lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 I didn't vote for him the first time and called it "the biggest own goal in British history" and certainly wouldn't have dreamed of voting for him the second time after all his half-truths and misinformation over Iraq, Europe etc. I love Scotland as a country, believe Scottish people to be intelligent, innovative, passionate and a lot of other worthy things more often than not but, like you thoroughly resent the overweighted Scottish influence within our Parliament, especially when Scotland has an elected Assembly of its own. That we now have a Government the English people didn't actually support with a majority is diabolical. Some democracy of Stephen would say. 134055[/snapback] Its like in football when we want a home grown player like lineker or more recently heath stearman and wright to play for us/represent us, we want/should have an Englishman/woman leading our country (which is NOT britian). How can a foreigner (blair) have the very best interests of England at heart? not so in my opinion.
lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 Errrrr... what like the death penalty in america where they have higher rates of crime than the UK. That one worked out really well!!!! 133994[/snapback] I didnt answer it, because there isnt one suitable for your viewing. You miss the point. right your a sensible chap right, well lets just pretend for now...IF YOU KNEW THAT YOU`D LOSE YOUR LIFE IF CAUGHT KILLING SOMEONE, OR ROBBING SOMEONE, WOULD YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, LET ALONE DO IT? and would you say most people would think like you? if not, wheres the crime going to come from... its bad people in government who scare YOU with notions that you NEED them to help you, absolute rollax mate. IF THEY REALLY WANEID TO HELP YOU, THEY WOULD DO THE ABOVE. in saudi arabia, consumption of alcohol is a crime punished by death, how many drink alcohol? 0.0001% it works. 134017[/snapback] That may be 0.0001% get caught drinking alcohol. When I played the London casinos back in the 70's I saw plenty of alcohol consumed by Arabs in private situations. 134063[/snapback] Thankfully, its legal here.
davieG Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 in saudi arabia, consumption of alcohol is a crime punished by death, how many drink alcohol? 0.0001% it works. That is the kind of society that provided 15 of the 17 9/11 ji-jackers. (That is not an attack on Saudi Arabia and Saudi's, I am just saying that a set of laws without any freedom and with barbaric punishment can have profound impacts on the culture of that society) I don't see how ID cards or detention without trial would have prevented these attacks. I see ID cards as nothign more thasn glorified passports which help provide information on the law obiding citizen but won't be much use in fighting organised crime. Detention without trial is just fundamentally wrong, although I do accept some concessions. Such as quick hearings with just a judge and without a Jury. I don't even mind the decision being made behind closed doors. So long as the decision is made by an INDEPENDENT judge. 134025[/snapback] Lovely concept that. The Independent Judge. To get anywhere near that concept you need the judiciary to be independent of Government (when we can't even have the BBC independent of Government). Then there needs to be at least three to make a judgement, randomly and independently selected and all of them allowed to remain incognito except in the case of a complaint through which an assessor highlights serious misapplication of the law. The full text of any trial should be open to scrutiny except in the case of a significant threat to national security (again as assessed by an independent panel). 134075[/snapback] The Independent Judge is far less far fetched than the Independent politician. 134077[/snapback] Party Politics makes all politicians that are Party backed dishonest and hypocritical by definition - they vote the party way (with some exceptions) and not on their own beliefs or principles.
lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 You miss my point though. Of course I wouldn't kill someone if there was a death penalty, but I also wouldn't kill someone even though there isn't one.In america there are plenty of people who still kill, rape, mug etc etc even though there is a death penalty. Yes a death penalty would make some criminals think again, but not all. 100's get killed every day in america. You may only ever catch 50% of them though, surely if you had all finger prints/dna on record XX% more would be caught. Wouldn't it put your mind a little more at rest knowing 100's of extra criminals a year are sent to prison or sentanced to death? Like I said earlier a family member could get killed by someone who would of been caught had their details been on a database. They won't introduce it though as in this day and age there are way too many do gooders and PC brigade out there. 134070[/snapback] Thats because your of sensible mind right now, but imagine you wasnt one day, could happen to all of us. If were installed with the knowledge that murder means death, then it will stop sensible people from doing something that would definately regret. Eventually we would eradicate most crime, thats good right? NOT all american states have the death penalty, and the ones that do have less murders. Your trying to win a argument for the sake of now. The reality is, sensible people wont do crime, because their life is precious to them, idiots will, and we wouldnt have them living next door once caught. IF the i.d card only had my finger print, and thats all it was for, then i`d be in favour. We get forced it, but that depends how many of us defend ourselves against it. 10,000 have already tried and have it, new labour are GIVING all kids them for free, meaning in years to come, there wont be enough of us to fight it. new labour will have us by the balls. WE MUST ATTACK IT NOW, or a totalitarian police state type situation will encour.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 There is a statement: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" so there are categorically two points of view that have clashed to cause this conflict. That sort of statement applies to Palenstinians and other groups fighting for their own freedom. That includes deplorable groups like the IRA who, in their eyes, were fighting for the noble cause of freeing Ireland from British rule and of course those insurgents in Iraq. It also includes now much loved Nelson mandela who was branded the 'greatest terrorist of the 20th century' by Margeret Thatcher. I do not agree with the actions of these groups, violence solves ntohing, but can certainly appreciate that to other they are 'fighting for their freedom.' This tag CAN NOT be applied to Islamic Fundamentalist. These attacks are about imposing a hideous ideaology on people which surpresses freedoms, including the greatest freedom of them all the right to life. These people are scum and to simplify it with talk of the Arab world Versus The West is a gross injustice to the human race. I prefer to put it as Human Kind Versus a few hearetless ####s. (I agree the war on Iraq has made us a greater target for terrorist attacks and was a massive own goal in terms of the war on terror, which I also agree can't eb thought through traditional military force) 134072[/snapback] But a hell of a lot of Arabs are fighting the West just as a hell of a lot of Germans fought with the Nazi's cos student-aged youths can be very susceptible to the prospect of a scrap with anyone given a convincing enough "cause". Some of course are brave enough to be fighting for what we would call a freer and fairer government in their troubled lands and to establish those same freedoms of choice and opportunity for their women-folk. It is a culture conflict and a conflict of wills which will not be solved on any military battlefield. Indeed I regret the deaths of the brain-washed and misguided insurgents just as much as the equally brain-washed and misguided troops because kids of 16/17 should not be manipulated for the ends of others before they are old enough and wise enough to make rational and informed judgements for themselves. But then, people can be pretty diabolical. Saw some otherwise wonderful and worthy Namibians on television the other night knocking four front teeth out of their own pubescent youngsters as a matter of tradition and to mark their boys' passage into manhood. Tests of emerging manhood among tribes is nothing new but permanent and disabling disfigurement ... what on earth is in people's minds?
TrickyTrev Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Tests of emerging manhood among tribes is nothing new but permanent and disabling disfigurement ... what on earth is in people's minds? Is it any worse than circumcism?
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Errrrr... what like the death penalty in america where they have higher rates of crime than the UK. That one worked out really well!!!! 133994[/snapback] I didnt answer it, because there isnt one suitable for your viewing. You miss the point. right your a sensible chap right, well lets just pretend for now...IF YOU KNEW THAT YOU`D LOSE YOUR LIFE IF CAUGHT KILLING SOMEONE, OR ROBBING SOMEONE, WOULD YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, LET ALONE DO IT? and would you say most people would think like you? if not, wheres the crime going to come from... its bad people in government who scare YOU with notions that you NEED them to help you, absolute rollax mate. IF THEY REALLY WANEID TO HELP YOU, THEY WOULD DO THE ABOVE. in saudi arabia, consumption of alcohol is a crime punished by death, how many drink alcohol? 0.0001% it works. 134017[/snapback] That may be 0.0001% get caught drinking alcohol. When I played the London casinos back in the 70's I saw plenty of alcohol consumed by Arabs in private situations. 134063[/snapback] Thankfully, its legal here. 134081[/snapback] I'll drink to that.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 You miss my point though. Of course I wouldn't kill someone if there was a death penalty, but I also wouldn't kill someone even though there isn't one.In america there are plenty of people who still kill, rape, mug etc etc even though there is a death penalty. Yes a death penalty would make some criminals think again, but not all. 100's get killed every day in america. You may only ever catch 50% of them though, surely if you had all finger prints/dna on record XX% more would be caught. Wouldn't it put your mind a little more at rest knowing 100's of extra criminals a year are sent to prison or sentanced to death? Like I said earlier a family member could get killed by someone who would of been caught had their details been on a database. They won't introduce it though as in this day and age there are way too many do gooders and PC brigade out there. 