The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Ollie the Optimist]

I don't think the tories are particularly worried about corbyn becoming leader, in fact i think they are delighted. The country roundly told Miliband he was too left wing and voted Tory instead so its a huge task to get those who voted Tory to vote for an even more left wing politician. In his victory speech he spent half of it attacking the media for supposedly attacking his family in the press. I know they attacked him, fair enough, but i genuinely don't remember seeing any articles about his family or friends. Unless he means the "unfair" attacks on his friends who happen to be part of or have sympathies for terrorist groups. I mean if you don't want them attacked, perhaps don't invite someone who actively wants British soldiers to be killed to speak in Parliament, people might think you support terrorists.
This is a man who has defied his party whip over 500 times, its going to be interesting to see how he commands party discipline and also what he does to those that disobey him, given his defiance to party leadership before. Lots of resignations so far from the shadow cabinet because they don't agree with his policies, the labour party is tearing itself apart. Either Corbyn or Labour party will go before next election. I wouldn't be surprised if the right wing of labour split completely and form a new party. Similar to the formation of the Liberal Democrats.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don't think the tories are particularly worried about corbyn becoming leader, in fact i think they are delighted. The country roundly told Miliband he was too left wing and voted Tory instead so its a huge task to get those who voted Tory to vote for an even more left wing politician. In his victory speech he spent half of it attacking the media for supposedly attacking his family in the press. I know they attacked him, fair enough, but i genuinely don't remember seeing any articles about his family or friends. Unless he means the "unfair" attacks on his friends who happen to be part of or have sympathies for terrorist groups. I mean if you don't want them attacked, perhaps don't invite someone who actively wants British soldiers to be killed to speak in Parliament, people might think you support terrorists.
This is a man who has defied his party whip over 500 times, its going to be interesting to see how he commands party discipline and also what he does to those that disobey him, given his defiance to party leadership before. Lots of resignations so far from the shadow cabinet because they don't agree with his policies, the labour party is tearing itself apart. Either Corbyn or Labour party will go before next election. I wouldn't be surprised if the right wing of labour split completely and form a new party. Similar to the formation of the Liberal Democrats.

Yes, a very neat summary of the media angle. Useful. Thanks.

[Heisenberg]

He was referring to Chuka Ummuna

[Letters]

He was referring to Chuka Ummuna

He hasn't done much since Tubthumping though

[Niall_Quinn]

He hasn't done much since Tubthumping though

Don't see why we loaned him out considering we are so short of strikers.

[Niall_Quinn]

This is desperate stuff from the pants shitted Tories, desperate, desperate stuff. And lies of course, well they are Tories. They aren't very clever either. If you are going to play the smear game you keep your powder dry and you don't prematurely shoot your load. They roll this shit out on Day +2. That gives 4 and a half years for the public to become bored shitless with it. It will only take a month. This is the attack ad that should have come (if you are low enough to do it at all) in March/ April 2020. But these guys are thick as shit.



1. Corbyn is referring to the tragedy of state sponsored assassination on the back of the tragedy of uncounted deaths on the back of the tragedy of illegal wars of aggression.

2. Terrorists use violence and other forms of aggression and intimidation in order to advance political objectives. By definition it is therefore beyond dispute the principal terrorist organisations on the planet today are the Israeli government, the US government and the UK government. A mountain of evidence is readily available documenting the war crimes and terror activities of these regimes, indeed the state of Israel was founded on terrorism (British soldiers being the victims on that occasion). David Cameron's closest friends are Israeli terrorists, and why not considering he's a terrorist himself? Hamas and Hezbollah also engage in terrorist activities, although on a much more limited scale. Here's what Corbyn has to say on that matter:

"Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree."

"I welcomed our friends from Hezbollah to have a discussion and a debate, and I said I wanted Hamas to be part of that debate. I have met Hamas in Lebanon and I’ve met Hezbollah in this country and Lebanon."

"I've also had discussions with people from the right in Israeli politics who have the same view possibly that the state of Israel should extend from the river to the sea, as it is claimed people from the Palestinian side do".

