Rayvin

What swung you?

Seriously?!

I agree with you 100% on this, reached the same conclusion myself. That said, the only thing you could add in that -would- give free will, is the soul. So if free will exists, so must 'the soul'.

The Guardian doesn't have a choice now - they've got to back him. That's the whole thing with Corbyn, he's forcing people to actually choose between the Tories and change.

Basically yeah.

I think he meant Muslims kill other Muslims more than they kill anyone else. Which I'd imagine is true.

How are you going to stream the Switch? Does it have a feature for that?

Right so, what this means is that Wolfy (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here) thinks the whole situation is entirely unknown or unknowable, and that we're dealing with theories only. Anyone can postulate one, to the best of their ability, but there's no way of proving any of it. As such, he may as well stick to his guns on a thought process that makes sense to him. The real issue, is why he has chosen to reject the generally accepted evidence of the issue. Presumably stems from a deep mistrust of society in general? Could also be a yearning for the world to be a little more interesting than it is? Wolfy would, I expect, argue that the reality is he simply sat down, thought about it, and it hit him. There is no spoon. It's interesting, but I don't think it's a point that can be debated because Wolfy rejects all evidence out of hand, and feels that the battle can only be won on a theoretical basis.

I think it's just on this issue tbf. Kippers and the right wing loonies are no fans of foreign interventions, so Corbyn will be striking a chord with them. He should, fingers crossed, come out of this relatively unscathed. EDIT - but make no mistake, there's no chance of the same people voting for him. It just dilutes the impact of criticism of this speech that more people are seen to agree with him.

Scanned what? The Mail? The top rate comment reads: But he's right, this is Bush and Blair's fault. It present has 3600 upvotes and 700 downvotes Second top: I'm not a Corbyn lover but I think he is dead right Upvote: 2536 Downvt: 800 There's plenty more...

Let's take us out of this. So our evidence and theories are utter nonsense, not worth talking about. Why have you concluded that your theory is correct? On what basis? I don't need to know the theory itself, you've already explained that, but what is allowing you to believe your theory. Do you have evidence? Does it just make logical sense to you? What is it? The problem we're having is why you think your theories hold any more weight than literally any other theory. I think from what you're saying, you believe that there is literally no way of knowing the answer - so therefore, your theory is as good as any. Would that be right?

That's actually a worry I have. May fucking up and everyone attributing any swing to Corbyn to her. The only reason that matters is sustainability of the narrative, but I'd rather have 'the people wanted change' as the reason when the alternative is 'the Tories are just unbelievably shit'.

Do you have a schedule of games you'll be playing?

FFS. Just FFS.

Wolfy, I don't think anyone is even arguing the theory anymore - Fish was just making a point that you're rejecting all of our evidence based on a series of parameters (lack of evidence, need to see it for yourself, etc) that you are also failing to apply to your own theory. As such, your argument is basically just that you think the earth is flat because you think the earth is flat. Now, think about how that argument looks to us - and you'll see why no one is convinced. The big difference is that some of us have seen proof that the earth is not flat - you think our eyes are lying to us and so on, but at least we can point to evidence (however flawed you might think it is) to support our conclusion.

Good.

We never would have gotten this manifesto without Corbyn. For all his faults, he was necessary to get us here.

Well, everyone - but the point is their own readers, on balance, are agreeing with Corbyn. If the comment section is anything to go by. This isn't surprising, because actually, people like UKIP and Trump have called for non-intervention too. It is accepted on both sides that our roles in these conflicts come with consequences. The only side that doesn't want to hear it (buzzword alert) are the Neoliberals. And the Neocons, but that's a slightly different issue. So actually, the only people Corbyn's speed with offend are people who believe we have a role as 'world police' to play, and those who are still Imperials. Every fucker else will agree with him.

This is the Mail's article on it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544384/Corbyn-faces-backlash-bid-exploit-Manchester-bomb.html Check the comments - the most upvoted are in agreement with Corbyn. As I said, he's speaking across the aisle here. I mean the Mail is clearly aware of this as well given that the article is peppered with every conceivable factoid about things Corbyn has said in the past that could make him look weak on terrorism.

Disagree on the last bit. Now is the time to dig our heels in and ensure that when people just cannot bear the Tories any more, there is an opposition that can actually improve people's lives while forging lasting change - one that isn't going to be compromised by the need to appeal to short termism. I was wavering a bit in the run up to the election until the manifesto came out, and now I'm firmly back in the 'this needs to happen' camp. We needed something that stood apart from the Tories, and we've got it. If the Tories landslide us I'll concede that the time still isn't right, but it's no longer looking so likely that they will. Which means there is quite possibly sufficient appetite for Corbyn's policies, and the need for change. Corbyn won't win, but if he's able to do well enough to paralyse the government (minority rule) then he'll have been a success IMO.

Corbyn's speech just now was actually pretty fucking good... Will take "Whatever action necessary to keep people safe".

I don't think Fish is going to get better options than playing for Wales like. Poor decision.

You know me - as frequently as possible. It's not about apologising though - it's just about not doing it again.

The Libya campaign could be blamed for Manchester. You see his approach as lunacy because you're in the press though. And I can see why. But judging by the polls a significant number of people are sick of 'the game' that needs to be played and all the nonsense that comes with it. If we reach the point where someone like Corbyn can win while not playing said game, it's a win for society in general.

Right, with you now. If we stop talking about it, we might go back to war again. I mean, we do enjoy invading other countries and destabilising them, it might be a hard habit to kick.