He facilitates a Scottish Parliament
Gets his party re-elected for a historiv 3rd term.
As EEC president he is bringing France into line over the unfair CAP.
He got Poverty and Global Warming on the G8 Agenda and will get a commitment today.
By all accounts he and Cherie contributed massively to the Olympic campaign. Steve Redgrave was effusive and said the Blair(s)more than any other were the clinching factor.
Finally, he has been a sound leader over the last 24 hours or so. He has conducted himself as a statesman with a steely purpose.
Even those of you that knock him must give the guy some credit.
Blair playing a blinder
Re: Blair playing a blinder
[quote="Porty"]He facilitates a Scottish Parliament
Gets his party re-elected for a historiv 3rd term.
As EEC president he is bringing France into line over the unfair CAP.
He got Poverty and Global Warming on the G8 Agenda and will get a commitment today.
By all accounts he and Cherie contributed massively to the Olympic campaign. Steve Redgrave was effusive and said the Blair(s)more than any other were the clinching factor.
Finally, he has been a sound leader over the last 24 hours or so. He has conducted himself as a statesman with a steely purpose.
Even those of you that knock him must give the guy some credit.[/quote
Quote dccairns>>
dccairns Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:13 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? In my view he doesn't deserve any credit. If he hadn't joined in with Bush's boys' outing to Iraq, London might not have been attacked yesterday<<
I am in agreement with everything that dc has written.
TB got involved - not through choice - but through the Public pressure put on him to do 'something' about the unacceptable conditions in Africa - facilitated by the sneeky G8 pact.!
Global warming - again, major contributors to this potentially catastrophic problem, refinerys and large multinationals / joe public.
Many large groups i.e. FOE/FERN etc, have been responsible for pressurising the government into re-thinking and taking some type of action. However, what is most apparent so far, is that Bush is not too keen in loosing his billions of $$'s from the big boys who back his republican party.
IMO the Kyoto Agreement does not go far enough to in reducing emissions and waste! Sustainable Development it a joke.
Should you wish to explore the system for carbon credits/trading - tell me who you think are the winners and who are the loosers.
As for Blair's steely purpose - well the jury is out - I am not so sure that all is at is seems. But you know me - alway's one for a conspiracy theory
Gets his party re-elected for a historiv 3rd term.
As EEC president he is bringing France into line over the unfair CAP.
He got Poverty and Global Warming on the G8 Agenda and will get a commitment today.
By all accounts he and Cherie contributed massively to the Olympic campaign. Steve Redgrave was effusive and said the Blair(s)more than any other were the clinching factor.
Finally, he has been a sound leader over the last 24 hours or so. He has conducted himself as a statesman with a steely purpose.
Even those of you that knock him must give the guy some credit.[/quote
Quote dccairns>>
dccairns Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:13 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? In my view he doesn't deserve any credit. If he hadn't joined in with Bush's boys' outing to Iraq, London might not have been attacked yesterday<<
I am in agreement with everything that dc has written.
TB got involved - not through choice - but through the Public pressure put on him to do 'something' about the unacceptable conditions in Africa - facilitated by the sneeky G8 pact.!
Global warming - again, major contributors to this potentially catastrophic problem, refinerys and large multinationals / joe public.
Many large groups i.e. FOE/FERN etc, have been responsible for pressurising the government into re-thinking and taking some type of action. However, what is most apparent so far, is that Bush is not too keen in loosing his billions of $$'s from the big boys who back his republican party.
IMO the Kyoto Agreement does not go far enough to in reducing emissions and waste! Sustainable Development it a joke.
Should you wish to explore the system for carbon credits/trading - tell me who you think are the winners and who are the loosers.
As for Blair's steely purpose - well the jury is out - I am not so sure that all is at is seems. But you know me - alway's one for a conspiracy theory
Re: Blair playing a blinder
Runner-up, I'm afraid.Gemini wrote:Porty wrote:He facilitates a Scottish Parliament
Gets his party re-elected for a historiv 3rd term.
