Avor
03-23-2003, 12:41 AM
I think the girl is stumped! =)
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Iraqi's Difficult Question
Billforce
03-23-2003, 01:19 AM
"A" Typical A.hole, you cannot expect reason from a closed mind!
She is another brainwashed idiot leftist!
She is another brainwashed idiot leftist!
Bizkitkid2001
03-23-2003, 02:02 AM
Stupid little girl:rolleyes: :p
mireland
03-23-2003, 02:19 AM
They don't come much more naive than her...Zoiks!!:eek:
SlightlyDementd
03-23-2003, 02:45 AM
The lights are on and there's no one home:x
Bigjakkstaffa
03-23-2003, 06:07 AM
She is another brainwashed idiot leftist!
I love the way that if your left wing your classed as a hippy :rolleyes:
Remember, Stalins purges that killed thousands were carried out in the name of the left... peacful
--Jakk:t
I love the way that if your left wing your classed as a hippy :rolleyes:
Remember, Stalins purges that killed thousands were carried out in the name of the left... peacful
--Jakk:t
Billforce
03-23-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
I love the way that if your left wing your classed as a hippy :rolleyes:
Remember, Stalins purges that killed thousands were carried out in the name of the left... peacful
--Jakk:t
Why don't you grow up and get a real life instead of trying to blow boogers at anything and everything. How can you possibly compare Stalin to any modern day activity.
Tell me, how old were you when you recieved your labotomy?
I love the way that if your left wing your classed as a hippy :rolleyes:
Remember, Stalins purges that killed thousands were carried out in the name of the left... peacful
--Jakk:t
Why don't you grow up and get a real life instead of trying to blow boogers at anything and everything. How can you possibly compare Stalin to any modern day activity.
Tell me, how old were you when you recieved your labotomy?
Bigjakkstaffa
03-23-2003, 01:38 PM
Well how the hell do you get left wing ideology to tree hugging?
Vietnam war, that was one of Americas little forrays to try and stop the spread of the 'evil' ideologies of the left, and you got your arses kicked in the process, something you still pain over in movies etc.
Nowhere does marxism say war and violence is a no no. Saying left automatically makes you a treehugger is the same as stating that being right wing automatically qualifies you to be a goosestepping german with funny facial hair.
Stop shoveling BS sterotypes and stick to something you can give evidence to support
--jakk:t
Vietnam war, that was one of Americas little forrays to try and stop the spread of the 'evil' ideologies of the left, and you got your arses kicked in the process, something you still pain over in movies etc.
Nowhere does marxism say war and violence is a no no. Saying left automatically makes you a treehugger is the same as stating that being right wing automatically qualifies you to be a goosestepping german with funny facial hair.
Stop shoveling BS sterotypes and stick to something you can give evidence to support
--jakk:t
Billforce
03-23-2003, 01:41 PM
I appologize for sparking off at certain individuals on this site.
There are some people who delight in being negative about any and every subject, probably to illicite comments aimed at flaming.
I am somewhat jaundiced by anyone regardless of race, creed color or political persuasion who NEVER, ever have a constructive thought but seem to live only to criticize and attack any idea, even motherhood.
If an incident occures, albiet this obviously confused and biased ignorant girl who cannot answer even a simple direct question, whereby the entire intelligent world concurs, this individual will support the opposite tack regardless of subject or substance.
There is a decided difference in being intelligently sceptical of the news media or propoganda issued by special interest groups, but to automatically oppose the views of any and every subject portends towards perhaps a deficient mentality. Perhaps this is immaturity, perhaps a natural curiosity, perhaps the ramblings of someone who is a couple bricks short of a full load.
A word of advice, examine CAREFULLY all sides of an issue prior to offerring an automatic comfrontational reply. It isn't necessary to always be on the sh!tty end of the stick just to obtain attention.
Wisdom is an acquisition, it is not guaranteed the same as natural intelligence. The longer you live, hopefully you may acquire some of this wisdom, I am still trying!
There are some people who delight in being negative about any and every subject, probably to illicite comments aimed at flaming.
I am somewhat jaundiced by anyone regardless of race, creed color or political persuasion who NEVER, ever have a constructive thought but seem to live only to criticize and attack any idea, even motherhood.
If an incident occures, albiet this obviously confused and biased ignorant girl who cannot answer even a simple direct question, whereby the entire intelligent world concurs, this individual will support the opposite tack regardless of subject or substance.
