INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Pissgai on November 19, 2008, 12:57:21 PM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7724541.stm
Discuss.
-
Discuss.
you're a retard
-
Discuss.
you're a retard
I know my times table.
-
Discuss.
you're a retard
I know my times table.
I just fucked a teenage girl- I gave her £100 and she let me cum in her mouth. She had long blonde hair and I may fuck her again next week.
Im not paying 100 though unless she wants anal.
-
I just fucked a teenage girl- I gave her £100 and she let me cum in her mouth. She had long blonde hair and I may fuck her again next week.
The 19-year-old? I heard. Least it isn't the crackwhore.
-
I just fucked a teenage girl- I gave her £100 and she let me cum in her mouth. She had long blonde hair and I may fuck her again next week.
The 19-year-old? I heard. Least it isn't the crackwhore.
I just bought a gram of pure coke - should get at least ten rocks from it.
Some crackwhore from next door can suck my cock for one this weekend if she's lucky. Pure fucking shit.
-
:lol:
-
Discuss.
you're a retard
I know my times table.
I just fucked a teenage girl- I gave her £100 and she let me cum in her mouth. She had long blonde hair and I may fuck her again next week.
Im not paying 100 though unless she wants anal.
Baalshit.
Koslit! :zoinks:
-
I think David Cameron won against the Prime Minister Gordon Brown about debate on Baby P.
-
I just fucked a teenage girl- I gave her £100 and she let me cum in her mouth. She had long blonde hair and I may fuck her again next week.
The 19-year-old? I heard. Least it isn't the crackwhore.
19 yo is much too old. 15 yo is OK. :evillaugh:
-
Discuss.
you're a retard
I know my times table.
I just fucked a teenage girl- I gave her £100 and she let me cum in her mouth. She had long blonde hair and I may fuck her again next week.
Im not paying 100 though unless she wants anal.
Will you pay me money if I watch you jerk off on camera?
-
Discuss.
you're a retard
I know my times table.
I just fucked a teenage girl- I gave her £100 and she let me cum in her mouth. She had long blonde hair and I may fuck her again next week.
Im not paying 100 though unless she wants anal.
Will you pay me money if I watch you jerk off on camera?
No. But thanks for the offer.
-
Was hoping to have a decent debate going instead of reading more of Adam's inane jibbering. Oh well, c'est la vie.
-
It's too exhausting and depressing for me to debate. All I can say is as far as baby P goes, the shit people will do sickens me.
-
Discuss.
you're a retard
I know my times table.
:laugh: :plus:
-
Discuss.
you're a retard
I know my times table.
I just fucked a teenage girl- I gave her £100 and she let me cum in her mouth. She had long blonde hair and I may fuck her again next week.
Im not paying 100 though unless she wants anal.
Will you pay me money if I watch you jerk off on camera?
No. But thanks for the offer.
Will you pay me money to watch me jerk off on camera?
-
Was hoping to have a decent debate going instead of reading more of Adam's inane jibbering. Oh well, c'est la vie.
I offered debate.
-
I've jerked off on camera for free before.
-
Was hoping to have a decent debate going instead of reading more of Adam's inane jibbering. Oh well, c'est la vie.
Might have helped had you not simply commented 'Discuss' like you're some sort of University lecturer ::)
-
Was hoping to have a decent debate going instead of reading more of Adam's inane jibbering. Oh well, c'est la vie.
I offered debate.
Yes. I did notice, even if Peaguy didn't... I think he was actually looking for something else.
I would have replied, but I thought this thread had already developed into something other than a good place to discuss such a tragedy.
-
Was hoping to have a decent debate going instead of reading more of Adam's inane jibbering. Oh well, c'est la vie.
Might have helped had you not simply commented 'Discuss' like you're some sort of University lecturer ::)
What is there to add if I linked an article which pretty much makes the intro?
And I feel like a lecturer. Cheers for that mention.
-
Was hoping to have a decent debate going instead of reading more of Adam's inane jibbering. Oh well, c'est la vie.
Might have helped had you not simply commented 'Discuss' like you're some sort of University lecturer ::)
What is there to add if I linked an article which pretty much makes the intro?
Well, usually if I link to an article, I actually have something to say... rather than just starting a thread because the courts have named the baby as 'P'. I do appreciate how addicted to that letter of the alphabet you are, Peaguy. I presume that is why you really didn't have much to say - lack of actual interest.