As EEC president he is bringing France into line over the unfair CAP.
He got Poverty and Global Warming on the G8 Agenda and will get a commitment today.
By all accounts he and Cherie contributed massively to the Olympic campaign. Steve Redgrave was effusive and said the Blair(s)more than any other were the clinching factor.
Finally, he has been a sound leader over the last 24 hours or so. He has conducted himself as a statesman with a steely purpose.
Even those of you that knock him must give the guy some credit.[/quote
Quote dccairns>>
dccairns Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:13 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? In my view he doesn't deserve any credit. If he hadn't joined in with Bush's boys' outing to Iraq, London might not have been attacked yesterday<<
I am in agreement with everything that dc has written.
TB got involved - not through choice - but through the Public pressure put on him to do 'something' about the unacceptable conditions in Africa - facilitated by the sneeky G8 pact.!
Global warming - again, major contributors to this potentially catastrophic problem, refinerys and large multinationals / joe public.
Many large groups i.e. FOE/FERN etc, have been responsible for pressurising the government into re-thinking and taking some type of action. However, what is most apparent so far, is that Bush is not too keen in loosing his billions of $$'s from the big boys who back his republican party.
IMO the Kyoto Agreement does not go far enough to in reducing emissions and waste! Sustainable Development it a joke.
Should you wish to explore the system for carbon credits/trading - tell me who you think are the winners and who are the loosers.
As for Blair's steely purpose - well the jury is out - I am not so sure that all is at is seems. But you know me - alway's one for a conspiracy theory
Just because many share you view doesn't give it validity. Many people shared Hitler's view.dccairns wrote:So something's tosh just because you don't agree with it? Many people share my view.
Your statement is not tosh because i don't agree, its just tosh. These people are evil and will do what they wish, regardless. Did it escape your notice that Iraq came after 9/11 and at 9/11 AlQ put us fairly and squarely in the firing line along with the US and the rest of the Western World. Not saying yesterday was Al Q but there are people out to get us and were out to get us long before Iraq.
Are you saying there is a link between the Iraq and 9/11 too?
In fact thinking about it, you are inferring that Tony Blair was actually a catlalyst for yesterday's attack. You infer he is culpable, personally i find that disgusting.
Are you saying TB has been a poor Prime Minister?
My wife has asked me to buy a pint of milk from the shop, and some of you have asked when it will be delivered.
Look. What I am saying to you is this, and let us be clear about one thing. In effect, what I have achieved here is a pathway to a new dialogue not just on milk, although milk is an important factor, but across the whole range of dairy products.
What this means is this. A commitment, and you have to understand this, a powerful commitment to buying a pint of milk - and that is a major step forward let me tell you - but I think it is also very clear that what we have achieved here, in effect the feeling amogst those of us gathered here, and this is important, we have committed to deliver a date to start the process of debate over not just the milk, but the dairy products also, by the end of the year and that is what I set out to achieve. The fact that I achieved this I feel is something to celebrate.
We have also achieved a substantional additional commitment that when the milk is delivered it will be placed in the fridge. But we must do more than commit to this, we must deliver on this commitment, and I am committed to that. People should accept the qualification in respect to the fact that this, when it happens, will in fact happen.
I expect, in the next few years, the flow of milk to build up, starting now. But what we have established, and let us be quite clear, is in effect the pathway to the dialogue which will enable us to deliver on the promise we set out to achieve. And I think that is very important. Thank you.
Look. What I am saying to you is this, and let us be clear about one thing. In effect, what I have achieved here is a pathway to a new dialogue not just on milk, although milk is an important factor, but across the whole range of dairy products.
What this means is this. A commitment, and you have to understand this, a powerful commitment to buying a pint of milk - and that is a major step forward let me tell you - but I think it is also very clear that what we have achieved here, in effect the feeling amogst those of us gathered here, and this is important, we have committed to deliver a date to start the process of debate over not just the milk, but the dairy products also, by the end of the year and that is what I set out to achieve. The fact that I achieved this I feel is something to celebrate.
