Congratulaions to the USA
Posted by: Mick P on 20 January 2005
Chaps
May I, on behalf of the British people, congratulate you all on the innaurgaration of President Bush.
Thank you for you common sense. We have a lot to thank you for. You beat the liberal pinkos.
Regards
Mick
May I, on behalf of the British people, congratulate you all on the innaurgaration of President Bush.
Thank you for you common sense. We have a lot to thank you for. You beat the liberal pinkos.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by MichaelC
Imagine that Kerry had won. Imagine that someone had posted the same congratulatory remark that Mick did. Would we see all the bile that followed? I think not.
Mike
Mike
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Steve
I am going to make a very easy prediction.
Blair will win the next election by the due democratic process. I will be very surprised if his majority falls below say 75.
He and Bush are buddies and their self interest serves each other, so the partnership will continue.
The result is that they both won their respective elections, are doing precisely what we know they are going to do, so the pinko's are just going to have to live with it.
What surprises me, is just how dumb the opposition in both countries act. They talk down to the voter, which incidently is copied here, and that alienates the voters and hence they never achieve power.
Yet they consider themselves intelligent.
Regards
Mick
I am going to make a very easy prediction.
Blair will win the next election by the due democratic process. I will be very surprised if his majority falls below say 75.
He and Bush are buddies and their self interest serves each other, so the partnership will continue.
The result is that they both won their respective elections, are doing precisely what we know they are going to do, so the pinko's are just going to have to live with it.
What surprises me, is just how dumb the opposition in both countries act. They talk down to the voter, which incidently is copied here, and that alienates the voters and hence they never achieve power.
Yet they consider themselves intelligent.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Rasher
You've got to hand it to Mick. He sure knows how to write a small post and kick off a huge stink. 
Excellent!
Excellent!
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by matthewr
You have a very short memory MichaelC and seem to have forgotten the 8 years of relentless bile, smears and invective heaped on Clinton.
And if you cannot see Mick's post as obviously less of a "congratulatory remark" than you should read it again.
Matthew
And if you cannot see Mick's post as obviously less of a "congratulatory remark" than you should read it again.
Matthew
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Sir Crispin Cupcake
quote:
Imagine that Kerry had won. Imagine that someone had posted the same congratulatory remark that Mick did. Would we see all the bile that followed? I think not.
Mike
Yes but in fairness Kerry isn't a war criminal.
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Richard
That is the sort of stupid remark that helped Kerry lose the election. Your sort just never seem to learn.
Regards
Mick
That is the sort of stupid remark that helped Kerry lose the election. Your sort just never seem to learn.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Sir Crispin Cupcake
Mick,
Why was my remark stupid? I seem to remember that one of the final judgements at the Nuremberg trials was that unilateral aggression against a foreign sovereign nation was the one Nazi war crime that encompassed all other war crimes.
Oh yeah, and what exactly is "my sort"?
Why was my remark stupid? I seem to remember that one of the final judgements at the Nuremberg trials was that unilateral aggression against a foreign sovereign nation was the one Nazi war crime that encompassed all other war crimes.
Oh yeah, and what exactly is "my sort"?
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by long-time-dead
Ok - let's spin it a little......
If the UK election had taken place before the USA election and Blair lost, do you think Bush would still have won ?
If the UK election had taken place before the USA election and Blair lost, do you think Bush would still have won ?
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by MichaelC
Yes - simply because how many of the elctorate look beyond other than what is happening in the USA.
Mike
Mike
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Sir Crispin Cupcake
Long-time-dead,
I don't know, I guess it depends who Blair lost to. I guess if the anti-war lib dems got it (fat chance), then it may have sent out a message to the American electorate, which may have made enough of a difference. Particularly given the election was close anyway. I suppose if the Tories got in (fat chance again) it would have made little difference.
On the other hand it may have gone the way of the last election, and Bush would have won, whether he won or not!
I don't know, I guess it depends who Blair lost to. I guess if the anti-war lib dems got it (fat chance), then it may have sent out a message to the American electorate, which may have made enough of a difference. Particularly given the election was close anyway. I suppose if the Tories got in (fat chance again) it would have made little difference.
