Labour leadership

[Diamond]

yes, for one thing there's only one 'l' in hilary

According to Dotcommunist and others who try and manufacture this slur, there is not.

I like to get it on target when it matters, do pay attention.

 

[Pickman's model]

I like to get it on target when it matters, do pay attention.

you can't think this matters then.

 

[Diamond]

you had a wood on during his speech and so did he

Really?

You really think that?

NO, YOU IDIOT - I shed tears during his speech.

When he mentioned the Yazidi women who had been discovered in a mass grave because they were viewed as being too old to be sold as sex slaves by ISIS - how did you react?

With resignation?

This isn't a fucking computer game!

 

[Pickman's model]

Really?

You really think that?

NO, YOU IDIOT - I shed tears during his speech.

When he mentioned the Yazidi women who had been discovered in a mass grave because they were viewed as being too old to be sold as sex slaves by ISIS - how did you react?

With resignation?

This isn't a fucking computer game!

yeh. but this isn't about the yazidis who hardly anyone here had heard of before last year.

 

[Diamond]

yeh. but this isn't about the yazidis who hardly anyone here had heard of before last year.

What the fuck is this argument?

How do you run it - the Yazidis are worth no consideration because we were not aware of them before no matter how they are being abused?

Or maybe it is that the Yazidis are worth no consideration whatsoever in any event?

Or, maybe, following that through, any group of people who we haven't heard about by last December are perfectly OK to be raped, enslaved and killed and that's all ticketty-boo...

 

[Pickman's model]

What the fuck is this argument?

How do you run it - the Yazidis are worth no consideration because we were not aware of them before no matter how they are being abused?

Or maybe it is that the Yazidis are worth no consideration whatsoever in any event?

Or, maybe, following that through, any group of people who we haven't heard about by last December are perfectly OK to be raped, enslaved and killed and that's all ticketty-boo...

the uk bombing of syria was not prompted by the plight of the yazidis. that is a simple statement of fact. but carry on with your hysterical nonsense, if you wish.

 

[Diamond]

Oh, and just to expand - maybe, just maybe, people might not have heard about the Yazidis because they were not being persecuted before in this manner?

How's that for an idea?

The idea that when one people get genocidally threatened, it might come to your attention, and you might be prepared to respond?

Or maybe you prefer to ignore it and say - "they weren't on my radar before, why should they be on my radar now?"

I'm pretty sure that played a big part in Rwanda in 1994 but I'm sure others would disagree.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh, and just to expand - maybe, just maybe, people might not have heard about the Yazidis because they were not being persecuted before in this manner?

they have been viciously persecuted in the past but then you wouldn't know that because you have no genuine interest in the yazidis.

 

[DotCommunist]

When he mentioned the Yazidi women who had been discovered in a mass grave because they were viewed as being too old to be sold as sex slaves by ISIS - how did you react?

with the same bitter hatred I did when reading about it some months before killary deigned to inform you of the matter

btw anyone who followed the events of the siege of kobani knows what happened to the yazedi and how many are still slaves in raqqa

 

[Zabo]

"Labour veteran Ken Livingstone has suggested that Labour MPs who voted in favour of airstrikes should be pushed out of their seats.

Mr Livingstone, who was controversially put in charge of the party's defence review, said if his MP had voted for airstrikes he would back a de-selection challenge.

Speaking on LBC, after 66 Labour MPs defied their leader Jeremy Corbyn to support military action in Syria, he said: "If I had an MP who had voted to bomb Syria then I would be prepared to support someone to challenge him."

Shadow foreign affairs minister Stephen Doughty said Mr Livingstone's comments were "utterly inappropriate" and told Sky News: "I really think Ken needs to consider what he is saying and think very carefully about his position."

Shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith said the comments were "disgraceful".

In full

Livingstone: Push Out Labour Airstrikes MPs

 

[DotCommunist]

tears of a clown

 

[Diamond]

they have been viciously persecuted in the past but then you wouldn't know that because you have no genuine interest in the yazidis.

This is such a shit argument of distraction that it barely merits a response.

But I will respond to demonstrate again your prolific bullshit.

Just because one group has been persecuted in the past and someone may be understandably ignorant of that and then that same group is persecuted again in the present does not have any bearing whatsoever on what should be done in the present. Understood?

 

[Pickman's model]

What the fuck is this argument?

How do you run it - the Yazidis are worth no consideration because we were not aware of them before no matter how they are being abused?

Or maybe it is that the Yazidis are worth no consideration whatsoever in any event?

Or, maybe, following that through, any group of people who we haven't heard about by last December are perfectly OK to be raped, enslaved and killed and that's all ticketty-boo...

anyway i thought you were going to tell me of st hilary benn's accomplishments.

 

[andysays]

You do realise that under your system, as absolutely ridiculous as your proposals are, you are, nonetheless, a lawyer?

You know, as in you are determining the law...?

I'm sure someone else has pointed this out already, but lawyers don't determine the law - legislators create the law and judges interpret/clarify it where necessary.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is such a shit argument of distraction that it barely merits a response.

But I will respond to demonstrate again your prolific bullshit.