-
I think David Cameron won against the Prime Minister Gordon Brown about debate on Baby P.
No he lost and badly too. Winning would have been getting some resignations on the Labour Council - the problem for the toff is he can't even control his own party now.
-
I think David Cameron won against the Prime Minister Gordon Brown about debate on Baby P.
No he lost and badly too. Winning would have been getting some resignations on the Labour Council - the problem for the toff is he can't even control his own party now.
I think the Prime Minister just kept repeating the same thing over and over and did not argue His point fully.
The Tory David Cameron just wanted more of a explanation than what the Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown was willing to give.
Gordon Was just being a politician with His answers in the end.
-
Well, usually if I link to an article, I actually have something to say... rather than just starting a thread because the courts have named the baby as 'P'. I do appreciate how addicted to that letter of the alphabet you are, Peaguy. I presume that is why you really didn't have much to say - lack of actual interest.
Like you, it seems.
-
I read the article but I couldn't figure out what the situation was really about. A baby died from abuse and now it's a political finger-pointing mess in which all parties concerned have forgotten the matter at hand is that their system failed this baby?
-
Was hoping to have a decent debate going instead of reading more of Adam's inane jibbering. Oh well, c'est la vie.
Major disappointment of the day for you eh?
Get out more you fucking loser.
-
I think David Cameron won against the Prime Minister Gordon Brown about debate on Baby P.
No he lost and badly too. Winning would have been getting some resignations on the Labour Council - the problem for the toff is he can't even control his own party now.
I think the Prime Minister just kept repeating the same thing over and over and did not argue His point fully.
The Tory David Cameron just wanted more of a explanation than what the Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown was willing to give.
Gordon Was just being a politician with His answers in the end.
No - David Cameron wanted to do some political point scoring, as Brown managed not to be drawn on it, he won. Baby P should not have even been mentioned in the House.
-
who the fuck is baby p anyways? some british politican rapper?
-
I read the article but I couldn't figure out what the situation was really about. A baby died from abuse and now it's a political finger-pointing mess in which all parties concerned have forgotten the matter at hand is that their system failed this baby?
Yes. It is rather disgusting how politicians jump on the band wagon.
-
who the fuck is baby p anyways? some british politican rapper?
I haven't read anything about it but I assumed it was a baby version of peaguy :p
-
No. Its a little toddler who got horribly beaten to death. Only 1 year old and yet over 50 injuries including a broken back.
The tragic case has even got its own Wiki page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_P
-
It happens.
-
Major disappointment of the day for you eh?
You excel at disappointing people, for you are one of life's biggest disappointments.
Get out more you fucking loser.
Seek professional help, you mentally-ill individual with a chip on his shoulder.
-
No. Its a little toddler who got horribly beaten to death. Only 1 year old and yet over 50 injuries including a broken back.
The tragic case has even got its own Wiki page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_P
Should've linked that instead. Would've given my typing skills a rest.
-
That also happens.
-
Well, usually if I link to an article, I actually have something to say... rather than just starting a thread because the courts have named the baby as 'P'. I do appreciate how addicted to that letter of the alphabet you are, Peaguy. I presume that is why you really didn't have much to say - lack of actual interest.
Like you, it seems.
admit it, you got pwned P. :laugh:
-
admit it, you got pwned P. :laugh:
If being a dick over how I post topics is pwnage, I don't acknowledge it.
At least The Drivel was a lot more pleasant and not juvenile.
-
you always post crap and order people to discuss without stating your own opinions. :P you gotta cram in your own cents first.
-
I read the article but I couldn't figure out what the situation was really about. A baby died from abuse and now it's a political finger-pointing mess in which all parties concerned have forgotten the matter at hand is that their system failed this baby?
hah, typical. well atleast its not about a war. im sick of all the war talk over here
-
Major disappointment of the day for you eh?
You excel at disappointing people, for you are one of life's biggest disappointments.
Get out more you fucking loser.
Seek professional help, you mentally-ill individual with a chip on his shoulder.
Get out more you fucking loser.
-
admit it, you got pwned P. :laugh:
If being a dick over how I post topics is pwnage, I don't acknowledge it.
At least The Drivel was a lot more pleasant and not juvenile.
