Jump to content

Fox Ulike

  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Fox Ulike last won the day on 27 September 2017

Fox Ulike had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

820 Very Good

About Fox Ulike

  • Rank
    Key Player

Recent Profile Visitors

5,228 profile views
  1. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Can't you just quote something from Corbyn's speech that supports your assertion, rather than asking everybody who disagrees with you to find your supporting evidence for you?!
  2. I don’t think it is understandable that Nacho was picked over Shinji. To me, it defied understanding. We fielded a weakened team in order to reward one player for a good cameo against the worst team in the league last week? Nacho’s “fragile confidence” isn’t really a reason to sacrifice a chance of winning the FA Cup. Chelsea were (relatively speaking) there for the taking. They were tired, and they were flat after their CL exit in the week. We could not have asked for a better time to play them. It really was ready made for the old Okasaki and Vardy double-menace. We let them off the hook by playing an untried and untested front two. Since the start of the 16/17 season we have made so many attempts to replace Okasaki: First with Musa, then with Slimani, and now with Nacho. It never works, and so to try the repeatedly failed front two in the biggest game of the season is not understandable at all. It's a total fvck up!
  3. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    I know. But don’t you think it odd that you can’t quote anything he’s said that’s made you angry?
  4. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Not quite. What I said was that anyone who gets angry without being able to clearly express why, has been conditioned to respond in that way. It’s quite a common psychological phenomena called Pavlonian Conditioning. You’re feelings of anger are a response to Corbyn himself, not actually anything he’s done or said this week. How else do you explain being angry but unable to define what he’s said to make you so? Where do you get most of your information about Corbyn from?
  5. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    How can you be angry at something that someone has said yet not be able to quote a single word of it? It’s just a conditioned response. OK you and he might not read the Daily Mail, but you have been conditioned to react in a certain way to any negative news about Corbyn, regardless of the source. I wish you could take a step back from the situation and look at it as an outsider. I mean, you say that you’re disgusted by his attitude. Disgust? Seriously? Do you think that’s a political position? Don’t you ever question where these emotions come from: Anger and Disgust at a 68 year old man’s attitude whilst asking about the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  6. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    We’re two days into this now and you still haven’t been able to provide a direct quote from Corbyn that justifies your “anger”. You’re just working off second-hand sources: which is the same as being told what to think. Don’t you see that? You’re not angry. You’re fake-angry. You’re just evincing the fake outrage that you think is appropriate to the over-reaction to this latest Corbyn stictch-ups. The Daily Mail etc tells you that this is something to be angry about, and you react according to their will. People pretended to be angry when it was said he supported Slobadon Milosovic and his war crimes.. I know you were fake-angry when he was accused of passing state secrets to the Russians. Save your anger for things deserving of it.
  7. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Err yes. That was Iraq. You know, in the old days, if we’d of been having this debate in the boozer, you’d have been laughed at and told to “Shaaaat up you muppppeettt” long before now. The problem with internet chat is that you get none of that feedback, and so can just continue to blindly stumble on until you make a valid and irrelevant point, and pretend to yourself that the whole debate hinges on that single point. Previously, you'd failed to actually mention anything to support your case against Corbyn, so you moved on to Milne, and twisted his words into a new sentence. When that was pointed out, your coup de grace is the confident assertion that the WMD sage took place in Iraq! Yes you’re right. I give in. WMD did take place in Iraq. And so I suppose that working back, what that clearly proves is that Jeremy Corbyn is siding with our enemies and refuses to believe our intelligence services?
  8. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Well now you’re just shifting the ground. Again. Who mentioned Iraq? What Milne said was: There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly. But you interpreted this as: “The history of the intelligence services is problematic” You’ve just re-arranged his words into a new sentence, so that they mean something that you want them to mean. And you ignore everything that doesn’t fit your own prejudice, eg when he says that the evidence of Russian state involvement is “over-whelming”. Look at how long we’ve taken to discuss this. It’s such a waste of time to discuss things that haven’t actually been said.
  9. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Sigh. I'll do it for you. Speaking to reporters after the statement, Milne said: “There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly. “So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons.” Pressed on whether Moscow was being framed, he said the “overwhelming” evidence pointed to either the Russian state being responsible or losing control of the agent. He added: “If the material is from the Soviet period, the break up of the Soviet state led to all sorts of military material ending up in random hands.” The spokesman said that during the “WMD saga” there was “both what was actually produced by the intelligence services, which in the end we had access to, and then there was how that was used in the public domain in politics. “So, there is a history of problems in relation to interpreting that evidence but, in this case, the Government may well have other evidence that we are not aware of. ** It's just a reasoned response. Maybe we need a bit of gung-ho posturing that we're got from May. Fair doos. But we also need a bit of reason and judgement too.
  10. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    And what are those words?
  11. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    If you read my posts I think you'll see that i'm not really defending Corbyn. I'm really just asking (as are several others) what the accusation against him actually is. As I said previously, if all you ever read is the spin then you’re just repeating somebody else’s opinion. Go to the Primary Source. What has he actually said that you have taken issue with? As for “being taken in by the man”. You know, if you’d just said that “he could have handled it better” I would probably agree. And my opinion of him would be lowered. But what happens is that he’s subjected to these vague and over-the-top bullying and personal attacks by the press and posters on here; and people’s opinion of him actually goes up!
  12. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Well, again, you're not quoting anything that Corbyn has actually said in support of your assertions. You're just using the spin as your primary source.
  13. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    He’s clearly done none of those things. His words are a matter of public record. Quote him if you want to take issue with what he’s saying. Honestly. I don’t know why clearly intelligent people like yourself come onto a Politics forum simply to repeat the spin of their favourite media moguls, and to toe the party political line of their favourite party. Let me point out the obvious. No-one in the Government or at the Daily Mail Board of Directors actually believes that Corby is “clearly refuses to believe” our intelligence services. No-one believes this. No-one of any intelligence or understanding of parliamentary democracy actually believes this to be true. Not even you. They manipulate his words to try and undermine his political standing in the country. Why though, anybody who likes to think of themselves as informed about politics feels the need to just repeat this obvious spin is really beyond me. What we should be discussing is the extent to which parliamentary democracy is being undermined by the Media. Why do they so regularly do this? What do they gain by it?
  14. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    That's what Parliament is for. He's the Leader of the Opposition and he's asked the Prime Minister a question about the Chemical Weapons Convention. That's his job. To be honest, i'm not really sticking up for him. What worries me is the way that he's portrayed in the media when things like this happens. I'm trying to stick up for democracy. I mean, put aside your hatred of him for a minute. Imagine somebody else had said exactly the same thing. What exactly is it that he's said to cause the Daily Mail and other media outlets to deride him so?? The day we have to worry about is when we don't have a "cantankerous old cvnt" on the opposition benches who is prepared to ask the PM difficult questions.
  15. Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    I don't think we know either way. Which is kind of the point. It's May's vagueness and inability to commit to a decisive plan of action that is being questioned. But, as ever, it's Corbyn who gets criticised for pointing this out! And people just lap it up.