War Europe......

 

article-1179902-04DF5AB3000005DC-154_468

 

 

 

Read more at the links below:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich--EU.html

 

http://ploigos1.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/red-house-maison-rouge-report.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two unedifying politicians but I'm sure Cleggy will reveal Farceage for the fraudster he is.

 

Let the debate begain, I'll start with..........Nick Smegg is a typical Lib Dum EU Scum traitor politician - an EU 4th Reicher. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's the BBC who I fail to see the benefit for. They've been pilloried on here for not giving Farage a mouthpiece and when they give him a mouthpiece and he gets pulled apart by another politician, they'll be accused of stacking the depth against him. Up until now, Farage hasn't had to back any of his policies up because he's been left out of the debate but given the vagueness he's shown over his own parties policies and the fear of being shown up by him by the big 3, they'll have teams of researchers pick apart everything he's going to say before he says it. As Nick Griffin found out after his QT appearance, all publicity is most certainly not good publicity

As I've said elsewhere before, all UKIP are currently doing is guaranteeing a Labour majority at the next election; there's bound to be a bounce back to the opposition anyway and UKIP are taking far more votes from the blue side than the red or the yellow

One further thing, but will The Green Party have a place in this debate? They currently have 100% more Westminster MPs than UKIP and I imagine a greater share of the vote at the last GE so surely in the interests of fairness they should get a platform too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's the BBC who I fail to see the benefit for. They've been pilloried on here for not giving Farage a mouthpiece and when they give him a mouthpiece and he gets pulled apart by another politician, they'll be accused of stacking the depth against him. Up until now, Farage hasn't had to back any of his policies up because he's been left out of the debate but given the vagueness he's shown over his own parties policies and the fear of being shown up by him by the big 3, they'll have teams of researchers pick apart everything he's going to say before he says it. As Nick Griffin found out after his QT appearance, all publicity is most certainly not good publicity

As I've said elsewhere before, all UKIP are currently doing is guaranteeing a Labour majority at the next election; there's bound to be a bounce back to the opposition anyway and UKIP are taking far more votes from the blue side than the red or the yellow

One further thing, but will The Green Party have a place in this debate? They currently have 100% more Westminster MPs than UKIP and I imagine a greater share of the vote at the last GE so surely in the interests of fairness they should get a platform too?

 

2*0=0.   The Greens have one more MP than UKIP, not 100% more. Sorry, just me being pedantic again.

 

As far as I am aware Clegg challenged Farage on air and Farage accepted, hence the absence of Greens in the debate.

 

What has Clegg to gain ? Well he probably sees it as highly likely that he will be the leader, if they keep him on, of a very small party after the next election. Hence his desire to position himself as staunchly EU in the hope of a nice job in Brussels.

 

 

 

nick-clegg-its-time-for-a-referendum-on-

Link to post
Share on other sites

2*0=0. The Greens have one more MP than UKIP, not 100% more. Sorry, just me being pedantic again.

As far as I am aware Clegg challenged Farage on air and Farage accepted, hence the absence of Greens in the debate.

What has Clegg to gain ? Well he probably sees it as highly likely that he will be the leader, if they keep him on, of a very small party after the next election. Hence his desire to position himself as staunchly EU in the hope of a nice job in Brussels.

We'll technically 1 is 100% greater than zero, but I was being facetious in the first place so it doesn't really matter. I guess I was making a roundabout point that for all the bluster, The Green Party are actually more influential in British politics

To be honest, I'm being lazy and not reading the links, but it seems odd (and against the charter) for the BBC to give two political leaders a platform without others. I'd presumed that BBC involvement meant Ed and Dave were going to be there

I think Nick Clegg feels he can gain a solid platform into the next election by making Farage and by extension, UKIP, look stupid on TV. I hop it doesn't back fire

Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuinely interested in your thoughts.

What can Clegg hope to gain from this?

He has pretty much destroyed the LD's and his personal rating is just above Attilla the Hun.

If, as you say, most people regard Farage as a joke (I don't think 'most' people do, but that's for another day) why engage with him?

On the off-chance he wins, what will he have achieved, and if, as most expect, Farage destroys him, then surely his own political future must be hanging by a thread.

 

Farage has done this for years - he is a very, very powerful speaker - as many in Brussels have found out.  I don't see what Clegg has to gain. Even if he wins, and exposes Farage and UKIP as totally incompetent, surely Labour and Conservatives will be the winners as I for the life of me can't see it attracting one single extra vote for his doomed party.

Thanks.

Agree with your comments re Lib Dems being doomed hence I suppose it's the desperate last throw of the dice for someone who must think he's good at debating, based on his poll 'bounce' following the TV 'debates' in 2010. 

 

Farage is certainly a very loud speaker for sure but is it mere hot air ?  The nation will have the chance to judge for themselves !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with your comments re Lib Dems being doomed hence I suppose it's the desperate last throw of the dice for someone who must think he's good at debating, based on his poll 'bounce' following the TV 'debates' in 2010. 

 

Farage is certainly a very loud speaker for sure but is it mere hot air ?  The nation will have the chance to judge for themselves !

 

Nick Smegg is most definately a mass debator - like the type of spotty twerp you find in a school 6th form mass debating some bullshit that some Cultural Marxist teacher has indoctrinated him with. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll technically 1 is 100% greater than zero, but I was being facetious in the first place so it doesn't really matter. I guess I was making a roundabout point that for all the bluster, The Green Party are actually more influential in British politics

To be honest, I'm being lazy and not reading the links, but it seems odd (and against the charter) for the BBC to give two political leaders a platform without others. I'd presumed that BBC involvement meant Ed and Dave were going to be there

I think Nick Clegg feels he can gain a solid platform into the next election by making Farage and by extension, UKIP, look stupid on TV. I hop it doesn't back fire

 

Actually I think that 1 is technically 100% greater than 0.5

 

Pressure groups such as UKIP can obviously wield an importance in politics way beyond their representation in Parliament.

 

Nigel did invite Ed and Dave but they, quite sensibly from their points of view, declined the invitation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Smegg is most definately a mass debator - like the type of spotty twerp you find in a school 6th form mass debating some bullshit that some Cultural Marxist teacher has indoctrinated him with. :D

 

:laughcont:

 

Character assassination at it's very best, Gobbers !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...