How about acknowledging that youre incapable of looking after yourself; have never had a girlfriend; still a virgin; incapable of supporting yourself financially and live at home with mummy and daddy.
Who's the juvenile? Did you manage to dress yourself today?
-
admit it, you got pwned P. :laugh:
If being a dick over how I post topics is pwnage, I don't acknowledge it.
At least The Drivel was a lot more pleasant and not juvenile.
How about acknowledging that youre incapable of looking after yourself; have never had a girlfriend; still a virgin; incapable of supporting yourself financially and live at home with mummy and daddy.
Who's the juvenile? Did you manage to dress yourself today?
:laugh:
-
No. Its a little toddler who got horribly beaten to death. Only 1 year old and yet over 50 injuries including a broken back.
The tragic case has even got its own Wiki page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_P
Here is the page where his visits with doctors and social services and such are logged:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7735063.stm
-
I think David Cameron won against the Prime Minister Gordon Brown about debate on Baby P.
No he lost and badly too. Winning would have been getting some resignations on the Labour Council - the problem for the toff is he can't even control his own party now.
I think the Prime Minister just kept repeating the same thing over and over and did not argue His point fully.
The Tory David Cameron just wanted more of a explanation than what the Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown was willing to give.
Gordon Was just being a politician with His answers in the end.
No - David Cameron wanted to do some political point scoring, as Brown managed not to be drawn on it, he won. Baby P should not have even been mentioned in the House.
What I've seen I don't believe so.
-
No. Its a little toddler who got horribly beaten to death. Only 1 year old and yet over 50 injuries including a broken back.
The tragic case has even got its own Wiki page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_P
Here is the page where his visits with doctors and social services and such are logged:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7735063.stm
Makes sad reading. I know these things happen... but that doesn't make it any the less tragic.
-
Nov. 12, 2008 Prime Minister's Questions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7724844.stm
Then a BBC PMQ analysis of Nov. 12, 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7724629.stm
-
I think David Cameron won against the Prime Minister Gordon Brown about debate on Baby P.
No he lost and badly too. Winning would have been getting some resignations on the Labour Council - the problem for the toff is he can't even control his own party now.
I think the Prime Minister just kept repeating the same thing over and over and did not argue His point fully.
The Tory David Cameron just wanted more of a explanation than what the Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown was willing to give.
Gordon Was just being a politician with His answers in the end.
No - David Cameron wanted to do some political point scoring, as Brown managed not to be drawn on it, he won. Baby P should not have even been mentioned in the House.
What I've seen I don't believe so.
I personally have an intimate understanding of British politics - though if you don't believe someone who is slightly partisan like myself, look at the statistics. Brown is closing up against Cameron's "lead" - soon Labour will be in a commanding position as far as British politics is concerned.
-
I think David Cameron won against the Prime Minister Gordon Brown about debate on Baby P.
No he lost and badly too. Winning would have been getting some resignations on the Labour Council - the problem for the toff is he can't even control his own party now.
I think the Prime Minister just kept repeating the same thing over and over and did not argue His point fully.
The Tory David Cameron just wanted more of a explanation than what the Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown was willing to give.
Gordon Was just being a politician with His answers in the end.
No - David Cameron wanted to do some political point scoring, as Brown managed not to be drawn on it, he won. Baby P should not have even been mentioned in the House.
What I've seen I don't believe so.
I personally have an intimate understanding of British politics - though if you don't believe someone who is slightly partisan like myself, look at the statistics. Brown is closing up against Cameron's "lead" - soon Labour will be in a commanding position as far as British politics is concerned.
Yeah I thought You were a bit partisan.
Cameron could be the next Prime Minister.
-
I think David Cameron won against the Prime Minister Gordon Brown about debate on Baby P.
No he lost and badly too. Winning would have been getting some resignations on the Labour Council - the problem for the toff is he can't even control his own party now.
I think the Prime Minister just kept repeating the same thing over and over and did not argue His point fully.
The Tory David Cameron just wanted more of a explanation than what the Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown was willing to give.
Gordon Was just being a politician with His answers in the end.
No - David Cameron wanted to do some political point scoring, as Brown managed not to be drawn on it, he won. Baby P should not have even been mentioned in the House.
What I've seen I don't believe so.