We have also achieved a substantional additional commitment that when the milk is delivered it will be placed in the fridge. But we must do more than commit to this, we must deliver on this commitment, and I am committed to that. People should accept the qualification in respect to the fact that this, when it happens, will in fact happen.
I expect, in the next few years, the flow of milk to build up, starting now. But what we have established, and let us be quite clear, is in effect the pathway to the dialogue which will enable us to deliver on the promise we set out to achieve. And I think that is very important. Thank you.
Porty, what I am saying is that if you bomb innocent people for no valid reason (as happened in Iraq) then that may make you a terrorist target or may be used by terrorists as an excuse for launching a terrorist attack on you.
I do not think that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq but George Bush persuaded the troops he sent out there to be killed that there was.
And I think Tony Blair has been an appalling Prime Minister - this from a lifelong (until very recently) Labour voter.
I do not think that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq but George Bush persuaded the troops he sent out there to be killed that there was.
And I think Tony Blair has been an appalling Prime Minister - this from a lifelong (until very recently) Labour voter.
And you are prepared to mis-credit TB for his post-terrorist attack conduct, on the basis of a might or maybe. Even when in all probability the perpetartors were the same 9/11 group that attacked the US for no specific reason.dccairns wrote:Porty, what I am saying is that if you bomb innocent people for no valid reason (as happened in Iraq) then that may make you a terrorist target or may be used by terrorists as an excuse for launching a terrorist attack on you.
And now you are trying to persuade us that there is a link between Iraq and London. Let me tell you, its proving difficult.dccairns wrote: I do not think that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq but George Bush persuaded the troops he sent out there to be killed that there was.
I love this one. You are about 45 right? So for the far greater majority of your life Labour could not get elected, so much for those leaders and your support. Ive not checked it up but I think TB got Labour elected as many times as the rest of the Labour leaders in your lifetime, put together. Wake up and smell the coffee.If I have overstated your age please accept my apologies. If I have slightly understated it then it make no difference to my argument, the stats are the same.dccairns wrote: And I think Tony Blair has been an appalling Prime Minister - this from a lifelong (until very recently) Labour voter.
Blair does seem to have a nasty habbit of jumping on whichever bandwagon he thinks will make him popular. Hospitals, Fox hunting, I fear Africa is just the latest.
As someone who had a fairly laboury kind of upbringing it does seem a bit wierd that the mainstream party that works most for "the common man" (a phrase I've always hated but seems relevant) now is the lib dems and I would say the runners up are probably the conservatives. Labour seem too close to wanting to get there hands in rich people's pockets.
Give me old labour any day.....
As someone who had a fairly laboury kind of upbringing it does seem a bit wierd that the mainstream party that works most for "the common man" (a phrase I've always hated but seems relevant) now is the lib dems and I would say the runners up are probably the conservatives. Labour seem too close to wanting to get there hands in rich people's pockets.
Give me old labour any day.....
Porty wrote:dccairns wrote:Porty, what I am saying is that if you bomb innocent people for no valid reason (as happened in Iraq) then that may make you a terrorist target or may be used by terrorists as an excuse for launching a terrorist attack on you.
I think this is a very valid point.
And you are prepared to mis-credit TB for his post-terrorist attack conduct, on the basis of a might or maybe. Even when in all probability the perpetartors were the same 9/11 group that attacked the US for no specific reason.
There must be a reason!
The 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudi's - makes sense - USA bomb Iraq
And now you are trying to persuade us that there is a link between Iraq and London. Let me tell you, its proving difficultdccairns wrote: I do not think that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq but George Bush persuaded the troops he sent out there to be killed that there was.end quote>
This is my opinion too.