There is a decided difference in being intelligently sceptical of the news media or propoganda issued by special interest groups, but to automatically oppose the views of any and every subject portends towards perhaps a deficient mentality. Perhaps this is immaturity, perhaps a natural curiosity, perhaps the ramblings of someone who is a couple bricks short of a full load.
A word of advice, examine CAREFULLY all sides of an issue prior to offerring an automatic comfrontational reply. It isn't necessary to always be on the sh!tty end of the stick just to obtain attention.
Wisdom is an acquisition, it is not guaranteed the same as natural intelligence. The longer you live, hopefully you may acquire some of this wisdom, I am still trying!
Bigjakkstaffa
03-23-2003, 02:05 PM
Peace Bill:)
Im a non-conformist by trade, so it seems, im used to it and the abuse sometimes associated, but still i try valiantly to make my points, i dont pretend im right, i dont expect i will always win, i just stick to my ideals and hope to get across a flipside view, if i anoy ppl in the process, well thats a shame, but at the end of the day, unless we become professional politicians, were never really gonna be able to fulfill our ideological dreams.
I was personally opposed to war, through various fears, mainly increased terrorist activity. Gladly, many of my fears have yet to materialise and i am, believe it or not, comfortable with the war as is (although i was a little susipcious of the B52 stuff the other day). I am not a 'peace nick' by any stretch of the imagination, i accept in war ppl die, even the innocent, despite best efforts. but although only three or four days old, all i can say is this war is not as bad as i feared and seems to be going 'rather well' IMHO.
i still dont quite buy into the justification for it, but at the same time i dont buy into Chiracs justification for being against it (go figure :S), but as long as there are soldiers out there risking their hides for a cause they ultimatley have little voice in, they will have my support.
Saddam is an evil man, in a perfect world he would have been taken out a long time ago in a much easier, this is not an ideal world though. I doubt he'll be missed by many. Ive just been somewhat skeptical of the reasons supplied by our governments for this war, in fact my main and ongoing grumble has to be about the government here in Britain and its handling of the situation. It seems in America war is generally supported by the masses, here the situation is somewhat of the opposite, and many people dont really see the need for us to be involved and are quite enraged by Blair goign over the heads of the people more than anything. The principal of serving Saddam Husseins head on a platter is however a sound one, i'll give you that ;)
--Jakk:t
Im a non-conformist by trade, so it seems, im used to it and the abuse sometimes associated, but still i try valiantly to make my points, i dont pretend im right, i dont expect i will always win, i just stick to my ideals and hope to get across a flipside view, if i anoy ppl in the process, well thats a shame, but at the end of the day, unless we become professional politicians, were never really gonna be able to fulfill our ideological dreams.
I was personally opposed to war, through various fears, mainly increased terrorist activity. Gladly, many of my fears have yet to materialise and i am, believe it or not, comfortable with the war as is (although i was a little susipcious of the B52 stuff the other day). I am not a 'peace nick' by any stretch of the imagination, i accept in war ppl die, even the innocent, despite best efforts. but although only three or four days old, all i can say is this war is not as bad as i feared and seems to be going 'rather well' IMHO.
i still dont quite buy into the justification for it, but at the same time i dont buy into Chiracs justification for being against it (go figure :S), but as long as there are soldiers out there risking their hides for a cause they ultimatley have little voice in, they will have my support.
Saddam is an evil man, in a perfect world he would have been taken out a long time ago in a much easier, this is not an ideal world though. I doubt he'll be missed by many. Ive just been somewhat skeptical of the reasons supplied by our governments for this war, in fact my main and ongoing grumble has to be about the government here in Britain and its handling of the situation. It seems in America war is generally supported by the masses, here the situation is somewhat of the opposite, and many people dont really see the need for us to be involved and are quite enraged by Blair goign over the heads of the people more than anything. The principal of serving Saddam Husseins head on a platter is however a sound one, i'll give you that ;)
--Jakk:t
Billforce
03-23-2003, 02:28 PM
Peace Jakk!
One comment:
You indicate that your govt. did not support Blair's position on the war.........From the vote in your Parliament they overwhelmingly supported him, only 149 against.
One comment:
You indicate that your govt. did not support Blair's position on the war.........From the vote in your Parliament they overwhelmingly supported him, only 149 against.