Cameron has also commented on violence in the Middle East, notably following an Israeli bombing of a UN facility housing school children:

"I think the UN is right to speak out in the way that it has, because international law is very clear that there must not be the targeting of civilians or the targeting of schools if that is what has happened. The UN as the international body is right to speak out in the way it has."

[Pressed on whether he regarded the attack as a 'criminal act', Mr Cameron replied:]

"The UN has spoken very clearly and I think they are right to speak very clearly... I'm not an international lawyer, so that's up to international lawyers. But international law is very, very clear that the use of force always has to be proportionate and civilians should not be targeted."

"We obviously do think it is appalling the loss of life that there has been. From the start, though, we have also made the point that if the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel stop then that would be probably the fastest way to stop this conflict."

Spot the "profound disagreement" if you can. However, he has also stated the warring parties need to settle their differences politically rather than through violence. So he agrees with Corbyn, the difference being he's in the pocket of the forces opposing Hamas and Hezbollah.

3. This is probably the most important issue of all, more important that the economy, more important than the health service or immigration. But it could never be admitted as such. The UK nuclear deterrent forms part of the US nuclear defence network and is primarily under US control. This is not a British deterrent at all, it is a US deterrent funded by the people of Britain. The Scots want to get rid of it. An increasing number of people in Britain want to get rid of it, approaching 30%. A large majority of British people, over 60%, want to see all nuclear weapons scrapped. So a debate is perfectly legitimate, especially considering the eye watering costs over an extended period of time associated with replacing and maintaining the current system (and disposing of the existing one). Corbyn has a problem here, as the US (not the British government or the British people) would never allow this system to be scrapped. And that's the real issue, the issue more important than anything else that has led this country to ruin on the global stage and has been at the heart of every major issue we have faced - war, terrorism, economic collapses. The issue is our entirely unhealthy relationship with the terror regime in Washington. Cameron speaks of "surrender", well that happened a long time ago when we became the lapdog of the US regime. This was never more notably demonstrated than when Blair rushed to an illegal war in Iraq that served absolutely no purpose for the people of this nation. Today we see the refugee crisis, on the back of so much other fallout from that dire and criminal decision taken in the face of massive popular opposition. So yes indeed, we should discuss surrender and what options exist that would allow us to get up off our knees.

4. A flat lie. Corbyn does not want to dismantle the armed forces. Notice the careful edits in this part of the video. Corbyn wonders why our "defence" policy - DEFENCE! - involves sending British troops all around the world to participate in illegal wars. How can that not be a valid question? The US empire now has some 1,400 military bases installed in over 120 nations across the globe. It has a larger military than the rest of the world combined and 40% of every penny spent on guns, bombs, tanks, warships and the other instruments of death is spent by the US. There has never been a larger or more aggressive empire in the history of the world. It has its perceived enemies surrounded by a bristling array of conventional and nuclear weapons. And the vast majority of world, barring partners in crime and the vile dictators in nations such as Saudi Arabia, hate the US as a result. Why do they hate us? Well it ain't because we are free. So why, when the government tells us we must all pull our belts in ("all" meaning us but not them), are we spending huge amounts we simply can't afford to send our armed forces all over the world and engage in illegal wars? The US already has everything covered. Are we there simply to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy? Should these questions not be asked? Is it a threat to national security to even raise these questions?

Oh the shame of being a Tory.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The left really are dimwitted

A load of them on social media this evening getting on their high horse about Labour MPs abstaining on the Union bill

They pretend to be politically engaged but they don't seem to understand one of the more simpler notions of our archaic and outdated parliamentary procedure

[Niall_Quinn]

The left really are dimwitted

A load of them on social media this evening getting on their high horse about Labour MPs abstaining on the Union bill

They pretend to be politically engaged but they don't seem to understand one of the more simpler notions of our archaic and outdated parliamentary procedure

What do you mean by parliamentary system? Representing the will of the constituency or sulking and backstabbing while pretending to represent the will of the constituency? I'm all for parliament running to its principles but none of the cunts in it think the same. Let's not pretend these MPs are worthy of anything just because a decent bloke was elected by accident.

[Niall_Quinn]

Watch to the very end - dear old BBC.

[adzzzbatch]

Watch to the very end - dear old BBC.

That's nothing, you should've seen how that horrible kuenssberg carried on today.