Comments by "Edward McLaughlin" (@edwardmclaughlin7935) on "LBC" channel.

  1. Kid Sid Yep. And then watch her lawyers get to work.
    11
  2. The point of Truss is the same as was the point of Johnson, and will be the point of Starmer: keep the people occupied with nonsense while their economy is flattened and they are transformed into serfs.
    10
  3. john Do yourself a favour: turn off the TV and do some research.
    10
  4.  @MrNovember41  UK referendum votes in and is immediately acted upon. UK referendum votes out and is thwarted by parliamentary and judicial wrangling. Clear-cut case of the EU one way ratchet in action.
    9
  5.  @flankspeed  If Swinson had gotten power, she would have denied the democratic vote. That's fascist.
    8
  6.  @MrNovember41  And yet, the referendum of 1975 which kept us in the EEC that Heath had signed up for already, was adopted without question, immediately. Funny that.
    8
  7. She must be double-jointed, is all I can make out.
    5
  8.  @peterbarnard631  Swinson proved to be domineering and intolerant of others; she was in favour of overturning the vote in order to satisfy her desires. That's the root of fascism. If Corbyn had won, the whole nation would have had to live under his rule. I'm part of that nation.
    4
  9.  @imedi  There is no requirement to take power by force to qualify as fascist. She was domineering and intolerant of the leavers' viewpoint. That's how fascism bases its claim.
    4
  10. The level of dog-whistle Russophobia in the comments, shows just how effective the propaganda machine has been.
    4
  11.  @chaosflower4892  Think for yourself based on nothing that is going on around you; listening to no reports of situations distant from your own and being able to form no conclusion based on reports? How is anyone going to think everything for themselves without outside influence?
    4
  12. "...taken down...". It's called 'English'.
    4
  13. david Ukraine never had any nukes; they were part of the arsenal of the Soviet Union, merely sited on Ukraine territory.
    3
  14.  @peterbarnard631  Oh I see 'a vote for us 16.2 million...' That's how democracy works is it? Select the sector of the electorate likely to return the decision you want? Nice.
    3
  15. At first sight and at all levels, what's happening in Syria is a catastrophe. Firstly, for so many who live there, extreme violence is upon them. Just what is to happen beyond the initial phase is hardly likely to get any better.
    3
  16. josh There you go then: democracy in action!
    2
  17.  @SirAntoniousBlock  He doesn't have to - Russia is sorting it out.
    2
  18. Andrew Marr, when responding to Putin's plea to recognise nuance, sees Vicky Pollard. This is where the British journalistic profession has taken itself?
    2
  19. She is sly. She claims to be open-minded while her condescending, dismissive gestures indicate clearly that she regards his concerns with contempt. His argument is that simply the rate and the magnitude of the influx is unmanageable. He is right.
    2
  20.  @iancraig6070  So where are the Challengers? The F16s? With all the other 'game changers'? What did they change?
    2
  21. @ I don't think the Russians will be prepared to wait.
    2
  22.  @peterbarnard631  This was the deal: we were asked as a nation, do you want to leave the EU or stay in the EU. We chose to leave. There's the deal; I had a say in it. In doing so, I took away nothing.
    2
  23.  @peterbarnard631  As a common citizen, I would not have 'adopted' policy, I would have watched from the sidelines and waited for the next election to try once again. Fascists disregard such observance. They have their view and that will be imposed by whatever means...my friend.
    2
  24. "Putin the aggressor"? Yet another 'authority' who is either dumb or lying.
    2
  25. gerald So your plan is?
    2
  26. mark I think the word you were avoiding in your statement was "peace".
    2
  27. Russia has conducted itself in a very constrained manner in Ukraine; hence their insistence on referring to a Special Military Operation. They have chosen not to wage a total war. They can do this because they are fighting a much smaller force: lesser manpower and fewer resources. Were they to be faced by the whole of Europe, then all out war would need to be prosecuted. In that situation, the whole of Europe would be very swiftly decimated. From the outset of this operation, the governments, the media and the bovine public, have underestimated the fighting capabilities of Russia. To blithely trundle along towards a total war between the combined nations of Europe and Russia is extremely irresponsible. Repeatedly we are portraying Russia as having designs on the takeover of Europe when there is not one shred of evidence of such plans. Why do we not talk of ways of returning to the situation whereby Europe presented no encroaching threat to Russia with the siting of bases and missiles ever closer to its border? It is either that or a huge conflagration which would leave Russia and America gravely damaged but ready to rebuild - and a Europe totally destroyed.
