Bolton nuts general election poll

Natasha Whittam wrote:

y2johnny wrote:Well it was his face on the leaflet.  Are you going to be right about anything in this election........

If that's the case there's no excuse for abusing folk in the street. You should tolerate the beliefs of others, like I do.

Yes.  I will tolerate the belief of a racist turd..........not

okocha wrote:Yes, Nat. Take the time to compare the statistics......

"Economic evidence reveals that only two Labour governments have ever left office leaving the national debt higher as a percentage of GDP than it was when they came to power, and all of the others have lowered it as a percentage of GDP.


Since 2010 under the Tories, the debt  has increased by a record amount of over £555 billion!"


So it is now at an all-time-high level.


 This flies in the face of the party's narrative and the media's bias. Don't believe the spin/lies.

I think its Trillion !!! The Tories on the Economy is a falsehood as you rightly point out.


 Its like paying off your credit card (Deficit) but increasing your overdraft (Debt)

So after 7 years of Austerity they have marginally reduced the deficit, whilst at the same time they have doubled the national debt.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:Unfortunately facts are irrelevant to Tory voters.

The fact that the last Labour government took us to war is one I will never forget.

But I guess war is fine as long as you can pass your house on to your children when you die.

Oh the irony. Blair went to war in 2003 yet if Corbyn had been PM this would not have happened and ISIS would not exist.

On the subject of facts why does a party that is so keen on the "will of the people" want to remove the ban on fox hunting when only 11% of the population support it and 64% oppose it?

Natasha Whittam wrote:


I've told you before, stop posting rants when you're pissed.

When I posted that last night, the score in the poll was 8-7 to Labour.

Now it's 10-7, so 2 more people have committed to voting Labour but nobody new has said they'll vote for your lot.

Ergo, it worked and I am clearly a more persuasive political advocate than you.

Game over, I win.

y2johnny wrote:Yes.  I will tolerate the belief of a racist turd..........not

You can call me anything, but don't call me racist.

xmiles wrote:Unfortunately facts are irrelevant to Tory voters.

.....which puts them on the same level as Trump and his acolytes.   'Nuff said!

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:Unfortunately facts are irrelevant to Tory voters.

The fact that the last Labour government took us to war is one I will never forget.

Remind me again who took us to war over The Falklands......

Nat, you do realise that Corbyn is a pacifist by nature......

xmiles wrote:Oh the irony. Blair went to war in 2003 yet if Corbyn had been PM this would not have happened and ISIS would not exist.

You're right, there was no terrorism before 2003  

xmiles wrote:On the subject of facts why does a party that is so keen on the "will of the people" want to remove the ban on fox hunting when only 11% of the population support it and 64% oppose it?

I agree with you on this one, and it is the reason I am still not 100% behind the Tories. I strongly dislike Mrs May for her stance on fox hunting.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

y2johnny wrote:Yes.  I will tolerate the belief of a racist turd..........not

You can call me anything, but don't call me racist.

I never said you was a racist my love.  You are very highly strung today.

okocha wrote:Remind me again who took us to war over The Falklands......

Rightly or wrongly, we considered the Falklands a British island so when Argentina invaded they might as well have pitched up at Dover.

Big difference between fighting a war over your own island, and fighting over oil on the other side of the world.

Bread2.0 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:


I've told you before, stop posting rants when you're pissed.

When I posted that last night, the score in the poll was 8-7 to Labour.

Now it's 10-7, so 2 more people have committed to voting Labour but nobody new has said they'll vote for your lot.

Ergo, it worked and I am clearly a more persuasive political advocate than you.

Game over, I win.

Could of been mine  fuck it, a breaders and y2 coalition

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:Unfortunately facts are irrelevant to Tory voters.

The fact that the last Labour government took us to war is one I will never forget.

But I guess war is fine as long as you can pass your house on to your children when you die.

Oh the irony. Blair went to war in 2003 yet if Corbyn had been PM this would not have happened and ISIS would not exist.

On the subject of facts why does a party that is so keen on the "will of the people" want to remove the ban on fox hunting when only 11% of the population support it and 64% oppose it?

Why would ISIS not exist?

We were a junior partner in a coalition of forces led by the USA.

To quote an article in the neutral publication The Week:

ISIS was born out of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. When U.S. administrators, under Paul Bremer, decided to "de-Baathify" the Iraqi civil and military services, hundreds of thousands of Sunnis formerly loyal to Saddam Hussein were left without a job — and they were mad. Al Qaeda chose to capitalize on their anger and established al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) to wage an insurgency against U.S. troops in Iraq (Saddam was secular, but his intelligence and military supporters were able to make common cause with the jihadis of al Qaeda).

Fast forward again to the Arab Spring and the uprising against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad (more info on that here). During the Iraq War, AQI would frequently go back and forth between Syria and Iraq to resupply, so it had a lot of contacts in the country. When Assad began shooting and gassing his own people, and the peaceful uprising turned into a civil war, AQI saw an opportunity to establish a presence there.

It quickly moved into Syria, renamed itself as The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and merged with its Syrian counterpart. This pissed off al Qaeda's HQ, because they were already establishing a separate al Qaeda in Syria (aka al-Nusra front) and wanted it to remain separate. The two groups fought another mini-war amongst themselves and officially separated with AQI rebranding itself into the ISIS we hear about today.

Here is a link to the full article: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiI_8K6mKLUAhVMPVAKHfIZAWkQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheweek.com%2Farticles%2F589924%2Fbrief-history-isis&usg=AFQjCNG2fqG5wTWIP7qPEayZ5ofdosHf-g&sig2=3bkdcunaiMZi7IPb1PF2xg

Yes, I know how ISIS was formed.

How would Corbyn being our PM have prevented  the USA invading IRAQ?

How  would  Corbyn have prevented the formation of ISIS?

America's invasion of IRAQ was not dependant on our involvement.

Xmiles, you've just been burned.

Take a few days off.

Cajunboy wrote:Yes, I know how ISIS was formed.

How would Corbyn being our PM have prevented  the USA invading IRAQ?

How  would  Corbyn have prevented the formation of ISIS?

America's invasion of IRAQ was not dependant on our involvement.

True but if Blair hadn't been Bush's poodle it is possible that the Americans might have hesitated to go it alone, but I concede your point.