Most of the Iraqi's (and the the Arab World) loathe us! we have bombed their country, their people, we have crucified and murdered them, for the greed of America/Britain and the rest of the G8 countries, all based on a pack of lies.[/b]dccairns wrote: And I think Tony Blair has been an appalling Prime Minister - this from a lifelong (until very recently) Labour voter.
I think he is a b***** disgrace and should resign and take his sychophantic followers with him.
I love this one. You are about 45 right? So for the far greater majority of your life Labour could not get elected, so much for those leaders and your support.
So dccairns it was alll your fault, it must have been mine and millions more too!
So Porty's previous allegiance was not to the Old Labour Party!
I am glad that dccairns and I can hold our head's high, whilst not supporting New Labour, we have still kept our socialist principles
Ive not checked it up but I think TB got Labour elected as many times as the rest of the Labour leaders in your lifetime, put together. Wake up and smell the coffee.
And your point about this guff is?
If I have overstated your age please accept my apologies. If I have slightly understated it then it make no difference to my argument, the stats are the same.
Porty you must be younger than you look! however, you have no argument - It's a well established fact that there were/are no WMD,
TB therefore lied to his Ministers and more importantly he lied to the people who elected him. He and B took us into an illegal war - Our armed forces are being killed, for what? for who?
His bed mate GW,is so far up the derrier of his pals who back his party with their dirty money and the lives they have disregarded in the name of power and greed.
yeah you must be proud of your leader!
Must confess to being a tad under informed, as to the reasons why, osama bin laden hates the west so much.
I found this article:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ml#alqaeda
I found this article:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ml#alqaeda
Forgiven.Gemini wrote:Profuse apologiesPorty wrote:There is no need for that.Gemini wrote: Porty you must be younger than you look! however, you have no argument -
Back to Topic.
I unreservedly accept that TB should never have taken us into Iraq. I always have accepted this. No decision like that is taken either lightly or in isloation, the weight of history is just one influencing factor. Not that this justifies the action, it cannot be justified. He made a huge error which must detract from his legacy but overall he has been a good leader and continues to be one.
Over the last few days TB got items on the G8 agenda, commitments and actions that will ultimately save far more lives than have been lost in Iraq. Its a tough job being PM of a world power. Its an easy job being a detractor.
Those of you that pine for old labour are delusional. Its 30 years since they were elected,it was unelectabe, the party had to change to get elected, Labour has outgrown the dinosaurs. You can come here with your statements like "many people share my views" but they guy has been relected twice as leader of this country, thats not an opinion its a fact. i suggest you deal with it and pay due homage.
We are not worthyPorty wrote:Forgiven.Gemini wrote:Profuse apologiesPorty wrote: There is no need for that.
Back to Topic.
I unreservedly accept that TB should never have taken us into Iraq. I always have accepted this. No decision like that is taken either lightly or in isloation, the weight of history is just one influencing factor. Not that this justifies the action, it cannot be justified. He made a huge error which must detract from his legacy
At least agreement is reached on this, but your following statement but overall he has been a good leader and continues to be one.
really does not wash - it just glosses over the seriousness of the situation
we in the west, find ourselves in! If TB has the courage of his, so called convictions, why does he not pull out our troops? Your goodself as a Labour voter, can see the wrong in his actions, yet you would still vote for him - Policies that advocate mass murder, would never get my vote.
And I do not mean just the Iraq debacle.
An interesting article from the guardian - what's your opinion?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondo ... 73,00.html
Over the last few days TB got items on the G8 agenda, commitments and actions that will ultimately save far more lives than have been lost in Iraq.
Again, you are missing the whole point, we know who got the items you refer to on the Agenda - TB is the mouthpeice for the country - he had to submit to the pressure from organisations such a MPH/Christian Aid, because they were massivley supported by the ordinary people of this country (look up marches and rallies) - who demanded action. You don't think he did it out of the goodness of his heart do you? In any case, as far as I can gather, there could have been allot more done to resolve suffering in Africa. As for Global Warming?
You also wrote: commitments and actions that will ultimately save far more lives than have been lost in Iraq, so that makes it alrighty then?
