Fan The Flames Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 13 minutes ago, aintforever said: I dunno, there is a wiff of racism with his choice of language IMO. Maybe it's because of who said it but it could be racially motivated. If Boris Johnson had left early do you really think he would say he doesn't understand "our culture"? I doubt it, he would more likely say he's out of touch with normal people or something similar. When has anyone ever used the word culture to describe privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 10 minutes ago, whelk said: Mods - can we have a vote to put someone on a sabbatical? This thread was about the election but always turns into same bs that is hard to sift through Both SOG and Hypo need a time out, same old boring you're an antisemite you're an islamaphobe on every thread. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 11 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said: When has anyone ever used the word culture to describe privilege. Farage knew exactly what he was doing with the language he used. Laughable that anyone thinks otherwise. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said: Both SOG and Hypo need a time out, same old boring you're an antisemite you're an islamaphobe on every thread. I haven't called him an antisemite once on this thread. In fact I haven't called him anything other than a mentalist and even then I was referring to his political views. If someone is going to blatantly lie about me and what I've said then you can hardly expect me not to respond. Edited June 10 by hypochondriac 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 Racism row kicking off over comments made by Tory candidate for Southend East Gavin Haran on X referring to Labour candidate Bayo Alaba. Reece S - Did you knock the coconut off? Gavin Harlan - I’m afraid to say that all coconuts remained intact. But I have a plan to ensure that at least one coconut is removed from its perch this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: I haven't called him an antisemite once on this thread. In fact I haven't called him anything other than a mentalist and even then I was referring to his political views. If someone is going to blatantly lie about me and what I've said then you can hardly expect me not to respond. They aren’t lies. You made those comments about Muslims. I called you out at the time and I will continue to call you out as long as you deny the things you have said. I have suggested that we give it a rest so feel free to have the last word, but anyone who has been in this forum for any length of time will have seen what you have written. Just be be clear, people with centrist views who have mostly voted for the LibDems are mentalists? Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said: Ducker says feeding kids is a gimmick. I don’t want taxes going on feeding middle class & rich kids. That’s the parents fucking job. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, sadoldgit said: Racism row kicking off over comments made by Tory candidate for Southend East Gavin Haran on X referring to Labour candidate Bayo Alaba. Reece S - Did you knock the coconut off? Gavin Harlan - I’m afraid to say that all coconuts remained intact. But I have a plan to ensure that at least one coconut is removed from its perch this year. I'm sure someone on here referred to black people as coconuts in the past. Can't for the life of me think who it was. Probably someone really racist I'd imagine. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 36 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: I don’t want taxes going on feeding middle class & rich kids. That’s the parents fucking job. That wasn't the point of you post though was it, you were pointing about how the labour spokesperson didn't know her figures. But NF didn't let her answer and then it was clipped. I was just showing how you can take a little bit of something and make it something that it's not. Yeah we shouldn't be paying for rich kids breakfast. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: I'm sure someone on here referred to black people as coconuts in the past. Can't for the life of me think who it was. Probably someone really racist I'd imagine. Hypo then? Only joking sweet darlings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloucester Saint Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Wow https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 7 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said: Wow https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko Imagine thinking these unhinged cunts have your interests at heart? I get the frustrations of voters thinking politicians don’t give a shit about the impact of immigration but fuck me these wankers aren’t the answer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said: I'm sure someone on here referred to black people as coconuts in the past. Can't for the life of me think who it was. Probably someone really racist I'd imagine. Remember how he proudly boasted he couldn't be racist as he had a muslim barber and a mixed race bairmaid in his local, that was a good one Then of course there was calling the brown skinned female politician an immigrant. