[Siderite]

The problem is that ‘anyone who has lived through the 70s’ is that it’s an opinion, not a fact. That catch-all doesn’t work for everyone over 50.

[Siderite]

Did you see Gary Neville’s pathetic justifications for the Qatar World Cup, Bucks?

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

Having higher expectations will only lead to disappointment and misery. :-(

We’re left with finding anything to make following the Iron seem pleasurable, which seems to be anything but the football.

5 users thanked author for this post.

W4rdie, North Lincolnshire Irons, Deereyme66, alcazar, Northumbiron

[Siderite]

This song goes out to Peter Swann:

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

I think bpg wants to play the wind up to get at the irreligious on this forum and who he maybe sees as a lukewarm Christian (JI).

[Siderite]

EU membership undoubtedly led to homogenisation in trade regulations, meaning we pooled our sovereignty on this. They never controlled every aspect of our lives, like bpg seems to imply.

[Siderite]

f row crew wrote:

Daws saying some academy players will be involved doesnt sound to me as though we will be putting our strongest side out. Get ready to chalk up yet another day of embarrassment come Saturday.

Prescient.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

Aye, it was definitely the EU who made the laws prior to 2016.

[Siderite]

The attacks on anyone who opposed Trussonomics as anti-growth was truly pathetic. When pointing out that erecting barriers for trade with out biggest trade partner would hinder growth, we got comments about project fear and how it doesn’t really matter, only sovereignty does.

Now the same people are upset about lack of growth, publish an unworkable plan for it, and deride anyone critical as against growth. Where were they for the past 6 or 7 years?

There is no detailed argument for their cause, just reaction to whoever opposes the Tory in power, excuses and finger pointing at anyone critical as being the true problem. It doesn’t matter if opponents were critical because of a position they now claim to hold, it’s just about owning the libs.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Heath

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

<iframe title=”Julius Fucik – Entry of the Gladiators” src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/_B0CyOAO8y0?feature=oembed&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen=”” id=”fitvid0″></iframe>

Have you been enjoying the circus recently, Deerey? :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Who else is going to vote for a Party leader if not the Party members in some shape or form Siderite?

It used to be the MPs, along with the unions for Labour. Some might say this isn’t representative, but is the current system, which has 0.1% of the population decide on the leader? Also, at least with MPs they can siphon out the incompetents through experience from working with them.

Electoral reform is something I am warming more and more to, but if we have the current system, as a parliamentary democracy, I am not keen on members having the final say.

[Siderite]

I am quite thankful there are enough MPs who are not too detached from the situation and are not willing to risk people’s livelihoods for a reckless gamble.

It is a shambles though, and this, along with Corbyn and Johnson, perfectly illustrates why electing party leaders based off member votes gives us unstable leaders. Party members are often unrepresentative of the public.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Siderite]

I am not bothered if you come on to be liked. Just don’t complain when you antagonise some (and, no, that does not mean I think every bit of antagonism thrown your way is justified) through misrepresenting arguments. If you misrepresent my argument, and refuse to look at yourself in the mirror for possibilities of lack of clarity or through not getting my point, don’t complain when I get annoyed in return.

I will try not to get too annoyed, but you have yourself behaved in a manner unbecoming at times.

[Siderite]

Truss gives a press conference and sods off before questioning. An embarrassing PM. At least Boris stayed to at least waffle about Peppa Pig!

[Siderite]

Alongside the above issues, I see ‘gay icon’, David Beckham, has decided to pocket the money for a state which criminalises homosexuality (up to a 7 years prison sentence!).

It was bad enough Russia got it, but at least that’s a football hub, unlike Qatar. The 2018 and 2022 decisions were an absolute shambles.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Just Iron, TwoWrights

[Siderite]

And, because I suspect I will be misrepresented again, no, saying I find Toryism off putting (i.e. disagreeable) does not mean I think Tories are nasty. It just means I disagree with the stance of the party’s vision of the UK. Nothing more, and if that is unacceptable, learn to accept that people don’t think of your party as being what’s best for the UK.

We can respect other people without having to pretend their beliefs, political or religious, are what’s best (in our own opinion).

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

Unfortunately that hasn’t been my experience with you, as I have been consistently demonised and misrepresented, so my interpretation is less positive.

I do not disagree with you on the last sentence, and agree that people have called all Tories such like in the past on here.

I know I am not perfect, and can react to what I see as provocation with giving as good as I get, but I do apologise for going too far with some retaliation. I don’t mind disagreement, but I do mind having my words twisted and being assumed to be villainous because I am to the left of Reagan.

I can be forthright in my views, but so can you and many others. One thing I try to do is separate the belief from the believer, so if I am saying this and that a belief is wrong, silly, questionable or whatever, I do not cast such judgement on others. Well meaning people can be drawn to (what I see as) dangerous or bad ideas through good intentions. I do draw the line at respecting some beliefs. I have no respect for fascism, Islamism or tankie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie) extremism and do not see why I should be friendly with that lot.

