I agree Corbyn is 1. I wouldn't have put Blair as high as 10 but using your scale I would put Sir Keir at 9.5.
I don't think Sir Keir is grey. I think he is doing a pretty good job at holding Johnson's lying bunch of party goers to account. In short he's doing his job. If Sir Keir is ever Prime Minister then I will judge him. Until then I'll leave it as he's doing a pretty good job.
Does that answer you question?
No because I'm not asking how good. I'm asking what shade of red. Hard left. Centre left. I want to know where his policies lie. The thing he doesn't tell us. And apparently you don't know either.
If you and the other Hindsight fans had bothered to read my posts it's a question I've been asking for ages but no-one can apparently answer. He's not Boris but who is he? So far he's not even grey. Politically he's the invisible man. If I vote for him what do I get? Corbyn or Blair or where in between?
Last edited by Mervyn and Trish on 02 May 2022, 22:07, edited 1 time in total.
And one I have given a genuine answer to before. It appears though that I am the only one that has given a genuine answer to the question ... original content was edited
which any Boris basher should be able to answer, otherwise it's making cheap digs just for the sake of it which is all rather tiresome and boring.
No different to the cheap digs against anyone from other political leaders that are equally tiresome, boring, predictable and unoriginal.
The usual predictable answer from someone whose only defence is to resort to his favourite insults. Content edited .... why not just give an honest answer to a genuine question?
Last edited by Manoverboard on 03 May 2022, 09:00, edited 2 times in total.
I agree Corbyn is 1. I wouldn't have put Blair as high as 10 but using your scale I would put Sir Keir at 9.5.
I don't think Sir Keir is grey. I think he is doing a pretty good job at holding Johnson's lying bunch of party goers to account. In short he's doing his job. If Sir Keir is ever Prime Minister then I will judge him. Until then I'll leave it as he's doing a pretty good job.
Does that answer you question?
No because I'm not asking how good. I'm asking what shade of red. Hard left. Centre left. I want to know where his policies lie. The thing he doesn't tell us. And apparently you don't know either.
If you and the other Hindsight fans had bothered to read my posts it's a question I've been asking for ages but no-one can apparently answer. He's not Boris but who is he? So far he's not even grey. Politically he's the invisible man. If I vote for him what do I get? Corbyn or Blair or where in between?
I think he's somewhere in the middle. I don't know what shade of red that is. As for the rest if it I don't really understand where you are coming from. What do you mean he's not even grey, that doesn't make sense. He's the leader of the Opposition who's job is to hold the government to account and he's doing a good job of that. He ain't invisible, not to me, I can see him clear and plain and you can hear him if you listen. You've been told before, if you want to know what Labour stand for look at their web site. If you want to know more about Starmer Google him. I can't answer those questions in a single post on a forum, can anyone. I don't know what else to say perhaps your really clever and brainy and I'm thick and stupid and getting completely the wrong idea of what you are talking about but I think we have to wait for a General election to see what Labour really stand for we should wait to judge Sir Keir when and if he becomes Prime Minister.
Last edited by Bensham33 on 02 May 2022, 23:06, edited 1 time in total.
And one I have given a genuine answer to before. It appears though that I am the only one that has given a genuine answer to the question, and as usual all I got back from the usual ilk with nothing worthwhile to say were ad hominems, strawmen and infantile 'whataboutery'. But always happy to have a serious conversation if you want.
which any Boris basher should be able to answer, otherwise it's making cheap digs just for the sake of it which is all rather tiresome and boring.
No different to the cheap digs against anyone from other political leaders that are equally tiresome, boring, predictable and unoriginal.
The usual predictable answer from someone whose only defence is to resort to his favourite insults.
Instead of demonstrating what an objectionable character you are why not just give an honest answer to a genuine question?
I always treat posters as they treat me so if you find me to be objectionable, then it is because that is how you are. So giving the typical arrogant repsonse because you have no other defense to your own behaviour only demonstrates your own objectionable and disingenuous character.