Its a tough job being PM of a world power. You are right, its apparent that TB is not the man for the job
Its an easy job being a detractor. Spoken by the master
Those of you that pine for old labour are delusional.
And here's me thinking it was the warm weather
Its 30 years since they were elected,it was unelectabe, the party had to change to get elected, Labour has outgrown the dinosaurs.
And look what it has been replaced with - Space Cadets.
Is this the new world order?
You can come here with your statements like "many people share my views" but they guy has been relected twice as leader of this country, thats not an opinion its a fact.
You are a statastician too I expect -unfortunately,I don't see many people sharing your views?
i suggest you deal with it and pay due homage.
Tariq Ali made the point much more eloquently in yesterday's Guardian that I was trying to make in my first response on this thread:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 81,00.html
And don't think you are getting off the hook over Old Labour Porty. I will come back to you on that. Now I have to get ready to go to a party.
PS The G8 is recognised as being a failure. And the lack of movement on climate change means that the deaths from famine because of global warming will cancel out any good done by the measly amount of money African nations have been allocated. Moreover they will have to sell their souls to get their debts cancelled.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 81,00.html
And don't think you are getting off the hook over Old Labour Porty. I will come back to you on that. Now I have to get ready to go to a party.
PS The G8 is recognised as being a failure. And the lack of movement on climate change means that the deaths from famine because of global warming will cancel out any good done by the measly amount of money African nations have been allocated. Moreover they will have to sell their souls to get their debts cancelled.
Humanitarian reasons and a tenacity to leave Iraq and its people in a superior situation to what it was when they invaded. It’s a bit like fathering quads on a one-night stand, a big mistake maybe but instead of GTF, you stay around and pay your dues. BTW I hope you are not inferring that we should feel sorry for the troops, who are educated, trained and paid for and must do what they are told.Gemini wrote: If TB has the courage of his, so called convictions, why does he not pull out our troops?
I don’t find it particularly interestingGemini wrote: An interesting article from the guardian - what's your opinion?
Gemini wrote: Again, you are missing the whole point, we know who got the items you refer to on the Agenda - TB is the mouthpeice for the country - he had to submit to the pressure from organisations such a MPH/Christian Aid, because they were massivley supported by the ordinary people of this country (look up marches and rallies) - who demanded action. You don't think he did it out of the goodness of his heart do you?
So if, as you insist, TB MUST respond to causes that have a lot of support and that have substantial rallies and marches. How do you explain him still taking the decision to go to War in Iraq, when there were numerous and massive marches all over the UK? More than enough evidence to prove your theory sucks.
TB did not need to put these items on the agenda he did it because he believes in fixing them but I think it’s attributable to the goodness of his head not his heart.
Gemini wrote: In any case, as far as I can gather, there could have been a lot more done to resolve suffering in Africa. As for Global Warming?
Agreed but it a small step on the right path. You must have been at a dinner party and seen how difficult it is to get people to agree on something, let alone align them behind a purpose. Its near enough impossible. Such is your bile for our PM you seek to lay the blame entirely at his door.
Gemini wrote: You also wrote: commitments and actions that will ultimately save far more lives than have been lost in Iraq, so that makes it alrighty then?
No of course it doesn’t make it alright, I was attempting to illustrate that he has to take many decisions, some of which will cost or save lives, in large numbers.
Really, no-one shares my views? How can I demonstrate that there are a lot of people who share my views? GOT IT!!!! Check out the most recent election results. Which is one of the key points of my initial post.Gemini wrote: You are a statastician too I expect -unfortunately,I don't see many people sharing your views?
One saving grace is; at least you do not seek to blame the London bombings on TB or on the invasion of Iraq.
Porty wrote:Humanitarian reasons and a tenacity to leave Iraq and its people in a superior situation to what it was when they invaded.Gemini wrote: If TB has the courage of his, so called convictions, why does he not pull out our troops?
This is a joke - right?