I personally have an intimate understanding of British politics - though if you don't believe someone who is slightly partisan like myself, look at the statistics. Brown is closing up against Cameron's "lead" - soon Labour will be in a commanding position as far as British politics is concerned.
Yeah I thought You were a bit partisan.
Cameron could be the next Prime Minister.
Assuming the Conservative party does not implode in the meantime, then Cameron might have a chance. Brown is a lot brighter than him - expect him to have a trick or ten up his sleeve.
-
I'm not particularly keen on Cameron or any of the current clutch of leaders.
Brown being bright??? Hah... He's just a bully who is thought to be bright at doing a job he bluffed his way through most of the time. Want a bright politician... pick John Redwood... really intelligent, but a bit of a prat.
-
Who is John Redwood?
-
I'm not particularly keen on Cameron or any of the current clutch of leaders.
Brown being bright??? Hah... He's just a bully who is thought to be bright at doing a job he bluffed his way through most of the time. Want a bright politician... pick John Redwood... really intelligent, but a bit of a prat.
You should look up how Brown got the position - Redwood never was that good. Brown managed to stay in his Chancellor post for 10 years - no mean feat.
-
Who is John Redwood?
An MP. A really intelligent one... but also a prat. ;)
-
Brown managed to stay in his Chancellor post for 10 years - no mean feat.
He bluffed and bullied his way through. He had less responsibility than ANY chancellor before him... having given a portion of it over to an unelected body... maybe a good thing, maybe not. During that 10 years, he served in one of the most corrupt Government's this country has ever seen - one with serious blood on its hands.
Now look... he's thrown his rules completely out of the window in this current crisis... and in his term as chancellor... his mantra was that he had ENDED boom and bust... yeah sure ::) If he had ended it for this country then it would have been ended for us regardless of what happened in other countries... otherwise it wouldn't be ended at all. 10 years of bluff ending in failure of what he was boasting. Yes, quite some record ::)
-
Who is John Redwood?
An MP. A really intelligent one... but also a prat. ;)
What is a prat? I am not English enough. ;D
-
Brown managed to stay in his Chancellor post for 10 years - no mean feat.
He bluffed and bullied his way through.
He played politics for 10 years like that - there was a lot more than merely bluffing and bullying his way through. Read any good autobiography on him.
He had less responsibility than ANY chancellor before him... having given a portion of it over to an unelected body... maybe a good thing, maybe not.
Most economists think that it was the greatest decision made by any chancellor.
During that 10 years, he served in one of the most corrupt Government's this country has ever seen - one with serious blood on its hands.
Corrupt? Evidence might be useful here.
Now look... he's thrown his rules completely out of the window in this current crisis... and in his term as chancellor... his mantra was that he had ENDED boom and bust... yeah sure ::) If he had ended it for this country then it would have been ended for us regardless of what happened in other countries... otherwise it wouldn't be ended at all. 10 years of bluff ending in failure of what he was boasting. Yes, quite some record ::)
We would probably be on negative rates of interest by now if Cameron was in charge - his sole strategy has been to dither and do nothing. As for economic rules - very few nations have stuck to them. Bush has effectively disavowed Capitalism in this time.
-
Who is John Redwood?
you mean john redcorn?
-
Who is John Redwood?
you mean john redcorn?
Nah - definitely Redwood. He was a Tory cabinet minister over a decade ago.
-
How about acknowledging that youre incapable of looking after yourself; have never had a girlfriend; still a virgin; incapable of supporting yourself financially and live at home with mummy and daddy.
Who's the juvenile? Did you manage to dress yourself today?
I'm not the one taking drugs and hiring prostitutes/slappers to cope with my various hang-ups in life like having your daughter aborted (you'd be unfit anyway) and having your last serious girlfriend taking you to court while you hack her MSN account.
You're a sad and bitter bastard with so many issues. People still like me regardless of what you currently think of me. Hopefully you'll lie in a hospital bed at some point and spare me your pointless crap online. :violin:
-
How about acknowledging that youre incapable of looking after yourself; have never had a girlfriend; still a virgin; incapable of supporting yourself financially and live at home with mummy and daddy.
Who's the juvenile? Did you manage to dress yourself today?
I'm not the one taking drugs and hiring prostitutes/slappers to cope with my various hang-ups in life like having your daughter aborted (you'd be unfit anyway) and having your last serious girlfriend taking you to court while you hack her MSN account.