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 31 minutes ago, whelk said: Imagine thinking these unhinged cunts have your interests at heart? I get the frustrations of voters thinking politicians don’t give a shit about the impact of immigration but fuck me these wankers aren’t the answer. I'm pretty centrist but agree with some of the right policies such as asylum cases being decided at the British embassy in country not in UK, effective deportation of failed cases and end of visas etc. But what deters me from voting for parties that support such policies is the fear I'll be enabling and normalising the thin end of the wedge and within ten years cnuts like that guy will be ministers. Edited June 10 by buctootim 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said: Wow https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko I wonder what the ones they do catch at vetting have said, if people like this got through. Edited June 10 by Holmes_and_Watson autocarrot 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said: Yeah we shouldn't be paying for rich kids breakfast. So you oppose that Labour gimmick as well then? Edited June 10 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 3 hours ago, Fan The Flames said: Ducker says feeding kids is a gimmick. 1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said: That wasn't the point of you post though was it, you were pointing about how the labour spokesperson didn't know her figures. No it wasn’t, it was a direct response you complaining I thought it was a gimmick. Something you now seem to agree with. You’re all over the place, even trying to pretend she did know how many breakfasts they needed make. You’ll be telling us she knew how many kids were privately educated next. Edited June 10 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said: I'm sure someone on here referred to black people as coconuts in the past. Yep he did, Sunak & Priti, it was on the thread where he also called Priti an immigrant because she wasn’t white. Horrific stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said: Wow https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko To be fair, all the major parties are probably going to get some wrong 'uns get through the initial vetting process and reform are probably in a worse position than most to weed them out given they have less resources. I'm sure we'll see Labour and the Tories with prospective candidates with something to be embarrassed about. What's more shocking is Reform standing by their man, can understand the free speech element but you'd think they'd at least condemn the statements themselves. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 11 minutes ago, revolution saint said: To be fair, all the major parties are probably going to get some wrong 'uns get through the initial vetting process and reform are probably in a worse position than most to weed them out given they have less resources. I'm sure we'll see Labour and the Tories with prospective candidates with something to be embarrassed about. What's more shocking is Reform standing by their man, can understand the free speech element but you'd think they'd at least condemn the statements themselves. Also odd because they've binned off other candidates for less. Seems like a bit of a misstep to be honest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: Also odd because they've binned off other candidates for less. Seems like a bit of a misstep to be honest. I think I’m right in saying that the deadline for announcing candidates was last Friday. So candidates could be switched up to that point, but now we’ve gone beyond it they’re locked in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 50 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: No it wasn’t, it was a direct response you complaining I thought it was a gimmick. Something you now seem to agree with. You’re all over the place, even trying to pretend she did know how many breakfasts they needed make. You’ll be telling us she knew how many kids were privately educated next. I see you clipped my response, which explained it, just like the little clipped videos in tiktok you get a hard on over. Try seeing things in context you little pub bore melt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 15 minutes ago, The Kraken said: I think I’m right in saying that the deadline for announcing candidates was last Friday. So candidates could be switched up to that point, but now we’ve gone beyond it they’re locked in. True. Not sure how likely he is to win. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: True. Not sure how likely he is to win. It as much about taking votes of the Tories (and Labour) as it is about winning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 5 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said: It as much about taking votes of the Tories (and Labour) as it is about winning. I know but in an ideal world they will want a few seats too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: I know but in an ideal world they will want a few seats too. Of course, but they are a lobby group more that a political party. They want to change Tory policies by taking votes off them and make the Tories lose the odd seat. That's why they are running nationally and not just targeting seats. So they don't want to pull a runner now they can't swap him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 “I was listening to a phone in on LBC” & I can see why people are “impressed “ with The Greens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Selected edit from Sunak interview with the BBC: Nick Robinson - "Having your own home has got harder under the Conservatives, hasn't it ?" Rishi Sunak - "It has..