Thatcher is dead

13»

Comments

  • shouldbeinbed
    shouldbeinbed Posts: 2,660
    markwalker wrote:

    I critiscise him on his actions, his disability is just a feature like being fat or a labour supporter.

    As it happens, his disability might be causing him to make mistakes, eg that inexcusable letter he wrote recently where he scrawled a note of condolance and couldnt even spell the guys name right

    oh for a smiley in the shape of an engorged phallus.

    inexcusable for one of the busiest people on the planet with eyesight problems affecting his writing to privately and not for political gain handwrite apersonal letter of condolence to a bereaved parent rarher than press print from the cut and paste template on the MoD computer or have an underling do it for him to sign.

    just like The S*n journalist and editors manged to eh
  • markwalker
    markwalker Posts: 953
    shouldbeinbed wrote:
    markwalker wrote:

    I critiscise him on his actions, his disability is just a feature like being fat or a labour supporter.

    As it happens, his disability might be causing him to make mistakes, eg that inexcusable letter he wrote recently where he scrawled a note of condolance and couldnt even spell the guys name right

    oh for a smiley in the shape of an engorged phallus.

    inexcusable for one of the busiest people on the planet with eyesight problems affecting his writing to privately and not for political gain handwrite apersonal letter of condolence to a bereaved parent rarher than press print from the cut and paste template on the MoD computer or have an underling do it for him to sign.

    just like The S*n journalist and editors manged to eh

    To send a man to his death and not even get his name right. Yeah unreasonable of me to expect at least that dignity.

    Or are you saying its ok because hes busy and has failing eyesight?

    Oh for a smiley sucking an engorged phallus.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    markwalker wrote:
    Im not busting a gasket i just think its the most ridiculous statement ive heard for a long time. Do you subscribe to Communist ideolgy?

    What is communist ideology and where can I get a copy?
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    markwalker wrote:
    shouldbeinbed wrote:
    markwalker wrote:

    I critiscise him on his actions, his disability is just a feature like being fat or a labour supporter.

    As it happens, his disability might be causing him to make mistakes, eg that inexcusable letter he wrote recently where he scrawled a note of condolance and couldnt even spell the guys name right

    oh for a smiley in the shape of an engorged phallus.

    inexcusable for one of the busiest people on the planet with eyesight problems affecting his writing to privately and not for political gain handwrite apersonal letter of condolence to a bereaved parent rarher than press print from the cut and paste template on the MoD computer or have an underling do it for him to sign.

    just like The S*n journalist and editors manged to eh

    To send a man to his death and not even get his name right. Yeah unreasonable of me to expect at least that dignity.

    It's a pity then that the Sun got his name wrong in their article...and I wonder if thatcher knew the names of all those who died in the Falklands War or Northern Ireland, or the names of all those who killed themselves after suffering becasue of her disastrous economic policies? - the Tories managed to cause not one, but two recessions in 18 years of government.

    And I find it odd to imply blame on Brown for the current wars when the Tories did nothing to oppose the wars - they supported Labour all the way. So who's to blame for the wars - Blair? Brown? Parliament? The Crown? or is the blame to be shared more widely throughout the establishment, including the press who supported going to war back in 2001/02?

    Would the Tories have stood up against the Americans and refused to go to war in the Middle East?
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    tebbit wrote:
    100% taxation, right which planet are you on? You will never get a 100% of a portion of someone's income it is a disincentive, some tax increases are ok, the one that moght get rid of Tracy Emin sounds great to me. However too great a tax increase will be counter productive will have a detrimental effect on the economy.

    I believe the phrase was "approaching 100%" which does leave a margin for interpretation.
  • Chip \'oyler
    Chip \'oyler Posts: 2,323
    I haven't bothered reading all 4 pages of this thread.

    But I do know that in various parts of Barnsley they've been stock piling booze to have the biggest street party ever seen when the old witch does shuffle off to destroy the kingdom of heaven's industries.
    Expertly coached by http://www.vitessecyclecoaching.co.uk/

    http://vineristi.wordpress.com - the blog for Viner owners and lovers!
  • shouldbeinbed
    shouldbeinbed Posts: 2,660
    markwalker wrote:
    shouldbeinbed wrote:
    markwalker wrote:

    I critiscise him on his actions, his disability is just a feature like being fat or a labour supporter.

    As it happens, his disability might be causing him to make mistakes, eg that inexcusable letter he wrote recently where he scrawled a note of condolance and couldnt even spell the guys name right

    oh for a smiley in the shape of an engorged phallus.

    inexcusable for one of the busiest people on the planet with eyesight problems affecting his writing to privately and not for political gain handwrite apersonal letter of condolence to a bereaved parent rarher than press print from the cut and paste template on the MoD computer or have an underling do it for him to sign.

    just like The S*n journalist and editors manged to eh

    To send a man to his death and not even get his name right. Yeah unreasonable of me to expect at least that dignity. you are aware that we operate a parliamentary democracy in this country and it took a vote of all 650 odd of them to send people into this war, suported by the Tories. I know we've got an unpalatable and wrong inner sanctum bullying things along (wonder who Blair got that idea from?) but to accuse Brown of singlehandedly sending this man to his death is facile.


    Or are you saying its ok because hes busy and has failing eyesight? No, he should have rewritten it (or re-scrawled it in your parlance) but there you go at least he wrote - Do we know if any other politicians that have equal culpability as Brown by voting yes and supporting the war have written any letters of condolence?

    The poor lad mum comes out pretty poorly (for that she is grieving - to deliberately go to the papers in the first place and then covertly record a subsequent phone call took some clear thinking)- and as for The S*n they've upped their ante from accusing the Liverpool fans of corpse robbing at Hillsborough with the cynical opportunism on the back of human tragedy - are you saying that those are Ok ways of highlighting a spelling mistake and an attempt to apologise for it?