134070[/snapback] Thats because your of sensible mind right now, but imagine you wasnt one day, could happen to all of us. If were installed with the knowledge that murder means death, then it will stop sensible people from doing something that would definately regret. Eventually we would eradicate most crime, thats good right? NOT all american states have the death penalty, and the ones that do have less murders. Your trying to win a argument for the sake of now. The reality is, sensible people wont do crime, because their life is precious to them, idiots will, and we wouldnt have them living next door once caught. IF the i.d card only had my finger print, and thats all it was for, then i`d be in favour. We get forced it, but that depends how many of us defend ourselves against it. 10,000 have already tried and have it, new labour are GIVING all kids them for free, meaning in years to come, there wont be enough of us to fight it. new labour will have us by the balls. WE MUST ATTACK IT NOW, or a totalitarian police state type situation will encour. 134087[/snapback] Notional Scenario: It is the year 2025 and all major city councils in England are controlled by Muslim politicians imposing so much pressure on Central Government that Muslim law has been adopted in the UK and trials are held all over the country just after Friday prayers. You, a recently married young man, had been to an illicit nightclub one evening and, having met an old school friend had been tempted to down a few too many and were spotted cavorting in the car park with the woman an hour or so later by a member of the Moral Protection Force recently formed to curb decadent behaviour. Backed by video film from a nightclub spy, the case of adultery is proven and your execution by stoning is to be carried out in the market place the following morning. Just imagine this - or perhaps a couple of hundred lashes being meted out to one of your friends just for opposing the ruling regime or drinking a pint or two too many in the same illicit bar. Still in favour of the death penalty? That scenario is reality in some places and I have already predicted the first political executions of the new Millennium will take place in this country within 25 years. Don't laugh. It is not so long ago that hundreds of thousands were purged in Stalinist Russia, hundreds of thousands were purged in Nazi Germany and hundreds of thousands were purged in Maoist China all within the loose framework of revolutionary law. Believe me, my friend, there is not much wrong with Planet Earth but a hell of a lot wrong with its people cos the application of capital punishment doesn't have to involve any pretence of justice (just ask the Germans of the late 1930's). It might be introduced for genuinely protective (if misguided) reasons by a Government reacting to a spate of lethal lawlessness but in the next Government's hands it can quickly turn into a tool for totalitarianism. Don't be party to encouraging that scenario. Killing people is unambiguously against the law of God, full stop. Political and religious leaders the world over sometimes justify it to suit their own purposes but they clearly have no genuine fear of God and no mercy (as God supposedly demands in every text I've ever read) within their inner self. More relevent perhaps in today's society, the idea of killing someone should be reprehensible and unacceptable to the mind of ANY decent human being. We should be much further along the evolutionary path than that. Indeed, if young people today (of all persuations) wish to make a great mark they should campaign for an end to all man-on-man killing, a world of self-sacrifice for the good of those less fortunate and a determination that the planet and its finite resources will be protected against all who would harvest them irresponsibly. And, there should be a global campaign against all personal political power starting with a consensus that no-one be allowed to rule for more than three years in Government.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 terrorist may be caught with a false one, prevented carrying out their act and thus saving a lifesounds simple and a stupid thing, but could happen, to deny it would be foolish 133819[/snapback] are you serious? if someone wants to kill another, there not going to wait for a bloody card for permission this is the mentallity as to why a w@nker like blair is able to force his way into presidency (pm to you) cos theres alot of people that dont understand the political process, and believe him, so sad. 133844[/snapback] sorry chancellor lush, care to explain the political system to us all then in full detail? The only sad fact is that in a democratic society, the man elected is still condemed by the people. If he is a dictator then why hasn't he got rid of the voting system altogether? whats next, persectution? 133853[/snapback] The postal voting system proved wide open to corruption. There was scant publicity beforehand for the seriousness of what happened and it's been played down ever since. So there you are. The voting system - beyond reasonable suspicion for decades in the past - suddenly stinks now Blair has given it a tweak or two.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Tests of emerging manhood among tribes is nothing new but permanent and disabling disfigurement ... what on earth is in people's minds? Is it any worse than circumcism? 134109[/snapback] Don't know for sure. You volunteering to come up with the answer first hand? Again though the general principle sucks. Nature gives us a body and homo sapiens is arrogant enough to change it for no reason that appears justified, and at considerable and totally unnecessary risk. As a personal decision in adult life (with your own body) fair enough. But butchering other people's bodies while they are still too young to truly judge sense from nonsense is beyond my understanding. What's bravery anyway? I know folk who will bungee jump without a second thought but are frightened to death to put a grand on black at the roulette table. Is bravery fearlessness or a lack of imagination and sensitivity? Now there's a thesis in waiting.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Just thoughts but: Why do we need security cameras on every corner when we never used to?. Why do we need hyper security at every airport, railway station, national place of importance when we never used to?. Why do we need to consider the use of Identity Cards when we never used to. Why in the land of Free Speech, do we have to to consider every word we say when we never used to? And, If we didn't need the security cameras, the concrete ring-fence protection, the massively-expanded security service machinery, the identity cards, etc, etc could we not save billlions and billions of pounds that could be spent on reducing poverty or healing the sick?. And a last question. Is anyone proud of what has been achieved in this once Green and Pleasant Land over such a short time? 133947[/snapback] we have all these things because we have a wealth of cultures living side by side and its not human nature to co exist without conflict. of course politicians encourage this, society gets out of control (what it is now) and they brainwash the public into thinking we need them what was crime like 50 years ago comparered to now, alot lower. could you leave your milk money on the doorstep, yes, could you do that now, hell no. Thracian, i wana vote for you!! 133988[/snapback] Thanks. There's a couple of thousand postal votes on the way! Don't forget to use em all.