Bigjakkstaffa
03-23-2003, 02:34 PM
Yeah, the government supported him in the commons vote, but the people according to polls dont by quite a way, personally i would have liked to have seen a vote amongst the public in addition to that of the parliamentary vote, just to put things into perspective, there have been a lot of grumblings about our politicians not doing what they are meant to do, represent the views of the people.
Also a vote of 149 AGAINST our government is an astonishingly high rebellion given the fact that to be honest the opposition is lightyears away, and this from someone who cannot stand our current government :eek:
--Jakk:t
Also a vote of 149 AGAINST our government is an astonishingly high rebellion given the fact that to be honest the opposition is lightyears away, and this from someone who cannot stand our current government :eek:
--Jakk:t
Strawbs
03-23-2003, 03:09 PM
Yea she a dumb one alright, I wouldn't want her in my corner. :eek:
As for the commons vote; Tony Blair could talk Saudi Arabia into buying British sand (...it's softer and less harsh on the skin...) if we had too much of it. ;)
The majority of Labour MP's were against the war! But they feared the consequenses of voting against their leader! who would then be open to a leadership challenge (which he would win because their is, and never has been, any other labour leader with such a powerful personna) which in itself would be damaging to the party. It was basically the opposition (Conservative) vote (for war) that gave the appearance of a rout. just thought I'd clear that up.
:t
As for the commons vote; Tony Blair could talk Saudi Arabia into buying British sand (...it's softer and less harsh on the skin...) if we had too much of it. ;)
The majority of Labour MP's were against the war! But they feared the consequenses of voting against their leader! who would then be open to a leadership challenge (which he would win because their is, and never has been, any other labour leader with such a powerful personna) which in itself would be damaging to the party. It was basically the opposition (Conservative) vote (for war) that gave the appearance of a rout. just thought I'd clear that up.
:t
Billforce
03-23-2003, 05:14 PM
No clarification required, I watched the entire debate and vote on CNN International.
Fact is, regardless of who offered the votes, he still carried a 3-1 margin of confidence.
Fact is, regardless of who offered the votes, he still carried a 3-1 margin of confidence.
Strawbs
03-23-2003, 05:46 PM
for the benefit of those that didn't see ...3 labour MP's were forced to quit because of their "public" stance on the issue, at least one more claimed (publicly) she would quit if we went to war without a UN mandate, then when the deadline was issued and the first of her colleagues quit, she (very publicly) backtracked and pledged her full support for the government.
The rest of the "rebels" got the message. "Vote No and lose your seat". Amongst the labour ranks it was a forced decision, peer pressure was duly applied. Many of those that stood their ground (the 149 nay sayers) will be weeded out and put in dead-end positions (Ambassador to The Congo, etc.) :eek:
The rest of the "rebels" got the message. "Vote No and lose your seat". Amongst the labour ranks it was a forced decision, peer pressure was duly applied. Many of those that stood their ground (the 149 nay sayers) will be weeded out and put in dead-end positions (Ambassador to The Congo, etc.) :eek:
KenKeith
03-23-2003, 06:53 PM
according to the polls...
there have been a lot of grumblings about our politicians not doing what they are meant to do, represent the views of the people.
Ever hear of leadership! PM Blair shows the attributes of a leader and doesn't rely on polls in his decision process. If it is true he is going against public opinion, he must have a very strong belief in his view on the subject. Didn't PM Churchill have and express the same strength of character against Hitler?
How reliable are polls? It can change from day to day. Answers may depend on how a question is asked, etc. Who would want a poll watcher as a leader?
there have been a lot of grumblings about our politicians not doing what they are meant to do, represent the views of the people.
Ever hear of leadership! PM Blair shows the attributes of a leader and doesn't rely on polls in his decision process. If it is true he is going against public opinion, he must have a very strong belief in his view on the subject. Didn't PM Churchill have and express the same strength of character against Hitler?
How reliable are polls? It can change from day to day. Answers may depend on how a question is asked, etc. Who would want a poll watcher as a leader?
ESHAW
03-24-2003, 12:09 AM
What a ditz! A product of our modern day liberal learning institutions no doubt.