So I repeat "I have given a genuine answer to [this question] before. It appears though that I am the only one that has given a genuine answer to the question, and as usual all I got back from the usual ilk with nothing worthwhile to say were ad hominems, strawmen and infantile 'whataboutery'.". So that would be QED
However I also did say "But always happy to have a serious conversation if you want.". So maybe you start the conversation by providing your own opinion to the question. I know that sometimes goes against the grain for some on this board that do not have an opinion until they are told what it is by another poster.
Last edited by Kendhni on 03 May 2022, 07:50, edited 1 time in total.
My mantra has always been that, "Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the observance of fools". I tend to believe that the postings on this topic clearly display the truth of that old saying.
wasn't that Derek's mantra too? what became of Derek? I wonder what his Monocleness would have to say about all this?
He would at least have got the quote right. I always liked Derek and had hoped to meet him at one of the naming ceremonies. I did bump into him on another board, but that was several years back. My best guess is that he would not be impressed with the incredibly low standards being exhibited by the political leadership at the minute (but that is just a guess). He was a good judge of character.
Last edited by Kendhni on 03 May 2022, 08:04, edited 1 time in total.
And one I have given a genuine answer to before. It appears though that I am the only one that has given a genuine answer to the question, and as usual all I got back from the usual ilk with nothing worthwhile to say were ad hominems, strawmen and infantile 'whataboutery'. But always happy to have a serious conversation if you want.
No different to the cheap digs against anyone from other political leaders that are equally tiresome, boring, predictable and unoriginal.
The usual predictable answer from someone whose only defence is to resort to his favourite insults.
Instead of demonstrating what an objectionable character you are why not just give an honest answer to a genuine question?
I always treat posters as they treat me so if you find me to be objectionable, then it is because that is how you are. So giving the typical arrogant repsonse because you have no other defense to your own behaviour only demonstrates your own objectionable and disingenuous character.
So I repeat "I have given a genuine answer to [this question] before. It appears though that I am the only one that has given a genuine answer to the question, and as usual all I got back from the usual ilk with nothing worthwhile to say were ad hominems, strawmen and infantile 'whataboutery'.". So that would be QED
However I also did say "But always happy to have a serious conversation if you want.". So maybe you start the conversation by providing your own opinion to the question. I know that sometimes goes against the grain for some on this board that do not have an opinion until they are told what it is by another poster.
I refer you to post#15361.
It was a simple enough question looking for a genuine answer. Clearly being so full of your own bloated importance you are incapable of having a serious debate and have to rely on your childishly hackneyed strawman, ad hominem and whataboutery attempts at put down.
We'll try again.....who would you replace Boris with? Unless there is a GE it would need to be someone from the Tory party. Over to you.
On a technicality this country does not elect a PM.
It is not inconceivable that the sitting PM at a General Election is not the PM after the GE - although if that was to happen half the electorate would not understand why "their" PM was not the PM after the election.
The usual predictable answer from someone whose only defence is to resort to his favourite insults.
Instead of demonstrating what an objectionable character you are why not just give an honest answer to a genuine question?
I always treat posters as they treat me so if you find me to be objectionable, then it is because that is how you are. So giving the typical arrogant repsonse because you have no other defense to your own behaviour only demonstrates your own objectionable and disingenuous character.
So I repeat "I have given a genuine answer to [this question] before. It appears though that I am the only one that has given a genuine answer to the question, and as usual all I got back from the usual ilk with nothing worthwhile to say were ad hominems, strawmen and infantile 'whataboutery'.". So that would be QED
However I also did say "But always happy to have a serious conversation if you want.". So maybe you start the conversation by providing your own opinion to the question. I know that sometimes goes against the grain for some on this board that do not have an opinion until they are told what it is by another poster.
I refer you to post#15361.
It was a simple enough question looking for a genuine answer. Clearly being so full of your own bloated importance you are incapable of having a serious debate and have to rely on your childishly hackneyed strawman, ad hominem and whataboutery attempts at put down.
We'll try again.....who would you replace Boris with? Unless there is a GE it would need to be someone from the Tory party. Over to you.
Yet again it appears all you have is the usual predictable answer from someone whose only defence is to resort to insults.