On the other hand it may have gone the way of the last election, and Bush would have won, whether he won or not!
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
You have a very short memory MichaelC and seem to have forgotten the 8 years of relentless bile, smears and invective heaped on Clinton.
Matthew
Perhaps I do have a very short memory but all the same I simply do not recall a similar degree of hatred being directed at Clinton.
Clearly Clinton was in the firing line re Monica Lewinsky and perhaps deservedly so - if only he had just admitted that he had a fling on the side and we would not have had that rather long drawn out episode.
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
And if you cannot see Mick's post as obviously less of a "congratulatory remark" than you should read it again.
OK
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by sideshowbob
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC:
Perhaps I do have a very short memory but all the same I simply do not recall a similar degree of hatred being directed at Clinton.
Perhaps Clinton is simply less hateworthy than Bush? Clinton was a very poor president, but at least he wasn't quite the warmongering lunatic Bush has proven to be.
-- Ian
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by matthewr
Michael,
You don't recall 8 years of relentless pursuit, attempts to smear Clinton? And his wife? Grand juries, impeachments, Whitewater, books by former Republican spin doctors detailing how they literally made stuff like this up simply becuase they hated Clinton so much, etc. etc.
It's my impression that the level of personal animosity and hatred for Bush by his opponents is far, far less than the stuff Clinton had to endure. The difference I suppose is that hatred of Bush is international rather than mainly domestic as it was with Clinton because Clintons serial adultery is a uniquely US Republican obsession whereas Bush's faults relate to foreign policy (if you can call starting wars a "policy").
Matthew
You don't recall 8 years of relentless pursuit, attempts to smear Clinton? And his wife? Grand juries, impeachments, Whitewater, books by former Republican spin doctors detailing how they literally made stuff like this up simply becuase they hated Clinton so much, etc. etc.
It's my impression that the level of personal animosity and hatred for Bush by his opponents is far, far less than the stuff Clinton had to endure. The difference I suppose is that hatred of Bush is international rather than mainly domestic as it was with Clinton because Clintons serial adultery is a uniquely US Republican obsession whereas Bush's faults relate to foreign policy (if you can call starting wars a "policy").
Matthew
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by JohanR
Actually, I see GWB's reelection as a good thing, in the long term. His popularity ratings, as mentioned above, is one of the lowest in history and will probably not improve, as:
- The Iraq "problem" will not be solved in the nearest (as in four years) future.
- A resession in the American economy is coming up. It will be thought of as Duba's fault by the public.
- Countless other problems just waiting beneath the surface.
Now, why is it important, and even a good thing that GWB makes as big an a** of himself as possible?
It rises the hopes that this will be the last we se of him and his family. Remember, he has three brothers and one sister, eager to follow in the footsteps of there father and brother. Bush in the White house in eternity, that's the nightmare!
JohanR
- The Iraq "problem" will not be solved in the nearest (as in four years) future.
- A resession in the American economy is coming up. It will be thought of as Duba's fault by the public.
- Countless other problems just waiting beneath the surface.
Now, why is it important, and even a good thing that GWB makes as big an a** of himself as possible?
It rises the hopes that this will be the last we se of him and his family. Remember, he has three brothers and one sister, eager to follow in the footsteps of there father and brother. Bush in the White house in eternity, that's the nightmare!
JohanR
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Chaps
If you are going to continue making statements such as "war criminal" and "warmongering lunatic", you will just alienate yourself from the great silent majority who can make or break elections.
If I was on Kerry's election campaign, I would have been stuffing big gags in your mouths. You are the best allie that Blair and Bush could ever wish for.
If you really want to help Bush or Blair, just organise a protest demonstration in London or Washington and sing a few 1960's style protest songs.......you just never learn do you.
I thank God you are not on my side ... LOL.
Regards
Mick
If you are going to continue making statements such as "war criminal" and "warmongering lunatic", you will just alienate yourself from the great silent majority who can make or break elections.