$1500-P4 gamer
03-24-2003, 03:11 AM
KenKeith
Leaders dont have to work that way and that isnt what leading is. First off your peoples opinions and views DO friggen matter. Your def. of a leader requires a bunch of apes grunting and doing whatever told without question..... thats like almost a comunist way of looking at leadership. A real leader takes those people needs and opinions in hand and trys to provide the positive wanted outcome of the people not themself. That **** of telling you want you need and what is best for you died with Kings and monarchys and totalitarian rule. We dont need a big daddy and mommy we need a leader a pres. in our case. We now have repbulic democracy. Whats that about. Well The PEOPLE are REPRESENTED through the ELECTED officials. The get ELCETED by how well the people like them and what their views on certain aspects are and if they coincide with what you want. Hmmm once again-not by your def. of how a leader and gov. should work. Leaders of that type end up dead-cause of revolution.:cool:
Leaders dont have to work that way and that isnt what leading is. First off your peoples opinions and views DO friggen matter. Your def. of a leader requires a bunch of apes grunting and doing whatever told without question..... thats like almost a comunist way of looking at leadership. A real leader takes those people needs and opinions in hand and trys to provide the positive wanted outcome of the people not themself. That **** of telling you want you need and what is best for you died with Kings and monarchys and totalitarian rule. We dont need a big daddy and mommy we need a leader a pres. in our case. We now have repbulic democracy. Whats that about. Well The PEOPLE are REPRESENTED through the ELECTED officials. The get ELCETED by how well the people like them and what their views on certain aspects are and if they coincide with what you want. Hmmm once again-not by your def. of how a leader and gov. should work. Leaders of that type end up dead-cause of revolution.:cool:
Strawbs
03-24-2003, 03:58 AM
nice post gamer!
and let me just add; Churchill was elected after the war had begun and was booted out of office once the war was over, when he tried to dictate how ppl should lead their civillian life. With no war their was no need for such types.
Tony Blair never did explain his reasoning adequately, which leads many to believe their is an ulterior motive, and with him it's usually financial. All we ever got was a lot of "political manouvering" (hogwash). We deserve answers, after all ...we elected him.
and let me just add; Churchill was elected after the war had begun and was booted out of office once the war was over, when he tried to dictate how ppl should lead their civillian life. With no war their was no need for such types.
Tony Blair never did explain his reasoning adequately, which leads many to believe their is an ulterior motive, and with him it's usually financial. All we ever got was a lot of "political manouvering" (hogwash). We deserve answers, after all ...we elected him.
2penguins
03-24-2003, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by $1500-P4 gamer
KenKeith
Leaders dont have to work that way and that isnt what leading is. First off your peoples opinions and views DO friggen matter. Your def. of a leader requires a bunch of apes grunting and doing whatever told without question..... thats like almost a comunist way of looking at leadership. A real leader takes those people needs and opinions in hand and trys to provide the positive wanted outcome of the people not themself. That **** of telling you want you need and what is best for you died with Kings and monarchys and totalitarian rule. We dont need a big daddy and mommy we need a leader a pres. in our case. We now have repbulic democracy. Whats that about. Well The PEOPLE are REPRESENTED through the ELECTED officials. The get ELCETED by how well the people like them and what their views on certain aspects are and if they coincide with what you want. Hmmm once again-not by your def. of how a leader and gov. should work. Leaders of that type end up dead-cause of revolution.:cool:
I think you misunderstood what was said (at least what was ment)
The system we live under is a representative democracy. That means we elect people to represent our views and ideals.
We give them the ability to make decisions on out behalf.
If the people you elect don't preform as you would like them to, then you get to replace them with another candidate.
Now, if you want people in goverment who just mimic the polls, then elect those. Personally I would prefer someone who can think for him or herself. Someone who is willing to act on their own judgement.
That doesn't mean you have to sit back and keep your mouth shut, listening to people who agree and disagree is all part of the decision making process. However once a decision is made we all have to live by it until the next election and then you can replace the person(s) with people who you belive will reflect your own views...
This system has been in place in the US for over 200 years so it must be working. :)
About Blair, You have to admit, this is very difficult for him to do politicaly. He's going to take a hit for this in the next election, he may even have his leadership challenged. Something is telling him this is worth his career in politics. He deserves at least respect for sticking to his beliefs.