    2
  28. perilous Did you listen to his first words?
    2
  29. wade To the victor, the spoils.
    2
  30.  @fronabulax63  'fatal' wasn't it?
    1
  31. shaolin You got your kit bag all packed by the door, ready for the taxi to the airport?
    1
  32.  @richardvalvona1159  Did my research on Starmer. Turns out he's a member of the Trilateral Commission. You familiar with them?
    1
  33. Just what is it about nuclear exchange that has suddenly gained so much appeal?
    1
  34.  @susannehartl3067  Do yourself a favour: turn off the TV and do some research into the actual events that led to this conflict.
    1
  35.  @susannehartl3067  Please give the main thesis.
    1
  36.  @majorminor3367  You rather underline my point.
    1
  37.  @bradnixon6220  I suppose that's better than being called Ivan, or asking me if it's snowing in Moscow.
    1
  38. Compulsory? How do you force someone to pick up a gun? Even turn up? Thankfully, people have a bit more sense than to go and fight and die so that some rich people can get even richer. It took us a long time but we had two world wars to bring us to our senses.
    1
  39. Standard issue Guardian, bigoted incoherence.
    1
  40. How many versions of remain would have been discussed, had the referendum gone that way?
    1
  41. Whether or not one agrees with the handing-over of the Chagos Islands; what is disturbing is the total absence of any public discussion in the lead-up to the decision. It was just landed on the public as a fait accompli. This is in no way a surprise. It is a clear signal as to the manner in which the Stürmer government intends to exert its power.
    1
  42. I want another child but my wife is not as keen. Maybe if I can get her to be just 48% pregnant.
    1
  43. Even here: " ...as much as we understand the protest that is going on..." Do you understand that the protest is in support of Black Lives Matter - the organisation led by self-described 'trained Marxists'; the first aim of which, as stated in their declaration, is to 'dismantle capitalism'?
    1
  44. "Putin needed to feel the pain of losing on the battlefield, and we were working our way towards that..."....."He's [Putin is] losing a major part of his army everyday..." Think about that statement - how mathematically untenable it is? Mr Townsend is in a very sorry state resulting from his mindless consumption of the blatant and bared corruption of basic on-the-ground facts. "What is Putin gonna give up?" This isn't a board game, it is war and at the end of a war the victor is under no compulsion to give up anything. What did the allies give up when they met with German command after both world wars? The truth is that this conflict had no need to arise. Had the UK/US pact and its NATO front not embarked upon its scheme to destroy and plunder the Russian Federation over the course of the past thirty years; then Russia would not have needed to re-arm to such an extent so as to defend itself. The delusion of the Western MSM has been smashed - not before time - against the brick wall of reality.
    1
  45. paul Intense, relentless propaganda.
    1
  46. @ Do yourself a favour: turn off your TV and read some serious commentary.
    1
  47. For Russia, this fight is existential - if they lose in Ukraine, they lose their sovereignty, their land and everything in it will be owned by the Western oligarchy. For that reason, they will fight with everything they have. For the West, this has been from the outset a commercial adventure from which they can turn at any time and go home to carry on as they were. This is what they have done before in other peoples' lands and that is what they will do in Ukraine.
    1
  48.  @Payteer  Please do some research into why Russia took the decision to invade. This was the reaction, after decades of pleading, to the relentless march toward Russia's borders by the UK/US pact.
    1
  49. opinion Genius. You might have been otherwise engaged while 'we' gave them everything. The Russians burned it.
    1
  50. And the devil is....?
    1
  51. There is no ceasefire and there cannot be one brought from the present configuration. This is a war between NATO and the Russian Federation - Ukraine is merely the unfortunate country chosen to do NATO's fighting and dying. Yet the US that is the core of NATO, positions itself as some kind of mediator. Russia is allowing them to pose in this way while their progress on the battlefield continues. For its part, the US carries-on supplying arms, intelligence and specialist operators in the same way it has for three years. This is a long war. For one side it is existential and must be fought to the end; for the other, an asset-grabbing adventure that can be abandoned when required. Which motivation will be the greater?
    1
  52.  @flankspeed  The crucial point is that the result of the 2016 referendum has not been invoked. Were Swinson to rule that invocation out that would have denied that majority vote. Therefore democracy flouted, denied. Were she to take charge of a nation already out of the EU, then her moves to re-join would be entirely in order. No contradiction whatsoever.