If I was on Kerry's election campaign, I would have been stuffing big gags in your mouths. You are the best allie that Blair and Bush could ever wish for.
If you really want to help Bush or Blair, just organise a protest demonstration in London or Washington and sing a few 1960's style protest songs.......you just never learn do you.
I thank God you are not on my side ... LOL.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Sir Crispin Cupcake
Sorry Mick, don't follow your reasoning at all here.
Why's that then?
Why again?
So what is it we're supposed to learn?
quote:
If you are going to continue making statements such as "war criminal" and "warmongering lunatic", you will just alienate yourself from the great silent majority who can make or break elections
Why's that then?
quote:
If I was on Kerry's election campaign, I would have been stuffing big gags in your mouths. You are the best allie that Blair and Bush could ever wish for.
Why again?
quote:
If you really want to help Bush or Blair, just organise a protest demonstration in London or Washington and sing a few 1960's style protest songs.......you just never learn do you.
So what is it we're supposed to learn?
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Richard
If you are seriously asking those two questions, I think I am wasting my time responding.
Keep to your present job, because a spin doctor you will never be.
Regards
Mick
If you are seriously asking those two questions, I think I am wasting my time responding.
Keep to your present job, because a spin doctor you will never be.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by JonR
All,
Clinton, if not the greatest statesman the US has produced, was statesman-like, regardless of his err...personal misjudgement, if you will. I rather doubt he would have taken his country to war on the basis of a lie.
Bush, OTOH, remains hopelessly under the influence of his neocon brethren in the Republican party and, left to his own devices, probably could not find Iraq on a map even if he tried.
The only positive thing I can say about his re-election is that, unless there's a drastic and wholly unprecedented change to the US constitution any time soon, four more years is all we have left to put up with George W Bush.
JR
Clinton, if not the greatest statesman the US has produced, was statesman-like, regardless of his err...personal misjudgement, if you will. I rather doubt he would have taken his country to war on the basis of a lie.
Bush, OTOH, remains hopelessly under the influence of his neocon brethren in the Republican party and, left to his own devices, probably could not find Iraq on a map even if he tried.
The only positive thing I can say about his re-election is that, unless there's a drastic and wholly unprecedented change to the US constitution any time soon, four more years is all we have left to put up with George W Bush.
JR
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by matthewr
"If I was on Kerry's election campaign, I would have been stuffing big gags in your mouths"
Kerry's great mistake was of course to back himself into a corner with repsect to Iraq by declaring a policy that essentially agreed with that of the Bush administration. Consequently, when it all went tits up he was not really able to attack Bush's biggest weakness. I think if Kerry had been able to say "This man has failed to protect America and started a bloody and dangerous war that has cost American lives and increased the terrorist threat and done all this on the basis of false information" (only more snappily) I think he may well have won.
The thing that amazes me about Mick's support for Bush is that by common consent of business peole and economists he has been an absolutely disaster for the US economy. Mick has, of course, always claimed that is the single most important thing by some distance to the extent that he felt bombng innocent people could be justifed if it reduced oil prices (How's that working out for you Mick?) so his continued pro-Bush stance seems odd. It's inconcievable that Kerry could do any worse.
Matthew
Kerry's great mistake was of course to back himself into a corner with repsect to Iraq by declaring a policy that essentially agreed with that of the Bush administration. Consequently, when it all went tits up he was not really able to attack Bush's biggest weakness. I think if Kerry had been able to say "This man has failed to protect America and started a bloody and dangerous war that has cost American lives and increased the terrorist threat and done all this on the basis of false information" (only more snappily) I think he may well have won.
The thing that amazes me about Mick's support for Bush is that by common consent of business peole and economists he has been an absolutely disaster for the US economy. Mick has, of course, always claimed that is the single most important thing by some distance to the extent that he felt bombng innocent people could be justifed if it reduced oil prices (How's that working out for you Mick?) so his continued pro-Bush stance seems odd. It's inconcievable that Kerry could do any worse.
Matthew
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Matthew
Oil prices are dropping and are predicted to continue dropping until the end of 2006.