Just because one group has been persecuted in the past and someone may be understandably ignorant of that and then that same group is persecuted again in the present does not have any bearing whatsoever on what should be done in the present. Understood?

if the uk was going to intervene to help the yazidis it would have happened quite some time ago. there were no calls for uk involvement then and so it is disingenuous now to say 'we're doing this for the plucky yazidis': when that argument was adduced for the first time last night. yes, what has happened to the yazidis is appalling. but don't lie to me, don't lie to yourself, and say that uk involvement in bombing syria is because of a tardy interest in yazidi welfare.

 

[Diamond]

I'm sure someone else has pointed this out already, but lawyers don't determine the law - legislators create the law and judges interpret/clarify it where necessary.

I would consider someone who is constituting a new constitution to be a lawyer, to be frank. As in they are laying down the laws.

 

[Pickman's model]

You do realise that under your system, as absolutely ridiculous as your proposals are, you are, nonetheless, a lawyer?

You know, as in you are determining the law...?

you don't know much about the law, do you: not a question, a statement of fact.

 

[Pickman's model]

I would consider someone who is constituting a new constitution to be a lawyer, to be frank. As in they are laying down the laws.

why do you insist on parading your abject ignorance?

 

[Diamond]

if the uk was going to intervene to help the yazidis it would have happened quite some time ago. there were no calls for uk involvement then and so it is disingenuous now to say 'we're doing this for the plucky yazidis': when that argument was adduced for the first time last night. yes, what has happened to the yazidis is appalling. but don't lie to me, don't lie to yourself, and say that uk involvement in bombing syria is because of a tardy interest in yazidi welfare.

First point, there were calls for involvement when the Yazidis took the hit first time around - we dropped supplies and our allies defended them.

Second, correspondingly that argument in favour of supporting the Yazidis was definitely not adduced for the first time last night.

Third, I do not actually support the bombing campaign but those who do argue a multifarious number of reasons - I was simply explaining why I thought Benn's speech was so moving... It's not difficult stuff to understand

 

[Pickman's model]

First point, there were calls for involvement when the Yazidis took the hit first time around - we dropped supplies and our allies defended them.

fair point. i am sure that the yazidis were suitably grateful for the water and lanterns.

Second, correspondingly that argument in favour of supporting the Yazidis was definitely not adduced for the first time last night.

so who else has been saying it in the past couple of weeks?

Third, I do not actually support the bombing campaign but those who do argue a multifarious number of reasons - I was simply explaining why I thought Benn's speech was so moving... It's not difficult stuff to understand

no it's not difficult stuff to understand, you're easily impressed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

Who indeed? The answer to that question has always been "it's the duty of everybody to do so. If you don't, then you deserve to reap what you've sown".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Repeating a phrase over and over as a rhetorical device to woo those who are easily-swayed - that was his argument.

Argument by soundbite.
Wonder who wrote his speech for him?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anyway, shall we circle back to the stare decisis point - I assume you know what it means when proposing basic changes to English and Welsh public law...?

You can assume what you like. I'm not interested in derailing this thread, and I haven't "proposed basic changes to English and Welsh public law". What I've proposed - which will be evident to anyone who doesn't make assumptions about my politics - is something that dissolves the current system in favour of something more equitable, and less prone to manipulation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

you had a wood on during his speech and so did he

A chance meeting between Benn and Diamond yesterday.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"Labour veteran Ken Livingstone has suggested that Labour MPs who voted in favour of airstrikes should be pushed out of their seats.

Mr Livingstone, who was controversially put in charge of the party's defence review, said if his MP had voted for airstrikes he would back a de-selection challenge.

Speaking on LBC, after 66 Labour MPs defied their leader Jeremy Corbyn to support military action in Syria, he said: "If I had an MP who had voted to bomb Syria then I would be prepared to support someone to challenge him."

Shadow foreign affairs minister Stephen Doughty said Mr Livingstone's comments were "utterly inappropriate" and told Sky News: "I really think Ken needs to consider what he is saying and think very carefully about his position."

Shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith said the comments were "disgraceful".

In full

Livingstone: Push Out Labour Airstrikes MPs

So basically Livingstone has called for MPs to be accountable to constituency party democracy, and Doughty and Smith find such a notion objectionable.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm sure someone else has pointed this out already, but lawyers don't determine the law - legislators create the law and judges interpret/clarify it where necessary.

I have indeed already pointed this out to our indefatigable pro-bonerist.

 

[nino_savatte]

They are fascists - that was his argument.

Except, they're not fascists and using that word in order to persuade people of the merits of your argument is dishonest. Moreover, when Benn used the International Brigades to bolster his case, he was being equally dishonest, and it is also an insult to the memories of those who fought Franco.

I look forward to your reply.

 

[Pickman's model]

I have indeed already pointed this out to our indefatigable pro-bonerist.

i imagine that there are few of his clients who have anything bon to say about him

 

[ViolentPanda]

I would consider someone who is constituting a new constitution to be a lawyer, to be frank. As in they are laying down the laws.

And what is the generally-acknowledged description of a lawyer? In the three dictionaries (Concise Oxford English, Chambers English and Collins English) I own, all reference the fact of "legal professional",and don't mention legislators at all.
So unless you're arguing for a technical academic or professional use of the term - i.e. one that isn't generally understood as the acknowledged description of the word, then you are talking out of your arse.
Again.

 

[Pickman's model]

Except, they're not fascists and using that word in order to persuade people of the merits of your argument is dishonest. Moreover, using the International Brigades was equally as dishonest, but is also an insult to the memories of those who fought Franco.

I look forward to your reply.

you won't make that mistake again