You're a sad and bitter bastard with so many issues. People still like me regardless of what you currently think of me. Hopefully you'll lie in a hospital bed at some point and spare me your pointless crap online. :violin:
you are not because you can't
-
It's nothing wrong with whores, except that they are illegal and expensive (of course) in this country.
Nothing wrong with drugs either. Opium is great. 8)
-
During that 10 years, he served in one of the most corrupt Government's this country has ever seen - one with serious blood on its hands.
Corrupt? Evidence might be useful here.
ROTFLOL... A labour sucker asking for evidence :LMAO:
'Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.'
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
Yeah... how long does it take to wash blood away.
-
During that 10 years, he served in one of the most corrupt Government's this country has ever seen - one with serious blood on its hands.
Corrupt? Evidence might be useful here.
ROTFLOL... A labour sucker asking for evidence :LMAO:
'Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.'
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
Yeah... how long does it take to wash blood away.
That's evidence of corruption in the Bush administration, not our own. To be brief (a) Bush would have gone to war without Blair and (b) Blair getting involved was the best chance for Iraq - you should look at all the correspondence at the time with reference to Colin Powell and his plan. Not to mention that Blair did get involved in 5 wars - the rest are nowhere near as controversial.
Which is the next thing you are going to reel out, Hutton?
-
That's evidence of corruption in the Bush administration, not our own. To be brief (a) Bush would have gone to war without Blair and (b) Blair getting involved was the best chance for Iraq - you should look at all the correspondence at the time with reference to Colin Powell and his plan. Not to mention that Blair did get involved in 5 wars - the rest are nowhere near as controversial.
You are so blinkered. Frigging labourite... your twisting or blinkered ignorance of recent history and your Avatar make me sick.
Blair presented a document to the British Parliament that was just one heap of lies... and he KNEW it. Blair and those closest to him ought to be prosecuted. That government, which included Brown very high up in its ranking, won a vote in Parliament to enter into the Iraq war based upon lies, twisted evidence (which wasn't accurate), and re-writing a more balanced document to make it less balanced so that they could play Bush's poodle.
Oh, are you saying their judgement was so good they got suckered by Bush :hahaha:
They were complicite and active in engineering a case for war out of thin air and lies. Those that knew this were suppressed with threats under the official secrets act. But you're too blinkered and ignorant to accept it. You bloody Labourite.
-
How about acknowledging that youre incapable of looking after yourself; have never had a girlfriend; still a virgin; incapable of supporting yourself financially and live at home with mummy and daddy.
Who's the juvenile? Did you manage to dress yourself today?
I'm not the one taking drugs and hiring prostitutes/slappers to cope with my various hang-ups in life like having your daughter aborted (you'd be unfit anyway) and having your last serious girlfriend taking you to court while you hack her MSN account.
You're a sad and bitter bastard with so many issues. People still like me regardless of what you currently think of me. Hopefully you'll lie in a hospital bed at some point and spare me your pointless crap online. :violin:
LMAO!
I just went postal on GTA3.
There are some support sites for people with disabilities which may be able to help you.
-
How about acknowledging that youre incapable of looking after yourself; have never had a girlfriend; still a virgin; incapable of supporting yourself financially and live at home with mummy and daddy.
Who's the juvenile? Did you manage to dress yourself today?
I'm not the one taking drugs and hiring prostitutes/slappers to cope with my various hang-ups in life like having your daughter aborted (you'd be unfit anyway) and having your last serious girlfriend taking you to court while you hack her MSN account.
You're a sad and bitter bastard with so many issues. People still like me regardless of what you currently think of me. Hopefully you'll lie in a hospital bed at some point and spare me your pointless crap online. :violin:
you are not because you can't
cheap as chips nowadays
-
How about acknowledging that youre incapable of looking after yourself; have never had a girlfriend; still a virgin; incapable of supporting yourself financially and live at home with mummy and daddy.
Who's the juvenile? Did you manage to dress yourself today?
I'm not the one taking drugs and hiring prostitutes/slappers to cope with my various hang-ups in life like having your daughter aborted (you'd be unfit anyway) and having your last serious girlfriend taking you to court while you hack her MSN account.
