Religions > Atheism > Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"~ Typhøid Mary ~" |
| Date: |
11 Apr 2005 01:13:02 AM |
| Object: |
Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
Blair refused to sit beside Mugabe, says daily
HARARE, April 9: A British newspaper said on Saturday that Prime Minister
Tony Blair left his designated seat at the funeral of Pope John Paul after
learning that he would be sitting next to Zimbabwean President Robert
Mugabe.
The Herald quoted unnamed sources who said Mr Blair, wife Cherie and
opposition leader Michael Howard all left their seats when they saw Mr
Mugabe coming to take a seat next to Mr Blair.
"Blair is said to have fled his seat, saying he could not sit next to
President Mugabe," the paper reported in its main front page story.
Mr Mugabe and Mr Blair have had frosty relations for years, with the African
leader accusing Mr Blair of backing the opposition party in Zimbabwe. Mr
Mugabe has described the country's main opposition party as the British
prime minister's 'puppet'.
The newspaper story followed an outcry over the handshake between Prince
Charles and Mr Mugabe at the funeral.
The handshake triggered embarrassment in Britain, prompting the royal
household to issue a statement saying the prince was caught by surprise and
was not in a position to avoid shaking Mr Mugabe's hand.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, too, was called to task last year for
inadvertently shaking Mr Mugabe's hand at the United Nations.
The Herald said President Mugabe had a chat with the heir to the British
throne recalling his visit in 1980, when he represented Queen Elizabeth at
Zimbabwe's independence celebrations.
The EU imposed travel sanctions on Zimbabwean government officials after
accusations of vote rigging in Zimbabwe's parliamentary polls in 2000 and in
Mr Mugabe's re-election two years later.
Robert Mugabe, a Roman Catholic, defied the ban to attend the funeral at the
Vatican, which is not part of the EU. -Reuters
--
The cautious seldom err.
--Confucius
.
|
|
| User: "Sylvia Else" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe --that's rich! |
12 Apr 2005 12:16:05 PM |
|
|
Calling Mugabe a scumbag is an insult to scumbags.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mikey" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
11 Apr 2005 08:21:50 AM |
|
|
Well at least Charles shook his hand.
Mike
"~ Typhøid Mary ~" <typhoid@mary.va> wrote in message
news:Fbk6e.41$F24.605@news.uswest.net...
Blair refused to sit beside Mugabe, says daily
HARARE, April 9: A British newspaper said on Saturday that Prime Minister
Tony Blair left his designated seat at the funeral of Pope John Paul after
learning that he would be sitting next to Zimbabwean President Robert
Mugabe.
The Herald quoted unnamed sources who said Mr Blair, wife Cherie and
opposition leader Michael Howard all left their seats when they saw Mr
Mugabe coming to take a seat next to Mr Blair.
"Blair is said to have fled his seat, saying he could not sit next to
President Mugabe," the paper reported in its main front page story.
Mr Mugabe and Mr Blair have had frosty relations for years, with the
African
leader accusing Mr Blair of backing the opposition party in Zimbabwe. Mr
Mugabe has described the country's main opposition party as the British
prime minister's 'puppet'.
The newspaper story followed an outcry over the handshake between Prince
Charles and Mr Mugabe at the funeral.
The handshake triggered embarrassment in Britain, prompting the royal
household to issue a statement saying the prince was caught by surprise
and
was not in a position to avoid shaking Mr Mugabe's hand.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, too, was called to task last year for
inadvertently shaking Mr Mugabe's hand at the United Nations.
The Herald said President Mugabe had a chat with the heir to the British
throne recalling his visit in 1980, when he represented Queen Elizabeth at
Zimbabwe's independence celebrations.
The EU imposed travel sanctions on Zimbabwean government officials after
accusations of vote rigging in Zimbabwe's parliamentary polls in 2000 and
in
Mr Mugabe's re-election two years later.
Robert Mugabe, a Roman Catholic, defied the ban to attend the funeral at
the
Vatican, which is not part of the EU. -Reuters
--
The cautious seldom err.
