|
Post by jamo on Oct 14, 2010 19:48:15 GMT 1
Sad and weird to see men wishing an old lady with alzheimers dead Totally agree. Oh the irony of it all. B & A's very own vitriolic and hate filled coresspondent condemning the views of others. Laughable.
|
|
|
Post by theriverside on Oct 14, 2010 21:49:21 GMT 1
Oh the irony of it all. B & A's very own vitriolic and hate filled coresspondent condemning the views of others. Laughable. A little sad that such vitriol has to be spewed out on here by the Tory bashers amongst us though.........................I'm not looking forward to the bile that will be posted on here when she does eventually pass away. Respect despite not agreeing with a persons views is quite easy to do after all........... blueandamber.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=64681&page=1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2010 22:25:49 GMT 1
Oh the irony of it all. B & A's very own vitriolic and hate filled coresspondent condemning the views of others. Laughable. A little sad that such vitriol has to be spewed out on here by the Tory bashers amongst us though.........................I'm not looking forward to the bile that will be posted on here when she does eventually pass away. Respect despite not agreeing with a persons views is quite easy to do after all........... blueandamber.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=64681&page=1 what a ludicrous comparison. how many millions of people did michael foot condem to the scrap heap of unemployment? how many whole communities did he destroy persuing some ideological grudge? answers on a post card please.
|
|
|
Post by saladsaladsalad on Oct 14, 2010 22:33:44 GMT 1
what a ludicrous comparison. how many millions of people did michael foot condem to the scr@p heap of unemployment? how many whole communities did he destroy persuing some ideological grudge? answers on a post card please. How many people did Tony Blair under Labour kill? more than any other govt since WW2 I imagine?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 15, 2010 6:54:31 GMT 1
what a ludicrous comparison. how many millions of people did michael foot condem to the scr@p heap of unemployment? how many whole communities did he destroy persuing some ideological grudge? answers on a post card please.[/quote] There you go again....blame ....attack ...belittle....blur history to suit an argument, unfortunately I feel you will never have a balanced view because of the bitterness that festers within you.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 15, 2010 7:57:36 GMT 1
For the Falklands, if only that, I salute her i also find it strange. send in our forces to preserve the supplies of oil that help keep our country and our economy moving and stop a mad man slaughtering his own people and trying to get hold of WMDs and you are a murdering t*****, but send our forces in to preserve a few thousand penguins and a life times supply of haddock and you're a ****in hero Suprised to read what would suggest our Prime Minister should be commended for the invation of another country in order to take control of its natural resources in order to service our economy. And for folk to suggest that knowing full well the complete and utter mess he made of it too to reach that aim? Also, no matter what folks thinking is, the Falklands were under British sovereignty. We granted Iraq independance in the 1930's... Granted on both occasions we saw the UK got to war but for me the reasoning behind each is very different...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2010 9:55:18 GMT 1
[Suprised to read what would suggest our Prime Minister should be commended for the invation of another country in order to take control of its natural resources in order to service our economy. ... yes you all talk big, all high and mighty with a grand moral stance, but hearing the squeals of protest every time a penny has gone on a litre of petrol suggests that when it comes to it, you are all as interested in safeguarding iraqs oil as anyone else. what a ludicrous comparison. how many millions of people did michael foot condem to the scr@p heap of unemployment? how many whole communities did he destroy persuing some ideological grudge? answers on a post card please. There you go again....blame ....attack ...belittle....blur history to suit an argument, unfortunately I feel you will never have a balanced view because of the bitterness that festers within you. [/quote] I tell you what Pike, instead of telling us which words you learnt today, how about answer the question if you dont like it. They are very simple and define for themselves why people have a wholly different attitude to someone like michael foot, than they do to thatcher. use the internet if you like. just answer the questions. a) how many people did michael foot condemn to the scr@p heap of unemployment. b) how many whole communities did michael foot destroy persuing an idoelogical grudge. simple questions, with what i think you will find have quite simple answers, which is why i think its a ludicrous comparison to make. and lets face it mate, you really are not the right person to be handing out lectures on providing a balanced view are you.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Oct 15, 2010 10:19:22 GMT 1
But Matron, Michael Foot was never PM, so how can Windy compare the two? They are nonsensical set of questions.
The answers are easy and plain for all to see and to use them as an example as to why people respected Michael Foot more than Thatcher doesn't help your argument.
Let's be honest; if Michael Foot had been PM I've no doubt he would have alienated vast swathes of our society and maybe even destroyed communities in other ways.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 15, 2010 10:34:33 GMT 1
Same old same old.
Your questions are loaded and biased designed to give only one answer, therefore to comply with your scheme the answer (which you are desperate for as vindication) must be zero.
Thus you deduct Mr Foot was a good guy and Mrs Thatcher the epitomy of evil. One could of course counter that Britain was in a pretty dire state under the Labour administration of the 1970s thus the electorate saw fit to dispose of Mr Callagan and vote in the Conservatives.
Now you see I believe that had the country voted in Mr Foot in 1983 we would have gone straight back to the policies that caused all the unrest during the 1970s. Thus the British voter stayed blue and Foot never got his chance to revert to chaos.