You're a sad and bitter bastard with so many issues. People still like me regardless of what you currently think of me. Hopefully you'll lie in a hospital bed at some point and spare me your pointless crap online. :violin:
you are not because you can't
cheap as chips nowadays
Drugs or hookers?
-
How about acknowledging that youre incapable of looking after yourself; have never had a girlfriend; still a virgin; incapable of supporting yourself financially and live at home with mummy and daddy.
Who's the juvenile? Did you manage to dress yourself today?
I'm not the one taking drugs and hiring prostitutes/slappers to cope with my various hang-ups in life like having your daughter aborted (you'd be unfit anyway) and having your last serious girlfriend taking you to court while you hack her MSN account.
You're a sad and bitter bastard with so many issues. People still like me regardless of what you currently think of me. Hopefully you'll lie in a hospital bed at some point and spare me your pointless crap online. :violin:
you are not because you can't
cheap as chips nowadays
Drugs or hookers?
I was the thinking the former; although I suspect hookers may be available to most wallet sizes so long as you not too picky.
-
I woudl assume a cheap hooker would result in expensive diseases.
-
I woudl assume a cheap hooker would result in expensive diseases.
Not necessarily. :angel:
-
That's evidence of corruption in the Bush administration, not our own. To be brief (a) Bush would have gone to war without Blair and (b) Blair getting involved was the best chance for Iraq - you should look at all the correspondence at the time with reference to Colin Powell and his plan. Not to mention that Blair did get involved in 5 wars - the rest are nowhere near as controversial.
You are so blinkered. Frigging labourite... your twisting or blinkered ignorance of recent history and your Avatar make me sick.
Given I went on an Iraq war protest you are pretty much past it.
Blair presented a document to the British Parliament that was just one heap of lies... and he KNEW it.
Evidence that he knew it? Lets guess - your response is going to be at best conjecture. [/quote]
Blair and those closest to him ought to be prosecuted.
[/quote]
If any MP should be prosecuted its George Osbourne - for his "briefings" on the economy. Personally I feel he should be hung drawn and quartered.
That government, which included Brown very high up in its ranking, won a vote in Parliament to enter into the Iraq war based upon lies, twisted evidence (which wasn't accurate), and re-writing a more balanced document to make it less balanced so that they could play Bush's poodle.
Playing Bush's poodle benefited out economy. But missing the point - if you had looked up Brown you would have found he was opposed to the war. Read Tom Bower's biography on Brown - even he conceeds that point.
Oh, are you saying their judgement was so good they got suckered by Bush :hahaha:
Not suckered at all - they knew what they were doing.
They were complicite and active in engineering a case for war out of thin air and lies. Those that knew this were suppressed with threats under the official secrets act. But you're too blinkered and ignorant to accept it. You bloody Labourite.
Frankly the war on Iraq is minor compared to what the Tories (btw they voted for this war!) would do to this country. Bye-bye education and a good health service would be starters.
-
Playing Bush's poodle benefited out economy.... Frankly the war on Iraq is minor compared to what the Tories (btw they voted for this war!) would do to this country.
So we see how concerned you are for Iraq and all the blood, both ours and theirs, that has been spilled because of Bush, Blair and all who stood with them in the lie.
Yes, I know what was said about Brown being against the war... words are easy... he didn't even have the conviction to protest publically at the time... or stand up against it like Robin Cook... Brown was more interested in his career.
Its amazing how many times the ECONOMY is the word used to cover political immorality, weakness and incompetance. Nah, being Bush's poodle was a way to secure good deals for themselves, they thought. Blair thought it would be his Falklands.
At least Brown can be thanked for bringing an end to boom and bust - ROTFLOL :LMAO: Yay, what a healthy economy we have now. You're now going to say... boo hoo its the world's fault. Brown said he had brought an end to boom and bust. He was either a fool to say that, or a liar.
-
Oh, are you saying their judgement was so good they got suckered by Bush :hahaha:
Not suckered at all - they knew what they were doing.
Exactly what I'm saying. They weren't suckered by Bush, they knew they were spinning a web of lies to present to Parliament and the British people.
