Miliband: Is he or Isn't he?

mamba80

There is an empty modified house but its 3 bedroomed and the rules (from central government) says the twins have to have to share a bedroom, so this couple can only have a 2 bedroomed house, even if temporary, cant someone show some fuggin compassion here......

society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable, but we seem to be going backwards, to some pre 1940s welfare state, where charities provide the safety net for the poor and the rich get wealthier.

http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/home-avai ... story.html

RideOnTime

Mr Goo wrote:

crispybug2 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I'm sure it's not just me but do you think that this picture has more than a whiff of Alan B'Stard about it?

Totally. It makes me laugh when I hear Chuka on the Telly or Radio. Yet another Champagne Elite Socialist from a privileged background. Followed the footsteps of his illustrious grand father (a knight) and went in to the legal profession. Only worked in the legal profession for 6-7 years before opting to put his snout in the trough of Westminster.

Is he related....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvPZo52X5vo

RideOnTime

oh I've got that wrong.... :shock:

could be though

may be by marriage

RideOnTime

Chuka Umunna
Chuka Umunna

This is better...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObjLb6ElTvs

ballysmate

If people think Miliband is useless, Labour supporters can always play up the attributes of his deputy, good old Harriet.
What a dream ticket!

RideOnTime

You're not helping...

slowmart

Manc33

Policies aside, I would only vote for anyone if they were 50 or older. None of these guys can know what they are doing being this young, doing jobs with these responsibilities. I said the same when Blair took office in the late 90s. Too young. He seemed to age 25 years in about 10 years from then on though. The pressure to keep lying correctly must be enormous for these guys.

debeli

Ed Miliband is very clever and his election as leader servd him very well.

It did not serve the Labour Party well at all. Die-hard Labour voters would vote for a party led by a toad or an elk, as would die-hard followers of any party. These voters do not decide elections.

To floating voters (and as a lifelong left-leaning liberal I am not one) Milliband exudes just about everything that is unelectable and the signal his position sends out is that a party who would choose this leader lacks leaders.

WHether or not it is a good thing (and I think it is not) many people take a presidential view of party leaders and see them as the personification of the party ethos. Ed Milliband's role in this scenario would paint a disastrous and egregious picture of the Party.

He sees a brief teaching role at Harvard and work as a Treasury wonk as 'real life experience'. He does not inspire. He does not encourage others to follow. He does not (much of the time) make sense. He seems poorly advised - or not advised - on communications and PR. His stance and schoolboyish, spiteful rhetoric at PMQs often blows up in his face at a time when he should be standing astride a demoralised government.

Insofar as his Party gain any results at the GE, much of the vote will be made up of votes AGAINST the other parties, not votes FOR his.

mm1

Interesting that Gove of all people has defended Ed saying that he is "decent" and misunderstood. Made me wonder what Gove was up to (not without serious ambition, but as odd and unelectable as Ed IMO).

slowmart

At least Gove recognises himself as a donkey rather than a race horse.

While the public view is one of relative unity the knives are being sharpened for a post election shake up in all parties. Nature at its finest, eating their own.

RideOnTime

Who's the alternative?

anonymousblackfg

I saw that piece with Miliband looking a lemon in front of those yoofs on the news last night and thought it made him look even more unelectable than I think he is normally. His core labour vote will not focus on his policies or opposition to the Tories, I think they'll just see him as odd and irrelevant and not vote.

As highlighted at the outset, he's no more worldly than Cameron, remember his bike getting pinch because he locked it to a 3 foot post? If I ran the country such stupidity would be dealt with by public disembowelment but sadly everyone forget this when they gave him the keys to our nuclear arsenal.

Manc33

I am far more concerned with how trustworthy he is than how clever he is.

imposter2.0

Manc33 wrote:

I am far more concerned with how trustworthy he is than how clever he is.

Rookie error.

He is a politician - and therefore not even remotely trustworthy. Surprised I had to point that out.

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

I am far more concerned with how trustworthy he is than how clever he is.

Rookie error.

He is a politician - and therefore not even remotely trustworthy. Surprised I had to point that out.

And they are not in charge either. If you can spot the difference in policies by the parties in charge, which were actually carried out since 1992, then you are a better man than I.
So, they do not have to be trustworthy, nor clever.

Manc33

Imposter wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

I am far more concerned with how trustworthy he is than how clever he is.

Rookie error.

He is a politician - and therefore not even remotely trustworthy. Surprised I had to point that out.

