No idea what you are talking about.



You said this:



Quite a vile individual aren't you?



See above for Mintball style quality 'debate'.



Sounds like you are describing you and your 'hero' Heinrich Marx.

You would like it in North Korea. They have big pictures of him everywhere. Maybe you should holiday there sometime?

Troll.

Probably because he wasn't able to get his message across when he had the chance I imagine.

When was he prime minister?

Heard of Thatcherism yes? There is no 'Bennism'

Here's a thing about elder "statesmen", those who have taken a well paid retirement from parliament - the ones who sat on the Labour side of successive parliaments right up until Blair & Co made their incursion are seen as old school left-wing socialists who are still proud of their heritage, they are valued for their living history opinions of how things may have been in a utopian world - the ones who sat on the Tory side of successive governments are seen today as moderates, men like Heseltine and Portillo just don't seem to be so reactionary these days because of course they aren't anymore, their mantra's of 20 years ago are mild by comparison.

This is how far all political party's have moved to the right, which is what makes the football supporter politics of blue and red flag bearers so laughable - there is so very little to choose between all of them today that they may as well redesign the Commons so that anyone can sit anywhere.

I've never got the whole thing about Osborne's first name. If you don't like your first given name then what is wrong with going by one of your middle names?
I have three given names and I'm not very keen on the second one, whats actually wrong with prefering to use one of the other ones? I'm from a working class family btw.

Oh Dear, oh Dear. Well and truly caught with your knickers down around your ankles Amanda!



Still, it is the weekend, so a quiet s will suffice. One does wonder though if you purchased them from Coddy. He was very big in Ladies Unmentionables at one time. Alllegedly.

Incorrect.

Let's look at what was said, since you appear to have as limited a mind as Ajw71, which I admit to finding slightly disappointing.





These comments do not contradict each other.

There are, that I can see, three possible explanations for saying that a name sounded 'too Jewish' to get one elected as PM – not one.

I'll list them for you.

1) He was anti-semitic himself.

2) He considered the British electorate at large to be anti-semitic.

3) He considered Conservative voters to be anti-semitic.

There may be more, but I can see those three. You and Ajw71 are welcome to show that in previous posts I meant any one, or a combination of any of them. Since you've quoted the relevant posts yourself, you won't even need to hunt far and wide.

And he was "an arrogant little teenage tosspot" because he was a teenager who had already decided that he wanted to be prime minister; in other words, to rule. But that's what a public school education gives you – that arrogant belief in your divine right to lord it over everyone else, even if your only work talent is for folding towels.

But my Dear, we were not discussing what the reasons could possibly be for changing his name. Although you appear to be more than happy to parade your own anti semetic leanings dressed up as "an explanation as to why a name may sound too Jewish"

I was simply highlighting your short term memory loss in your two posts, in which you claimed you were not responsible and pointed the finger at Private Eye....

And yet in an earlier post. " He changed it because he was an arrogant little teenage tosspot who had already decided he wanted to be PM, and because he thought it sounded a bit too Jewish to help him in that."

No mention in there I can see of Ian Hyslop, or Private Eye, so it is reasonable to assume, that as you posted this nonsense, this is what your views are.

You have been weighed Minty, and found wanting.

Even if we are to take uncorroborated hearsay evidence from a number of years ago as being fact. That is a huge 'if'. Osborne's 'words' clearly referred to the electorate and not himself.

As for calling a teenager arrogant because he may or may not have had ambitions of becoming prime minister one day. That is just bizarre and sad in equal measure. Is is wrong for children to have ambition nowadays? Linking it to his school is just mindless class war rubbish.

Totally agree - but when you can no longer argue against policies / facts, people need some way to attack that person. Politics of the gutter.

Been and looked in the mirror, have you?

You never bother with facts or evidence and simply persist in repeating drivel and accusing anyone who dares challenge your lack of intellectual rigour as 'lefties' etc.

Proof? What you want it to mean does not count as proof. And besides, if I had claimed that Osborne had changed his name because he was anti-Semitic, and done so in a context of criticising him, then that could be read to suggest that I did not approve of anti-semitism.

Trolling apparently damages the mental capacity for logic.



Yes. As reported in [iPrivate Eye[/i. I suggest you go and look at the entire previous conversation. It was mentioned there quite clearly. Iirc,I noted that Osborne ad not sued the publication in question.

And it's Hislop.

No, though I suppose if MP's sued everyone who said something mean about them, they'd be permanently in or around courthouses. Still, I always find that whether someone sues or not is a sound way of determining whether someone is or isn't guilty of something. I can't see how that theory can ever be proved fallible.