Yeah. I was just thinking that. An odious antisemitic lying newt.

Personal attacks on character, no discussion of the issues or reduction of the discussion to simplistic slogans easily digested - troll heaven- welcome to the brave new world

Demonstrating that someone has a record of holding irrational beliefs and mendacity is fairly cogent to whether you ignore his ramblings (or as you call it "discussion"). He has zero credibility, and therefore no matter the issue, he's not worth listening to. If he's accurate and truthful in this instance, it's purely by luck, not by ideology or moral stance.

Do you dispute he's an antisemite with a loose grasp of historical truth?

I actually thought he was quite good as mayor, at least the first time round.


But somehow he seems to have let his ideology outgrow his pragmatism as he got older.

He is an old man (only a little older than me) who is clearly past his prime. I have not followed his utterings of late, but "Antisemite" is bandied around these days to include all those of the left in Britain who were traditonally sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians. Since the modern Palestine/Israel situation has a lot to do with previous British foreign policy/actions, this is very understandable. Who do you look to for moral guidance here? Idealogical opinions abound and none of them seem to bring anything positive.

As others have stated, Red Kens positive legacy was his commitment and achievements in local London issues. OK, he should have refused to appear; but if you knew a little more about his history, you might grow out of puerile condemnations and realise that the media is exploiting him for their own ends

I'll give you that.

Or rather he let the mask slip. Livingstone's antisemitic comments were not in the context of the cause of the Palestinians. And even if they were, they're nonetheless antisemitic. E.g. Hitler was a Zionist (based on antisemitic propaganda). And of course a Jewish journalist who he knew to be Jewish he accused of behaving like a concentration camp guard. If he isn't antisemitic, he's an enabler and promoter of antisemitism.

All antisemitics are anti-Israel. Not all anti-Israel folk are antisemitic. That doesn't mean that any accusation of antisemitism against someone who is anti-Israel is automatically untrue and just a deflection. Nor does someone proclaiming "Oh, I'm not antisemitic, I'm just anti-Israel" mean that they're not - they're simply using deflection to shut down the argument. You have to judge them by their actions. By Livingstone's actions, he's antisemitic.

__________________
Never ask an Englishman where he is from. If he's from Yorkshire, he'll tell you. If he's not, it's unfair to embarrass him.

Seriously...

Now Ken Livingstone is the bad guy as well es Corbyn .. And the funny bit is how each one thinks they've come up with that idea, convinction etc by themselves..

When you analyse all this murdoch mass media as well as other corp. who possess the whole media, everything we see, hear,etc .. and isnt it ironic, to see how Ken or Corbyn are both accused of anti-semitism ???

that's all they came up with ?? can you imagine this ? I mean , do you realise how there are horrible crimes behind some PM's , MP's etc and this is hardly ever really questioned, investigated or even when it is, it lasts for just a bit, but , about Corbyn's antisemtiism we can hear -every single dayyyyy- everywhere and all the time ?

when it comes to Ken Livingstone, sure one can think how he did some bad job when in charge for others he is great .. but in reality, he gets bashed only when he opnes his mouth concerning some big issues, geo-politics , the american hegemony ... and everyone finds this balanced and correct ?

Are we entering the idiocracy era or what .. I cant keep on asking myself this

"By Livingstone's actions, he's antisemitic."

yeah right. HIS ACTIONS ?? What's this nonsense oh come on? There are no actions . ?

Perhaps historians could do some work and clear out some important information from the 2 WW .. there are many theories, about this or that , and so what ? big deal . Even jews are questioning the same issues which have happened in the past .. So, I do think how everyone should grow up a little bit and face the reality .. historical events , interpretations will always be there and this is in no way a huge problem as they're trying to rub it under our nose .

It's more like a bone actually, thrown to some hungry dogs (us) so we can fight over it and prove each other who's better or smthg?? Meanwhile, ton of extremely important issues, concerning us all , is passing by .. and here we are, like some obedient sheep... for important issues >> we trust our institutions .. mainly beacause even when we know how there's a huge game involving the elite, corruption, connections,interests ...


being bombarded with this makeup info here we are, getting our anger on whaT KEN Livingstone said about Venezuela , and totally silent and obedient on seriosly important subjects since, the media hasnt designated who's the bad guy we're assuming there is probably no one and everything (still)functions correctly . (yeah sure)

Ah I see. It's all a ZOG conspiracy. Well done. Carry on.

No , not at all . You see, there's something as elites and their interests.

For as far as Zionist movement goes on, I'm in fact zionist so I know what I'm talking about .

I just look at the probabilities. Ken and Jeremy are antisemites or inadvertent (and unwilling to learn) promoters of antisemitism (based on their documented behaviour, if you don't like the word action), or, there's worldwide mainstream media conspiracy demonising them.

I reckon the former is more likely.

Maybe not so much in our day and age where quality journalism doesn't count for much but journalists love to jump onto the bandwagon and call for lynchings on the scantest of evidence. The mass of journalsitic output being in perfect agreement doesn't count as evidence in my book.

But in this particular case, and in view of the track records of both men, they must either be blissfully oblivious to the implications of what they're saying, or there is something to the accusations. So the question is, can they really be that stupid?

His achievements in local London issues is very overstated. I lived in London from when he was head of the GLC to his second term as mayor, and went from ardent supporter to anyone but Ken for mayor. As head of the GLC, he managed to persuade Thatcher that it would be a good idea to abolish the institution and as mayor he abolished the Routemaster (after promising not to).

The 'community projects that got the funding they sorely needed' only got it if they were mysogynistic religious fanatics. Huge amounts of money were never accounted for while he was mayor.