    1
  53. This war was started by the UK/US pact in 2008.
    1
  54. Long overdue that the LBC audience were given the opportunity to hear from someone outside the Western narrative loop. Perhaps a sign that the game is nearing its end and the truth is starting to be issued.
    1
  55. Why does Britain feel the need to send troops? It's not our war, and yet people seem perfectly happy to send tens of thousands of young men to die. Yes, they would be destroyed within days. For what?
    1
  56. This claim that Putin thought he would take Kiev in three days is pure fabrication.
    1
  57. One cabbage talking to another.
    1
  58. ry So you preferred the three years of Biden's blank refusal to speak to Russia? Along with the hundreds of thousands of lives lost while that position was held?
    1
  59. Funny to watch the MSM coming up against the reality they've been lying about for over three years.
    1
  60. jirsky 2024
    1
  61. Michael Clarke has proved himself to be a very unreliable source from which to seek expert advice on this situation. With this offering however, he further shows himself clearly as the chancer he truly is. His tactic is to throw around a few impressive technical facts so as to give himself a semblance of gravity; and then, on the back of that, to go on to make exorbitant claims based on his particular imaginings and very obvious leanings. Here he tries to downplay the significance of the Oreshnik strike on Dnipro, by lumping this totally new missile and what it poses to NATO, together with delivery systems which are different entirely in capabilities; they are not in the same category. In his contorted neglect of this, in his lame need to score petty points, the momentous development in the situation entirely escapes him. The 'movement on the battlefield' to which he refers, has been overwhelmingly in favour of Russian forces for a long time now, and this movement is accelerating steadily as their greater strength takes its toll of a beleaguered opposition. Clarke's studio map presentations are few and far between these days, but perhaps he should be brought back in to show how far the lines have been shifted. Clarke further shows that he is host to the rabid Russophobia that has infested the whole of the Western MSM. He portrays a Russia that is not to be trusted in the establishment of any agreement. The truth is that it is the West has made assurances to Russia, which not only have been subsequently broken, but have been recognised by the admission of the Western leaders involved, to have been deliberate ploys used in order to build forces in order to more effectively attack Russia. The Russians do not want the whole of Ukraine. Their political leaders have neither said so, nor have they written so. They want security for their country and that is threatened by the NATO involvement in Ukraine. They will take the steps required to gain that security. This war has been imposed on them, and could be brought to its end by the cessation of the Western advances, the designs of which were initiated by the Clinton administration and have been carried-on ever since. We can only hope that our calamitous predicament will not remain on the present course; that sense will be knocked into the heads of the Western Neocon desires - that they will be driven from the field by the realities of emerging world power, and that the craven foolishness purveyed by 'experts' is finally shown the door.
    1
  62. Witkoff has a point: so many Brits just automatically refer to the situation in 1938 and assign characters to those of today, when in fact there is very little that today's conflict has in common with the events in which Churchill was such a major player. It's not their fault, it's that of their poor education and weak knowledge.
    1
  63.  @joiedevivre5119  Do yourself a favour: google 'Monroe Doctrine'. Then ask yourself why the US is entitled to have one and Russia is not.
    1
  64. Brilliant.
    1
  65. Net Zero is a scam. Wake up.
    1
  66. The US has been and continues to be a major belligerent in this conflict - the money and the missiles are still moving. The plan to destroy the Russian Federation was hatched during the Clinton administration and has been developed in every administration since; despite and in flagrant disrespect of repeated Russian pleas for this to stop. The simple fact is that this is a war between the US/UK based financiers, and the Russian state. The hapless Ukrainians have been used as a tool in this war, providing the troops to do the fighting so that the spectacle could be avoided, of hundreds of thousands of body bags returning to America and to Britain. This war by proxy has been given recognition and publicly lauded by, among other US politicians, US Senator Lynsey Graham, describing it as "...the best money we ever spent". Given this, how does this US administration expect to be able to position itself as some kind of midway, beneficent broker, trying to negotiate peace?
    1
  67. gimmy "...threw..."
    1
  68. The thing that works against all these people who bemoan the UK's exit from the EU - who continue their cry of 'look what we gave up' - is the fact that all the EU economies are performing as badly, or worse, than ours.
    1
  69. NATO ceased its peace-keeping status long ago. It is now an aggressive prosecutor of Neocon aims - at whatever cost they deem necessary.
    1