The reality is that with China and Russia spurting it out in exchange of greenbacks, we will soon be wallowing in the stuff.
Regards
Mick
Oil prices are dropping and are predicted to continue dropping until the end of 2006.
The reality is that with China and Russia spurting it out in exchange of greenbacks, we will soon be wallowing in the stuff.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Sir Crispin Cupcake
Mick,
I am seriously asking these questions and I think your statements require justification. I provided justification for calling Bush a war criminal by citing the precedent set at Nuremberg, to which you have provided no response. Did you read the Chomsky essay earlier in the thread? You didn't bother responding to this either.
I seem to remember in another thread you saying that the world would be a better place if everyone followed the 10 commandments. Although I am an atheist, I still fail to see why provide apologetics for this muderous bastard.
PS I have no aspirations to be a spin doctor and I like my present job!
I am seriously asking these questions and I think your statements require justification. I provided justification for calling Bush a war criminal by citing the precedent set at Nuremberg, to which you have provided no response. Did you read the Chomsky essay earlier in the thread? You didn't bother responding to this either.
I seem to remember in another thread you saying that the world would be a better place if everyone followed the 10 commandments. Although I am an atheist, I still fail to see why provide apologetics for this muderous bastard.
PS I have no aspirations to be a spin doctor and I like my present job!
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
The reality is that with China and Russia spurting it out in exchange of greenbacks, we will soon be wallowing in the stuff.
I understood that China has huge and increasing requirements for imported oil. This is the reason that they veto any UN action (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) that might prevent the massacres and ethnic cleansing in the oil rich Sudan.
Why isn't there a proportionate amount of expression of protest or even indignation concerning China's actions or the 'Genocide for oil' that's taking place in the Sudan? Is it because criticising the US is more fashionable or is it just that the lives of black Africans don't matter as much to liberal Europeans?
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Richard
The average voter wants a quiet life and the people who really piss them off are those who seem to advocate civil unrest and rebellion.
Please remember age demographics means that voters are getting older and more conservative.
When someone like you comes along accusing the elected leader, who they voted in, of being a war criminal etc, you get right up their noses.
The honest truth is that these voters are more disturbed by civil unrest and protest meetings in this country than bombing the stuffing out of "the enemy" on the other side of the globe.
You may not like it, but that is reality.
By carrying on as you do, you alienate those voters, they support and re elect the Government, who carry on doing the things that you do not like.
People of my age and persuasion, never join protest marches. We appoint pressure groups and thing get done quietly.
Hunting was buggered in this country when those idiots stormed Parliament. That sealed their fate.
The voter does not like seeing bad behaviour on the TV and reacts accordingly.
Regards
Mick
The average voter wants a quiet life and the people who really piss them off are those who seem to advocate civil unrest and rebellion.
Please remember age demographics means that voters are getting older and more conservative.
When someone like you comes along accusing the elected leader, who they voted in, of being a war criminal etc, you get right up their noses.
The honest truth is that these voters are more disturbed by civil unrest and protest meetings in this country than bombing the stuffing out of "the enemy" on the other side of the globe.
You may not like it, but that is reality.
By carrying on as you do, you alienate those voters, they support and re elect the Government, who carry on doing the things that you do not like.
People of my age and persuasion, never join protest marches. We appoint pressure groups and thing get done quietly.
Hunting was buggered in this country when those idiots stormed Parliament. That sealed their fate.
The voter does not like seeing bad behaviour on the TV and reacts accordingly.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Steve
Shell Oil are opening up several large oil fields in China. They are funding the construction and in return are guaranteed supplies at guaranteed prices.
The situation is improving daily.
Oil was one of the major commodities that I used to purchase and the long term intrinsic value is still quoted at $15 per barrel.
Regards
Mick
Shell Oil are opening up several large oil fields in China. They are funding the construction and in return are guaranteed supplies at guaranteed prices.
The situation is improving daily.
Oil was one of the major commodities that I used to purchase and the long term intrinsic value is still quoted at $15 per barrel.
Regards
Mick