--Confucius
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
11 Apr 2005 07:43:59 AM |
|
|
~ Typh=F8id Mary came down with a chronic case of verbal diarrhoea and
wrote:
Blair refused to sit beside Mugabe, says daily
HARARE, April 9: A British newspaper said on Saturday that Prime
Minister
Tony Blair left his designated seat at the funeral of Pope John Paul
after
learning that he would be sitting next to Zimbabwean President Robert
Mugabe.
<SNIP>
Is it rich? Are you seriously equating Blair with Mugabe?
Tell me, has Blair had all foreign journalists expelled from Britain? I
don't think so.
Tell me, has Blair sequestered the land from Britain's farmers and
reallocated it to his own cronies? I don't think so.
Has there ever been even a whiff of accusation that Blair has ever
rigged a general election? No.
The simple fact is that even if every slur made against Blair were
true, he still wouldn't equate with Mugabe. I suggest you stop being an
ignorant fool and develop a sense of proportion.
I'm no fan of either Blair or Bush, but equating them to Mugabe or
Hitler is plain absurd. If you want to be taken seriously, cut the
hyperbole.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Williams" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
11 Apr 2005 09:05:36 AM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1113205439.072126.249340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
~ Typhøid Mary came down with a chronic case of verbal diarrhoea and
wrote:
Blair refused to sit beside Mugabe, says daily
HARARE, April 9: A British newspaper said on Saturday that Prime
Minister
Tony Blair left his designated seat at the funeral of Pope John Paul
after
learning that he would be sitting next to Zimbabwean President Robert
Mugabe.
<SNIP>
Is it rich? Are you seriously equating Blair with Mugabe?
<snip various reprehensible acts>
I'm no fan of either Blair or Bush, but equating them to Mugabe or
Hitler is plain absurd. If you want to be taken seriously, cut the
hyperbole.
Is this some sort of mildly sarcastic response, or are you serious? Mugabe
cannot be equated directly with Blair, because Mugabe did not misrepresent
intelligence about a foreign state with the purpose of waging war against
that state, resulting in the loss of lives of thousands of civilians.
Perhaps that isn't something that you associate with Blair, but you might
like to consider what your opnion of him might have been if British and
American missiles were crashing into the houses in your street, if tanks
blew up your house or if soldiers at roadblocks were blowing away your
friends and family because they approached checkpoints too fast. Mugabe's
treatment and disrespect for the lives and property of Zimbabweans is quite
execrable. Blair's treatment of Iraqis (forget the spn about elections,
getting rid of Saddam Hussein etc.) is no better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
12 Apr 2005 07:04:10 AM |
|
|
You talk as if it was Blair who talked the US into invading Iraq. You
talk as if British soldiers had been equally barbaric as American ones.
You talk as if the Iraqi people aren't glad to be rid of Saddam. You
talk as if many moslems throughout the middle east aren't openly
declaring that democracy and Islam are compatible.
I think its a simple fact that the war against Iraq was illegal and
that Blair went along with Bush because he knew the damage that would
have been done to US/European relations if the US had been isolated. He
may well end up paying for that loyalty.
However, I think you're off your fucking rocker putting Blair and
Mugabe in the same class, for the simple reason that Mugabe hasn't just
done awful things, he's done them to the very people he SWORE to serve.
On top of his plain barbarity is a grotesque betrayal, which even if
you were right in everything you say, Blair has not committed. Wait
till Mugabe is dead and you will find that he is in the same league for
savagery as Pinochet.
On May 5th, the British people will have the opportunity to strip Blair
of his power and not one person will receive any threat. Can you
honestly say to me that the same could be true for Mugabe. There is the
difference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe --that's rich! |
12 Apr 2005 08:47:43 AM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
You talk as if it was Blair who talked the US into invading Iraq. You
talk as if British soldiers had been equally barbaric as American ones.
You talk as if the Iraqi people aren't glad to be rid of Saddam. You
talk as if many moslems throughout the middle east aren't openly
declaring that democracy and Islam are compatible.