I disagree with Toryism, find a lot of it off putting in ideology, but I don’t right them off. Hell, my further left friends make out I am some sort of Tory, but that shows what that element of the left is like with how they view the Overton window.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

There are elements I tend to agree with, but there’s no point saying that, because Bucks will only say agreeing with him is pathetic.

[Siderite]

What is pathetic about agreeing with your statement, saying that it’s too broad brush and that 64 was being hypocritical? I take it that you are too stupid to understand a simple point.

If I agree I am pathetic, if I disagree I am horrible. No winning. Well, it’s either that or you fail to understand and are desperate to portray me as suspect and disingenuous.

How come you clearly failed to understand, as your latest reply demonstrates?

[Siderite]

I was agreeing with you that this element was abuse, dimwit.

[Siderite]

It’s just irritating, because I was agreeing with him (and JI) that the racist morons vote Tory element is not good, but I wanted to clarify that I didn’t think the rest of the quote was abusive. Yet this gets taken exception to, and now anyone thinking he had a problem with that is a fool.

That the earlier part of the quote was not referred to was not obvious and you’d think a civil comment on this would not get the usual disrespect, especially when I was agreeing with the worst element of it.

[Siderite]

Siderite wrote:

If you are referring to the racist morons comment, I tend to agree, since it’s too broad brush and made by someone who has glossed over Labour anti-Semitism.

To avoid the predictable gaslighting, here was my comment spelling out that I agreed with your comment on this. You then took exception because I didn’t say the rest of it was nasty. Now, of course, I am an idiot if I thought this.

This is either you failing to understand my simple point or you are gaslighting. Which is it?

[Siderite]

I didn’t say you were referring to terrible and crooked, because you didn’t say that. I made it quite clear to the response that I didn’t think that the racist morons comment was acceptable. You then responded, snidely, that I was breaking it down into acceptable chunks, as if I was trying to water down the comment. You then said my argument that the other bits (i.e. abominable or the current Tory government is full of con men) is not abuse to be cobblers. Now, of course, you never said that. It’s not my fault if you were unclear or couldn’t understand my point, eh? However, because you’re never wrong, I don’t expect any kind of backing down here, just more comments aimed at me, while justifying it because others have done the same to him. It’s a bit tedious and hypocritical.

I am trying to be balanced and reasonable, but this is not good enough, because it doesn’t fit in perfectly with how you want me to argue. And, of course, out come the personal insults against me. However, I am sure that’s ok, because others have insulted you. Yawn.

[Siderite]

I am really fed up of making a civil disagreement and only getting snide dismissals in return from someone who frequently complains about how others react. It’s patronising towards me, when I am trying to be as civil as possible. I could not care less about others supporting me, but it has to be some grand conspiracy, because God forbid me disagreeing with you.

[Siderite]

Ok PC brigade. I ask again. If someone thinks a party is crooked and terrible, what acceptable terms can we use to avoid offence from the woke? People are free to find political parties horrible. I couldn’t care less if alcazar or someone says Labour is abominable. If you’re offended by this, grow a thicker skin. I am bored of people seeking offence for minor opinions, when they aren’t insulting them specifically, because of hurt feelings.

Anyone who disagrees with you is suspect and disingenuous. Yawn.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Siderite]

It wasn’t a matter of breaking into acceptable chunks, it was to highlight that some of it is quite tame and not deserving to be grouped with a more questionable comment. This constant looking for bad faith interpretations for people who disagree with you is quite tiring.

If people think that a government is terrible and crooked, what language is acceptable? Should people really have to modify language so drastically for minimal offence? I really doubt anyone on here is offended by calling members of this government con men or the government abominable. It targets no-one on here. I see language of similar severity used against Labour. It may have been different if 64 had called all Tories, voters alike, abominable or con artists, but he specifically referred to the government. You are not your beliefs or the party you support. Insulting a government is not insulting you. If anyone thinks it is, they should grow a thicker skin, and get over it. It’s PC to expect people not to call out such, in accordance with their beliefs.

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

Not true, Siderite. I never believe forecasts and just because I’ve quoted it doesn’t mean I think it’s correct.

That was not made clear really, and it was made to look like an endorsement, while ignoring the IMF saying they think growth will reduce because of the plan.

The problem with trying to dismiss these forecasts, is that you’re putting forward predictions yourself, and I am highly sceptical of them, given everything, so I am critical of the government’s actions. Whether that makes me a ‘predictable suspect’ for not blindly following Tory rhetoric, I don’t know, but I will continue to think for myself (while being open to being wrong).

[Siderite]

In fact, the IMF have warned of a sharp reduction in growth today, so the idea they back this plan is fanciful to say the least.

The idea that the mini-budget has nothing to do with that, when the gilts rose (and have risen again) catastrophically, causing the BoE to intervene 3 times, only after that is a bit much.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

If you are referring to the racist morons comment, I tend to agree, since it’s too broad brush and made by someone who has glossed over Labour anti-Semitism.

However, I couldn’t give a fig about calling a government abominable or full of con men/women because it may hurt supporters’ feelings. The government isn’t them and if we’re to refrain from course language aimed at governments, then we’re giving into political correctness.

[Author]

Posts