    Oh for a smiley sucking an engorged phallus. I believe thats more a Lib Dem thing :wink:
  • markwalker
    markwalker Posts: 953
    Shouldbeinbred.

    Brown Is prime minister and was one of the principal players in the cabinet at the time they decided to got to war. Based on the flawed evidence they chose to present to parliament they got the vote you mention. so I feel its perfectly reasonable to accuse Brown of being responsible for that young mans instructions to go to war where he was killed.

    Not singlehandedly but he IS the prime minister and ultimately responsible. Part of the problem with our current "leader" is appologists loooking for reasons why they shouldnt take responsibility.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    markwalker wrote:
    Not singlehandedly but he IS the prime minister and ultimately responsible. Part of the problem with our current "leader" is appologists loooking for reasons why they shouldnt take responsibility.

    We live in a democracy - so unless you made your opposition to the war very clear you have some responsibilty for that man's death too.

    Your "logic" designed to pin the blame on Brown just does not work I'm afraid.
  • markwalker
    markwalker Posts: 953
    Porgy wrote:
    markwalker wrote:
    Not singlehandedly but he IS the prime minister and ultimately responsible. Part of the problem with our current "leader" is appologists loooking for reasons why they shouldnt take responsibility.

    We live in a democracy - so unless you made your opposition to the war very clear you have some responsibilty for that man's death too.

    Your "logic" designed to pin the blame on Brown just does not work I'm afraid.

    Porgy i know you can read, but in case you were struck brown like and didnt read the opening line ill copy it here;

    "Not singlehandedly but he IS the prime minister and ultimately responsible"     Perfectly clear I dont think he is soiley to blame for the war and yes we live in a democracy where the Prime Minister is the leader of the cabinet. Although he wasnt primeminister then he is now why is it so hard for people to see (no pun intended) that the PRIME minister should take responsibnlitiy. Winston did.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    markwalker wrote:
    Porgy wrote:
    markwalker wrote:
    Not singlehandedly but he IS the prime minister and ultimately responsible. Part of the problem with our current "leader" is appologists loooking for reasons why they shouldnt take responsibility.

    We live in a democracy - so unless you made your opposition to the war very clear you have some responsibilty for that man's death too.

    Your "logic" designed to pin the blame on Brown just does not work I'm afraid.

    Porgy i know you can read, but in case you were struck brown like and didnt read the opening line ill copy it here;

    "Not singlehandedly but he IS the prime minister and ultimately responsible"     Perfectly clear I dont think he is soiley to blame for the war and yes we live in a democracy where the Prime Minister is the leader of the cabinet. Although he wasnt primeminister then he is now why is it so hard for people to see (no pun intended) that the PRIME minister should take responsibnlitiy. Winston did.

    there are checks and balances throughout the system - and I know that Blair rode roughshod over most of them to get the war started - but ultimately a lot of people were ultimately responsible including most MPs...there were plenty of chances along the way to stop the wars...and no-one in power had the balls with the exception of a few who resigned, porbably far too late to make any difference though.

    That and the fact that Brown wasn't prime minister at the time anyway - blows your logic completely into pieces
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    markwalker wrote:
    Winston did.

    Oh dear :roll:


    so what do you think Brown should do then? So far I've heard lots of hot air from you - but what would you do if you were prime minister now?
  • zippypablo
    zippypablo Posts: 398
    Maybe he would learn to spell.
    If suffer we must, let's suffer on the heights. (Victor Hugo).
  • markwalker
    markwalker Posts: 953
    Porgy wrote:
    markwalker wrote:
    Winston did.

    Oh dear :roll:


    so what do you think Brown should do then? So far I've heard lots of hot air from you - but what would you do if you were prime minister now?

    WTF is :roll: supposed to mean? Ive heard nothing but recieved propaganda from you.

    Well id get rid of the enemy within, fund the forces properly at the expence of liberal talking soft lads in local and central government and enusre we kicked ass so completely that islamic terror tw ats chose different targets.

    As for Brown? well suicide would be great.
  • Sparklehorse
    Sparklehorse Posts: 126
    enusre we kicked ass so completely that islamic terror tw ats chose different targets.
    YEEEEEHAAAA!!!!! that would work! wouldn't it?? oh.....
  • desweller
    desweller Posts: 5,175
    markwalker wrote:
    Stuff.

    Do not feed the troll... You can't have a reasoned argument with someone with no sense of reason!
    - - - - - - - - - -
    On Strava.{/url}
  • markwalker
    markwalker Posts: 953
    Sparklehorse wrote:
    enusre we kicked ass so completely that islamic terror tw ats chose different targets.
    YEEEEEHAAAA!!!!! that would work! wouldn't it?? oh.....

    why not? just make sure its a sufficiently effective deterrent.

    its like surgery remove it and hope the problem hasnt spread.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Somebody who is just parroting the empty rhetoric of his parents accuses me of received propaganda.

    Ha!!

    The irony!! - priceless :lol:
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    markwalker wrote:
    Sparklehorse wrote:
    enusre we kicked ass so completely that islamic terror tw ats chose different targets.
    YEEEEEHAAAA!!!!! that would work! wouldn't it?? oh.....

    why not? just make sure its a sufficiently effective deterrent.

    its like surgery remove it and hope the problem hasnt spread.


    I suggest that instead of dismissing reasoned and structured arguments against you as "recieved propaganda" that you go and read some history.

    Then come back when you know what you're talking about...and we'll have a proper discussion about this eh?

    I'd love to have that discussion now - I sense that your education has been somewhat neglected - however, you don't seem to want to listen or engage in any way - so I think I'll stop wasting my time for the moment.

Categories