You talk like a fucking idiot.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freddie Freeloader" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
11 Apr 2005 07:21:35 PM |
|
|
Is it rich? Are you seriously equating Blair with Mugabe?
How many countries has Mugabe invaded? How many tens of thousands of
Iraqis and Yugoslavs and Afghans has Mugabe murdered?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
12 Apr 2005 06:04:03 AM |
|
|
Freddie Freeloader wrote:
Is it rich? Are you seriously equating Blair with Mugabe?
How many countries has Mugabe invaded? How many tens of thousands of
Iraqis and Yugoslavs and Afghans has Mugabe murdered?
Exactly the same number as Blair: NONE.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
12 Apr 2005 04:56:52 PM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2005 23:04:03 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote:
Freddie Freeloader wrote:
Is it rich? Are you seriously equating Blair with Mugabe?
How many countries has Mugabe invaded? How many tens of thousands of
Iraqis and Yugoslavs and Afghans has Mugabe murdered?
Exactly the same number as Blair: NONE.
So we never went into Iraq or Afghanistan?
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hyett" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
12 Apr 2005 07:36:39 AM |
|
|
In uk.politics.misc on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 at 12:21:35, Freddie Freeloader
wrote :
Is it rich? Are you seriously equating Blair with Mugabe?
How many countries has Mugabe invaded? How many tens of thousands of
Iraqis and Yugoslavs and Afghans has Mugabe murdered?
Oh please, you might as well accuse Winston Churchill of being a
murderer.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris X" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
12 Apr 2005 05:45:15 PM |
|
|
"Paul Hyett" <pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hecCxqEHq3WCFw3V@activist.demon.co.uk...
In uk.politics.misc on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 at 12:21:35, Freddie Freeloader
wrote :
Is it rich? Are you seriously equating Blair with Mugabe?
How many countries has Mugabe invaded? How many tens of thousands of
Iraqis and Yugoslavs and Afghans has Mugabe murdered?
Oh please, you might as well accuse Winston Churchill of being a
murderer.
When did Iraqi and Afghan forces rampage through the low countries, exactly
?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe --that's rich! |
12 Apr 2005 08:47:08 AM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
~ Typhøid Mary came down with a chronic case of verbal diarrhoea and
wrote:
Blair refused to sit beside Mugabe, says daily
HARARE, April 9: A British newspaper said on Saturday that Prime
Minister
Tony Blair left his designated seat at the funeral of Pope John Paul
after
learning that he would be sitting next to Zimbabwean President Robert
Mugabe.
<SNIP>
Is it rich? Are you seriously equating Blair with Mugabe?
Tell me, has Blair had all foreign journalists expelled from Britain? I
don't think so.
Not yet !
Tell me, has Blair sequestered the land from Britain's farmers and
reallocated it to his own cronies? I don't think so.
No, he just illegally slaughtered all their animals, during the 'foot
and mouth' crisis.
Has there ever been even a whiff of accusation that Blair has ever
rigged a general election? No.
Recent postal voting fraud in Birmingham ring any bells ?
The simple fact is that even if every slur made against Blair were
true, he still wouldn't equate with Mugabe. I suggest you stop being an
ignorant fool and develop a sense of proportion.
True, Mugabe doesn't have the weaponry at his disposal that Blair has.
How many dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Kosovo ?
I'm no fan of either Blair or Bush, but equating them to Mugabe or
Hitler is plain absurd. If you want to be taken seriously, cut the
hyperbole.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
13 Apr 2005 06:50:21 AM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Tell me, has Blair had all foreign journalists expelled from
Britain? I
don't think so.
Not yet !
That's right and he will never do it and you're talking like a fucking
idiot to suggest it's even likely. As I said, you have no sense of
proportion.
Tell me, has Blair sequestered the land from Britain's farmers and
reallocated it to his own cronies? I don't think so.
No, he just illegally slaughtered all their animals, during the 'foot
and mouth' crisis.