Instead of demonstrating what an objectionable character you are why not start the discussion by providing your own thoughts to your own question (since I have already answered it)?
Over to you.
Last edited by Kendhni on 03 May 2022, 08:53, edited 1 time in total.
On a technicality this country does not elect a PM.
Good point, we elected a circus so should not be surprised that we got a clown as a PM
It is not inconceivable that the sitting PM at a General Election is not the PM after the GE - although if that was to happen half the electorate would not understand why "their" PM was not the PM after the election.
I think that would fall into 2 camps ... those that say this is not what I voted for and those that, as you correctly state, say we do not elect the PM. I know we have replaced PMs mid term or not long before an election (e.g. Brown), but I can't think of any serving PM that lost their seat or gave up their seat immediately after election?
I always treat posters as they treat me so if you find me to be objectionable, then it is because that is how you are. So giving the typical arrogant repsonse because you have no other defense to your own behaviour only demonstrates your own objectionable and disingenuous character.
So I repeat "I have given a genuine answer to [this question] before. It appears though that I am the only one that has given a genuine answer to the question, and as usual all I got back from the usual ilk with nothing worthwhile to say were ad hominems, strawmen and infantile 'whataboutery'.". So that would be QED
However I also did say "But always happy to have a serious conversation if you want.". So maybe you start the conversation by providing your own opinion to the question. I know that sometimes goes against the grain for some on this board that do not have an opinion until they are told what it is by another poster.
I refer you to post#15361.
It was a simple enough question looking for a genuine answer. Clearly being so full of your own bloated importance you are incapable of having a serious debate and have to rely on your childishly hackneyed strawman, ad hominem and whataboutery attempts at put down.
We'll try again.....who would you replace Boris with? Unless there is a GE it would need to be someone from the Tory party. Over to you.
Yet again it appears all you have is the usual predictable answer from someone whose only defence is to resort to insults.
Instead of demonstrating what an objectionable character you are why not start the discussion by providing your own thoughts to your own question?
Over to you.
But you are the one who advocates that Boris must be replaced, so surely you should be giving us your candidate(s) to replace him.
Although being a NI voter must be rather upsetting for you, since you cannot really influence the outcome at Westminster other than a very occasional confidence and supply agreement.
Without them our Kenneth would be struck dumb. Just get your red pen out. I've had my say and it's clear Ken can't or won't answer my simple question. Delete all the nonsense Mob.
Without them our Kenneth would be struck dumb. Just get your red pen out. I've had my say and it's clear Ken can't or won't answer my simple question. Delete all the nonsense Mob.
I am happy for you to delete all the childish insults and nonsense aimed at me as well.
However, note to mod, you would do well to read up on 'strawman' it is not an insult, it is a recognised stance within any debate.
Last edited by Kendhni on 03 May 2022, 10:14, edited 1 time in total.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. I don't see what the problem is.
And as I have pointed out several times before, I, and one other poster, are the only ones that have actually answered that question.
I am guessing your lack of desire to answer your own question, is because you have no "genuine" interest in discussion, you just want something to nitpick at.
Maybe if we rephrase the question to 'Hypothetically speaking who do you think could/should replace Johnson?' ... as you say it is a simple question.
Last edited by Kendhni on 03 May 2022, 10:18, edited 1 time in total.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. I don't see what the problem is.
And as I have pointed out several times before, I, and one other poster, are the only ones that have actually answered that question.
I am guessing your lack of desire to answer your own question, is because you have no "genuine" interest in discussion, you just want something to nitpick at.
Since I have answered it I am awaiting your answer.
Why should I answer my own question?
You were the one who advocated that Boris should be replaced so who would you replace him with?
It's a genuine enough question which any Boris basher should be able to answer, otherwise it's making cheap digs just for the sake of it which is all rather tiresome and boring.
That’s really funny, considering that all certain members of this forum do is make cheap digs at Starmer just for the sake of it, which is all rather tiresome and boring.
Why does everything have to be about you Kenneth? I asked Mob to delete all the nonsense, not just aimed at me but aimed at you too.