It’s a bit like fathering quads on a one-night stand, a big mistake maybe but instead of GTF, you stay around and pay your dues. BTW I hope you are not inferring that we should feel sorry for the troops, who are educated, trained and paid for and must do what they are told.
What dues are being paid to Iraq? Think you will find that its the other way around! They will always be paying in terms of occupation by foreign countries, and the depletion of their oil reserves to the greedy west. When the oil has gone - the occupiers will leave.
As for your statement about the troops : 'who are educated, trained and paid for and must do what they are told- aren't politicians supposed to do likewise'?
I don’t find it particularly interestingGemini wrote: An interesting article from the guardian - what's your opinion?
Well that's no surprise
Gemini wrote: Again, you are missing the whole point, we know who got the items you refer to on the Agenda - TB is the mouthpeice for the country - he had to submit to the pressure from organisations such a MPH/Christian Aid, because they were massivley supported by the ordinary people of this country (look up marches and rallies) - who demanded action. You don't think he did it out of the goodness of his heart do you?
So if, as you insist, TB MUST respond to causes that have a lot of support and that have substantial rallies and marches. How do you explain him still taking the decision to go to War in Iraq,
You seem to have the answer's - you tell us.
when there were numerous and massive marches all over the UK? More than enough evidence to prove your theory sucks.
Obviously, he in DC must be obeyed
TB did not need to put these items on the agenda he did it because he believes in fixing them but I think it’s attributable to the goodness of his head not his heart.
I don't believe this for a minute, he was influenced into doing something by the overwhelming support of the people. I didn't see any anti MPH marches! or any pro-war ralliesGemini wrote: In any case, as far as I can gather, there could have been a lot more done to resolve suffering in Africa. As for Global Warming?
Agreed but it a small step on the right path. You must have been at a dinner party and seen how difficult it is to get people to agree on something, let alone align them behind a purpose. Its near enough impossible. Such is your bile for our PM you seek to lay the blame entirely at his door.
As you so often say, he is head boy, therefore the buck or bile stops with him.Gemini wrote: You also wrote: commitments and actions that will ultimately save far more lives than have been lost in Iraq, so that makes it alrighty then?
No of course it doesn’t make it alright, I was attempting to illustrate that he has to take many decisions, some of which will cost or save lives, in large numbers.
Who the h*** do you think he is - God! what right has he got to make decisions on who lives and who dies, this is what sicken's me about the whole mess that your God has got us into. Try telling that to the families of the people who have lost their love ones!
We are in an illegal war - our foreign policy f***'s over the poorest of people (who have just as much right, as you and I, to a decent life)
This is murder - pure and simple. But In your opinion, the end justifies the meansReally, no-one shares my views? How can I demonstrate that there are a lot of people who share my views? GOT IT!!!! Check out the most recent election results. Which is one of the key points of my initial post.Gemini wrote: You are a statastician too I expect -unfortunately,I don't see many people sharing your views?
TB got re-elected, not because of his great leadership - but because, Labour voters (remember the majority still socialists at heart ) could not stomach toryism.
therefore by de-fault.
One saving grace is; at least you do not seek to blame the London bombings on TB or on the invasion of Iraq.
Eh! think you will find I didn't say this, I do blame the Labour Government, TB, for siding with uncle sam, which ultimateley led to
the war in Iraq which in turn makes us a target for terrorists.
I do blame this Labour government, putting profit before people - just like the tories.
suffice to say Porty, you and I will never agree, I have my opinions and you have yours. Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong, meanwhile hundred's of thousands of people are dying - this in my opionion is the only legacy that will be left by this Labour Government.
Gemini, firstly may I congratulate for posting on a day when the Guardian is not published.
You must be thinking of Socialist or Communist politicians Our politicians are allowed to follow their beliefs, to question authority and to disobey their leaders. Surely you must have noticed.
-
Possibly, but much of that time is now and its looking kinda good, don't you think?