He paid them for the livestock they lost, none of his friends/business
partners benefitted and the foot and mouth crisis was a genuine
outbreak, so your quote marks are misused.
Has there ever been even a whiff of accusation that Blair has ever
rigged a general election? No.
Recent postal voting fraud in Birmingham ring any bells ?
Are you so incredibly stupid as to claim this is the equivalent a
general election? And do you have even the slightest shred of evidence
that Blair was involved in any fraud?
The simple fact is that even if every slur made against Blair were
true, he still wouldn't equate with Mugabe. I suggest you stop
being an
ignorant fool and develop a sense of proportion.
True, Mugabe doesn't have the weaponry at his disposal that Blair
has.
No, it's because Blair doesn't equate with Mugabe.
How many dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Kosovo ?
Why are you listing Sierra Leone and Kosovo as accusations? You have to
be out of your foetid little mind to pretend that Sierra Leone was an
arcadian paradise before the Paras went in and the same goes for
Kosovo.
Since you seem to have difficulty holding more than one fact in mind at
a time, let me remind you that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to
support American action, so lay the blame where it belongs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wolseley 6-80" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
13 Apr 2005 09:10:38 AM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1113375021.882030.204830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
No, it's because Blair doesn't equate with Mugabe.
How many dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Kosovo ?
Why are you listing Sierra Leone and Kosovo as accusations? You have
to
be out of your foetid little mind to pretend that Sierra Leone was an
arcadian paradise before the Paras went in and the same goes for
Kosovo.
Since you seem to have difficulty holding more than one fact in mind
at
a time, let me remind you that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to
support American action, so lay the blame where it belongs.
Liar Bliar is no better than Robert Mugabe, they're like two peas in a
pod.
Regards
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
14 Apr 2005 06:42:35 AM |
|
|
So how do you explain all the Zimbabwean refugees currently resident in
the UK and how many refugees from the Blair regime do you estimate are
currently sheltering in Zimbabwe?
Please provide a link or aquire a sense of proportion.
(-: Ian :-}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe --that's rich! |
13 Apr 2005 03:59:40 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Jez wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Tell me, has Blair had all foreign journalists expelled from
Britain? I
don't think so.
Not yet !
That's right and he will never do it and you're talking like a fucking
idiot to suggest it's even likely. As I said, you have no sense of
proportion.
You think you have ? I don't, I'm convinced your a fucking *****.
Tell me, has Blair sequestered the land from Britain's farmers and
reallocated it to his own cronies? I don't think so.
No, he just illegally slaughtered all their animals, during the 'foot
and mouth' crisis.
He paid them for the livestock they lost, none of his friends/business
partners benefitted and the foot and mouth crisis was a genuine
outbreak, so your quote marks are misused.
Not really, there was no need to slaughter the livestock on that scale.
Has there ever been even a whiff of accusation that Blair has ever
rigged a general election? No.
Recent postal voting fraud in Birmingham ring any bells ?
Are you so incredibly stupid as to claim this is the equivalent a
general election?
Of fucking course it is ***** !!!
And do you have even the slightest shred of evidence
that Blair was involved in any fraud?
Has Blair called for a stop to postal voting before the next election ? No !
Why ?
The simple fact is that even if every slur made against Blair were
true, he still wouldn't equate with Mugabe. I suggest you stop
being an
ignorant fool and develop a sense of proportion.
Yeah, like the sense of proportion you seem to lack eh ?
True, Mugabe doesn't have the weaponry at his disposal that Blair
has.
No, it's because Blair doesn't equate with Mugabe.
Blair is worse, because he is shielded by the media from public
awareness of his 'crimes', whereas Mugabe is (Rightly), vilified by the
media.
How many dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Kosovo ?
Why are you listing Sierra Leone and Kosovo as accusations? You have to
be out of your foetid little mind to pretend that Sierra Leone was an
arcadian paradise before the Paras went in and the same goes for
Kosovo.