Strawman - definition:
"a person regarded as having no substance or integrity".
That would be the definition if you called the person a strawman (which I have never done), I have always (or at least always tried) to make it clear that it is the argument I am referring to using the definition
"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
Now that we have got that out of the way and it is clear I am not using it as an insult then we can move on.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. I don't see what the problem is.
And as I have pointed out several times before, I, and one other poster, are the only ones that have actually answered that question.
I am guessing your lack of desire to answer your own question, is because you have no "genuine" interest in discussion, you just want something to nitpick at.
Since I have answered it I am awaiting your answer.
Why should I answer my own question?
You were the one who advocated that Boris should be replaced so who would you replace him with?
What part of 'I have already answered the question' are you struggling with, Gary?
I have also told you the reason why I believe you don't want to answer your own question.
Why are you too scared to answer your own question?
This has actually been a common pattern on this board. Why is it that those who continually demand answers from others are too scared to provide answers themselves?
Last edited by Kendhni on 03 May 2022, 10:34, edited 1 time in total.
I was merely interested whom you would replace Boris with, that's all, but if you don't want to answer it just say so instead of going around the houses.
Why does everything have to be about you Kenneth? I asked Mob to delete all the nonsense, not just aimed at me but aimed at you too.
Strawman - definition:
"a person regarded as having no substance or integrity".
That would be the definition if you called the person a strawman (which I have never done), I have always (or at least always tried) to make it clear that it is the argument I am referring to using the definition
"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
Now that we have got that out of the way and it is clear I am not using it as an insult then we can move on.
It isn't at all clear ...
If I read the content below, taken from #15379 as an example, I can take the view that strawmen comments can be read as an insult even if you say otherwise. Usual ilk sets the tone maybe ?
" ... and as usual all I got back from the usual ilk with nothing worthwhile to say were ad hominems, strawmen and infantile 'whataboutery'.". So that would be QED "
I consider the above to be a potential violation of Forum Rule 1b regarding ' harmony on the site '.
It's a genuine enough question which any Boris basher should be able to answer, otherwise it's making cheap digs just for the sake of it which is all rather tiresome and boring.
That’s really funny, considering that all certain members of this forum do is make cheap digs at Starmer just for the sake of it, which is all rather tiresome and boring.
That's rather rich coming from you Gill, who rarely posts anything anywhere on the forum unless it's derogatory against Boris.
Why does everything have to be about you Kenneth? I asked Mob to delete all the nonsense, not just aimed at me but aimed at you too.
Strawman - definition:
"a person regarded as having no substance or integrity".
That would be the definition if you called the person a strawman (which I have never done), I have always (or at least always tried) to make it clear that it is the argument I am referring to using the definition
"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
Now that we have got that out of the way and it is clear I am not using it as an insult then we can move on.
It isn't at all clear ...
If I read the content below, taken from #15379 as an example, I can take the view that strawmen comments can be read as an insult even if you say otherwise. Usual ilk sets the tone maybe ?
" ... and as usual all I got back from the usual ilk with nothing worthwhile to say were ad hominems, strawmen and infantile 'whataboutery'.". So that would be QED "
I consider the above to be a potential violation of Forum Rule 1b regarding ' harmony on the site '.
Regards MobyModPlod
Simple reading is clear that I am not referring to the 'usual ilk' as strawmen, but instead what I 'got back' was strawmen (unless of course you are able to send me the 'the usual ilk' by ParcelForce).
But now that we have cleared it up I will (do my best) to use 'strawman argument' to make it totally clear ... if I forget the 'argument' bit then please moderate it in.
The views and comments posted in these fora are personal and do not necessarily represent those of the Management of Cruise Community Forum.
The Management of the Cruise Community Forum does not, under any circumstances whatsoever, accept any responsibility for any advice, or recommendations, made by, or implied by, any member or guest visitor of Cruise Community Forum that results in any loss whatsoever in any manner to a member of Cruise Community Forum, or to any other person.
Furthermore, the Management of Cruise Community Forum is not, and cannot be, responsible for the content of any other Internet site(s) that have been linked to from Cruise Community Forum.