Guest Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 What a load of paranoid claptrap!! Haven't you heard of Brent Crude? 133809[/snapback] Explain what you mean about `paranoid claptrap`? Who`s brent crude? 133837[/snapback] Says it all really! 133904[/snapback] It says you have trouble explaining yourself, says it all really... 133911[/snapback] If you haven't the wits to work things out yourself, or to find the resources to explain it to you, don't expect me to do it for you. It's bad enough arguing with an idiot without having to spell it out for him/her.
Guest Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 i couldnt understand for the life of that particular debate why the hell he or she was mentioning it. 133952[/snapback] How much more obvious did you want that??
Guest Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 we want/should have an Englishman/woman leading our country (which is NOT britian).How can a foreigner (blair) have the very best interests of England at heart? not so in my opinion. 134080[/snapback] I think you'll find we do live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Ric Flair Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Turned out to be a right old debate! I wish that Lush could type properly and not use annoying slang, I think people would listen to his views more. After the initial shock of yesterday it boils down to religion yet again. These fanatics that claim to be part of a religion that's against us. Ban all religion, it's the root of all evil. If there was no religion, we wouldn't be classed as different, there would be no wars. Well for a few years anyway until something new cropped up to ****in row about. c*nts the lot of them
Ric Flair Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Turned out to be a right old debate! I wish that Lush could type properly and not use annoying slang, I think people would listen to his views more.After the initial shock of yesterday it boils down to religion yet again. These fanatics that claim to be part of a religion that's against us. Ban all religion, it's the root of all evil. If there was no religion, we wouldn't be classed as different, there would be no wars. Well for a few years anyway until something new cropped up to ****in row about. c*nts the lot of them 134293[/snapback] Before anyone gets upset about what i've put. This isn't a dig at religious people, each to their own. I just find it extremely upsetting that in this day and age after thousands of years of living together religions play a big part in conflict. These evil terrorists a part of no religion but hide behind one and give the rest of that religion a bad name. I for one hope that people aren't narrow minded enough to look down upon Islamics, I just wish there was no religion in the first place to cause this heart ache.