Your the one with the 'foetid little mind', who said it was a paradise ?
Since you seem to have difficulty holding more than one fact in mind at
a time, let me remind you that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to
support American action, so lay the blame where it belongs.
I do, with Blair.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
14 Apr 2005 06:36:27 AM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Jez wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Tell me, has Blair had all foreign journalists expelled from
Britain? I
don't think so.
Not yet !
That's right and he will never do it and you're talking like a
fucking
idiot to suggest it's even likely. As I said, you have no sense of
proportion.
You think you have ? I don't, I'm convinced your a fucking *****.
My a fucking *****? That doesn't make sense, like everything else you
say.
Tell me, has Blair sequestered the land from Britain's farmers and
reallocated it to his own cronies? I don't think so.
No, he just illegally slaughtered all their animals, during the
'foot
and mouth' crisis.
He paid them for the livestock they lost, none of his
friends/business
partners benefitted and the foot and mouth crisis was a genuine
outbreak, so your quote marks are misused.
Not really, there was no need to slaughter the livestock on that
scale.
In retrospect, no. However, foot and mouth is such a contagious disease
that over-reaction is better than letting it get out of hand.
Has there ever been even a whiff of accusation that Blair has ever
rigged a general election? No.
Recent postal voting fraud in Birmingham ring any bells ?
Are you so incredibly stupid as to claim this is the equivalent a
general election?
Of fucking course it is ***** !!!
No, it isn't and there is no reason to think Blair was involved.
And do you have even the slightest shred of evidence
that Blair was involved in any fraud?
Has Blair called for a stop to postal voting before the next election
? No !
Why ?
Because many people need a postal vote, for instance those who are too
infirm to leave their home. To withdraw the postal vote would
disenfranchise too many people.
The simple fact is that even if every slur made against Blair were
true, he still wouldn't equate with Mugabe. I suggest you stop
being an
ignorant fool and develop a sense of proportion.
Yeah, like the sense of proportion you seem to lack eh ?
I'm the one maintaining a distinction between a democratically elected
politician and a corrupt tryant, and I'm using my sense of proportion
to do it.
True, Mugabe doesn't have the weaponry at his disposal that Blair
has.
No, it's because Blair doesn't equate with Mugabe.
Blair is worse, because he is shielded by the media from public
awareness of his 'crimes', whereas Mugabe is (Rightly), vilified by
the
media.
Shielded, eh? You obdurate moron. You haven't raised a single issue
against Blair, which hasn't been widely reported in the press, so how
can you be so astoundingly stupid as to say he's been shielded? You're
insane.
How many dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Kosovo ?
Why are you listing Sierra Leone and Kosovo as accusations? You
have to
be out of your foetid little mind to pretend that Sierra Leone was
an
arcadian paradise before the Paras went in and the same goes for
Kosovo.
Your the one with the 'foetid little mind', who said it was a
paradise ?
Nobody, but you're implying that Blair did harm here, whereas overall,
British intervention saved many more lives than these actions cost.
Since you seem to have difficulty holding more than one fact in
mind at
a time, let me remind you that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to
support American action, so lay the blame where it belongs.
I do, with Blair.
Conclusive proof that you're a fool.
PS: Your is the word we use to signify possession, whereas we use
you're as a contraction of the words you are. Now why don't you leave
complicated things like international politics to the grown-ups and go
back to your Speak-and-Spell machine, you psychotic little kiddy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe --that's rich! |
14 Apr 2005 11:43:06 AM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Jez wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Jez wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Tell me, has Blair had all foreign journalists expelled from
Britain? I
don't think so.
Not yet !
That's right and he will never do it and you're talking like a
fucking
idiot to suggest it's even likely. As I said, you have no sense of
proportion.
You think you have ? I don't, I'm convinced your a fucking *****.
My a fucking *****? That doesn't make sense, like everything else you
say.
Well, if your too dumb to understand...
Tell me, has Blair sequestered the land from Britain's farmers and
reallocated it to his own cronies? I don't think so.