-
you can't reason with a man like bush, therefore you have to be manipulative and make compromises. if playing bushy boo's lapdog was needed then so be it. doesn't mean blair's evil. might just mean he's smart. :P
-
you can't reason with a man like bush, therefore you have to be manipulative and make compromises. if playing bushy boo's lapdog was needed then so be it. doesn't mean blair's evil. might just mean he's smart. :P
In my book it makes Blair and his helpers immoral and bloody. I know it will never go to trial, but I consider such bloody men to be war criminals.
-
Oh, are you saying their judgement was so good they got suckered by Bush :hahaha:
Not suckered at all - they knew what they were doing.
Exactly what I'm saying. They weren't suckered by Bush, they knew they were spinning a web of lies to present to Parliament and the British people.
Prove that they were lying at the time. The Hutton report seemed to rule otherwise, if I recall.
-
Prove that they were lying at the time. The Hutton report seemed to rule otherwise, if I recall.
Blair... claimed that Saddam's WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. (WDM we now know did not even exist). Blair wrote, 'We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence [hah convenient]. I and other ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority.'
Hutton via John Scarlett... 'There was no discussion with the Prime Minister that I can recall about the 45 minutes point in connection with battlefield or strategic systems. Indeed I do not remember a discussion with the Prime Minister about the 45 minutes point at all.'
At Hutton, Blair adjusted himself and said that he did not know what the 45 minutes related to before the debate on 18 March last year. So he was lying about one of two points.
Blair either mislead Parliament about the 45 minutes thing applying to WMD... it was a complete lie, OR he lied about having been briefed in detail.
Ha ha... proof from your precious Hutton report that Blair lied in relation to a key element of his argument for going to war - lol :hahaha:
So when Briefed in detail Blair said that the 45 minutes related to weapons of mass destruction he would already have known that it actually related to small arms and not WMD. Either that, or he lied about being briefed in detail and being satisfied as to his briefing's authority.
That is just one small thing that came out during Hutton... how many other things lie under the surface of the DISGUSTING manipulation towards war and bloodshed.
Other little tidbits...
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/05/29/leaked-uk-report-supplies-more-proof-that-bush-blair-lied-in-run-up-to-war/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomats-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.html
Perhaps you will now explain HOW being Bush's Poodle has been a benefit to our economy to the extent that it was worth all that bloodshed?
-
politics is all about manipulation and compromise, good luck finding a politician that does neither.
-
:agreed: :(
-
True. Politics will never change. Waste of time.
-
Prove that they were lying at the time. The Hutton report seemed to rule otherwise, if I recall.
Blair... claimed that Saddam's WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. (WDM we now know did not even exist). Blair wrote, 'We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence [hah convenient]. I and other ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority.'
...
But Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons, Nocturnalist. He deployed them against the Kurds in 1998 as part of the Anfal campaign, when more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.htm
-
Prove that they were lying at the time. The Hutton report seemed to rule otherwise, if I recall.
Blair... claimed that Saddam's WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. (WDM we now know did not even exist). Blair wrote, 'We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence [hah convenient]. I and other ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority.'
So they were briefed incorrectly then - all intelligence has its probability attached to it. Add in the ineptitude of the civil service into the equation.
Hutton via John Scarlett... 'There was no discussion with the Prime Minister that I can recall about the 45 minutes point in connection with battlefield or strategic systems. Indeed I do not remember a discussion with the Prime Minister about the 45 minutes point at all.'
You recall every conversation you have ever had do you?
At Hutton, Blair adjusted himself and said that he did not know what the 45 minutes related to before the debate on 18 March last year. So he was lying about one of two points.
Lying - or just reading out a speech as prepared by his civil servants.
Blair either mislead Parliament about the 45 minutes thing applying to WMD... it was a complete lie, OR he lied about having been briefed in detail.
Being briefed in detail tends to mean a 10 minute conversation in the PM's office.
Ha ha... proof from your precious Hutton report that Blair lied in relation to a key element of his argument for going to war - lol :hahaha:
No proof whatsoever.
So when Briefed in detail Blair said that the 45 minutes related to weapons of mass destruction he would already have known that it actually related to small arms and not WMD. Either that, or he lied about being briefed in detail and being satisfied as to his briefing's authority.
That is just one small thing that came out during Hutton... how many other things lie under the surface of the DISGUSTING manipulation towards war and bloodshed.
Other little tidbits...
