Lib Dems

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

#NotACult 

[ZonkoVille77]

 

[Strontium]

Frankie Boyle should stick to mocking disabled kids, that's more his level.

[Mudface]

5 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Frankie Boyle should stick to mocking disabled kids, that's more his level.

Quite. Instead of making tasteless jokes, he could have elevated himself and been part of an austerity government whose cuts caused the deaths of thousands of vulnerable and disabled people. 

[Strontium]

I'll take Things That Didn't Happen for 500 Alex.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

[Strontium]

Would.

[Dougie Do'ins]

When can we expect the BBC to put out a similar piece to correct some of the malicious shit that's been put out there about Corbyn ?

[Mudface]

11 minutes ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

When can we expect the BBC to put out a similar piece to correct some of the malicious shit that's been put out there about Corbyn ?

Like their own output? Fuckin' never.

[polymerpunkah]

On 04/11/2019 at 15:27, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

It's not my double standard. QED.

 

On 03/11/2019 at 13:50, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

....It asked who people would vote for if it was a two horse race in that seat, which it is.

RID*

 

 

 

*Romani Ite Domum

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jairzinho]

7 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

No, it's not trolling to care about what happens to MPs and their support staff - from ALL parties - who lose their jobs next month.

 

Just imagine for one minute that your employment status was subject to the whims of the general public, and have a modicum of sympathy with the people who put themselves in such a precarious situation out of a sense of civic duty.

Repped.

 

That was funny as fuck.

[s(k)aturation]

 

As opposed to the cushy, rock-solid job security everyone else who isn't a politician enjoys.

 

[Jairzinho]

7 minutes ago, skaro said:

 

As opposed to the cushy, rock-solid job security everyone else who isn't a politician enjoys.

 

Won't you think about the civic duty?

[s(k)aturation]

25 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Won't you think about the civic duty?

 

My duties over the years have helped many a civilian (get rich)... and they've still sacked me on whims.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

14 hours ago, A Red said:

He is quite obviously against them and refused to say whether he would use them whenever interviewed. When you have a lifelong member of CND (or president) as a leader that refuses to say he will use them, he is basically telling potential enemies he will not. The first rule of having a deterrent is to tell enemies you would use them if necessary, even if you wouldnt. Therefore what is the point of spending billions on nuclear weapons, which I believe (might be wrong) he has said he intends to?

 

Its back to the messages he gave as an mp to the reality of being a leader, similar to Europe.

There are only two ways to use our "independent" nuclear weapons.

 

1. First - to start a nuclear war.

 

2. Second  - after they have failed as a deterrent, to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a retaliatory attack of no military benefit, to prove the point that you're psycho enough to do it.

 

For the first time in a very long time, we could have a Prime Minister sane enough to reject those options.

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

How dare Jo Swinson... er, support Lib Dem policy of replacing Trident with a cheaper, more efficient alternative.

I’d (genuinely) be interested in hearing more about their proposal on nuclear weapons. 

[ZonkoVille77]

Haha fuckin hell. Clearly, what it means to be a Lib Dem is that as long as you can sit and lie with a straight face then all is good with the world. Tories are lying cunts but fuck me this new band of LDs are something else. 

 

 

[ZonkoVille77]

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

There are only two ways to use our "independent" nuclear weapons.

 

1. First - to start a nuclear war.

 

2. Second  - after they have failed as a deterrent, to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a retaliatory attack of no military benefit, to prove the point that you're psycho enough to do it.

 

For the first time in a very long time, we could have a Prime Minister sane enough to reject those options.

I have to admit, it’s not a particularly smart tactic to say you wouldn’t use them, even if you don’t use them. And if you’re not willing - in any circumstance - to use it in retaliation, potentially stopping others being nuked either in your country or others, then I don’t think you’re fit to be the one deciding. I’m probably in a minority on here but I absolutely want us to retain a nuclear deterrent. I also don’t want a PM to undermine that expensive deterrent by practically wiping out its meaning as a deterrent. 

[M_B]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

There are only two ways to use our "independent" nuclear weapons.

 

1. First - to start a nuclear war.

 

2. Second  - after they have failed as a deterrent, to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a retaliatory attack of no military benefit, to prove the point that you're psycho enough to do it.

 

For the first time in a very long time, we could have a Prime Minister sane enough to reject those options.

3: Third - they succeed as a deterrent?

 

I'd rather keep them myself, but I'd still vote for Labour even if they were to scrap them. It's not a priority for me.

[aRdja]

25 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I have to admit, it’s not a particularly smart tactic to say you wouldn’t use them, even if you don’t use them. And if you’re not willing - in any circumstance - to use it in retaliation, potentially stopping others being nuked either in your country or others, then I don’t think you’re fit to be the one deciding. I’m probably in a minority on here but I absolutely want us to retain a nuclear deterrent. I also don’t want a PM to undermine that expensive deterrent by practically wiping out its meaning as a deterrent. 

What I can’t get my head around this is, okay fair enough you blokes have nuclear weapons as a deterrent, etc. Just as to why the UK and the US are so arsed about other countries having/developing them e.g., Libya, Iran, North Korea, I haven’t been able to find any other reason than “erm we just don’t want you to”. If the goal is indeed a total disarmament of nuclear weapons, then I don’t see any problems in you taking a leading role in it. 

[sir roger]

9 hours ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

When can we expect the BBC to put out a similar piece to correct some of the malicious shit that's been put out there about Corbyn ?

'Surprisingly' there was no comments availability , as I assume they realised they would be looking down the barrel of thousands calling them out on their blatant bias over the past few years.

 

Having said that , the thing about Swinson's husband is completely wrong and a part of a worrying trend where apologising about anything is seen as unnecessary , and the default position is to double-down on any shite you come up with ( see the Tories response to the Starmer video for instance )

[aRdja]

54 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

Haha fuckin hell. Clearly, what it means to be a Lib Dem is that as long as you can sit and lie with a straight face then all is good with the world. Tories are lying cunts but fuck me this new band of LDs are something else. 

 

 

Hopefully Kay Burley isn’t a Labour member.

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

What I can’t get my head around this is, okay fair enough you blokes have nuclear weapons as a deterrent, etc. Just as to why the UK and the US are so arsed about other countries having/developing them e.g., Libya, Iran, North Korea, I haven’t been able to find any other reason than “erm we just don’t want you to”. If the goal is indeed a total disarmament of nuclear weapons, then I don’t see any problems in you taking a leading role in it. 

You can't see why the UK wouldn't want those countries to have nuclear weapons? Do you know much about those countries? They're not the last countries that I want having them, but they're pretty far down the list of countries you want to either have the ability to launch nuclear strikes or to have the enhanced power that having those brings. 

[aRdja]

16 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

You can't see why the UK wouldn't want those countries to have nuclear weapons? Do you know much about those countries? They're not the last countries that I want having them, but they're pretty far down the list of countries you want to either have the ability to launch nuclear strikes or to have the enhanced power that having those brings. 

Take Iran for example, I don’t think it has ever invaded any other country in their history? Furthermore if you want to look at the bilateral relationship between the UK and Iran with no bias, you’d probably rather them have the nuclear weapon, with you know... the whole orchestrating a coup against a secular democratically elected leader.

 

My main point is it depends on the goal, if it is a total disarmament of nuclear weapons I don’t see it as a terrible thing to take a leadership role in it.