No, he just illegally slaughtered all their animals, during the
'foot
and mouth' crisis.
He paid them for the livestock they lost, none of his
friends/business
partners benefitted and the foot and mouth crisis was a genuine
outbreak, so your quote marks are misused.
Not really, there was no need to slaughter the livestock on that
scale.
In retrospect, no. However, foot and mouth is such a contagious disease
that over-reaction is better than letting it get out of hand.
So you admit it was an 'over-reaction.', that's a start at least.
Has there ever been even a whiff of accusation that Blair has ever
rigged a general election? No.
Recent postal voting fraud in Birmingham ring any bells ?
Are you so incredibly stupid as to claim this is the equivalent a
general election?
Of fucking course it is ***** !!!
No, it isn't and there is no reason to think Blair was involved.
I never said Blair was personally involved.
And do you have even the slightest shred of evidence
that Blair was involved in any fraud?
Has Blair called for a stop to postal voting before the next election
? No !
Why ?
Because many people need a postal vote, for instance those who are too
infirm to leave their home. To withdraw the postal vote would
disenfranchise too many people.
After the recent debacle, the system could do with some changes.
The simple fact is that even if every slur made against Blair were
true, he still wouldn't equate with Mugabe. I suggest you stop
being an
ignorant fool and develop a sense of proportion.
Yeah, like the sense of proportion you seem to lack eh ?
I'm the one maintaining a distinction between a democratically elected
politician and a corrupt tryant, and I'm using my sense of proportion
to do it.
A democratically elected war-criminal.
True, Mugabe doesn't have the weaponry at his disposal that Blair
has.
No, it's because Blair doesn't equate with Mugabe.
Blair is worse, because he is shielded by the media from public
awareness of his 'crimes', whereas Mugabe is (Rightly), vilified by
the
media.
Shielded, eh? You obdurate moron. You haven't raised a single issue
against Blair, which hasn't been widely reported in the press, so how
can you be so astoundingly stupid as to say he's been shielded? You're
insane.
He's still spoken of as if he is a legitimate leader, whereas he's a
War-Criminal.
And gosh, the BBC have been sooo harsh towards him too !!
Yeah sure !
How many dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Kosovo ?
Why are you listing Sierra Leone and Kosovo as accusations? You
have to
be out of your foetid little mind to pretend that Sierra Leone was
an
arcadian paradise before the Paras went in and the same goes for
Kosovo.
Your the one with the 'foetid little mind', who said it was a
paradise ?
Nobody, but you're implying that Blair did harm here, whereas overall,
British intervention saved many more lives than these actions cost.
Since you seem to have difficulty holding more than one fact in
mind at
a time, let me remind you that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to
support American action, so lay the blame where it belongs.
I do, with Blair.
Conclusive proof that you're a fool.
How so ? How did Blairs sycophantic support for Bush benefit the UK ?
PS: Your is the word we use to signify possession, whereas we use
you're as a contraction of the words you are.
As in 'you are a fool.', yes I know. You are.
Now why don't you leave
complicated things like international politics to the grown-ups and go
back to your Speak-and-Spell machine, you psychotic little kiddy?
Oh gosh ! Such a scathing attack ! I'm sooo hurt !
Maybe your mamma could teach you some real insults, eh ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
11 Apr 2005 10:51:45 AM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2005 00:43:59 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote:
Has there ever been even a whiff of accusation that Blair has ever
rigged a general election? No.
But some of his party have rigged local elections.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hyett" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
12 Apr 2005 07:35:20 AM |
|
|
In uk.politics.misc on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 at 10:51:45, Alan Ferris wrote :
On 11 Apr 2005 00:43:59 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote:
Has there ever been even a whiff of accusation that Blair has ever
rigged a general election? No.
But some of his party have rigged local elections.
So? They doesn't mean that he is in any way responsible for their
criminal acts.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
13 Apr 2005 07:36:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:35:20 +0100, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
In uk.politics.misc on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 at 10:51:45, Alan Ferris wrote :
On 11 Apr 2005 00:43:59 -0700, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote:
Has there ever been even a whiff of accusation that Blair has ever
rigged a general election? No.