Thracian Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Turned out to be a right old debate! I wish that Lush could type properly and not use annoying slang, I think people would listen to his views more.After the initial shock of yesterday it boils down to religion yet again. These fanatics that claim to be part of a religion that's against us. Ban all religion, it's the root of all evil. If there was no religion, we wouldn't be classed as different, there would be no wars. Well for a few years anyway until something new cropped up to ****in row about. c*nts the lot of them 134293[/snapback] What an interesting concept and one I have often wondered about. Not banning religion but banning the public oratorial promotion of religion. I am not a statistician but I imagine that more people have died and been persecuted throughout history in the name of religion than for any other reason. The Holocaust wasn't so long ago, for instance, nor The Inquisition before that. It is not of course, the actual beliefs that are the problem, it is the religious leaders (of all kinds) who would use religion to gain power over people and manipulate them to their own ends (surely a sin of huge magnitude). No-one truly knows if any religious belief is wise and correct. But, faith potentially serves great purpose in that it encourages a set of values that are worth living by: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself etc. etc to quote a few from Christian doctrine. Sadly human beings seem incapable of truly sticking to any set of values when faced with a problem that requires them to sidestep them (The Iraq War is a recent example). If they stuck to a set of values based on the Commandments for instance then there would not be any need for this debate. All of these values or similar can be found in religious text such as the Bible or the Koran and all can be practised in private without any need to involve other people. I believe I have a strong sense of values but I do not now go the Church and have never taken my children to Church. Nevertheless THEY have grown up to be worthy members of society in part, I hope, because their mother and I have always sought to set an example. You are probably right. Religion does have such a negative effect. It is such a focus for hatred and conflict and it is a medium through which evil men since the dawn of time have sought to control others. True belief in a set of values is, I think, vital. But those values can and might arguably exist in our own head and be expressed principally in the examples we set. If we choose to express or share our values in writing then readers can be influenced or otherwise according to their feelings. In such a way would information and ideas be imparted, debated and developed but in a pure manner and not in a way that was manipulated by the orator imposing his view on a subjected and fearful or vulnerable audience. Not in a way that would seek to dictate or gain power for themselves. Gatherings of many kinds can encourage radicalism. The problem with religion is that it has provenly fostered radicalism to such an extent that throughout history, and in the name of many different religions, literally millions of people have lost their lives. Would the banning of all religious gatherings prevent that? And would it therefore lead to a better world? Or are we inevitably stuck in a fight for ascendancy between various controlled factions of our fellow men which has certainly been the case so far in our pretty gruesome history? On balance it probably would. But so, probably would legislation which required all who were staging a religious or any other sort of gathering (trade unions, policial meetings etc) to adhere to a set of DECENT NATIONAL VALUES for the conduct of such gatherings. That way we would keep our places of worship, keep our traditional festivals which bring so much joy and colour to our lives and respect people's right to responsibly free expression. Through such values we might set a worldwide example, start to disperse the rivers of irrational hatred and start to live both in our own country and within the world community in greater harmony and for the greater good of all.
Ric Flair Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Turned out to be a right old debate! I wish that Lush could type properly and not use annoying slang, I think people would listen to his views more.After the initial shock of yesterday it boils down to religion yet again. These fanatics that claim to be part of a religion that's against us. Ban all religion, it's the root of all evil. If there was no religion, we wouldn't be classed as different, there would be no wars. Well for a few years anyway until something new cropped up to ****in row about. c*nts the lot of them 134293[/snapback] What an interesting concept and one I have often wondered about. Not banning religion but banning the public oratorial promotion of religion. I am not a statistician but I imagine that more people have died and been persecuted throughout history in the name of religion than for any other reason. The Holocaust wasn't so long ago, for instance, nor The Inquisition before that. It is not of course, the actual beliefs that are the problem, it is the religious leaders (of all kinds) who would use religion to gain power over people and manipulate them to their own ends (surely a sin of huge magnitude). No-one truly knows if any religious belief is wise and correct. But, faith potentially serves great purpose in that it encourages a set of values that are worth living by: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself etc. etc to quote a few from Christian doctrine. Sadly human beings seem incapable of truly sticking to any set of values when faced with a problem that requires them to sidestep them (The Iraq War is a recent example). If they stuck to a set of values based on the Commandments for instance then there would not be any need for this debate. All of these values or similar can be found in religious text such as the Bible or the Koran and all can be practised in private without any need to involve other people. I believe I have a strong sense of values but I do not now go the Church and have never taken my children to Church. Nevertheless THEY have grown up to be worthy members of society in part, I hope, because their mother and I have always sought to set an example. You are probably right. Religion does have such a negative effect. It is such a focus for hatred and conflict and it is a medium through which evil men since the dawn of time have sought to control others. True belief in a set of values is, I think, vital. But those values can and might arguably exist in our own head and be expressed principally in the examples we set. If we choose to express or share our values in writing then readers can be influenced or otherwise according to their feelings. In such a way would information and ideas be imparted, debated and developed but in a pure manner and not in a way that was manipulated by the orator imposing his view on a subjected and fearful or vulnerable audience. Not in a way that would seek to dictate or gain power for themselves. Gatherings of many kinds can encourage radicalism. The problem with religion is that it has provenly fostered radicalism to such an extent that throughout history, and in the name of many different religions, literally millions of people have lost their lives. Would the banning of all religious gatherings prevent that? And would it therefore lead to a better world? Or are we inevitably stuck in a fight for ascendancy between various controlled factions of our fellow men which has certainly been the case so far in our pretty gruesome history? On balance it probably would. But so, probably would legislation which required all who were staging a religious or any other sort of gathering (trade unions, policial meetings etc) to adhere to a set of DECENT NATIONAL VALUES for the conduct of such gatherings. That way we would keep our places of worship, keep our traditional festivals which bring so much joy and colour to our lives and respect people's right to responsibly free expression. Through such values we might set a worldwide example, start to disperse the rivers of irrational hatred and start to live both in our own country and within the world community in greater harmony and for the greater good of all. 134383[/snapback] An absolute monster of a reply, spot on. Totally agree with what your saying, it's abit of a lose lose situation. There's got to be some sort of damage limitation though? I mean it would be impossible to stamp out religion, but there are certain issues with how religion is stigmatised and spread, which cause needless wars and conflicts. Religion is an easy tool for many criminals to hide behind, not only criminals who commit these offences in the so called name of god but also criminals who have commited awful crimes and then claim to be rehabilitated by finding god. All very suspect and detracts from the fact that there are evil people in this world and there's no answer for them.