Cheers
KenKeith
Leaders dont have to work that way and that isnt what leading is. First off your peoples opinions and views DO friggen matter. Your def. of a leader requires a bunch of apes grunting and doing whatever told without question..... thats like almost a comunist way of looking at leadership. A real leader takes those people needs and opinions in hand and trys to provide the positive wanted outcome of the people not themself. That **** of telling you want you need and what is best for you died with Kings and monarchys and totalitarian rule. We dont need a big daddy and mommy we need a leader a pres. in our case. We now have repbulic democracy. Whats that about. Well The PEOPLE are REPRESENTED through the ELECTED officials. The get ELCETED by how well the people like them and what their views on certain aspects are and if they coincide with what you want. Hmmm once again-not by your def. of how a leader and gov. should work. Leaders of that type end up dead-cause of revolution.:cool:
I think you misunderstood what was said (at least what was ment)
The system we live under is a representative democracy. That means we elect people to represent our views and ideals.
We give them the ability to make decisions on out behalf.
If the people you elect don't preform as you would like them to, then you get to replace them with another candidate.
Now, if you want people in goverment who just mimic the polls, then elect those. Personally I would prefer someone who can think for him or herself. Someone who is willing to act on their own judgement.
That doesn't mean you have to sit back and keep your mouth shut, listening to people who agree and disagree is all part of the decision making process. However once a decision is made we all have to live by it until the next election and then you can replace the person(s) with people who you belive will reflect your own views...
This system has been in place in the US for over 200 years so it must be working. :)
About Blair, You have to admit, this is very difficult for him to do politicaly. He's going to take a hit for this in the next election, he may even have his leadership challenged. Something is telling him this is worth his career in politics. He deserves at least respect for sticking to his beliefs.
Cheers
Bigjakkstaffa
03-24-2003, 12:03 PM
Many of those that stood their ground (the 149 nay sayers) will be weeded out and put in dead-end positions
Similarly those that broke the Tory party line can exepct a severe kick in the ****.
He's going to take a hit for this in the next election, he may even have his leadership challenged. Something is telling him this is worth his career in politics. He deserves at least respect for sticking to his beliefs.
Doubtful, Blair atm can afford to go 'over' the oublic, as realisticly the opposition to him are such a bunch of dizzy buggers no electorate in their right mind would put them into power. As such its almost like saying Blair is betting with insurance that if he looses the bet he gets his money back anyhows. He has stuck to his beliefs yes, but i think had he of had a very close competing political party breathing down his neck in the election stakes he may have U - Turned simply to save his leadership and government, as is he doesnt have to worry about it because, literally, as it is the opposition have no chance in hell
--Jakk:t
Similarly those that broke the Tory party line can exepct a severe kick in the ****.
He's going to take a hit for this in the next election, he may even have his leadership challenged. Something is telling him this is worth his career in politics. He deserves at least respect for sticking to his beliefs.
Doubtful, Blair atm can afford to go 'over' the oublic, as realisticly the opposition to him are such a bunch of dizzy buggers no electorate in their right mind would put them into power. As such its almost like saying Blair is betting with insurance that if he looses the bet he gets his money back anyhows. He has stuck to his beliefs yes, but i think had he of had a very close competing political party breathing down his neck in the election stakes he may have U - Turned simply to save his leadership and government, as is he doesnt have to worry about it because, literally, as it is the opposition have no chance in hell
--Jakk:t
KenKeith
03-24-2003, 02:33 PM
2penquins.
I think you misunderstood what was said (at least what was ment)
The system we live under is a representative democracy. That means we elect people to represent our views and ideals.
If the people you elect don't perform... Thanks for the clarification and taking the time to exlpain the democratic process.
I wasn't referring to a an autocratic form of govt. or any semblance thereof.:t
Regarding the polls, now according to a recent poll the Brits are agreeing with Blair. Governing by polls (a statistical sampling of a population) at any given time is not representing the people in a manner that would be consistent and statesmanlike even if it were possible.
I think you misunderstood what was said (at least what was ment)
The system we live under is a representative democracy. That means we elect people to represent our views and ideals.
If the people you elect don't perform... Thanks for the clarification and taking the time to exlpain the democratic process.
I wasn't referring to a an autocratic form of govt. or any semblance thereof.:t
Regarding the polls, now according to a recent poll the Brits are agreeing with Blair. Governing by polls (a statistical sampling of a population) at any given time is not representing the people in a manner that would be consistent and statesmanlike even if it were possible.
SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.