But some of his party have rigged local elections.
So? They doesn't mean that he is in any way responsible for their
criminal acts.
But he had the chance to change postal voting but has decided to wait
till after the election, that is his responsibility.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hyett" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
14 Apr 2005 07:04:06 AM |
|
|
In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 at 07:36:22, Alan Ferris wrote :
But some of his party have rigged local elections.
So? They doesn't mean that he is in any way responsible for their
criminal acts.
But he had the chance to change postal voting but has decided to wait
till after the election, that is his responsibility.
To be fair, I don't think there was time to draw up & pass legislation
before parliament was dissolved.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
14 Apr 2005 06:14:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:04:06 +0100, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 at 07:36:22, Alan Ferris wrote :
But some of his party have rigged local elections.
So? They doesn't mean that he is in any way responsible for their
criminal acts.
But he had the chance to change postal voting but has decided to wait
till after the election, that is his responsibility.
To be fair, I don't think there was time to draw up & pass legislation
before parliament was dissolved.
To be fair the first complaint in Birmingham of abuse of voting was
over 4 years ago, how long does it take?
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hyett" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
15 Apr 2005 07:35:08 AM |
|
|
In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 14 Apr 2005 at 18:14:32, Alan Ferris wrote :
To be fair, I don't think there was time to draw up & pass legislation
before parliament was dissolved.
To be fair the first complaint in Birmingham of abuse of voting was
over 4 years ago, how long does it take?
But you can't take action until such allegations are proven in court -
after all, what if they had been unfounded?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
15 Apr 2005 04:20:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:35:08 +0100, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 14 Apr 2005 at 18:14:32, Alan Ferris wrote :
To be fair, I don't think there was time to draw up & pass legislation
before parliament was dissolved.
To be fair the first complaint in Birmingham of abuse of voting was
over 4 years ago, how long does it take?
But you can't take action until such allegations are proven in court -
after all, what if they had been unfounded?
What rubbish, for over a year the government has been denying there is
any problem with postal voting even though there have been numerous
reports of abuses of it. Birmingham is not the first and will not be
the last.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hyett" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
16 Apr 2005 07:51:10 AM |
|
|
In uk.politics.misc on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 at 16:20:05, Alan Ferris wrote :
But you can't take action until such allegations are proven in court -
after all, what if they had been unfounded?
What rubbish, for over a year the government has been denying there is
any problem with postal voting even though there have been numerous
reports of abuses of it. Birmingham is not the first and will not be
the last.
I'm not claiming otherwise - but the fact remains that until very
recently, postal vote fraud hadn't been *proven* in court.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
15 Apr 2005 01:44:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:14:32 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:04:06 +0100, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 at 07:36:22, Alan Ferris wrote :
But some of his party have rigged local elections.
So? They doesn't mean that he is in any way responsible for their
criminal acts.
But he had the chance to change postal voting but has decided to wait
till after the election, that is his responsibility.
To be fair, I don't think there was time to draw up & pass legislation
before parliament was dissolved.
To be fair the first complaint in Birmingham of abuse of voting was
over 4 years ago, how long does it take?
A very long time, particularly if the legislation is complex -
anything relating to the conduction of elections is bound to be
controversial and complicated.
The process of looking into potential abuses, analysing the data,
deciding how to prevent further abuses, examining existing
legislation, drafting the necessary new laws or amendments,
circulating it for approval (across civil service policy departments,
academics and legal advisors as well as the multitude of civil rights
and other groups who would want to be consulted about electoral
changes), and trying to find Parliamentary time to have it heard takes
a long time. The timetable is always horrendously busy, with each
department pushing to get its bills Parliamentary time. Then it has to
actually get through all of the debates and amendments which Commons
impose on it, and make it through to the Lords. That's assuming that
the resources are available within the civil service to take the
matter on - that usually means that work on another issue has to be
pushed back, which of course would mean even more complaints about the
amount of time taken to get policy onto the statute books.