Your about turn on the rallies and marches theory is nothing short of shameless, I expect more from you.
Gemini, you need to get a bit more real. When I say TB will take decisons that will cost or save many lives, its simply a truth. It applies with, Health, Education, Aid and War. Its not playing God its part of the job remit. I think you have spent too much time listening to people who are full of righteousness but offer no tenable solutions. I am also a bit taken aback by you using God as a model, I'm not sure if he/she is in charge but if they are, I am a lot more confused by God's policy on mass murders than I am on Bush or Blair's. It appears to be totally random.
It has been proved beyond any doubt that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The only people who ever believed this were Bush and Co. I am therefore surprised that dc and yourself (The Guardian Angels, as I like to think of you) are adopting the Bush position over Iraq and London. It makes you as bad as he is and is stupidity personified.
(edited by porty)
Gemini wrote: As for your statement about the troops : 'who are educated, trained and paid for and must do what they are told- aren't politicians supposed to do likewise'?
You must be thinking of Socialist or Communist politicians Our politicians are allowed to follow their beliefs, to question authority and to disobey their leaders. Surely you must have noticed.
On the contrary, you and I agree on quite a few occassions,at least twice on this thread, I believe. You do have your opinions but they fall far short of my facts. Tony Blair is a great leader his country keep affirming this. He has achieved a lot and he will go down in history as one of the greats. Its a bit early to be certain but it look like he will also do what many before him have failed to do; pass the baton onto another great party leader.Gemini wrote: suffice to say Porty, you and I will never agree, I have my opinions and you have yours.
-
Gemini wrote:Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong, .
Possibly, but much of that time is now and its looking kinda good, don't you think?
Your about turn on the rallies and marches theory is nothing short of shameless, I expect more from you.
Gemini, you need to get a bit more real. When I say TB will take decisons that will cost or save many lives, its simply a truth. It applies with, Health, Education, Aid and War. Its not playing God its part of the job remit. I think you have spent too much time listening to people who are full of righteousness but offer no tenable solutions. I am also a bit taken aback by you using God as a model, I'm not sure if he/she is in charge but if they are, I am a lot more confused by God's policy on mass murders than I am on Bush or Blair's. It appears to be totally random.
It has been proved beyond any doubt that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The only people who ever believed this were Bush and Co. I am therefore surprised that dc and yourself (The Guardian Angels, as I like to think of you) are adopting the Bush position over Iraq and London. It makes you as bad as he is and is stupidity personified.
(edited by porty)
And quote from Monbiot:
I think its finally begining to sink in for Boy George.At the Make Poverty History march, the speakers insisted that we are dragging the G8 leaders kicking and screaming towards our demands. It seems to me that the G8 leaders are dragging us dancing and cheering towards theirs.
You have still made no comment about the Tariq Ali article. Is this because you do not want to admit that he may have a valid point?
Labour will not allow public opinion to decide about anti-terrorism laws and ID cards. They are manipulating it by whipping up a climate of hate and fear because that makes people easier to control and makes them more compliant in the erosion of their civil liberties.
George Galloway said in his speech at the rally at Auchterarder on Wednesday that he was going to ask Blair since when we had been living in a police state. The way innocent and lawful potestors were treated last week is indicative of what is to come if New Labour get their way.
And just for the record, I have never been a member of the Labour Party. What about you? Ever been a member of the Tory Party?
Labour will not allow public opinion to decide about anti-terrorism laws and ID cards. They are manipulating it by whipping up a climate of hate and fear because that makes people easier to control and makes them more compliant in the erosion of their civil liberties.
George Galloway said in his speech at the rally at Auchterarder on Wednesday that he was going to ask Blair since when we had been living in a police state. The way innocent and lawful potestors were treated last week is indicative of what is to come if New Labour get their way.
And just for the record, I have never been a member of the Labour Party. What about you? Ever been a member of the Tory Party?
Porty, you know what we said.Porty wrote:Gemini, firstly may I congratulate for posting on a day when the Guardian is not published.