However, your case seems to be that the PM at the time destroyed communities and is utterly evil etc etc which with respect I feel is as a result of letting your emotions to sway your judgement.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Oct 15, 2010 11:02:33 GMT 1
With respect Windy there are many millions of our fellow countrymen who could quite justifiably contest that Thatchers re election reverted them all to complete and utter chaos.
Not everyone was cossetted by the state during those horrible years of the 8o's. Many households had 1 perhaps2 maybe more wage earners condemned to the scrapheap for a decade that's what chaos means.
Whole communities were systymatically and strategically abondoned in persuit of ideaolgy and the need to manipulate forthcoming elections and for those reasons alone- though there are many more, such as using a largely independent Police Force as a private army to begin with - the anti-christ will always be a reviled figure amongst many of our compatriots
You have no right to talk about returning to chaos when you weren't there to experience it.
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Oct 15, 2010 12:34:58 GMT 1
What's the problem with this JT? ] The local sawmill which the developers claimed would supply the bark have withdrawn their support and won't supply them JT I missed this It was Woodchips not bark, and the Sawmills position was stated as thus by their Timber Buyer 'At this time we wish to withdraw the letter of support on the Plant website, as at this time due to commercial contracts we would be unable to supply the Plant, if at any time in the future when the commercial situation changes then the position may be considered'
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Oct 15, 2010 13:14:13 GMT 1
Funny how Tories always invoke 'the country' in their arguments.
Taking on the miners was for the good of 'the country', the forthcoming cuts are going to be made for the good of 'the country'.
Substitue 'the country' for 'the interests of big business and the ruling class' and you get a much clearer idea of their true intentions.
|
|
|
Post by SouthStandShrew on Oct 15, 2010 13:26:46 GMT 1
Will she make 86? I hope not!
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Oct 15, 2010 13:34:59 GMT 1
Regarding the Falklands issue it has long been a tool of the left in an attempt to balance our current predicament in the middle east, another case of "yeah but look what they did" politics. Back to the point, the Argentinians feel very strongly about the issue of the Islands, indeed the UN stated Britain must talk over sovereignty in the 1960s. We didn't, I can't justify invasion as war is never an answer but the Argentinians did try all other methods prior. As for defending British soil, it was and never has been about oil...thats just another cheap Pab tactic. Yes the Islands are thousands of miles away (great book on the vulcan raids btw) but define how close an Island has to be to be British ? How can it have " long been a tool of the left" to use the Falklands in arguing our " current predicament" in the Middle East? Apart from that being illogical, it also suggests "the left" supported the Iraq war and used the Falklands war as justification. I think most on the left were opposed to the Iraq war. "It was and never has been about oil". Hmm, do you really think that doesn't enter into current strategic thinking, whether in Iraq or the Falklands? I'm with Matron on this point. Opponents of the Iraq war often said it was really all about oil, as though that should be surprising or somehow make it less acceptable. Nations fight over economic interests rather more than they fight over principles. Is that cynical? I don't think so. I remember when an awful lot of people were ready to bring down the government during the petrol blockades not so long ago. Not much evidence of principles there, just pure self interest. So before we accuse a government of fighting over oil as though that were a bad thing, we should think honestly about how accepting we would be if our oil supplies were badly disrupted, or rationed, or priced out of our reach. I suspect a lot of people would be quick to blame the government. It's easier to accuse others than question ourselves too rigorously, but we can't complain about dishonest government if we can't be honest with ourselves. I'm not claiming the moral high ground. I don't want war but I would like energy to remain affordable - the two might not always be compatible.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Oct 15, 2010 18:42:18 GMT 1
You have no right to talk about returning to chaos when you weren't there to experience it. Absolute balderdash Jamo, to follow that through I can have no opinion on the last world cup in South Africa because I wasn't there ?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Oct 15, 2010 19:45:45 GMT 1
You have no right to talk about returning to chaos when you weren't there to experience it. Absolute balderdash Jamo, to follow that through I can have no opinion on the last world cup in South Africa because I wasn't there ? Who's making 'ludicrous comparissons' now? In 1991 then Tory chancellor Norman Lamont pronounced that mass unemployment was "a price worth paying". An easy thing to say when you're the one inflicting the unemployment, but I wonder if those who had their lives ruined and communities decimated concur? By the way, Norman Lamont was an adviser to David Cameron as recently as 2008. Looks like they've decided "same again", doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by jaytee on Oct 15, 2010 19:54:52 GMT 1
The local sawmill which the developers claimed would supply the bark have withdrawn their support and won't supply them JT I missed this the Sawmills I called it a "sawmill" because I didn't want anyone to know it was Ransfords.
|
|
|
Post by Tux on Oct 15, 2010 19:59:15 GMT 1
Don't like the women but hoping for her to die is going a bit to far...
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Oct 16, 2010 7:24:46 GMT 1
JT I missed this the Sawmills I called it a "sawmill" because I didn't want anyone to know it was Ransfords.
|
|