Rushing legislation through is very foolish, and results in
badly-worded laws full of loopholes which take up even more resources
to sort out.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
15 Apr 2005 04:21:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:44:42 +0100, Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:14:32 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:04:06 +0100, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 at 07:36:22, Alan Ferris wrote :
But some of his party have rigged local elections.
So? They doesn't mean that he is in any way responsible for their
criminal acts.
But he had the chance to change postal voting but has decided to wait
till after the election, that is his responsibility.
To be fair, I don't think there was time to draw up & pass legislation
before parliament was dissolved.
To be fair the first complaint in Birmingham of abuse of voting was
over 4 years ago, how long does it take?
A very long time, particularly if the legislation is complex -
anything relating to the conduction of elections is bound to be
controversial and complicated.
The process of looking into potential abuses, analysing the data,
deciding how to prevent further abuses, examining existing
legislation, drafting the necessary new laws or amendments,
circulating it for approval (across civil service policy departments,
academics and legal advisors as well as the multitude of civil rights
and other groups who would want to be consulted about electoral
changes), and trying to find Parliamentary time to have it heard takes
a long time. The timetable is always horrendously busy, with each
department pushing to get its bills Parliamentary time. Then it has to
actually get through all of the debates and amendments which Commons
impose on it, and make it through to the Lords. That's assuming that
the resources are available within the civil service to take the
matter on - that usually means that work on another issue has to be
pushed back, which of course would mean even more complaints about the
amount of time taken to get policy onto the statute books.
Rushing legislation through is very foolish, and results in
badly-worded laws full of loopholes which take up even more resources
to sort out.
Odd, they managed to change the whole of the Inland Revenue and the
Customs and Excise within just 3 years of starting to look into
changes, but they cannot change Postal Voting because it takes to
long.
Strange how some things move fast, but others move slow.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Scumbag Tony Blair won't sit next to scumbag Robert Mugabe -- that's rich! |
18 Apr 2005 06:16:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:21:25 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:44:42 +0100, Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:14:32 GMT, Alan Ferris <alan@spamddandd.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:04:06 +0100, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 at 07:36:22, Alan Ferris wrote :
But some of his party have rigged local elections.
So? They doesn't mean that he is in any way responsible for their
criminal acts.
But he had the chance to change postal voting but has decided to wait
till after the election, that is his responsibility.
To be fair, I don't think there was time to draw up & pass legislation
before parliament was dissolved.
To be fair the first complaint in Birmingham of abuse of voting was
over 4 years ago, how long does it take?
A very long time, particularly if the legislation is complex -
anything relating to the conduction of elections is bound to be
controversial and complicated.
The process of looking into potential abuses, analysing the data,
deciding how to prevent further abuses, examining existing
legislation, drafting the necessary new laws or amendments,
circulating it for approval (across civil service policy departments,
academics and legal advisors as well as the multitude of civil rights
and other groups who would want to be consulted about electoral
changes), and trying to find Parliamentary time to have it heard takes
a long time. The timetable is always horrendously busy, with each
department pushing to get its bills Parliamentary time. Then it has to
actually get through all of the debates and amendments which Commons
impose on it, and make it through to the Lords. That's assuming that
the resources are available within the civil service to take the
matter on - that usually means that work on another issue has to be
pushed back, which of course would mean even more complaints about the
amount of time taken to get policy onto the statute books.
Rushing legislation through is very foolish, and results in
badly-worded laws full of loopholes which take up even more resources
to sort out.
Odd, they managed to change the whole of the Inland Revenue and the
Customs and Excise within just 3 years of starting to look into
changes, but they cannot change Postal Voting because it takes to
long.
They did not 'change the whole of the Inland Revenue and the Customs
and Excise ' within 3 years, which rather scuppers any point you were
trying to make.
Strange how some things move fast, but others move slow.
It would be even more strange if they all moved at exactly the same
speed :-)
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