Thank you - although I should add here, I don't normally read the guardian.Gemini wrote: As for your statement about the troops : 'who are educated, trained and paid for and must do what they are told- aren't politicians supposed to do likewise'?
You must be thinking of Socialist or Communist politicians Our politicians are allowed to follow their beliefs, to question authority and to disobey their leaders. Surely you must have noticed.
No chance - any dissent in the Labour camp and it's 'one toot and your oot'.On the contrary, you and I agree on quite a few occassions,at least twice on this thread, I believe. You do have your opinions but they fall far short of my facts.Gemini wrote: suffice to say Porty, you and I will never agree, I have my opinions and you have yours.
Tony Blair is a great leader his country keep affirming this.
Just keep saying it over and over again Porty - through time you may even start to believe it
he has achieved a lot and he will go down in history as one of the greats.
Yes I agree, he will be right up there with Hitler and Stalin
Its a bit early to be certain but it look like he will also do what many before him have failed to do; pass the baton onto another great party leader.
Goody, Sir Anthony Wedgewood Benn would be the proper Labour voters choice
-Gemini wrote:Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong, .
Possibly, but much of that time is now and its looking kinda good, don't you think?
Nope
Your about turn on the rallies and marches theory is nothing short of shameless, I expect more from you.
Well Porty, these are the facts - like them or not, No pro-war marches (only the sheep in the house of commons - and the tory's in the blue corner) No anti MPH marches, so how am I shameless?
The shameless ones are your Labour Party!
Gemini, you need to get a bit more real.
Really!
When I say TB will take decisons that will cost or save many lives, its simply a truth.
Yes we know it's the truth, and that's the problem, he seems to make too many wrong decisions. But hey - they will not affect any of his loved ones.
It applies with, Health, Education, Aid and War.
And what a shambles he and his cronies have made of these too!
Its not playing God its part of the job remit. I think you have spent too much time listening to people who are full of righteousness but offer no tenable solutions.
You could have fooled me then!
There are many alternative tenable solutions, Labour/ites listen but just don't seem able/want to hear them.
I am also a bit taken aback by you using God as a model, I'm not sure if he/she is in charge but if they are,
I used the word God to highlight my perception, of how you idolise TB and not forgetting his phycophantic followers
I am a lot more confused by God's policy on mass murders than I am on Bush or Blair's. It appears to be totally random.
TB and GeeW, are more focused on what they want to achieve, and how they will go about it, carpet bomb a 100.000 people - no probs.
Get rid of the African problem - a doddle - starve them to death, contaminate their land. In fact, lets just take what we want from who we want, who cares
It has been proved beyond any doubt that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The only people who ever believed this were Bush and Co.
Who are the Co? does this include Tony?
I am therefore surprised that dc and yourself (The Guardian Angels, as I like to think of you) are adopting the Bush position over Iraq and London. It makes you as bad as he is and is stupidity personified.
(edited by porty)
Porty - just some more facts 
Taken from Clare Short's new Book!
Interestingly, she observes that Blair feels justified in centralising power to himself because he believes in his extraordinary personal achievement in winning two landslide election victories. Short argues that Labour was already headed for a big win while John Smith was still alive. She also analyses the votes in post-war elections. In 2001 Labour received fewer votes than in any except 1983 and 1987. Thus, fewer people voted for Blair than for Attlee, Gaitskell, Callaghan and Wilson (even in the elections that they lost), and Kinnock in 1992.
Taken from Clare Short's new Book!
Interestingly, she observes that Blair feels justified in centralising power to himself because he believes in his extraordinary personal achievement in winning two landslide election victories. Short argues that Labour was already headed for a big win while John Smith was still alive. She also analyses the votes in post-war elections. In 2001 Labour received fewer votes than in any except 1983 and 1987. Thus, fewer people voted for Blair than for Attlee, Gaitskell, Callaghan and Wilson (even in the elections that they lost), and Kinnock in 1992.