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said: Selected edit from Sunak interview with the BBC: Nick Robinson - "Having your own home has got harder under the Conservatives, hasn't it ?" Rishi Sunak - "It has..." I’m guessing this wasn’t the BBC News headline he was hoping for, the dopey twat 🤣 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said: “I was listening to a phone in on LBC” & I can see why people are “impressed “ with The Greens. TBH, you’ve only got to look at the long list of nuclear powers who’ve gone ever gone to war with each other and you can see her point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Lighthouse said: TBH, you’ve only got to look at the long list of nuclear powers who’ve gone ever gone to war with each other and you can see her point. Has anyone explained to us yet why the many other NATO countries who don’t have nukes don’t have nukes? They must be crapping themselves every time Putin rattles his sabre. Remind me again just how many proxy wars have been fought since 1945. Edited June 10 by sadoldgit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: Has anyone explained to us yet why the many other NATO countries who don’t have nukes don’t have nukes? They must be crapping themselves every time Putin rattles his sabre. Remind me again just how many proxy wars have been fought since 1945. Cost to develop, build and maintain. Yes, they are. Have you listened to the PM of Estonia recently? Proxy wars, not actual wars. Just to be clear, so I’m not misinterpreting your point; you’re advocating for nuclear disarmament, now with the world as it is today? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 36 minutes ago, Lighthouse said: Cost to develop, build and maintain. Yes, they are. Have you listened to the PM of Estonia recently? Proxy wars, not actual wars. Just to be clear, so I’m not misinterpreting your point; you’re advocating for nuclear disarmament, now with the world as it is today? Remember he thought we should have negotiated with ISIS. There is no end to this guys love of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 43 minutes ago, Lighthouse said: Cost to develop, build and maintain. Yes, they are. Have you listened to the PM of Estonia recently? Proxy wars, not actual wars. Just to be clear, so I’m not misinterpreting your point; you’re advocating for nuclear disarmament, now with the world as it is today? I assume most, if not all of us, would agree that we'd rather be nuked than nuke someone else. Given that, it just doesn't act as a deterrent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 (edited) 28 minutes ago, pingpong said: I assume most, if not all of us, would agree that we'd rather be nuked than nuke someone else. Given that, it just doesn't act as a deterrent... We are not going to fire first. There won’t be much of the country left after a first strike if Putin is that way inclined. The money would be better spent on defence. Having nukes makes us more of a target. We can’t compete with the Russians when it comes to nuclear weapons. Proxy wars are still wars. Edited June 10 by sadoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: We are not going to fire first. There won’t be much of the country left after a first strike if Putin is that way inclined. The money would be better spent on defence. Having nukes makes us more of a target. We can’t compete with the Russians when it comes to nuclear weapons. Proxy wars are still wars. Why does having nukes make us more of a target ? All the countries Russia has invaded since 1945 have been non-nuclear. If Ukraine hadn't given up their nuclear weapons in the 1990s for Russian security guarantees I don't think they would be fighting now. We don't have to compete with Russia, we are allied with the USA and France. Edited June 10 by badgerx16 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 13 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: We are not going to fire first. There won’t be much of the country left after a first strike if Putin is that way inclined. The money would be better spent on defence. Having nukes makes us more of a target. We can’t compete with the Russians when it comes to nuclear weapons. Proxy wars are still wars. We're sitting ducks without nuclear weapons. The deterrent is vital imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 Just now, badgerx16 said: Why does having nukes make us more of a target ? All the countries Russia has invaded since 1945 have been non-nuclear. If Ukraine hadn't given up their nuclear weapons in the 1990s for Russian security guarantees I don't think they would be fighting now. We don’t know that though do we. Perhaps they would have used nukes first to wipe out Ukraines capability? Germany, Italy, Spain don’t feel the need to have nukes, why should we? I wouldn’t disarm right now but I would certainly run our capability down and not replace with new weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 (edited) 5 minutes ago, egg said: We're sitting ducks without nuclear weapons. The deterrent is vital imo. So are the other NATO countries apart from France and the US. Edited June 10 by sadoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 I literally can’t think of anything in the history of humanity which could be more of a deterrent than a big red button that turns your enemy’s entire country into radioactive ash in 0.0001 seconds. How anyone can call that, "not a deterrent," I cannot fathom. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 minute ago, sadoldgit said: So are the other NATO countries apart from France and the US. We're not them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Personally I'd rather prioritise things like the NHS being functional again before worrying about getting tooled up for a nuclear war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: We don’t know that though do we. Perhaps they would have used nukes first to wipe out Ukraines capability? Germany, Italy, Spain don’t feel the need to have nukes, why should we? I wouldn’t disarm right now but I would certainly run our capability down and not replace with new weapons. You clearly have no understanding of any military principles, that much is obvious. You’re just guessing with Ukraine and their nukes. The reality is that post-soviet Ukraine was desperately poor and couldn’t have afforded to maintain a nuclear arsenal in anything close to a state of safety and readiness. Germany weren’t allowed anything with that capability post WW2, in fact they didn’t exist as a country at all until the collapse of the Soviet Union. West Germany was home to half the US military, so they had a nuclear deterrent by proxy, as did Italy. Spain is just too far from Russia for either of them to really give two sh*ts about each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 3 minutes ago, rallyboy said: Personally I'd rather prioritise things like the NHS being functional again before worrying about getting tooled up for a nuclear war. And I’d like to spend £0 on defence every year, not need a military at all and spend that whole budget on nurses for orphans with diseases. Sadly that’s not really a viable solution to the real worlds problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Real world problems? This is a politician trying to influence thick people. All this talk of dangerous times is an electoral distraction from the UK's main issues and the failings of this bunch of clusterfuck charlatan crooks, many financed by Russia - we all know Rishi doesn't give a flying fuck about our armed services. Let's get back to what really matters to the average voter in this campaign, it's not can we take on Putin at nuclear war?, it's how the fuck do I feed the kids? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, rallyboy said: Real world problems? This is a politician trying to influence thick people. All this talk of dangerous times is an electoral distraction from the UK's main issues and the failings of this bunch of clusterfuck charlatan crooks, many financed by Russia - we all know Rishi doesn't give a flying fuck about our armed services. Let's get back to what really matters to the average voter in this campaign, it's not can we take on Putin at nuclear war?, it's how the fuck do I feed the kids? It matters to me, wanting to scrap trident is the absolute #1 hard no, in my book. I'll never vote for anyone who puts that in their manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Just now, sadoldgit said: We don’t know that though do we. Perhaps they would have used nukes first to wipe out Ukraines capability? No chance. Putin may be sociopathic but he isn't suicidal. Ukraine, at the time, had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the World. There is a reason only 1 country has ever used nuclear weapons, and it was the only time they have been used. Germany, Italy, Spain don’t feel the need to have nukes, why should we? When we developed our 'deterrent' we still thought ourselves a World Power, and we had helped the Yanks develop the technology so felt empowered to use it. Remember, in the early 1950s we would have needed our independent systems because the US missiles lacked the range to deter Russia in Europe. Germany has only recently started to emerge from it's post WW2 de-militarisation and has no desire to go nuclear. Italy and Spain have never felt the need to build a domestic nuclear weapons program, that is their choice, and neither has ever felt the need, post WW2, for force projection on the World stage. You might equally point out that Belgium, Norway, and Finland don't have such capabilities, it is a fatuous argument. I wouldn’t disarm right now but I would certainly run our capability down and not replace with new weapons. There is a critical minimum number of warheads and delivery systems that are necessary to maintaain our deterrent force; we have @225 nuclear warheads in our arsenal, not all are available to be deployed at any point in time. To maintain at least one nuclear armed submarine permanently at sea, we need at least 4 to be in service, training, or maintainence. Remember multiple warheads are mounted on each missile, so 225 warheads is not the same as 225 missiles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 26 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: So are the other NATO countries apart from France and the US. No they are not BECAUSE there is a deterrent capability within the alliance. Would you want to rely on France ? Edited June 10 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now