He writes his own songs and is a big star in the Music Industry despite not looking conventional in the Music world.

His Music is not my favourite, but he is talented, and has definitely worked for his money.

The need to label him by his net worth is a bit unnecessary, anyone can support anyone

We are talking about Corbyn and the IRA, nothing else....I don't know of any other PM or potential PM who spoke at terrorist rallies praising bombers and attended terrorist funerals and appointed a Shadow Chancellor who did the same.

I suppose you lived in N.Ireland in the 70's too then and knew of him - and the countless reports from many different sources are all lies. Righty - ho.
I suppose you have proof that he was a MASSIVE part of the N.I peace process too and are keeping it to yourself. :laugh:

The only liar pertaining to N.I and the IRA is Corbyn. But every word he utters is taken as the gospel truth. Talk about cults and brainwashing....

People rightly post 'how horrific' when ISIS bombs innocent people in cold blood, yet if Corbyn spoke at one of their rallies or went to the funerals of their dead terrorists as he did with the IRA, according to you that would be acceptable as we are all to blame.

I have heard all the deflection, excuses, spin and Corbyn worship I can stomach.
Bye.

Are you having a laugh? what about may shmoozing the saudis, trump or Morawiecki? Your focus is far too narrow either that or you're choosing to ignore the very real offences to human rights in favour of your presumed guilt

Councillor Maria Gatland Conservative Member for Croham Ward Was a member of the IRA She wrote a book in the early 70s To take up arms in the 1970s.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-28457193.html

Corbyn signed a motion condemning the IRA’s violence in 1994.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7761801.html

I have posted countless articles from different sources telling of his IRA involvement and all of them are discounted as made up nonsense. You post one that gives no proof of anything - why? Am I supposed to go 'OMG! I've been wrong!'. Come on!

It's so unlikely, as he has great difficulty even today condemning them outright:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiqEyxg9JM0

....and what has it got to do with his IRA involvement in the 70's and 80's, his lies about being a 'massive' part of the peace process, and the fact he refuses even now to condemn the IRA outright without his repeated bumblings of 'I condemn all bombings'.

Have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4OkUXwgt1M

And this:
Corbyn on Andrew Neil,
Andrew Neil: "We look at your record, and we can't find any evidence of you urging the IRA to put away it's guns and bombs" - his only defence being 'he was working for peace'. As that was a lie, everything else he says falls down:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj_I3Qs8nbs

There is NO proof anywhere that Corbyn was part of the peace process or had any part to play in the Good friday agreement. Can you at least admit that now? He never even met with the other side in the conflict. And what about him surrounding himself with his IRA supporter friends John McDonnell and Diane Abbot? What have you to say about that? If his apologists still can't see straight through his lies and BS, I feel sorry for them.

Never heard of the murderous bitch and thank goodness she hasn't aspirations to be the next PM. Though if she convinced some people they would be better off it probably wouldn't matter that she was an IRA bomber. It's not a big leap from fawning over the likes of Corbyn who fraternised and sympathised with and encouraged bombers to actually turning a blind eye to those that bombed. What do all those dead people matter when you can have the 'promise' of more dosh.
All the and spin and glibness and denial to excuse Corbyn from some on here leads me to that conclusion now.
I really don't think the majority of the public are fooled though, and I very much doubt that when it comes down to the wire that he will ever be PM.

And from your links, you haven't managed to put up any proof of your accusations. Even the national right wing tabloids ignore right wing sites like Guido Fawkes because they know its just meaningless accusations that can be proven otherwise. If you want to put a link up that will have us all sitting up and paying attention, find something substantial and not amateur videos, Guido Fawkes accusations and individual comments.

What are we comparing? Virtuosness or the "meaning" behind the gesture.

I would argue the virtue of charity in general is same. The meaning and sense of thought given behind the gift from someone who has hardly anything to give though is higher because they are so much closer to understanding it's possibilities. People with less have not only a higher appreciation for money, but a higher empathy for those who don't have it.

LT's points are not invalid in terms of her not being able to afford. The fact so many live paycheck to paycheck is why we have so many problems with debt as this is a large part of what drives up benefits usage. If there were no safety net, more people would put away for a rainy day as that would be common sense, but instead many people feel quite comfortable to spend what they earn almost immediately. This is a recipe for disaster, and I think even people that poor would know it by that point, but because there are so much access to welfare/charity (just in case), ppl tend to put off saving rather than to feel increasingly burdened/strangled by their consequences.

If she has a decent safety net (several months of bills saved up), then that partially negatives that example, but usually someone on a fixed income post-retirement has limited financial resources since they are not able to work to make a living and often face higher medical/cost of living due to restrictive diets (so pricier) and are more dependent on others for things like house cleaning or maybe need an in-home care assistant.

On the flip side of the coin (pun not intended), is it really the rich's job to be taking care of the poor? It's not. And just because the person with less is more empathetic doesn't make them more virtuous. So I'd say they are about even on the scale of virtue... but the person with less understands the significance behind it better than someone who literally can make it rain cash without much thought.

Even if you were rags to riches, I think when you no longer living life on the edge of disaster, you do tend to "disconnect" from life's incontrovertible hard truths. Even I'm aware of this change in state in myself from having been raised poor (and physically in bad shape for several decades because of it) to no longer not. I have the luxury now of not having to be burdened with constant worldly concerns, and while I am grateful for it, it has introduced impairments to empathy.

I think you're both making valid points is what I'm getting to.

Who's job is it then? In a society that has a social welfare structure paid for via income tax then it is everyones duty to pay ... the rich obviously fall into that and pay proportionately.

What is this inference that the rich are a breed apart who can't contemplate want? Obviously Mr Sheeran can :/

worked for his money? :joker:

So by that reckoning a Nurse on say 30K a year has also worked for that amount of money?

what an insult

and hardly very socialist of you

Deflection deflection... you refuse to answer anything I asked and you obviously didn't even watch the Andrew Neil interview. You will never admit any wrongdoing of Corbyn's or his lies concerning the IRA, anything and everything pointing straight at it you block out, you don't seem to have a BS radar at all when it comes to him.
I've also found in your previous posts that you are not very well informed about the N.Ireland troubles.

You would perhaps be surprised to learn how many former Corbyn supporters around the net (even some on here) now have his measure, just listening to the man himself being interviewed about the IRA were all the proof they needed....and they are just the honest ones who admit to it...
You will admit nothing, you won't discuss the content of serious interviews or articles, so there is no point in talking to you any further. I can't believe I ever took you seriously to debate with.