That's why I said I am "concerned with how trustworthy he is". :roll:

PBlakeney wrote:

And they are not in charge either. If you can spot the difference in policies by the parties in charge, which were actually carried out since 1992, then you are a better man than I.
So, they do not have to be trustworthy, nor clever.

They would have to be trustworthy if the law were being adhered to.

Destroying the sovereignty of a country from within is called treason.

People complain about Maggie all the time saying "She sold the country off" but they never ask "Who did she sell it to?" Thats where we're going wrong. At some point you're going to have one single "elite" family that owns absolutely everything, gas, water, electric, the economic system, the lot. Then they won't stop there, they only wanted to grab everything to then start making you more and more and more dependent on it.

No one is stopping it and anyone pointing out any of this is called a conspiracy theorist so we probably don't have much chance if that is the demented line we are going to take and it is no surprise to me that the country can be sold off if people just laugh when you explain it. People would laugh as they are walking into a detention camp. Its a sick world but we are the sick ones because we allow it to happen and pretend it isn't real by just laughing, like that helps.

Lets all laugh together and pretend whatever we feel comfortable with is real, instead of what actually is. We're like kids lol. Henry Ford was exactly right when he said we get the Government we deserve. If we're stupid enough to ignore criminality, guess what happens - criminals take over.

Forget Miliband, forget 1992... it goes back at least to Edward Heath:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jgGgCxTjU

mfin

You sound like a politician, you say things that don't actually say much and never specifically get to the specifics at all.

Some conspiracy theorists are very bright people, but if you subscribe to stacks of conspiracy theories by default then the light starts to go out. It appears that all those people do is read a lot around a conspiracy topic, along the way taking in each morsel as exciting given fact that validates or becomes part of the theory for them. For addicts of these theories there's surely some kind of self-perpetuating condition of psychosis of sorts going on.

Milliband is an odd one, I think it goes without saying that a widespread perception of him is of a man that you wouldn't choose to lead much at all (based on his personality and the way he comes across when he speaks), let alone choose to have lead political party 'in charge' of a country.

Manc33

mfin wrote:

You sound like a politician, you say things that don't actually say much and never specifically get to the specifics at all.

Some conspiracy theorists are very bright people, but if you subscribe to stacks of conspiracy theories by default then the light starts to go out It appears that all those people do is read a lot around a conspiracy topic taking in each bit as fact that validates or becomes part of the theory.

Thats why loads of absurd theories are mixed in with historical facts, albeit facts you have to do a lot of digging to find out.

Think how a forensic scientist solves a crime - by finding something that might be anecdotal, but then he finds fifty other pieces of evidence that link to it, its then not anecdotal and it is an open and shut case. Would someone say to him "Haha you're just linking things together that don't link together"? I doubt it.

For example Condoleeza Rice in the US was helping to illegally bomb the crap out of Iraq, but she used to work on the board of Chevron (a big oil company), to the point that there was even an oil tanker with her name on it.

How about Dick Cheney the ex-CEO (lol "ex") of Halliburton, then he "retired" from being the CEO of Halliburton and was in the Government pretending to be the Vice President, helping to "rebuild" Iraq with no-bid contracts handed to Halliburton.

How about George W Bush that had his "Arbusto Energy" company posing as a company looking for oil but then just went around capping off oil wells and fencing it all off with 10 year no trespassing restrictions - all to create artificial demand.

How about the guys writing PNAC in 2000 telling us we need a new Pearl Harbour type event?

How about that Panorama programme aired a year before 7/7 that even had Peter Power in the programme, the guy that was running a drill for Visor Consultants on the very day it happened at the very location it happened?

All just a hilarious conspiracy theory?

So I have just shown how there are people acting in unison with a massive conflict of interest going on.

Look at how stupid people are for allowing that to happen and you can start to see why it is happening.

You can start off in Frankfurt around the mid 1800s and work onwards from there tracing the financial system all the way up to today with Maggie selling all our commodities off to the same elite bankers. The same elite families have funded both sides of all major conflicts, including both world wars, for at least the last 160 years.

What we get told about people like Saddam Hussein... he never threw babies out of incubators, he was building Iraq up into a prosperous nation and shunning the bankers. Thats also what John F Kennedy did, or attempted to do. You either go along with the program or face the wrath of these people. Saddam Hussein was a CIA agent from 1959 onwards and when he invaded Kuwait, the US told him it was alright to and that they would back him up! He even had a legit reason to attack Kuwait - they were drilling diagonally into Iraq and stealing oil. Who knows who actually died when they told us he got killed, it might have been a body double but I doubt it.