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/05/29/leaked-uk-report-supplies-more-proof-that-bush-blair-lied-in-run-up-to-war/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomats-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.html
Perhaps you will now explain HOW being Bush's Poodle has been a benefit to our economy to the extent that it was worth all that bloodshed?
If you want an example on how helpful our involvement was - read up on Bush nearly bombing Al-Jazzera.
-
politics is all about manipulation and compromise, good luck finding a politician that does neither.
Yes.
Its New Labour who is contending Blair didn't lie ;)
-
But Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons, Nocturnalist. He deployed them against the Kurds in 1998 as part of the Anfal campaign, when more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.
I'm aware of that. The matter is regarding WMD when the second Gulf war was planned by the UK and USA against Iraq.
I know Saddam was an evil tyrant who wouldn't flinch at using WMD... but the fact is that the war was sold to the UK by our Government on the WMD angle while no WMD actually existed at that time in Iraq. Blair basically said 'trust me'... and he was either lying through his teeth for an alterior motive (something SovaNu willingly and correctly offers is not at all foreign to politicians), suckered by Bush and co, or irresponsible (taking us into a war without being well informed).
So which is it to be 'New Labour' (NL)... keeping your ignorant blinkers on while Brown is busy changing your name to New Old Labour - lol.
I cannot believe that you have actually tried arguing earlier that thousands upon thousands of violent deaths caused by the Second Gulf War and occupation of Iraq is good value for the British economy (Blair poodling after Bush). That sort of thinking is just plain criminally vile, NL. It displays and awfully deficient grasp of simple morality.
-
If you want an example on how helpful our involvement was - read up on Bush nearly bombing Al-Jazzera.
What has that got to do with what you said about the British economy in relation to Blair's poodling?
You might be too blind to understand or accept the evidence I offerred, but at least I made some effort. You've made none.
Come on, give me a link to where stopping Bush from bombing Al-Jazzera directly benefits the UK economically. Like Brown you seem to cast a lot of blind assertions but actually dodge answering questions, or even attempting to.
-
At Hutton, Blair adjusted himself and said that he did not know what the 45 minutes related to before the debate on 18 March last year. So he was lying about one of two points.
Lying - or just reading out a speech as prepared by his civil servants.
Ah, so you are saying Blair is not responsible for what he says. Blair is just some sort of zombie or robot who has no responsibility as to how he is used.
Blair was either lying, or civil servants were lying through Blair and even though his name is on the words, he is not responsible for being foolish enough to say them.
Is that what you are saying NL?
-
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/05/29/leaked-uk-report-supplies-more-proof-that-bush-blair-lied-in-run-up-to-war/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomats-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.html
I also note, you completely side-stepped the two other matters that I linked to. Probably didn't even look at them.
-
If you want an example on how helpful our involvement was - read up on Bush nearly bombing Al-Jazzera.
What has that got to do with what you said about the British economy in relation to Blair's poodling?
I have access to pretty much every academic search engine - if you want me to pull out the evidence on my side then I could do it easily. At present I lack the time however.
You might be too blind to understand or accept the evidence I offerred, but at least I made some effort. You've made none.
Two opinion articles - neither of which provide direct evidence that Blair wilfully lied.
Come on, give me a link to where stopping Bush from bombing Al-Jazzera directly benefits the UK economically. Like Brown you seem to cast a lot of blind assertions but actually dodge answering questions, or even attempting to.
What do you think would have happened if he had bombed Al-Jazzera? Another terror attack or two perhaps. Any idiot can find out how much they cost.
-
At Hutton, Blair adjusted himself and said that he did not know what the 45 minutes related to before the debate on 18 March last year. So he was lying about one of two points.
Lying - or just reading out a speech as prepared by his civil servants.
Ah, so you are saying Blair is not responsible for what he says. Blair is just some sort of zombie or robot who has no responsibility as to how he is used.
Blair was either lying, or civil servants were lying through Blair and even though his name is on the words, he is not responsible for being foolish enough to say them.
Or the civil servants were just inept. Seriously - do you think the PM has time to verify every fact he reads out - let alone any of them. Our current PM works 18 hour days as it is. What you are expecting of the PM is frankly ridiculous.
-
What has that got to do with what you said about the British economy in relation to Blair's poodling?
I have access to pretty much every academic search engine - if you want me to pull out the evidence on my side then I could do it easily. At present I lack the time however.
Get back to me when you have the time.