Really? Why do you think Kelly killed himself ? He did it because of the pressure put on him because people did notice what Gilligan did which BTW is far from what you describe.
Once again I say you don’t have a clue.
There’s a fine line between stanging up for one’s convictions in the face of overwhelming opposition, and arrogance (and idiocy, for that matter).
London_calling shows impressive intelligence yet again. Why it’s almost inhuman of you London, how do you manage?
Wrong forum eh. Damn got me there London. How about I just call you a com’ guzzling pit whore then? You like that better?
Who the fuck said this forum is just for slinging brainless insults around. I think it’s a forum where debate can take somewhat freer form. If you disagree you go fuck off.
neener neener.
- Rune
It makes him absolutely desperate to win a second term, whatever the humiliating price now. Something Daddy couldn’t do either.
What came first the chicken or the egg. The fact remains, a journalist, by own admission, manipulated with facts on a state sponsored broadcasting network. Are you actually trying to argue this is the only time this has taken place, ever?
Once again I say WAKE UP!
- Rune
Are you still entirely with us Winston Smith ?
You post views that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the issues
I suggest you demonstrate the insight of a retarded goldfish
You tell me I’m not debating the issue
I tell you it’s not a debating forum
You post “neener neener”
Your last post demonstrates you still don’t have the beginning of an understand of the relevant issues and, worse still, you’re unimaginative with insults.
Have a nice “State controlled” swim.
Is there (a fine line I mean)? I can easily admire politicians I do not agree with. Your own Blair for instance, a man I’d never vote for, showed surprisingly (to me) great courage on his stand on Iraq. Also Chirac on this issue showed statesmanship in standing firm (a thing you might imagine I did not agree with either), not buckling under the mighty pressure of the US. (Schröder on the other hand, is just a dirty populist milking the Iraqi cow for what it’s got) But I take it you just think Bush is arrogant and an idiot.
- Rune
You on the other hand London_calling show such surprisingly intellect. Such a magnificent grip on all the relevant issues. A shame you won’t share them with the masses though.
blob blob
You might want to read that again. I said you completely overwhelmed me with your intelligence. And what do you know. Here you go and do it again. This is simply too much London_calling, you blow me away. Clear out of the water! Damn you’re a mother fucker! You kick ass my man!
You might want to look up irony. While you seem to think it’s hells bells to sling insults around and having a food fight, you might consider that you’re not in fact at your expensive private boarding school anymore. You can lay off the uniform and tie and come out to us mortals.
While being called a goldfish is simply imaginative beyond measure! The mother of all insults. I suggested with my “insult” (meant to be unimaginative BTW) that all insults are unimaginative.
- Rune
Here’s your original post. Let us know when you get past the arrogance and hurt and want some insights into the issues:
Ok. How about now. I have cried out, and trust me I show a great deal of contrition. So if you have anything to add beyond the goldfish thing, go ahead and knock yourself out. Blow me away.
- Rune
I said there’s a fine line. Chirac (and I detest the man) took a pricipled stand. Blair (and I used to like the man) took a stand which is on the verge of idiocy, given that the UK is meant to be a representative Parilamentary democracy, and at the time the majority of the people he’s representing were in opposition to his stant - not to mention that we knew he was lying, he lied, and now he’s been shown to be lying - took an idiotic stand. But neither of these men had demeaned, bad-mouthed and diminished the bodies in front of which they argued their case. Bush did. That’s arrogant. All IMO.
BTW, the BBC is state-funded, not state sponsored, in the meaning that its job is not to front the government but to be independent of the government.
Goldfish.
what constitutes “bad-mouthing” the UN? Cite?
Yes I know what you said, I’m just not sure I agree. Anyway I think you’re unable to look beyond your own prejudices and give a fair evaluation of the man’s character.
They’re also supposed to be independent of all other political influences. And the government is supposed to guarantee that. When The BBC says something people are supposed to be able to assume it’s not something cooked up in the Labour spin machine or Shells public relation office. It’s a sign of veracity, that it should be beyond reproach, above political parties. So much the worse when someone decide to highjack it for own political agenda.
Octopus
What crap.
Government spouts bullshit.
BBC exposes bullshit.
WinstonSmith cries: “Tory spin!”, “OK, not Tory spin, anti-Bush spin”. “Well, evil spin coming from some place I can’t identify”. “It’s spin, I can recognise spin even if I haven’t got a fucking clue about the issues, it’s spin because I don’t agree with it”. “And BTW, state sponsored criticism of the state is bad because, well, it’s just, you know…”.
Yep.
I think he is clueless.
:rolleyes: Preview is your friend.
Oh, sweet Jesus, what have we gotten ourselves into with this guy? :eek:
Don’t blame me-- I voted for Kordos!
Don’t blame either—I voted for Rasmussen.
However I don’t know what’s more stupid. The stupid guy, or a people stupid enough to vote in the stupid guy? On second thought I know. So am I by all this to assume the old slur of stupid Americans is true afterall?
What crap.
Government spouts bullshit.
BBC creates bullshit.
Desmostylus eats bullshit.
- Rune