Slobodan Milošević was another one, held on no charges for weeks and weeks (which is a crime) and eventually dies in prison from "suicide", even though he wrote in his diary stuff like "They are putting white powder in my food". Considering this Milošević guy was being called a dictator at the time I find it amazing that when detained, he was detained without a single charge. Doesn't this strike anyone as a bit odd? They had to suppress him at first then eventually kill him because he was starting to talk about who Bin Laden really is - another intelligence asset, just like Saddam was. What about the John Loftus clip on YouTube explaining about Haroon Rashid Aswat as well? All these people are always working with "our" (hijacked) intelligence services.

You want a pattern, there it is and it doesn't have anything to do with Elvis still being alive, mind beams/rays, or space crocodiles. Put it this way, if they are beaming stuff into our mind from HAARP it ain't working on everyone.

I don't even know what the title of this thread means anyway "is he or isn't he". Is he or isn't he what? A closet homosexual? A pedo? A Zionist? What is it referring to?

imposter2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

I am far more concerned with how trustworthy he is than how clever he is.

Rookie error.

He is a politician - and therefore not even remotely trustworthy. Surprised I had to point that out.

That's why I said I am "concerned with how trustworthy he is". :roll:

Whereas in reality, you should not have any concerns at all - because his 'absolute untrustworthiness' should already be a given.

Manc33 wrote:

Forget Miliband, forget 1992... it goes back at least to Edward Heath:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jgGgCxTjU

Another rookie error. If you weren't so new to the conspiracy game, you would know that it all goes back several hundred years.

bondurant

I think that may be your finest post yet.

Manc33

Imposter wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Forget Miliband, forget 1992... it goes back at least to Edward Heath:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jgGgCxTjU

Another rookie error. If you weren't so new to the conspiracy game, you would know that it all goes back several hundred years.

That's why I said "at least".

Instead of making up nonsensical insults, you could instead just check into it yourself.

Watch Money Masters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtBSiI13fE

One of the first things he says in Money Masters:

"Since 1864 we have had a debt based banking system"

Fascinating stuff.

imposter2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Forget Miliband, forget 1992... it goes back at least to Edward Heath:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jgGgCxTjU

Another rookie error. If you weren't so new to the conspiracy game, you would know that it all goes back several hundred years.

That's why I said "at least".

Instead of making up nonsensical insults, you could instead just check into it yourself.

Watch Money Masters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtBSiI13fE

One of the first things he says in Money Masters:

"Since 1864 we have had a debt based banking system"

Fascinating stuff.

Since 1864? Duh, I said 'several hundred years'. You say 'debt-based' banking system as though there might be some other alternative that isn't debt-based. Do some more reading which doesn't involve YouTube. Talking of insults, you insult genuine independent thinkers with your convenient cherry-picking of 'conspiracy' issues. You seem to be gleefully hoovering up all of this stuff and regurgitating it on here as if you are the only one that can 'see the light'. Give it a rest.

Manc33

What does the title of the thread mean when it says "is he or isn't he"?

Is he or isn't he what?

imposter2.0

Manc33 wrote:

What does the title of the thread mean when it says "is he or isn't he"?

Is he or isn't he what?

Since when has the title of a thread ever concerned you? You still post irrelevant, off-topic shite regardless...

Manc33

Imposter wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

What does the title of the thread mean when it says "is he or isn't he"?

Is he or isn't he what?

Since when has the title of a thread ever concerned you? You still post irrelevant, off-topic shite regardless...

The title of this thread is incoherent but no one is complaining. Even I'm not complaining about it, I just want to know what it is supposed to mean. Thanks for not answering it, again. :roll:

ballysmate

Manc33 wrote:

What does the title of the thread mean when it says "is he or isn't he"?

Is he or isn't he what?

Is he or isn't he... a tax avoider?
Mind you, his family have history, don't they?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... iband.html

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

What does the title of the thread mean when it says "is he or isn't he"?

Is he or isn't he what?

Is he or isn't he... a tax avoider?
Mind you, his family have history, don't they?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... iband.html

Is he, or isn't he a hypocrite? Oh yes he is.

Manc33

Avoiding tax lol, thats all its about?

Who remembers that poll "Should Tony Blair wear jeans or trousers?"

RideOnTime

Manc33 wrote:

What does the title of the thread mean when it says "is he or isn't he"?

Is he or isn't he what?

wearing that shampoo stuff or was it hairspray...