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Author Posted 8 July 2005 What a load of paranoid claptrap!! Haven't you heard of Brent Crude? 133809[/snapback] Explain what you mean about `paranoid claptrap`? Who`s brent crude? 133837[/snapback] Says it all really! 133904[/snapback] It says you have trouble explaining yourself, says it all really... 133911[/snapback] If you haven't the wits to work things out yourself, or to find the resources to explain it to you, don't expect me to do it for you. It's bad enough arguing with an idiot without having to spell it out for him/her. 134262[/snapback] How the hell am i suppossed to read your mind
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Author Posted 8 July 2005 we want/should have an Englishman/woman leading our country (which is NOT britian).How can a foreigner (blair) have the very best interests of England at heart? not so in my opinion. 134080[/snapback] I think you'll find we do live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 134265[/snapback] What you state is true, but what has it got to do with what i said? We live in europe, but we dont have a european leader...we live on earth, but we dont have an earth leader.
Guest Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 we want/should have an Englishman/woman leading our country (which is NOT britian).How can a foreigner (blair) have the very best interests of England at heart? not so in my opinion. 134080[/snapback] I think you'll find we do live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 134265[/snapback] What you state is true, but what has it got to do with what i said? We live in europe, but we dont have a european leader...we live on earth, but we dont have an earth leader. 134421[/snapback] The leadership of the EU is rotated. GB has it at present.
Guest Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 What a load of paranoid claptrap!! Haven't you heard of Brent Crude? 133809[/snapback] Explain what you mean about `paranoid claptrap`? Who`s brent crude? 133837[/snapback] Says it all really! 133904[/snapback] It says you have trouble explaining yourself, says it all really... 133911[/snapback] If you haven't the wits to work things out yourself, or to find the resources to explain it to you, don't expect me to do it for you. It's bad enough arguing with an idiot without having to spell it out for him/her. 134262[/snapback] How the hell am i suppossed to read your mind 134412[/snapback] Why would you need to do that? Try exercising those "little grey cells".
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Author Posted 8 July 2005 we want/should have an Englishman/woman leading our country (which is NOT britian).How can a foreigner (blair) have the very best interests of England at heart? not so in my opinion. 134080[/snapback] I think you'll find we do live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 134265[/snapback] What you state is true, but what has it got to do with what i said? We live in europe, but we dont have a european leader...we live on earth, but we dont have an earth leader. 134421[/snapback] The leadership of the EU is rotated. GB has it at present. 134583[/snapback] I`ll have what your smoking, i need it now
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Author Posted 8 July 2005 What a load of paranoid claptrap!! Haven't you heard of Brent Crude? 133809[/snapback] Explain what you mean about `paranoid claptrap`? Who`s brent crude? 133837[/snapback] Says it all really! 133904[/snapback] It says you have trouble explaining yourself, says it all really... 133911[/snapback] If you haven't the wits to work things out yourself, or to find the resources to explain it to you, don't expect me to do it for you. It's bad enough arguing with an idiot without having to spell it out for him/her. 134262[/snapback] How the hell am i suppossed to read your mind 134412[/snapback] Why would you need to do that? Try exercising those "little grey cells". 134588[/snapback] Or you could stop taking harmful substances and enlighten me with your thoughts as to why you think i wrote `a load of paranoid claptrap`?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.